As a Catholic who will probably "transition" to Orthodoxy at some point this could be the thread that I didn't know I needed.
If not, delete.
If not, delete.
Catholicism: Criticism & Debate Thread
- Thread starter PurpleUrkel
- Start date
Genealogist
Catholic
The logical consequence of recognizing Vatican II popes as legit is the total loss of faith in the Church. This is the reason why traditionally inclined people who have been in communion with Vatican II popes all these years are now looking at "Eastern Orthodoxy" as a viable option (!). Sad!
Oh this should be a super healthy thread. Not recognizing post VII popes would mean you're a Sedevacantist and defacto schismatic. I.e. outside the Church and not Catholic. You need to be in communion with the Church not the Church with how you feel the Church should be. I shall return only to refute your silly errors and feelings. Till then you can reflect on my magnificent wisdom and truth. You're welcome.
Genealogist
Catholic
No worries. According to your Vatican II religion, sedevacantists "are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church" and "have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation" because "the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using [us] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."
I think it will be easier for you as a Catholics to do the transition to Orthodoxy as you already quite similar in many things, compared to someone like me who was a protestant, its going to be less of a shock especially for your family and friends. Have you every attended a service at an Orthodox church?
You'll need to cite that as it looks like something taken out of context. Schismatics are outside the Church so no there is no salvation through the sede position. Goes against charity to think you know better than the magisterium. It's a silly position really. The correct terminology is Catholic religion not Vatican II religion. To say there was some magical split only you understand goes against indefectibility. And which of the several sede positions are correct? None, they all set themselves up as their own popes. Now that you've been corrected you may provide sources for the above quote.
No, not yet. There aren't any in my current vicinity but where I'm moving in a couple of months there are several. I'll attend a service then and see how it goes.
Thanks for this link. It's always difficult to get Catholics to commit to a position. It's filled with errors which I am happy to discuss at length:
Notice the contradiction right here - Peter was first Bishop of Antioch, which was the first Church in recorded history. Book of Acts 11 states Antioch was where "they first called themselves Christians." They gave up the title of being a Jew, and called themselves Christians. Because there is nothing more Jewish than to follow the Christ, the King of Jews and of all mankind. It's therefore redundant to call oneself a Jewish Christian.
Thus, all of the Bishops created by Peter in Antioch during this time, before he moved to Rome, have exactly the same Apostolic authority as does any of the Bishops created by Peter in Rome.
The idea that simply because Rome was more politically significant, made it more spiritually significant, is false. Peter never appointed any of his Bishops over the others. The reason Peter never appointed any of his Bishops over other Bishops was because Christ himself did not appoint any of his disciples over any other of his disciples.
Christ did not pick 1 disciple. Christ picked 12.
Thus when the Roman Church decided they could unilaterally make decisions on their own, they contradicted both Jesus and Peter, setting them on a path to ruin, which persists to this day. The Roman Church is run like a dictatorship, when Christ said to his disciples,
"The least among you will be called greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven." Christ wanted an Aristocracy for his Church, not a dictatorship.
Therefore Peter himself did not take his position of authority as absolute, and this was clearly seen during the controversy over circumcision. Peter was at first considering requiring circumcision in order to be baptized, as Christ was circumcised, but was forced to reconsider from the least of the disciples, Paul, who said that faith alone was necessary for conversion and circumcision was unnecessary. Peter prayed and thought hard about this, and had a vision in a dream telling him to relax, and declared afterwards that circumcision was not required.
All of this is in the Book of Acts. This set the precedent for councils, the first which was the council of Nicaea. The Great Schism occurred when a Pope declared himself dictator and tried to change The Creed unilaterally, with the addition of the Filioque, without calling for any council. It wasn't that the Filioque was heretical in itself, it was that it was done without a council and agreement from the other Churches, which was the tradition laid down by both Christ and Peter for handling disputes within the Church.
This is why, after the Pope declared himself King of Christianity, everything started to go wrong for them, and one heresy after the other started to come out of the Papacy: requiring celibacy for Priests, ordering crusades against other Christians who didn't submit to the Pope, the rebellion of the Germans (reformation) and then English (Anglican Church), and pretty much every negative impression of Christianity people have today comes from the Roman Church's Papal abuse. There were so many horrible Popes in the past, including a Pope who sold the Papacy, and then returned by killing the guy he sold the Papacy to, there were several Popes with harems of whores and fathered many illegitimate children with who then grew up to become powerful rulers. Completely insane Popes drunk on power.
That today, the Papacy has degenerated into child abuse (very small compared to the Roman Church as a whole, but still) sex scandals, and now LGBT acceptance, comes as no surprise to Orthodox. The Roman Church has been reckless for centuries and we all suffer for it.
This part of your site, which completely ignores history is also why many Roman Catholics are totally ignorant of the evils of the Pope.
For example, in 1202 AD the Fourth Crusade resulted in a near-total genocide of the largest Christian city in the world at the time, Constantinople, which is why the entire East fell to Islam. Conveniently left out of this Catholic propaganda piece as to why the Great Schism has never healed.
---
Anyhow, PurpleUrkle,
One of the funniest conversations I've had was with a Orthodox Priest who was born a Catholic. I asked him how he started his conversion, and he said, "Oh, that's easy. I opened a history book!"
The Catholic Church simply keeps its people in the dark about its history, and did so for centuries. Not possible anymore in the age of the internet, so the fiction the Catholic Church has created cannot be sustained.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits," and huge numbers of Catholics see the fruits of modern day Catholicism, and look back into the past to understand what went wrong.
I pray for the Roman Church to come to its senses and return to the lawful Church created by Peter at Antioch with the rest of Christ's disciples. May it be so.
Oh thats nice that you going to be moving to an area with multiple Orthodox churches to attend. I would love to hear your experience once you attend and compare the differences with your current Roman Catholic church I am curious to know as I wasnt a Catholic and havent been to a Catholic church for many many years. I wish you the best!
Father Peter Heers is doing a whole thing on the 8th ecumenical church council about the Catholic condemnation of the Filioque on Instagram, I havent gone into it yet, here is a 60 second introduction to it, looks really interesting.Thanks for this link. It's always difficult to get Catholics to commit to a position. It's filled with errors which I am happy to discuss at length:
Notice the contradiction right here - Peter was first Bishop of Antioch, which was the first Church in recorded history. Book of Acts 11 states Antioch was where "they first called themselves Christians." They gave up the title of being a Jew, and called themselves Christians. Because there is nothing more Jewish than to follow the Christ, the King of Jews and of all mankind. It's therefore redundant to call oneself a Jewish Christian.
Thus, all of the Bishops created by Peter in Antioch during this time, before he moved to Rome, have exactly the same Apostolic authority as does any of the Bishops created by Peter in Rome.
The idea that simply because Rome was more politically significant, made it more spiritually significant, is false. Peter never appointed any of his Bishops over the others. The reason Peter never appointed any of his Bishops over other Bishops was because Christ himself did not appoint any of his disciples over any other of his disciples.
Christ did not pick 1 disciple. Christ picked 12.
Thus when the Roman Church decided they could unilaterally make decisions on their own, they contradicted both Jesus and Peter, setting them on a path to ruin, which persists to this day. The Roman Church is run like a dictatorship, when Christ said to his disciples,
"The least among you will be called greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven." Christ wanted an Aristocracy for his Church, not a dictatorship.
Therefore Peter himself did not take his position of authority as absolute, and this was clearly seen during the controversy over circumcision. Peter was at first considering requiring circumcision in order to be baptized, as Christ was circumcised, but was forced to reconsider from the least of the disciples, Paul, who said that faith alone was necessary for conversion and circumcision was unnecessary. Peter prayed and thought hard about this, and had a vision in a dream telling him to relax, and declared afterwards that circumcision was not required.
All of this is in the Book of Acts. This set the precedent for councils, the first which was the council of Nicaea. The Great Schism occurred when a Pope declared himself dictator and tried to change The Creed unilaterally, with the addition of the Filioque, without calling for any council. It wasn't that the Filioque was heretical in itself, it was that it was done without a council and agreement from the other Churches, which was the tradition laid down by both Christ and Peter for handling disputes within the Church.
This is why, after the Pope declared himself King of Christianity, everything started to go wrong for them, and one heresy after the other started to come out of the Papacy: requiring celibacy for Priests, ordering crusades against other Christians who didn't submit to the Pope, the rebellion of the Germans (reformation) and then English (Anglican Church), and pretty much every negative impression of Christianity people have today comes from the Roman Church's Papal abuse. There were so many horrible Popes in the past, including a Pope who sold the Papacy, and then returned by killing the guy he sold the Papacy to, there were several Popes with harems of whores and fathered many illegitimate children with who then grew up to become powerful rulers. Completely insane Popes drunk on power.
That today, the Papacy has degenerated into child abuse (very small compared to the Roman Church as a whole, but still) sex scandals, and now LGBT acceptance, comes as no surprise to Orthodox. The Roman Church has been reckless for centuries and we all suffer for it.
This part of your site, which completely ignores history is also why many Roman Catholics are totally ignorant of the evils of the Pope.
For example, in 1202 AD the Fourth Crusade resulted in a near-total genocide of the largest Christian city in the world at the time, Constantinople, which is why the entire East fell to Islam. Conveniently left out of this Catholic propaganda piece as to why the Great Schism has never healed.
---
Anyhow, PurpleUrkle,
One of the funniest conversations I've had was with a Orthodox Priest who was born a Catholic. I asked him how he started his conversion, and he said, "Oh, that's easy. I opened a history book!"
The Catholic Church simply keeps its people in the dark about its history, and did so for centuries. Not possible anymore in the age of the internet, so the fiction the Catholic Church has created cannot be sustained.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits," and huge numbers of Catholics see the fruits of modern day Catholicism, and look back into the past to understand what went wrong.
I pray for the Roman Church to come to its senses and return to the lawful Church created by Peter at Antioch with the rest of Christ's disciples. May it be so.
It's always fun (but maddening) to spot all the contradictions between Popes throughout the centuries. Skinny Pope, Fat Pope, and all that. One Pope says A, the next Pope says Not A.
Vatican I says it's the correct way, then Vatican II declares Vatican I to be incorrect. The contradictions created by the Pope system are basically endless.
Genealogist
Catholic
Last edited:
Genealogist
Catholic
Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio.
As much as I rail against technology I'm very thankful for this particular thing. It's very difficult to break from a deep-set mindset that everyone happens to have in a culture.
As far as criticisms go Saint Justin Popovic still rattles in my head. He has sharp criticism but in seeing how history is now going I think he's right in his assessment:
Last edited:
Narekatsi
Oriental Orthodox
This was an interesting read, though as Samseau noted, there are errors and inconsistencies. I’ll tackle this from a different angle.
The 6th paragraph states (emphasis is mine):
You can perhaps guess where I’m going with this, but for those who don’t know, I’ll respectfully continue.
That section alone tells me the author has an incomplete picture of what “Eastern Orthodoxy” and “Oriental Orthodoxy” are, and why the “Eastern Catholic churches” is somehow an exception. I kept reading, thinking perhaps I’m mistaken and the author will provide the factual evidence later. Alas, there were no mentions of the two councils of Ephesus (second one only recognized by the Oriental Orthodox Communion) and no mention of the Council of Chalcedon. Instead, the “Eastern Orthodox” category of the author which somehow also includes “Oriental Orthodox”, separated – according to the author of the embedded letter – from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054. By that point, the Oriental Orthodox communion had been separated for over 600 years, following the Council of Chalcedon.
But then the author creates an exception for the “Eastern Catholic churches” because of the full communion with Rome. One of the churches within that eastern communion, is the Chalcedonian Armenian Catholic Church. Interesting to note, however, is that this church uses the Armenian Rite of the Divine Liturgy. The same one used by its originator, the Oriental Orthodox Armenian Apostolic Church. Why is that important? Because whereas the Oriental Orthodox churches (such as the Armenian churches) chant the Trisagion with a reference to Christ, others may think of it as a reference to the Trinity. I won’t go into it in details, you may look into the Trisagion dispute, but suffice it to say that Rome does not accept its reference to Christ - that makes it odd that they are in full communion with the Armenian Catholic Church, which chants it during Divine Liturgy.
My point is that without even going in-depth, just scratching the surface merely on definitions, and there are already inconsistencies.
Please, let this not be interpreted in any way as bashing any denomination. I love and honor my brothers and sisters in Christ who love and worship our Lord – be they Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestants. I am merely pointing out a fairly significant error, using a historical lens.
Eastern Catholics venerate St Gregory Palamas, and recite the creed without the Filioque. They don’t care about doctrinal unity, only that you submit to the pope
Thank you for your summary. It explained the Orthodox position on the pope vs. no pope controversy about as well as I've ever seen for a layman like me who's neither Catholic or Orthodox or inclined toward becoming either.
That said, speaking of leaving things out, whenever the Fourth Crusade is mentioned the Orthodox massacre of the Roman Catholic population of Constantinople in 1182 should be mentioned too for proper context. It's almost entirely forgotten today but was certainly on the minds of the Catholic crusaders in 1204:
As I said at the end of my post, I desire reconciliation, just as most Orthodox and Catholics do. We are still very much brothers in Christ, differences aside. Anyone who denies this does evil.
There are many Catholics, however, who have no desire to bear the cross of their Church, and would rather just join an Orthodox Church so they can focus on saving themselves. There's nothing wrong with that either.
Notice, I never tell anyone to leave their Church and come to the Orthodox Church because "We're the best!" I actually tell people, if you love your Church then stay in your Church and make it better. I fully believe in the superiority and truthfulness of the Orthodox position, but, that doesn't mean one needs to abandon their Neighbors.
At the same time, if there are Catholics or Prots who feel completely alienated by the changes within their Church, to their spiritual detriment, then it is far better for them to come to a solid Church that never changes instead of becoming separated from God.
God's plan is beyond any of our comprehensions and He will shepherd His flock on a individual basis; what is right for someone may be wrong for another. There are some who will be called to tend to their Church faithfully, and there will be others who are called to another Church. There is no sense in trying to fight the will of God.
The only thing I can predict, as a mere human, is what problems will arise due to heresy or structural problems within a Church. Since history shows that the Orthodox model is the most rock solid, and suffers the least from internal problems - not that it is without any problems of course - it is rather simple to predict that the centuries long decline of the Catholic Church will continue until they correct their errors. Likewise for Prots.
It's not that other denominations are somehow less worthy of salvation, or aren't created by God. Any organization based on the Holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ is placed under divine jurisdiction and will be carried along by His most tender mercies, despite our sins and shortcomings.
This is what Lord Jesus says in scripture, and that is why there have been billions of Prots and Catholics. No Orthodox in their right mind would deny the awesome power of God in the face of such facts. We just know that, eventually, Satan will find a way to tear down Churches that aren't structurally or doctrinally sound.
The Orthodox are the big brothers of Christianity, and we aren't going to abandon our family simply because of some fights here and there, or because our younger brothers stumble and sin. You pick your brother up and march onwards in the great struggle of man, labels be damned.
I've always assumed that orthodox churches belonged to the Catholic Church. And because they were unable to understand other languages, they held their masses in those tiny churches. Usually attended by foreigners from Eastern Europe.
They appear to be the extreme right side of the church based on Roosh. Furthermore, the left wing of the Church is made up of anglicans. In the middle are Roman Catholics. Protestants are jews in disguise.
I like the divorce doctrine of the Catholic Church. Not so much others. Basically, there are no divorces.
I searched for the orthodox position on divorce online, and just like Protestantism, it seems to contradict itself.
Didn't fully comprehend how many orthodox churches exist. They appear to have several kinds of churches. In line with protestantism. That doesn't seem good to me.
A unified doctrine is necessary. That you are bound by.
I believe there were varying viewpoints during Corona. In the orthodox.
The Pope will be gone, but the Church will remain.
They appear to be the extreme right side of the church based on Roosh. Furthermore, the left wing of the Church is made up of anglicans. In the middle are Roman Catholics. Protestants are jews in disguise.
I like the divorce doctrine of the Catholic Church. Not so much others. Basically, there are no divorces.
I searched for the orthodox position on divorce online, and just like Protestantism, it seems to contradict itself.
Didn't fully comprehend how many orthodox churches exist. They appear to have several kinds of churches. In line with protestantism. That doesn't seem good to me.
A unified doctrine is necessary. That you are bound by.
I believe there were varying viewpoints during Corona. In the orthodox.
The Pope will be gone, but the Church will remain.
Last edited:
"We know the problem, not only of the Protestant Communities but also of the Orthodox Churches, which are often presented as a model for the possibility of remarriage. But only the first marriage is sacramental: the Orthodox too recognize that the other marriages are not sacramental, they are reduced and redimensioned marriages and in a penitential situation; in a certain sense, the couple can go to Communion but in the awareness that this is a concession "by economy", as they say, through mercy which, nevertheless, does not remove the fact that their marriage is not a Sacrament. The other point is that in the Eastern Churches for these marriages they have conceded the possibility of divorce too lightly, and that the principle of indissolubility, the true sacramental character of the marriage, is therefore seriously injured."