• ChristIsKing.eu has moved to ChristIsKing.cc - see the announcement for more details. If you don't know your password PM a mod on Element or via a temporary account here to confirm your username and email.

Catholicism: Criticism & Debate Thread

So the metric by which we should choose our religion, worship and spiritual truth is how beneficial it is for the promulgation of our bloodline?
Yes. Without children/descendants to carry on the tradition, your Church will cease to exist on Earth. Be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28).

If a religion told us to cease having children or to waste our semen wantonly, we shouldn't trust it.
 
Yes. Without children/descendants to carry on the tradition, your Church will cease to exist on Earth. Be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28).

If a religion told us to cease having children or waste our semen wantonly, we shouldn't trust it.

Why not convert to Islam then? Muslims are reproducing much more rapidly and unlike Christians are allowed to have multiple wives which is objectively far superior for the promulgation of bloodlines.
 
This is false and easily contradicted by many historical accounts. For example, St. Olga (mother of St. Vlad) returned from Constantinople baptized, and yet no one in Rus believed in Christ, including Olga's own son. It would take another generation, before her grandson, became interested in Christ and would eventually convert later in life after his 5th wife was a Byzantine Empress.

The idea that one cannot, or should not, engage in long-sufferings for their Neighbors and plainly contradicted by scripture, the Saints, and history.

Now, is this sort of thing for everyone? Of course not, which is why I said it varies on a individual basis. To deny the individual aspect of people's faith is to deny the mystery and all-awesome power of God. We can only marvel at His works.

It is true, that for most, Orthodox evangelism is not a valid path. Probably 80-90% of those exposed to Orthodoxy are best served by total conversion and attendance to an Orthodox place of worship. However, there will be many, for all sorts of reasons (such as lack of access to an Orthodox parish, or to keep one's family intact, or because they are influential within their own heterodox parish) that will involve them trying to save their Neighbors instead of merely leaving them.

Remember, was the Samaritan any less of a Neighbor despite the fact he was not a Jew?



There are plenty of Saints who disagree with you. Right from http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/pomaz_status.aspx :

"Therefore it is quite natural to affirm that these religious organizations are societies which are "near," or "next to," or " close to," or perhaps even" adjoining" the Church, but sometimes " against" it; but they are all "outside" the one Church of Christ. Some of them have cut themselves off, others have gone far away. Some, in going away, all the same have historical ties of blood with her; others have lost all kinship, and in them the very spirit and foundations of Christianity have been distorted. None of them find themselves under the activity of the grace which is present in the Church, and especially the grace which is given in the Mysteries of the Church. They are not nourished by that mystical table which leads up along the steps of moral perfection."

The above is the position I have argued for in this thread. Is the position I have been taught by my Bishop. Now let's quote a Saint or two:


St. Seraphim

"The word “heretic” (as we say in our article on Fr. Dimitry Dudko) is indeed used too frequently nowadays. It has a definite meaning and function, to distinguish new teachings from the Orthodox teaching; but few of the non-Orthodox Christians today are consciously “heretics,” and it really does no good to call them that.

In the end, I think, Fr. Dimitry Dudko’s attitude is the correct one: We should view the non-Orthodox as people to whom Orthodoxy has not yet been revealed, as people who are potentially Orthodox (if only we ourselves would give them a better example!). There is no reason why we cannot call them Christians and be on good terms with them, recognize that we have at least our faith in Christ in common, and live in peace especially with our own families. St. Innocent’s attitude to the Roman Catholics in California is a good example for us. A harsh, polemical attitude is called for only when the non-Orthodox are trying to take away our flocks or change our teaching.…

As for prejudices—these belong to people, not the Church. Orthodoxy does not require you to accept any prejudices or opinions about other races, nations, etc."

St. Silouan the Athonite


I remember a conversation he had with a certain Archimandrite who was engaged in missionary work. This Archimandrite thought highly of the Staretz and many a time went to see him during his visits to the Holy Mountain. The Staretz asked him what sort of sermons he preached to people. The Archimandrite, who was still young and inexperienced gesticulated with his hands and swayed his whole body, and replied excitedly, ‘I tell them, Your faith is all wrong, perverted. There is nothing right, and if you don’t repent, there will be no salvation for you.’

The Staretz heard him out, then asked, ‘Tell me, Father Archimandrite, do they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, that He is the true God?’

‘Yes, that they do believe.’

‘And do they revere the Mother of God?’

‘Yes, but they are not taught properly about her.’

‘And what of the Saints?’

‘Yes, they honour them but since they have fallen away from the Church, what saints can they have?’

‘Do they celebrate the Divine Office in their churches? Do they read the Gospels?’

‘Yes, they do have churches and services but if you were to compare their services with ours—how cold and lifeless theirs are!’

‘Father Archimandrite, people feel in their souls when they are doing the proper thing, believing in Jesus Christ, revering the Mother of God and the Saints, whom they call upon in prayer, so if you condemn their faith they will not listen to you ... But if you were to confirm that they were doing well to believe in God and honour the Mother of God and the Saints; that they are right to go to church, and say their prayers at home, read the Divine word, and so on; and then gently point out their mistakes and show them what they ought to amend, then they would listen to you, and the Lord would rejoice over them. And this way by God’s mercy we shall all find salvation ... God is love, and therefore the preaching of His word must always proceed from love. Then both preacher and listener will profit. But if you do nothing but condemn, the soul of the people will not heed you, and no good will come of it.’


Notice the part I bolded above - "that they are right to go to Church." Silouan didn't say they needed to come to our Church, but that they are right to go to Church, which would be the Church they knew - Catholic or Protestant.



As I've said before - if they can improve their churches they should improve their churches with the true teachings of Orthodoxy; if they cannot or find it brings them spiritual detriment, they should come home to a true Church and worship with other Orthodox. No two paths to God are the same, and to deny this is to deny the awesome power and ineffable mysteries of God.

For most, it probably means leaving their church, but for others, they may be able to find a way to improve their home church - Glory to God.


Everything said above from the Saints, or I (which is through my Bishop), ultimately stems from two parts of scripture:

1. The Parable of the Good Samaritan
2. "Those who are not against us are for us" Mark 9:38-41

38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

Those who are not part of the Apostolic tradition are to be tolerated and not stopped, even if they have heresies. For that is the command of the Christ.

The historical record shows that these heterodox actually prepare the way for the Orthodox; we must be patient and marvel in God's glory and ultimate plans.

Samseau, I disagree with nothing that was written above by the authorities that you quoted. They would not encourage those who came to know the truth to stay in heretical sects, however. The advice that they gave had to do more with the means of achieving someone's conversion, not with the ends (because the ends were assumed to be bringing people into the fullness of the Body of Christ). There is absolutely zero dispute that the ends are to bring people into the Church. In order to do this, we must be respectful, however.

I do not condemn anyone who is in a protestant/RC sect, nor do I judge them. Many are there out of pure sincerity and have been misled. It is an entire other thing, however, to have full knowledge that your group is heretical and to stay. In the same way that the Jews/pagans who did not accept baptism because it would "divide their family", or whatever other excuse, did not benefit from being a part of the Body of Christ.

Even the Apostolic canons condemn those who worship with heretics. Your position absolutely sounds like ecumenism. No follower of Christ can worship in good conscience with heretics. The Apostles in the Book of Acts condemned heretics and fled from them. Your position would even be akin to me saying that I'm allowed to abandon Orthodoxy in order to join some protestant sect, become their pastor, and then try to bring them "closer" to Orthodoxy while keeping them outside of the Church. The ends never justify the means. Indeed the word "heresy" is thrown around too often, but this position is pure heresy from an Orthodox perspective. If you have any access to centers of Orthodoxy (Any of the Ephraimite monasteries in America, any monasteries in the Republic of Georgia, the monasteries on Mount Athos, Jordanville, etc), I would highly recommend that you consult with the spiritual fathers there on this topic.

When a Roman Catholic comes to an Orthodox church to join the catechumenate, he is told that it is a sin to continue to go to Roman Catholic Mass, and that it would be a sin to continue going to confession with Roman Catholic priests. We do not recognize RC sacraments, period. Why then would we encourage someone to stay away from the life-saving graces of the sacraments? We can only do this if either 1) we believe the sacraments exists outside of the Church (heresy), or 2) we believe that the sacraments are not important (heresy).
 
I am seeing a lot of argument about Catholics never allowing divorce at all, vs other denominations wrongly allowing it. This is disingenuous. The Catholics just use annulment as a workaround for divorce. It amounts to the same thing.

It is definitely possible for a married couple to become unmarried with the good graces of the Catholic church.

Yes, the allowance has been mechanized and the "actual point of what is going on in the heart" is lost in meaningless literal paperwork. That is one of the common themes in my criticism.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you're right. It just strikes me as a red herring. "Orthodox get things wrong" even if true, does not invalidate any criticisms of Roman Catholicism. Its a distraction.

Also I'd say permitting remarriage if the priest thinks it is beneficial is less ergegious than blessing faggot couples. But that's just me.

Every single time we Orthodox discuss RC problems with the trads (both here, online elsewhere, and in person), their immediate response is "Yeah, but you guys allow divorce and remarriage, so you're a false Church". It's literally the last and only leg the trad RCs are standing on at this point. It's their knee jerk reaction to any discussion (which is why it's been brought up here on ChristisKing multiple times).
 
This attitude appears among some Catholics - it's as if they think that the Roman Church won the race, "Orthodoxy" came second, etc - and if it turns out that Rome cheated, then the runner up becomes the default winner.

This is not the right approach to fundamental theology.

Fundamental theology demonstrates that the society founded by Christ has certain properties, including perpetuity - and notes by which she can be known. Those notes are found only in the Roman Church, and there are other reasons why the other claimants (e.g. Eastern "Orthodox") cannot be the true Church.

These reasons would not be invalidated if it turned out that Rome was "falsified". The arguments are all too tightly woven together. Again, the runner-up would not become the winner by default. What would be falsified would be Christianity itself. But we know that Christianity can't be falsified - because it's true!

In spite of all this, people lapse from the Church or apostatize altogether.

If you're getting to that stage, step back from crisis and controversy material and study fundamental theology properly. Any decent work of fundamental theology will be helpful here - but for those who like videos and want to look at this at a detailed level, look at this from: https://t.co/w2lRdtPEjl

How do we know which is the true Church Catholic theologians always used to answer by pointing to the "four marks" - the first of which is unity. (Read on for a classic exposition of this matter by St Francis de Sales: https://t.co/O6eTkgclXa)

We can prove that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church founded by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ because only the Catholic Church possesses these four marks. They are: 1)Unity 2)Holiness 3) Catholicity 3) Apostolicity.

Today there are particular problems for the Roman Church, in that various of these notes are obscured - and that many men, who are visibly non-Catholics, continue to call themselves such and are intruding into the offices they appear to hold. Even with notes and visibility obscured to some degree, if "the Roman Church" was the true Church in the year 700, 1300, or 1940, and if the Roman Church is perpetual, then we know that the Roman Church still is the true Church, in possession of all these notes and marks. Saying the Roman Church has defected is the same as saying she never was the true Church at all, which is indefectible. The idea a false church could credibly have all the signs and marks of the true Church for 1960 years is totally improbable – impossible, even.

The only question is: where is the Roman Church? Is it the body of men, taken as a whole without qualification, who claim to recognize Francis as the pope, i.e. the "Conciliar Church" of Vatican II? No, it isn't (but neither are all this body's members non-Catholics either). The Church is the congregation of the faithful. It's the body of men that are baptized, profess the faith externally and are ordered as a society / subject to legitimate pastors (if there are any in office over them).

In short, we live in a time of unprecedented confusion, in which many are losing the faith and disappearing into heresy, schism and apostasy. We don't serve them by pretending the confusion doesn't exist. But we MUST study fundamental theology properly: https://t.co/wJ7QFCb2rH

Those who say they'd disappear into Eastern heresy and schism, rather than conclude that the Roman Church has been suffering a long vacancy for several decades, are close to losing the faith. The idea that anything - even a long vacancy with the problems it may appear to present - could make one embrace heresy or schism is just abhorrent. There is no salvation outside the Church, which is the Holy Roman Church. The response to usurper of the see of Rome, heresy and schism is not to flee to more heresy and schism.

Catholics don't have back up churches. The Roman Church is the true Church. Believe.
 
Why not convert to Islam then? Muslims are reproducing much more rapidly and unlike Christians are allowed to have multiple wives which is objectively far superior for the promulgation of bloodlines.
Because for most of us this would be race-mixing - polluting the bloodline by throwing "black" ink into a "white" gene pool. Muslims for the most part are non-European, or "brown" people. Personally, I want to keep my blood and race as pure as possible.

I mentioned it at least twice in this forum, but Protestantism historically developed in Northern Europe, where you have a high number of blonde & blue-eyed & tall people (Nordid race). Sure, modern Sweden is cucked and being flooded with dark-pigmented people, but I don't think it's the fault of historical Protestantism in particular.

Sweden only turned "fake & gay" at the turn of 21st century, coinciding with the rise of modern pornography/sexualization which seduced a lot of people. Once a teen discovers masturbation and/or fornication, it isn't long until he starts only wanting to "have some fun" and disrespecting his own ancestors and traditions. Instead he starts favoring the customs of the barbarians who increasingly flood his home country, or travels to Asia himself to seek "enlightenment".​
 
Yes, the allowance has been mechanized and the "actual point of what is going on in the heart" is lost in meaningless literal paperwork. That is one of the common themes in my criticism.
Broad annulments on subjective grounds are the rotten "fruits" of Vatican II. The abuse of annulments after Vatican II, have nothing to do with authentic Catholic doctrine (whereas divorce in the "Orthodox" is part and parcel of their unholy doctrine.) Vatican II ushered in a counterfeit church and "annulments" became just as easy as writing a check. The proliferation of fraudulent "annulments" in the post Vatican II fake "Catholic" Church is simply their way of granting divorce and destroying the family. This is not how the true Catholic Church operates. In 1928, 20 annulments were declared, and 38 cases were dismissed...in 2006 it was 49,233. As you can see in the graph below, the numbers began to skyrocket after Vatican II.
IMG_4111.png



Watch this:
 
Broad annulments on subjective grounds are the rotten "fruits" of Vatican II. The abuse of annulments after Vatican II, have nothing to do with authentic Catholic doctrine (whereas divorce in the "Orthodox" is part and parcel of their unholy doctrine.) Vatican II ushered in a counterfeit church and "annulments" became just as easy as writing a check. The proliferation of fraudulent "annulments" in the post Vatican II fake "Catholic" Church is simply their way of granting divorce and destroying the family. This is not how the true Catholic Church operates. In 1928, 20 annulments were declared, and 38 cases were dismissed...in 2006 it was 49,233. As you can see in the graph below, the numbers began to skyrocket after Vatican II.
IMG_4111.png



Watch this:


That is very interesting. It is truly very sad to see such an incredible collapse. So, I take issue with the concept and process of annulment itself. It's mechanized. It's detached. It's institutional. Perhaps this doesn't make sense as an argument towards someone who grew up Catholic? Does a Catholic have a lawyer-like view of the world? I somehow doubt it. But do you see what I mean in that this process of annulment is detached from actually what is going on?
 
That is very interesting. It is truly very sad to see such an incredible collapse. So, I take issue with the concept and process of annulment itself. It's mechanized. It's detached. It's institutional. Perhaps this doesn't make sense as an argument towards someone who grew up Catholic? Does a Catholic have a lawyer-like view of the world? I somehow doubt it. But do you see what I mean in that this process of annulment is detached from actually what is going on?
A divorce claims to break the bonds of a valid marriage, bonds which the Catholic Church rigidly declares to be unbreakable. A decree of nullity does not break the bonds of a valid marriage at all. It declares that the marriage was never a true marriage and that there is no bond to break. It declares that the reputed marriage was null and void as a contract from the beginning. Had it been valid, the bond could not be broken save by the death of one of the parties.
 
A divorce claims to break the bonds of a valid marriage, bonds which the Catholic Church rigidly declares to be unbreakable. A decree of nullity does not break the bonds of a valid marriage at all. It declares that the marriage was never a true marriage and that there is no bond to break. It declares that the reputed marriage was null and void as a contract from the beginning. Had it been valid, the bond could not be broken save by the death of one of the parties.


I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. Viewing marriage as a contract is already a step backwards from what it is. Is Christ merely making a contract with his bride? or is there something more?
 
I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. Viewing marriage as a contract is already a step backwards from what it is. Is Christ merely making a contract with his bride? or is there something more?
Are you denying that marriage is covenantal/contractual?
 
Are you denying that marriage is covenantal/contractual?

I'm saying it's more than contractual. Covenantal would be an example of a "more than contractual". Communion is an example of a "more than contractual". I'm saying there is a point where all the legal stuff is an overlay by us, by man. It can be helpful, but it's not at the heart. Something like covenant or communion is. There is something more organic and natural about it. We won't ever quite nail it down because it is of God.

If someone who is Orthodox could clarify what I'm trying to say that would be great. I'm getting this idea from what I've gathered so far.
 
I'm saying it's more than contractual. Covenantal would be an example of a "more than contractual". Communion is an example of a "more than contractual".
Fair enough.

I'm saying there is a point where all the legal stuff is an overlay by us, by man. It can be helpful, but it's not at the heart. Something like covenant or communion is. There is something more organic and natural about it. We won't ever quite nail it down because it is of God.
If covenants are more than contracts, then they are even more binding. Hence, why covenants have sanctions. The legal overlay is not an overlay at all, it's part and parcel of what makes a covenant what it is.

That said, I agree completely that the annulment is a pharasaical workaround to justify divorce. It's a divorce without calling it a divorce. It even poses a bigger problem. The church formally recognizes the covenant union of marriage, but formally declares that no marriage ever occurred in the annulment. At which point was the church correct and at which point was it wrong?
 
It would help to see what the divorce statistics are based on various religious group.

gpEfaz1.png


Edit. Be aware that Catholic has a much larger group than Orthodox Christian groups (i.e., Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc.).

GncKY49.png

 
Here's more info on what I meant about the Orthodox view on marriage and it being more than just a contract:

"Unlike the wedding ceremonies in most non-Orthodox churches, marriage in the Orthodox Church is not a contract—a legal agreement with the exchange of vows or promises— between two people. Rather, marriage is the setting up, by two people, of a miniature church, a family church, wherein people may worship the true God and struggle to save their souls. It is also a family church that is in obedience to Christ's Church. As Saint Basil the Great says, it is natural to marry, but it must be more than natural; it must be a yoke, borne by two people under the Church."

 
It would help to see what the divorce statistics are based on various religious group.

gpEfaz1.png


Edit. Be aware that Catholic has a much larger group than Orthodox Christian groups (i.e., Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc.).

GncKY49.png

And...?
 
Fair enough.


If covenants are more than contracts, then they are even more binding. Hence, why covenants have sanctions. The legal overlay is not an overlay at all, it's part and parcel of what makes a covenant what it is.

That said, I agree completely that the annulment is a pharasaical workaround to justify divorce. It's a divorce without calling it a divorce. It even poses a bigger problem. The church formally recognizes the covenant union of marriage, but formally declares that no marriage ever occurred in the annulment. At which point was the church correct and at which point was it wrong?

IMG_4144.jpeg
IMG_4145.jpeg
IMG_4146.jpeg
IMG_4137.jpeg
IMG_4138.jpeg
IMG_4139.jpeg
IMG_4140.jpeg
IMG_4141.jpeg
IMG_4142.jpeg
IMG_4143.jpeg
 
Back
Top