Catholicism: Criticism & Debate Thread

[Aboulia]

I'm an Augustinian, not a Pelagian. Hence, my original comment that many Protestants are more Catholic than the Pope is.

Given Orthodoxy's Pelagianism and general detestation of Augustine, you can add that to another reason why I'm not Orthodox.

Augustine isn't detested in Orthodoxy, He's explicitly mentioned as a saint in the Fifth Ecumenical council.

We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith.

It's not Augustine you hold to, it's an extreme way of reading into his position, some of his writings were to correct the error of Pelagianism, and so he overstated some things using rhetoric which is common among Church Fathers when addressing others in sermons/letters.

This is the danger when you take one Church Father and exalt him and his writings over all others.

Not that I expect this to change your position. Given how strongly you hold it, I wouldn't be surprised if you were a Reformed pastor.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Given how strongly you hold it, I wouldn't be surprised if you were a Reformed pastor.

I'm not a Pastor.

 

[JCSteel]

I don't think you can truly appreciate man's falleness without seeing how he is made in the image of God. To underemphasize that is just as bad as making the mistake Palagius made, when he argued man could be righteous enough for God without grace. I haven’t examined Palagius's writings but from what I've heard it sounds like he was like the Jews who were ignorant of God's standard of righteousness.

 

[Samseau]

If we were fundamentally evil (which is impossible, evil is nonexistence and has no identity), then there would be zero desire to draw closer Christ in anyone on the entire planet.

Is this entirely correct? Why did the tree of good and evil exist, if evil has no existence? How could God create such a thing?

 

[budoslavic]

Not sure where to post this interesting question/debate.



Full text

Genuine question for Catholics...

I'm hearing the claim from many Roman Catholics, including many leaders and media personalities, that the Protestant Reformation is to blame (in large part) for the sexual revolution, abortion, feminism and secularism in the Western world...

Do you agree?
...
Protestantism WAS and IS a sexual revolution:

1) Martin Luther and John Calvin degraded matrimony from the status of sacrament and relegated it to an institution of the state.

2) All the Protestant Reformers accepted the innovation of civil divorce (and multiple divorces) and Luther allowed for approved polygamy.

The degradation of marriage derives DIRECTLY from the Protestant Deformation.

Note: I think (((TrumpetVoice))) is a ((())) based on its X/Twitter profile page.

 

[Samseau]

Not sure where to post this interesting question/debate.



Full text




Note: I think (((TrumpetVoice))) is a ((())) based on its X/Twitter profile page.

But all failings of Protestants fall at the feet of Catholics. Catholics are the original Prots, they broke away from the Church due to pride. Hence their own subjects learned this pride and broke away from them.

Anytime a group breaks away from the true Church of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, history shows it's just a matter of time before yet more schisms occur within those Churches. Once you start schisming, there is no stop to it.

So I find Catholics who are always blaming Protestants to be missing the real enemy: the guy looking back at them in the mirror. Catholics are the reason Protestants exist.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I don't think you can truly appreciate man's falleness without seeing how he is made in the image of God.

Saying "man is fallen, but he's pretty much good." is practically no different than what Pelagius, and every liberal denomination, and now what the Pope is saying. It's a religion without consequences.

The only way to restore the image of God in us is in Christ Jesus. Without Him, we are truly fallen, not "fundamentally good."

 

[JCSteel]

Saying "man is fallen, but he's pretty much good." is practically no different than what Pelagius, and every liberal denomination, and now what the Pope is saying. It's a religion without consequences.

The only way to restore the image of God in us is in Christ Jesus. Without Him, we are truly fallen, not "fundamentally good."

I agree to say man is basically good is to deny that we need forgiveness and rebirth, and a savior. My only point is that you can't appreciate sin without acknowledging man's dignity as an image bearer of God.

 

[Aboulia]

Is this entirely correct? Why did the tree of good and evil exist, if evil has no existence? How could God create such a thing?

Not the tree of good and evil (because God does not create evil), but the tree of the knowledge and good and evil. I'd have to read more Church Fathers to be absolutely certain, but this is as I can make sense of it. Knowledge of this is division, a potential of change, the breaking down of coherent identity. Given that Adam&Eve received their identity/nature from God (the image thereof), and were perfect. But in order to show love, and not have us as automatons, God would leave this potential, otherwise without it, man would not truly be free, and without that freedom, He wouldn't be capable of loving each one of us. Which is really wonderful when you think about it.

It's just like how death is a loss of identity the inability to hold everything together in coherent form. As people age, physically, their bodies don't function in the ways they used to, sometimes they do and sometimes they don't, once the breath of life ceases which joins soul and body, their physical body decomposes into the natural building blocks of life, and ceases to exist in the world in that form, which can become parts of new life, in the same manner, when we eat, those things are broken down and cease to exist, and become integrated into us.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

My only point is that you can't appreciate sin without acknowledging man's dignity as image bearers of God.

Man's former role as God's image bearer is not what reveals sin to us. God's Law is what reveals sin to us. When looking at God's Law, you see how fallen you are and how far you've fallen short.

There is no other hope for the fallen man than to be conformed to the image of God's Son (Romans 8:39).

 

[Samseau]

Not the tree of good and evil (because God does not create evil), but the tree of the knowledge and good and evil. I'd have to read more Church Fathers to be absolutely certain, but this is as I can make sense of it. Knowledge of this is division, a potential of change, the breaking down of coherent identity. Given that Adam&Eve received their identity/nature from God (the image thereof), and were perfect. But in order to show love, and not have us as automatons, God would leave this potential, otherwise without it, man would not truly be free, and without that freedom, He wouldn't be capable of loving each one of us. Which is really wonderful when you think about it.

It's just like how death is a loss of identity the inability to hold everything together in coherent form. As people age, physically, their bodies don't function in the ways they used to, sometimes they do and sometimes they don't, once the breath of life ceases which joins soul and body, their physical body decomposes into the natural building blocks of life, and ceases to exist in the world in that form, which can become parts of new life, in the same manner, when we eat, those things are broken down and cease to exist, and become integrated into us.

Okay, but even if God had knowledge of evil, it's still means God knew how to create evil - which would be to destroy Himself, since evil is the negation of God? And this knowledge had to be left in front of Adam and Eve, of course, or else there would be no freedom to choose God or not.

But, this also means that God knew what evil is, which sounds like more than just a negation, and, more importantly, since man partook of this fruit, how can man be fundamentally good? These are questions I will ask my Bishop next time I see him. They are good questions.

 

[JCSteel]

Man's former role as God's image bearer is not what reveals sin to us. God's Law is what reveals sin to us. When looking at God's Law, you see how fallen you are and how far you've fallen short.

There is no other hope for the fallen man than to be conformed to the image of God's Son (Romans 8:39).

The law reveals righteousness yes, but sin is personal. We were created by God and in his image. That's what makes it sin. If we weren't created by Him what the law says wouldn't matter.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The law reveals righteousness yes, but sin is personal. We were created by God and in his image. That's what makes it sin. If we weren't created by Him what the law says wouldn't matter.

If you're saying that when looking upon man's former innocence we may realize how far we've fallen, that's certainly true.

But when I'm confronting someone who is dead in their sins, including myself apart from Christ, I am not appealing to an imagined innocence that they once personally possessed. Rather, I am appealing to God's Law to show them the standard and to Christ, as the perfect Law-keeper, to show them who they must be like. Not that Christ is only an example, as He is reduced to in Pelagianism, but that it is His very grace we need within ourselves.

 

[Aboulia]

But, this also means that God knew what evil is, which sounds like more than just a negation, and, more importantly, since man partook of this fruit, how can man be fundamentally good? These are questions I will ask my Bishop next time I see him. They are good questions.

Well, what did God create the world from?

In nature, at the core of man's being, but that nature was corrupted by the fall. We cannot do anything good apart from God, since everything "good" is from God.

 

[magoo]

But all failings of Protestants fall at the feet of Catholics. Catholics are the original Prots, they broke away from the Church due to pride. Hence their own subjects learned this pride and broke away from them.

Anytime a group breaks away from the true Church of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, history shows it's just a matter of time before yet more schisms occur within those Churches. Once you start schisming, there is no stop to it.

So I find Catholics who are always blaming Protestants to be missing the real enemy: the guy looking back at them in the mirror. Catholics are the reason Protestants exist.

If you look at the timeline of the worse laws approved against christianity (abortions, euthanasia, divorce, transgender) and you compare them between protestant and catholic countries you will get a decent look of the differences. Take a look.

Protestants lead the way in filth. But because of their superior economy (since they have no morals) they will engulf the remaining christianity until we all crash and burn. It´s as clear as water. It´s so obvious.

Karl Marx was a jew baptised as a protestant.

Marx and his surviving siblings, Sophie, Hermann, Henriette, Louise, Emilie, and Caroline, were baptised into the Lutheran Church in August 1824, and their mother in November 1825.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

"Christ did not place Peter simply as the first of his peers, but put him above all others. He gave him a power that others didn’t give him. In Mt 16,18-19, “And I so I say to you, you are Peter and upon this stone I will build my church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In v. 19, he said, “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus gives to Peter a power that does not extend to the apostles. Only he has the keys to the Kingdom"

https://www.amicidomenicani.it/en/on-the-petrine-primacy/

"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Dominicans have a lot of info on Pope primacy. Even the protestants (converted jews at least their leaders) already acknowledged for it.

 

[Tippy]

These are political, and not holy, considerations, in no way were any of these ranks meant to be that the higher rank could boss around the lower rank. It's been said in this thread many times that everyone who signed these councils understood this as such.

Rank had titles of honor, and considerations concerning disputes - if a Bishop of Jerusalem had a dispute with a Bishop of Alexandria, then they could appeal to Rome to settle the dispute. The ranks back then worked like a Supreme Court, not a Kingship.

Then why did Orthodox (pre-schism) hold Rome to have primacy?

And there are quotes from Eastern Orthodox saints agreeing to this:

'St. Maximus the Confessor, a saint highly venerated in Eastern Orthodoxy, asserts that Rome’s position among the churches is because of a divine institution, not just because of conciliar decrees or Rome’s status in the empire. He states, Let him [i.e., Pyrrhus] hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. [For h]e is only wasting words who thinks he must convince or lure such people as myself, instead of satisfying or entreating the blessed pope of the most holy catholic church of Rome, i.e., the Apostolic Throne, which is from the incarnate Son himself and which, in accordance with the holy canons and the definitions of faith, received from all the holy councils universal and supreme dominion, authority, and the power over all God’s churches throughout the world to bind and loose.'

Also there is this scenario from pre-schism council:

'Consider the Council of Chalcedon (451), where the papal legate (representative) Paschasinus describes the pope in the presence of the bishops of the council as “the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the city of Rome, the head of all the churches.”7 This is done with no protest by the Eastern bishops present at the council.'

 

[magoo]

Orthodoxes say all apostles are equal? Lool.

Peter is the leader. Above all others. For sure after Christ went to heaven.

What’s this nonsense? It’s stated in the Bible. If it’s in Rome or whatever other place it’s irrelevant. The fact is there is a primus inter pares. I don’t know if he has to be catholic. But the successor of Peter is above all other clergyman. It was said so by Christ himself. And his successor is the Pope.

Pope means father. Papa in Latin. If you attack the Pope. You’re attacking father. The head of the church the head of the family.

Orthos are not brothers. They are same flesh. It’s like an arm that is detached. Or a leg. While separated the church is incomplete. In both sides.
To me they are Russian catholics.

Prots are like a bitchy rebel child. That wants to be an onlyfan whore and paint hair purple. Unfortunately because they’ve adopted Jewry they have more money and will influence the rest of Christianity.

First country to legalize fag marriage? Was it a catholic? An orthodox country?

Yep you guessed it right. Netherlands.

Where Jews fled because Spanish and Portuguese caths were using them as matches to light fires.

Look around. It’s empirically evident. Prot countries have fallen.

First country to allow abortion on request?

Soviet Union. Jewland.

Name a degeneracy and I will show it was first adopted in a Jew/prot country.

Catholics were, are and always will be the mortal enemies of Jews. They know it. We know it.

There’s too much bad blood between caths and prots. So you will see an increase in prots converting to ortho. Which is good. They are too proud to convert to Catholicism. But know something is wrong with their religion. An ortho converting to cath or the opposite is irrelevant.


Here’s a quote from Pope Francis:

“And when we see any friends of ours who have fallen, what are we to do? Lift them up. When we need to lift someone up, or help them, do you notice how we are to do it? We look down on them. That is the only time, the only time that we are allowed to look down upon others, when we are offering to help them up. Yet, we often see people looking down on us, or over our shoulder, from above! How sad. Instead, the only way, the only situation in which it is permissible to look down on others is... well, you tell me, out loud: to help them up.”

 

[budoslavic]

Soviet Union. Jewland.

This is ignorant. Learn the real history of (((Bolshevik Revolution))) in 1917 and how it led to setting up its first (((Soviet government))). One first need to understand what the (((Bolsheviks))) did to the Romanovs - a deeply religious Russian Orthodox Christian family - and the persecution of Christians in Russia.

Soviet Anti-Jewish Facts

• In the summer of 1919, nearly all Jewish properties, including synagogues, were seized by the Soviet authorities. Numerous Rabbis and other religious leaders were threatened with violent persecution.
• In the mid-1930s, Stalin had any remaining Jewish leaders arrested and executed, while nearly all the Yiddish religious schools were forcibly shut down.
• By the late 1940s, the Communist party had abolished any and all Jewish religious organizations, leaving only a few, token synagogues still open and kept under strict surveillance by the KGB.

Soviet Anti-Christian Facts

• Within five years after Lenin and the Bolsheviks had seized power, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and 1,200 priests had been executed by the Soviet authorities.
• Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the vast majority of the Russian Orthodox Clergy, along with many of its most devout believers had been shot dead or sent to the Gulag.
• Between the years 1927 and 1949, the number of Russian Orthodox Churches dropped from 29,584 to less than 500.
• From 1917 to 1935, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested. 95,000 of these priests were eventually put to death by the Soviet authorities.

By tradition, individual believers who have been officially canonized by the Church are considered by the living Christian authorities to be in the Kingdom of Heaven. Those observers that continue to believe the Romanovs were arrogant, elitist tyrants, who looked down upon the Russian people, do not know their history and should take the time to look up the many historically accurate summaries of the Romanovs who happen to be some of the newest Orthodox Christian Saints in Heaven.

https://stjudasmaccabaeus.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/christianity-the-romanovs-a-family-of-saints/

 

[magoo]

This is ignorant. Learn the real history of (((Bolshevik Revolution))) in 1917 and how it led to setting up its first (((Soviet government))). One first need to understand what the (((Bolsheviks))) did to the Romanovs - a deeply religious Russian Orthodox Christian family - and the persecution of Christians in Russia.

https://stjudasmaccabaeus.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/christianity-the-romanovs-a-family-of-saints/

What am I missing? You´re proving my point. Soviet Union was Judenland. The russian people were ruled by jews. Russians are obviously not jews. But had to endure jewish fuckeduppery rule. Pssst sidenote Marx the communist weasel was a jew baptised as protestant. Move along. Nothing to see here.

They didn´t put a jew as a leader because the people would never accept it. Trotsky and other jews knew this. Communist jews were funded by germany for sure and some say US (which doesn´t make sense).

Trotsky was the name of the prison guard of Lev Bronstein. If I recall correctly.

Some say english didn´t rescue Romanov (their cousins) has a payback for them supporting the US revolution against UK monarchy. in some way it makes sense.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7599132/

 

[KulturedKaveman]

Then why did Orthodox (pre-schism) hold Rome to have primacy?

The pope had the ability to resolve disputes and act as a judge when the patriarchs got in a spat. Ex cathedra is my problem.