Genealogist
Catholic
There's only ONE, true Church of Christ, and outside of it are heretics, schismatics, and wolves in sheep's clothing.
Catholicism: Criticism & Debate Thread
- Thread starter PurpleUrkel
- Start date
Catholic Churches had the same doctrine on divorce as did Orthodox Churches for the first 1000 years of their history. Suddenly a Pope "discovered" that they had a new way of never allowing divorces, even if a man beat the living shit out of his wife, or if the wife was completely infertile.
The heretical stance on divorce is why the Anglican Church was created, simply because they refused to grant Henry a legitimate divorce over the first two wives (the rest, not so much).
Everything about Catholic doctrine is absurd. How is it that for 1000 years they were in the wrong, then "discovered" on their own the "true" teachings? It's the epitome of pride, unbelievably sinful. Like they knew better than the Apostilles, the Saints, and the Fathers who created the Church.
Genealogist
Catholic
Henry VIII divorced his lawful wife to marry his mistress. He already had a daughter named Mary. The people called his mistress "the great whore."Anne Boleyn.
The Pope did the right thing.
Orthos allow 3 marriages? Not good. Invitation to whoring.
Last edited:
Cornelius V.E.
Orthodox
Because the Roman Catholics keep accusing Orthodox on this forum of having heretical positions on divorce and remarriage (since it's generally the last thing these RCs can hold onto before abandoning Rome altogether), I guess I should just start copying and pasting my many previous responses to this total lack of understanding of authentic Christian doctrine and history? By the way, none of these RCs have even tried to answer our arguments thus far (eg, exceptions for divorce and remarriage taught in the Book of Matthew, placed in the canons of St. Basil the Great, accepted at the Council of Trullo by Rome, accepted by Rome at the 7th ecumenical council which accepted Trullo's canons, Eastern Catholics having divorce and remarriage until the 1900s, etc). Should I also copy and paste the Orthodox responses to the RC error of innovating an elaborate, incoherent, pharisaical, and extensive annulment practice after the Schism?
On another note, I completely disagree with Samseau on the necessity of conversion. If you discover the truth, you are obliged to follow that truth. God is truth, and to abandon truth is to abandon God. If you willingly and knowingly continue to take part in heretical groups who teach lies about Christ and His Church, this is absolutely an abandonment of Christ and His body (the Church). To my knowledge, every single canonized Orthodox saint agrees with me on these points. We can never, in good conscience, encourage someone to stay with the heretics--even if there was a chance that these heretical groups could come closer to the truth by his or her staying. The ends do not justify the means. Moreover, the idea that these people can "stay and fight", or "stay and change things for the better", especially makes no sense in the context of Roman Catholicism where it's the pope's right and authority to change/decree/innovate/"develop" whatever he wants. A random guy sitting in the pews is not going to be able to influence his priest, his bishop, or his pope. There's nothing to fight for, since nothing is in his power or authority within the RC system. This is the same for protestants as well, where basically the only solution would be to start your own new protestant sect.
Now, if you're the pope, and you discover the truth of Orthodoxy, then by all means please stay in Rome and change things. But if you're a man in Alabama wanting to discover and live the full truth of Christ, then it's time to find an Orthodox Church and to join yourself to the true Body of Christ, from which flow blood (the Eucharist) and water (holy baptism).
As we say in the Creed at every Divine Liturgy: I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I do not believe in many different churches, but that there is only one Church founded by Christ. Nor can I believe that the Roman Catholic sect is the same church as the Orthodox Church. This is flat out heresy.
On another note, I completely disagree with Samseau on the necessity of conversion. If you discover the truth, you are obliged to follow that truth. God is truth, and to abandon truth is to abandon God. If you willingly and knowingly continue to take part in heretical groups who teach lies about Christ and His Church, this is absolutely an abandonment of Christ and His body (the Church). To my knowledge, every single canonized Orthodox saint agrees with me on these points. We can never, in good conscience, encourage someone to stay with the heretics--even if there was a chance that these heretical groups could come closer to the truth by his or her staying. The ends do not justify the means. Moreover, the idea that these people can "stay and fight", or "stay and change things for the better", especially makes no sense in the context of Roman Catholicism where it's the pope's right and authority to change/decree/innovate/"develop" whatever he wants. A random guy sitting in the pews is not going to be able to influence his priest, his bishop, or his pope. There's nothing to fight for, since nothing is in his power or authority within the RC system. This is the same for protestants as well, where basically the only solution would be to start your own new protestant sect.
Now, if you're the pope, and you discover the truth of Orthodoxy, then by all means please stay in Rome and change things. But if you're a man in Alabama wanting to discover and live the full truth of Christ, then it's time to find an Orthodox Church and to join yourself to the true Body of Christ, from which flow blood (the Eucharist) and water (holy baptism).
As we say in the Creed at every Divine Liturgy: I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I do not believe in many different churches, but that there is only one Church founded by Christ. Nor can I believe that the Roman Catholic sect is the same church as the Orthodox Church. This is flat out heresy.
Last edited:
Personally, I'm not so interested in the history of all this, though I find it educational and I enjoy reading about it. My personal issue is with the pedophilia of the modern (and I assume historical) Catholic Church and that the current Pope seems effeminate and gay. And I mean literally gay. I can find no other excuse for his inexcusable semi-defense of homo-marriage. A real Christian would come out and say, "Faggotry is a sin and all that engage in sodomy are going to hell. There is no room in the Roman Catholic Church for sodomites and we will never encourage their 'unions' much less their blasphemous 'marriages'. Homosexuals are not welcome in this church unless they're here to repent. This is non-negotiable." End of story.
Cornelius V.E.
Orthodox
The other explanation comes from control and subversion. The modern Roman Catholic Church basically supports, or is gradually on its way to supporting, everything that Western globalist oligarchs support (covidism, depop, climate change agenda, lgbt, feminism, etc). This is not a coincidence. The oligarchs, through proxies like intelligence agencies, have subverted the Vatican to use it for their own purposes. This is also why the notion of an infallible office at the head of the Church is patently absurd. The CIA, for example, wanted to use the Vatican (with its over 1 billion followers) as a tool to help the US fight the Cold War. It's no surprise, then, that in the 1960s onwards the Vatican started to adopt positions that were previously condemned in the RCC as the heresy of Americanism (ecumenism, preference for democracy over monarchy, separation of church and state, etc).
If anyone doesn't believe this, just ask yourself 2 questions:
1. If I was a trillionaire in control of entire countries, would I be interested in using the influence of a large powerful organization like the RCC (with over a billion followers) for my own purposes?
2. If I was a trillionaire in control of entire countries, could I find a way to infiltrate the Roman Catholic hierarchy if I wanted to?
If you answered yes to both of these questions, then it's pretty obvious what the reality is.
Orthodoxy has similar problems, but thankfully it's much more decentralized, and so infiltrating the Orthodox Church would require infiltrating thousands of dioceses around the world instead of just focusing on one diocese that controls them all (Rome). Moreover, the Orthodox Church keeps the ancient tradition of appointing bishops locally (instead of the pope single handedly choosing every bishop in the world since the 1100s in the RCC), through local councils, and drawing these bishops from the ranks of the monks (men who've already been living harsh/ascetic lives in some monastery where there's a lot of accountability for many years before being appointed a bishop). Furthermore, parts of the Orthodox Church keep other parts accountable, and there's no infallible head who can't be challenged. So, if the Soviets infiltrated the Russian Orthodox hierarchy (which they did), then they can't just start changing things, because everyone will see that there are still entire Orthodox countries outside of their control who didn't change, and there are respected/beloved leaders like the holy elders on Mount Athos, who show and teach what authentic Orthodoxy is.
Any RC priest could be pope or bishop one day. If a man is pre-selected by some oligarch institution to infiltrate the RCC, then he doesn't necessarily have to sacrifice much to become a RC priest if he's homosexual. He works only one day a week if he wants, lives comfortably off of his salary and flock, and usually lives alone so can continue pursuing a homosexual lifestyle in secret if he wishes. If he was forced to be in a monastery for 10+ years he probably wouldn't be able to handle it, everyone in the monastery would see that he's not trying to change his life, and so finding people who are willing and able to infiltrate the hierarchy will then be much more difficult.
I got a new phone that can summarize web pages for me, so I asked it to summarize this page. Here's what came out:
• The poster, a genealogist, expresses a desire for reconciliation between Catholics and Orthodox Christians, acknowledging their shared brotherhood in Christ despite differences. They criticize certain Catholics who seek to join the Orthodox Church solely for personal salvation rather than bearing the cross of their own Church. While they believe in the superiority of the Orthodox position, they emphasize the importance of staying within one's Church and working to improve it, unless spiritual detriment is experienced due to changes within the Church.
• They predict the continued decline of the Catholic Church and Protestant denominations due to doctrinal errors and structural problems, citing the Orthodox model as the most stable and enduring. However, they affirm that all organizations based on the name of Jesus Christ are under divine jurisdiction and will be sustained by God's mercy despite human shortcomings.
• The poster asserts that the Orthodox Church, as the elder sibling of Christianity, will not abandon other Christian denominations despite conflicts and challenges, emphasizing the importance of unity and support within the Christian family.
• The poster, a genealogist, expresses a desire for reconciliation between Catholics and Orthodox Christians, acknowledging their shared brotherhood in Christ despite differences. They criticize certain Catholics who seek to join the Orthodox Church solely for personal salvation rather than bearing the cross of their own Church. While they believe in the superiority of the Orthodox position, they emphasize the importance of staying within one's Church and working to improve it, unless spiritual detriment is experienced due to changes within the Church.
• They predict the continued decline of the Catholic Church and Protestant denominations due to doctrinal errors and structural problems, citing the Orthodox model as the most stable and enduring. However, they affirm that all organizations based on the name of Jesus Christ are under divine jurisdiction and will be sustained by God's mercy despite human shortcomings.
• The poster asserts that the Orthodox Church, as the elder sibling of Christianity, will not abandon other Christian denominations despite conflicts and challenges, emphasizing the importance of unity and support within the Christian family.
Genealogist
Catholic
The absolute prohibition of divorce from the marriage bond, with the right to marry another, rests on the express words of Jesus Christ and His Apostle St. Paul (Trent., Sess. xxiv. can. 7)
The words of Our Lord are: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder...And He saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." (Mark 10: 9-12).
"Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery" (Luke 16:18).
St. Paul, commenting on these words, says: "But to them that are married, not I, but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband." (1 Cor. 7:10,11 ).
"A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth, but if her husband die, she is at liberty; let her marry to whom she will, only in the Lord" (ibid. 39)
"For the woman that hath an husband, whilst her husband liveth is bound to the law. But if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. Therefore, whilst her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress, if she be with another man; but if her husband be dead, she is delivered from the law of her husband, so that she is not an adulteress if she be with another man" (Rom. 7:2, 3).
Words could not more clearly express the absolute prohibition of divorce with right to marry again. Nothing but death can dissolve the marriage bond, which Jesus Christ now restores to its primitive unity and indissolubility, abrogating for ever the Mosaic bill of divorce. To remarry during the lifetime of wife or husband is clearly termed adultery by Christ and St. Paul.
There are two other texts in St. Matthew's gospel which are frequently cited as granting the right of divorce in case of adultery, but an honest study of these passages will prove that Our Lord does not contradict His clear teaching elsewhere. "But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery" (Matt. 5:32). It is clear from these words that no exception is made, for: (1st) Our Lord is not speaking of a man putting away his wife to marry another, which He expressly forbade as a violation of the sixth commandment, in Mark 10:11: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery"; and in Luke 16:18: "Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery."
(2nd) He clearly indicates that the marriage tie is indissoluble, for otherwise how could he call the remarriage of the repudiated woman adultery? "He that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery" (Matt. 5: 32).
The other alleged exception is Matt. 19:9: "And I say to you that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery."
The argument of the defenders of divorce is: Whoever puts away his wife, except for adultery, and remarries, is an adulterer. Therefore, whoever "puts away his wife" for adultery, and remarries, is not an adulterer. The Catholic answers: Why can't the conditional clause refer to the words that precede rather than to those that follow it? Everyone must admit that it is at least doubtful whether the exception for adultery refers to the right of separation only or the right to remarry. The Catholic settles the doubt by having recourse to the other clear passages of St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul, and concludes with them that a man cannot remarry during the lifetime of his wife without becoming an adulterer.
The sense of Matt. 19:9, then, is: Whosoever shall put away his wife, which shall not be lawful except for fornication, and shall marry another, etc. That this is not a forced interpretation is clear from the context. Our Lord is restoring marriage to its primitive purity ("in the beginning it was not so," ibid. 8) He is abrogating the Mosaic bill of divorce, and elevating marriage to the dignity of a Christian sacrament, which no human authority can nullity. "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." It is law of Scripture interpretation that an obscure text should always be explained in the light of clear and explicit passages. All doubt on the matter is settled for the Catholic by the divine, infallible witness of the Church of God (Trent., Sess. xxiv. can. 7), which voices the constant tradition of the Church, and declares the text in question to refer only to separation from bed and board.
We know that often in particular cases this law is hard in its application (in the Catholic Church, for adultery, cruelty, and the like, separation from bed and board is granted, without, however, the liberty of marrying again.) It is indeed hard to say to a young person who has contracted an unhappy marriage, that they can never marry again as long as their spouse is alive. When Our Lord told His disciples that they could not divorce their wives anymore (the Mosaic Law tolerated it - see Deut. 24:1), they replied: "If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry." (Matt. 19:10).
But such is the law of Christ.
As for Henry VIII of England, he was an unchaste schismatic that wanted to be like adulterous potentates in the East where "Orthodox" Bishops frequently approved adultery and mortal sins, according to the matrimonial whims of the Czars/Emperors. When he petitioned the Supreme Pontiff to grant him a divorce from his lawful wife, Pope Clement VII replied: "Non possums: I have no authority to set aside Divine Law." In contrast, the "Orthodox" bishops claim power to override the express law of God on the basis of oikonomia, i.e. Talmudic situation ethics).
The words of Our Lord are: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder...And He saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." (Mark 10: 9-12).
"Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery" (Luke 16:18).
St. Paul, commenting on these words, says: "But to them that are married, not I, but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband." (1 Cor. 7:10,11 ).
"A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth, but if her husband die, she is at liberty; let her marry to whom she will, only in the Lord" (ibid. 39)
"For the woman that hath an husband, whilst her husband liveth is bound to the law. But if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. Therefore, whilst her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress, if she be with another man; but if her husband be dead, she is delivered from the law of her husband, so that she is not an adulteress if she be with another man" (Rom. 7:2, 3).
Words could not more clearly express the absolute prohibition of divorce with right to marry again. Nothing but death can dissolve the marriage bond, which Jesus Christ now restores to its primitive unity and indissolubility, abrogating for ever the Mosaic bill of divorce. To remarry during the lifetime of wife or husband is clearly termed adultery by Christ and St. Paul.
There are two other texts in St. Matthew's gospel which are frequently cited as granting the right of divorce in case of adultery, but an honest study of these passages will prove that Our Lord does not contradict His clear teaching elsewhere. "But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery" (Matt. 5:32). It is clear from these words that no exception is made, for: (1st) Our Lord is not speaking of a man putting away his wife to marry another, which He expressly forbade as a violation of the sixth commandment, in Mark 10:11: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery"; and in Luke 16:18: "Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery."
(2nd) He clearly indicates that the marriage tie is indissoluble, for otherwise how could he call the remarriage of the repudiated woman adultery? "He that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery" (Matt. 5: 32).
The other alleged exception is Matt. 19:9: "And I say to you that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery."
The argument of the defenders of divorce is: Whoever puts away his wife, except for adultery, and remarries, is an adulterer. Therefore, whoever "puts away his wife" for adultery, and remarries, is not an adulterer. The Catholic answers: Why can't the conditional clause refer to the words that precede rather than to those that follow it? Everyone must admit that it is at least doubtful whether the exception for adultery refers to the right of separation only or the right to remarry. The Catholic settles the doubt by having recourse to the other clear passages of St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul, and concludes with them that a man cannot remarry during the lifetime of his wife without becoming an adulterer.
The sense of Matt. 19:9, then, is: Whosoever shall put away his wife, which shall not be lawful except for fornication, and shall marry another, etc. That this is not a forced interpretation is clear from the context. Our Lord is restoring marriage to its primitive purity ("in the beginning it was not so," ibid. 8) He is abrogating the Mosaic bill of divorce, and elevating marriage to the dignity of a Christian sacrament, which no human authority can nullity. "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." It is law of Scripture interpretation that an obscure text should always be explained in the light of clear and explicit passages. All doubt on the matter is settled for the Catholic by the divine, infallible witness of the Church of God (Trent., Sess. xxiv. can. 7), which voices the constant tradition of the Church, and declares the text in question to refer only to separation from bed and board.
We know that often in particular cases this law is hard in its application (in the Catholic Church, for adultery, cruelty, and the like, separation from bed and board is granted, without, however, the liberty of marrying again.) It is indeed hard to say to a young person who has contracted an unhappy marriage, that they can never marry again as long as their spouse is alive. When Our Lord told His disciples that they could not divorce their wives anymore (the Mosaic Law tolerated it - see Deut. 24:1), they replied: "If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry." (Matt. 19:10).
But such is the law of Christ.
As for Henry VIII of England, he was an unchaste schismatic that wanted to be like adulterous potentates in the East where "Orthodox" Bishops frequently approved adultery and mortal sins, according to the matrimonial whims of the Czars/Emperors. When he petitioned the Supreme Pontiff to grant him a divorce from his lawful wife, Pope Clement VII replied: "Non possums: I have no authority to set aside Divine Law." In contrast, the "Orthodox" bishops claim power to override the express law of God on the basis of oikonomia, i.e. Talmudic situation ethics).
Last edited:
I don’t think Ortho or Cath churches should be treated like sports teams. Mine is better, or yours is better. Quite childish and not christian. Heretical accusations are also ridicule. Some things might be misguided. But heretical being thrown around so lightly is nonsense.
Cornelius V.E.
Orthodox
The problem with your interpretations regarding exceptions is that they're just that: interpretations. Moreover, the RC position is an innovative interpretation that was not the interpretation of the vast majority of Church Fathers, and was also not the interpretation of Rome herself during the First Millennium. If you want to just make up your own interpretations and doctrines, that's fine, but don't pretend then to be the Church of the First Millenium, and enjoy your continued "developments" (ie, homosexual civil unions, abolishment of just war doctrine, condemnation of the justness of the death penalty, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Vatican I style ecumenism, abandonment of spiritual disciplines like fasting, giving Holy Communion as only bread instead of bread and wine, etc).
We Orthodox already know very well that the Roman Catholics like to change what existed before and like to presume that they know better than the consensus of the Church Fathers. It is mainstream RC doctrine that the pope today knows the Faith better than the Holy Apostles! We've seen the RCC innovate/reinvent repeatedly over the past 1000 years (liturgically, spiritually, and doctrinally), and so the post Vatican II state of the RCC is not a surprise to us.
I think we should start a new thread for a debate about divorce and conflicting views on the matter if people want to debate that. It seems like a bit of a red herring to focus on that in this topic.
One of the many reasons I left the protestant church was because I realized that there is only 1 church and I wasnt in it, doesnt mean God doesnt have some kind of plan for those denominations or that they not saved etc, non of that, but theres only 1 church not many churches and the Orthodox church doesnt recognise any other church as part of the church, some might think this is cruel or proud but I see it as a factual statement and I had to make a decision
Yeah they are not the same nor in communion with each other, once some Roman Catholics went to Mount Athos and when they went to see saint Paisios and want to pray together with him saint Paisios refused to do that although he engaged and spoke with them and accepted them etc but when it came to worshipping God together he drew the line, there is a youtube clip of Roosh visiting saint Anthonies monestary in California and he was still under the Armenian Orthodox church and i think it was Elder Ephraim of Arizon was there but didnt allow Roosh to come inside to worship together with them he had to worship behind a closed door in the passage which made Roosh get very angry but later the Elder explained that its because he was part of the Armenian Orthodox church and that they had been excommunicated etc etc, I will try find the video
This doesn´t make much sense. It reeks of elitism. And some kind of sense of superiority. They are more pure. What a crock of shit! We are better than you, so you stay out.
I do that to my cat and dog, you know. Keep them out of the house. The dog doesn´t even attempt to enter anymore. The fucking cat always tries to eat our food. The fucker eats bread. Which cat eats bread? FFS. The dog knows how to hunt rabbits. When I arrive home, there´s a dead rabbit in the garden. Living on a farm sure has its perks...
And Roosh seems to be on drugs. He looks awful. He suffered a lot of pressure and cave in. He was really lost. Even though he didn´t kill or steal anyone, There's been too much criticism of him. Like he was a big-time sinner. He exaggerated by banging whores. But come on. Snap out of it. And the idea that everybody has to become some kind of monks. It wasn´t the death of sister only. But the end of an era. PUA had gone. Trump had gone. Now christian. And from this something else would come. But he was already old and worn out. To pull his next thing. Also maintaning the forum didn´t made any utilitarian sense to him. Costs outweighed benefits. If he wasn´t selling books. Why keep this.
Anyway, as for the Catholic Church. Despite the obvious criticism of the current Pope, Who is doing Jesuit work by trying to merge Protestants into the Catholic Church. That´s why he has this position on fags.
Let me tell you a story about Catholics. A relative of mine was asked to house two cath families. He said OK. 16 people showed up. 16. Each couple had six kids. But the house was clean after. So when someone asks you to house a cath family ask how many people first.
Another story. There´s a place like Lourdes in France. The priests go around with a van. And if they find a beggar they force them inside and take them to another village.
There´s hipocrisy. I find it in all christian churches.
The current idea I heard at lunch from some cath who are close to jesuits. Is to accept fags as long as they remain a small number. Something like it´s Ok as long as they are little. It´s a prot thing. We have a jesuit pope. Of course this goes against the Bible. But prot are a bad influence. And the jesuit wants them back into church. With this pope gone. This influence will be gone also. The black cardinal of the silence video is ok. He could be a pope. Or the guy who is in hidding.
Orthodoxy could make sense for Roosh since he had Armenian roots. From his mother, I think. Strangely, he never went into Islam. Which might make more sense. It had something to do with his father. Always something to do with his dad. Some rebellion against him.
But westerners converting into ortho. It seems like you're forcing something. It´s not a western thing. It´s as if you are learning Russian and decide to speak Russian with each other. In the west, you have the Catholic Church. Inside the Catholic Church, you have really conservative groups. Why not attend those? SSPX, or Opus. Maybe inside prots there´s conservative groups. I have a friend from SSPX, and if you told him, a woman could marry three times. He would spit on you. Guy is a fanatic. But I like to talk with him. Every six months. SSPX is french. OPUS is spanish.
Last edited:
Cornelius V.E.
Orthodox
I'm open to creating a new thread as I'm sure the Orthodox teaching will shine the light of truth in any debate, but this topic is not a red herring to the topic at hand. Roman Catholics presuming to have a superior teaching on divorce and remarriage is what keeps many Roman Catholics in papalism. They see how the protestants have divided endlessly and have liberalized, and so that seems like a dead end. Then they look to the Orthodox and see almost everything they want, but they've convinced themselves that the Orthodox have "caved in" and "liberalized" on questions of divorce and remarriage and contraception, and so they believe that the Orthodox Church is in error and not worthy of converting to.
I've seen it happen many times that once a Roman Catholic realizes that he or she had grave misconceptions about Orthodox teaching on these two topics, they immediately decide to embrace Orthodoxy. I would even be so bold as to say that the vast majority of "trads" I know would seek to become Orthodox tomorrow if they realized that what they were taught about history/tradition regarding 1) divorce and remarriage and 2) contraception, and about how the Orthodox Church treats these matters, is false. They rightly perceive that things are not right with Rome, but they feel boxed in and trapped with nowhere else to go because they've been convinced that the Orthodox have "caved in" and "liberalized" on divorce and remarriage and contraception, so the Orthodox Church is not an option for them.
It might sound really strange to non-Roman Catholics, but trad RCs have largely fetishized these two topics (divorce/remarriage and contraception), and the perceived superiority of the RC position on these topics for them is what keeps them RCs and keeps them distrusting of Orthodoxy.
I converted to Orthodoxy because I was utterly and completely convinced that it is the true church, via historical and theological arguments, but primarily through the lives of the Saints further cemented by my own experience of the Orthodox life and the Grace of God. i do not believe the Catholic Church has the truth, no matter how based or conservative. To say “come on you’re a Westerner! Orthodoxy isn’t for you” demonstrates a failure to understand. The truth is neither western or eastern.
Last edited:
It´s as you are telling me to eat russian food. I don´t see enough differences. To make someone change. Ortho has some novelty into it.
Sure it wouldn´t. Dude was just Iranian and Armenian descent. His father I think was muslim. Actually Iranian girls. Are pretty hot. What was the dude doing in Poland. If he wanted he could have just asked his father friends for a chick. There was something deep between Roosh and his father. A lot of things didn´t made sense.