• 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

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
I’m going to be real. Considered becoming Catholic or Lutheran but Lutherans don’t understand authority. Without the apostolic succession any douche canoe can inhale a bong, call themselves a pastor and WEEEEEEEEEEE, heresy 😐.

However Catholicism hits me like LDS only it’s grounded in reality. Orthodox Church never claimed the ecumenical councils were revelations. They were just DEFINING already held beliefs by a collegiate consensus of bishops. I looked into the underground Roman church and yup, stuff checks out. Now we have Rome able to create stuff like priestly celibacy (wasn’t a thing) indulgences and temporal punishment (not a thing) absolutism on divorce and any type of reproductive health (orthodox stance is abortifacients bad, rubbers ok under some circumstances) If a man beats the shit out of his wife she should be allowed to divorce and never speak to him again. Same if he cheats on her or she cucks him. There is a mosaic precedent for a disillusion.

My complaint with Catholicism is the Roman Church never got bought back to reality like the Orthodox Churches did via Islam and later the Mongols. Rome was the only game in town for the west. They knew it, ran with it, and then we get the Protestant reformation which only gets it even more wrong.

Honestly in the end, we’re all brothers, and sisters, there’s a ladies forum so had to remember them haha, of the same faith but I’m sorry, some of you are heterodox and I’m not eating your crackers. Needs muh yeast.
 
KulturedKaveman said:
Now we have Rome able to create stuff like priestly celibacy (wasn’t a thing) indulgences and temporal punishment (not a thing) absolutism on divorce and any type of reproductive health (orthodox stance is abortifacients bad, rubbers ok under some circumstances) If a man beats the shit out of his wife she should be allowed to divorce and never speak to him again. Same if he cheats on her or she cucks him. There is a mosaic precedent for a disillusion.
Click to expand...
Contraception is absolutely considered a sin in Orthodoxy, despite the fact that some liberal priests and bishops might seem to allow it. There is not a single canonized Orthodox saint that has condoned the use of contraception. That tells you all you need to know about whether it's seen as a good thing. The unanimous teaching of the saints until modern times is against using contraception--that tells you all you need to know about contraception's place within the deposit of the Apostolic faith.

Fr. Josiah Trenham gives a great commentary here:
 
Cornelius V.E. said:
Contraception is absolutely considered a sin in Orthodoxy, despite the fact that some liberal priests and bishops might seem to allow it. There is not a single canonized Orthodox saint that has condoned the use of contraception. That tells you all you need to know about whether it's seen as a good thing. The unanimous teaching of the saints until modern times is against using contraception--that tells you all you need to know about contraception's place within the deposit of the Apostolic faith.

Fr. Josiah Trenham gives a great commentary here:
Click to expand...

Birth Control and Contraception - OrthodoxWiki

orthodoxwiki.org orthodoxwiki.org
The dominant view in Eastern Orthodoxy is that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing one's spiritual father, and if it is not used to avoid having children for 'purely selfish' reasons.
IMG_4238.jpeg
 
Genealogist said:

Birth Control and Contraception - OrthodoxWiki

orthodoxwiki.org orthodoxwiki.org
The dominant view in Eastern Orthodoxy is that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing one's spiritual father, and if it is not used to avoid having children for 'purely selfish' reasons.
Click to expand...

Genealogist, I understand that what you're doing is a good-faith effort to defend Roman Catholicism's teaching on contraception, and I also know that it's very difficult for Roman Catholics (who essentially worship authority) to understand how Orthodox come to learn the truths of the faith. In Orthodoxy, there's no one authority that we point to like in Roman Catholicism. Instead of a religion based on authority, we Orthodox have a religion based on tradition and revelation. In the case of contraception, the fact that not a single canonized Orthodox saint for the past 2000 years has taught that contraception is permissible means that we Orthodox can know, without any doubt, that contraception is a sin--no matter what any priest, bishop, or website says. Most saints in our history did not teach/write about contraception, but those that did unanimously condemned it.

Roman Catholicism's teachings on contraception (which are contradicted by Pope Francis) are actually quite problematic within Christian tradition because the RCC allows/encourages Natural Family Planning (ie, avoiding pregnancy by natural methods like only having marital relations during a woman's infertile days of the month). Unfortunately for the RCC, this Natural Family Planning method is absolutely condemned by every single church father who teaches against contraception. Because of this, we can hardly say that the RCC's position is traditional--it is in fact an innovative teaching that was condemned by literally every church father who wrote on the topic. NFP is, like many things with the RCC, a legalistic attempt to keep the letter of the law while completely destroying the spirit of the law.

One reason there is so much confusion about contraception in the modern Orthodox Church, however, is that it's not a central tenet of our faith like it is in Roman Catholicism. It's also not a "mortal sin" or something we obsess about in the same way RC trads obsess about how 99% of people in the mainstream Novus Ordo RCC have come to embrace contraception. It would be weird for us Orthodox, for example, to look at our fellow Orthodox in Church and assume they're on the road to Hell because they're in a state of mortal sin due to most likely using contraception. Orthodoxy takes a far less legalistic approach to salvation than the RCC/protestants, and so our main concern is keeping the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. It would be an even bigger sin in Orthodoxy, for example, to judge and look down on others, than to use contraception (and this is quite Scriptural, as we see in many places like the Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee).
 
I was in Rome last month.

I will say there is no city that I have personally been to that feels as if it was built to the glory of God like Rome was.

Walking into some of those cathedrals takes you to another time and place, it is a transcendental experience.

By the end of the trip my girl asked me why I went into every church I possibly could, and I replied with "they make me feel smaller, yet bigger at the same time."

The cathedral in Florence is a statement on the austerity of a Christian life - as you walk through the nave it is so plain, so clean, so unassuming - then you get to the sanctuary and look up at the dome to see the depiction of the Final Judgement and you know that this building is a personified story of each and every Christian's life.

I was baptised Catholic and still have a soft spot in my heart for it, but I believe that the Catholic church as it currently is is in deep error in many aspects, and those that practice the TLM are first to point it out. It is my prayer that one day all Christians are reconcilled to the Truth and the True path.
 
Thefinalepic said:
I was in Rome last month.

I will say there is no city that I have personally been to that feels as if it was built to the glory of God like Rome was.
Click to expand...

Rome is impressive and quite pretty indeed. I'm not a huge fan of Baroque and Rococo, however, and find it a bit too flowery, feminine, and sentimental. For example, the Sistine Chapel is world-famous but not sacred considering that it features a bunch of scenes of sensualistic naked characters hanging above the sacred alter. If you focus in on some of the scenes of the Sistine Chapel you even see things like Eve putting her face right next to Adam's phallus in a suggestive way, demons sticking their fingers up people's buttholes, etc.

I've always drawn far more inspiration from the preserved churches of Constantinople, from ancient monasteries (eg, Mount Athos or St. Catherine's on Sinai), and from the many amazing churches in Moscow/Kiev/Bucharest/Georgia/Jerusalem/etc. I even prefer modern Orthodox churches like the two below:

The new St. Sava cathedral in Belgrade:


The new Cathedral of St. Alexander Nevsky in Volgograd:


Regardless, the sad reality of Rome/Florence is that all of that luxurious Baroque was mostly built by wealth acquired through dishonest means (Florence through usury, and Rome through papal indulgences). The other sad reality is if you stay for the Liturgy at these magnificent baroque churches. You'll find not just guitar Masses, but key-tar Masses. You'll find that the younger generations have completely abandoned the churches because the "Liturgies" are basically in a style popular in the 1960s and 1970s. Even at the Vatican you have ridiculous "Liturgy" like this (and even worse):
 
Garbage troll reply to serious post is unloving behavior (1-point)
Cornelius V.E. said:
Genealogist, I understand that what you're doing is a good-faith effort to defend Roman Catholicism's teaching on contraception, and I also know that it's very difficult for Roman Catholics (who essentially worship authority) to understand how Orthodox come to learn the truths of the faith. In Orthodoxy, there's no one authority that we point to like in Roman Catholicism. Instead of a religion based on authority, we Orthodox have a religion based on tradition and revelation. In the case of contraception, the fact that not a single canonized Orthodox saint for the past 2000 years has taught that contraception is permissible means that we Orthodox can know, without any doubt, that contraception is a sin--no matter what any priest, bishop, or website says. Most saints in our history did not teach/write about contraception, but those that did unanimously condemned it.

Roman Catholicism's teachings on contraception (which are contradicted by Pope Francis) are actually quite problematic within Christian tradition because the RCC allows/encourages Natural Family Planning (ie, avoiding pregnancy by natural methods like only having marital relations during a woman's infertile days of the month). Unfortunately for the RCC, this Natural Family Planning method is absolutely condemned by every single church father who teaches against contraception. Because of this, we can hardly say that the RCC's position is traditional--it is in fact an innovative teaching that was condemned by literally every church father who wrote on the topic. NFP is, like many things with the RCC, a legalistic attempt to keep the letter of the law while completely destroying the spirit of the law.

One reason there is so much confusion about contraception in the modern Orthodox Church, however, is that it's not a central tenet of our faith like it is in Roman Catholicism. It's also not a "mortal sin" or something we obsess about in the same way RC trads obsess about how 99% of people in the mainstream Novus Ordo RCC have come to embrace contraception. It would be weird for us Orthodox, for example, to look at our fellow Orthodox in Church and assume they're on the road to Hell because they're in a state of mortal sin due to most likely using contraception. Orthodoxy takes a far less legalistic approach to salvation than the RCC/protestants, and so our main concern is keeping the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. It would be an even bigger sin in Orthodoxy, for example, to judge and look down on others, than to use contraception (and this is quite Scriptural, as we see in many places like the Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee).
Click to expand...
Too long; didn't read.
 
Cornelius V.E. said:
I think you might want to go back and re-read that passage. Christ was in fact condemning those who claimed to have faith (by calling him Lord) but who did not have good works. Or, to re-iterate the Book of James in many places, "faith without works is dead faith."

We Orthodox do not at all trust in our works. I would highly recommend that you read a spiritual book by any of our saints (eg, St. Paisios the Athonite's Spiritual Counsels) and you will see this completely clearly. Even better, feel free to pick up an Orthodox prayer book like this one: https://stmpress.com/products/orthodox-christian-prayers

We can agree to at least one of Protestantism's 3 sola's. Sola Gratia. Sola Scriptura. Sola Fide. The first one we agree with--we can only achieve reconciliation through God's grace. This grace, however, must be accepted and acted on by us. For example, Christ teaches that if you do not forgive, neither will you be forgiven. Forgiving someone is an action. Sola Scriptura is both self-defeating and ahistorical. And Sola Fide we could perhaps agree to, but not in the way that protestants have come to understand on a practical day to day level the word "faith". It's too narrow to encompass the full Orthodox understanding.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating orthodox believes in this. Orthodox believes in that. But I don´t know what orthodox christianity is. After how many pages. It seems it´s like protestantism. In a way each one makes their own set of rules. You have orthodoxes baptising gays. Just google.

When you talk about authority. It exists everywhere. Any company or valid organization. A simple building people will organize themselves for a common body of governance. A common set or rules everybody follow. Wherever a group of people organize themselves there is a body of governance. Unless some hippy colony. Hippies all failed. Imagine a building where the first floor paints white. Second floor orange. Etc, etc. There´s common rules. And this is the Catholic church. Sometimes you have a good ruler. Like John Paul (Opus Dei). Sometimes you have a lesser ruler Francis (jesuit). But Francis. He is trying to bring the churches together. The problem is protestants are too far gone.

Catholics:

Pro:

1. No divorce.
2. No whoring of woman.
3. People should have many kids.

This is what I gathered from all my years studying in catholic schools.


Bad:

Hypocrite. Catholics live in a bubble. Rich people. Guy will know bible verses. Same night goes to a brothel.

Very strict, serious and heavy. You feel like there´s no fun. No magic. It´s boring and dull as hell. When you are having lunch next to a nun. The conversations are not brillant.

Things are as they are and nothing you do can change them. My college was really organized. Made good friends. But we had to go to leftwing beer college parties to have fun. In my college people would just put on a mask. No relaxation. Everyone is virtuous. Your shit smells good and is pure and transparent. This is simply not true. We all have our vices and sins. As much as you want to disguise them.


Christianity is something we should aim for. But we are all imperfect mortals.

The church should have absolutism in divorce. Because this view will be diluted. As for woman being beaten. You are taking an exception. If a man beats a woman. He goes to jail. Yes in theory maybe you should allow a divorce in this cases. But the exception. Is a crack the enemies of christ explore endlessly. That is pounded and pounded. Until what was an exception becomes the rule. And the rule the exception.

Because divorces not marriages seems to be the rule in protestant countries. People divorce for small details. Is totally madness. Specially with children. It´s an insecurity for man and woman. Specially woman with children. It’s madness. Protestants are lunatics.

In the end if you look at protestant countries. They are mostly f . They are not a model. US socially at this moment is not a model. The relationship between man and woman. Is terrible. I despise the way Anglo counties treat woman like if they were man. Which in the end is unfair for woman. Woman should be positively discriminated. Specially mothers. Society should withstand the burden of giving much more rights and exceptions to mothers.

Economy is good. Set of liberties etc. But US have gone too far. I was walking in Paris during Roland Garros week last year. And the american embassy had a gay flag. Your gone. No amount of money luxury or anything else can compensate the parading a gay flag in your embassy. It´s an humilliation for any man. You need to go conservative. Hardcore conservative even if it costs freedoms or economy.

Protestantism due to its capacity to free the energy of societies and therefore creating immense wealth. Will end up influencing other Christians. But Protestantism will turn into communism. Its a matter of time.
 
Last edited:
magoo said:
You keep repeating orthodox believes in this. Orthodox believes in that. But I don´t know what orthodox christianity is. After how many pages. It seems it´s like protestantism. In a way each one makes their own set of rules. You have orthodoxes baptising gays. Just google.
Click to expand...

It’s a terrible shame there are literally zero books written about the Orthodox Faith that a genuinely curious person could read. 🙄

You keep making these ridiculous statements about orthodoxy while admitting that you don’t know what it is

And yes, there are scandalous bishops in the Church currently, however our faith doesn’t hinge upon any one Bishop
 
Rodion said:
It’s a terrible shame there are literally zero books written about the Orthodox Faith that a genuinely curious person could read. 🙄

You keep making these ridiculous statements about orthodoxy while admitting that you don’t know what it is

And yes, there are scandalous bishops in the Church currently, however our faith doesn’t hinge upon any one Bishop
Click to expand...
There’s not one book. Each church as their own book. How many churches are there? I hear a lot about Mount Athos. How many doctrines about the same thing exist? This doesn’t exist anywhere. Its the Antioch the Greek the Serb the Russian. It’s a weak way of not assuming responsibility for all your flock. This is my church and f others?

Sure. You get to cherry pick what you want and what you don’t want. Like a bufet right?

And the denomination which you don’t like. What are they? Not orthodoxes? So your orthodox and they are what? And this lie which is quite comfortable ends when?

Hell of a thing you got going on there. It’s quite practical actually. It didn’t work well with communism (Jews) did it?

Christ was the leader. You understand that. I think it should be made on its image. Now your going to text some book from the 1st century. But there weren’t 12 christs. There was one. The leader.

Come to think of it the real reason why orthodoxes and Protestants have to defend divorce it’s because they were the first ones to divorce from the Catholic Church. First orthos after prots. It would be a contradiction to defend otherwise. This is the original vice. And from there came this shitstorm the west is facing today. A dying population.

Divide and conquer (christians). Jews had to have some finger in this. Jews are Ok as an influence to spice things up. But it stops there. Never no harm should be made to jews. Just understand their group entropy paranoid destructive nature. And take the best of them and repress the worse.

Divide and CONQUER christianity. We are being conquered. Everyday.

Even today Catholic Church still sets the pace. But Protestantism(jew) filth (conservative Protestants are Roman Catholics with a different name) will engulf everything. Orthos don’t stand a chance.

I might be wrong. But when the Catholic Church falls. And it will. You don’t want to be around. Because the other forces will destroy all beauty. It will not be paganism.
 
Last edited:
The distinction between legalism, trying to earn salvation, and between an overly judicious view of salvation, where Theosis is absent, is an important one. I'm glad this thread had touched upon it.

If you read Paul's letter to the Galatians the question he asks is: how did the Christians at Galatia receive the spirit? Not through works of the law but through the faith of Christ. In Romans 8 Paul says those led by the spirit are the sons of God and if you put to death the flesh through the spirit you will live. There's no salvation without looking to Christ and his righteousness, and there's no salvation without the spirit in us, changing us to reflect God.
 
The first year of law in a catholic college. You will be taught antigona from Sófocles. It´s about the burial of a brother. If I recall correctly. Basically Antigona argues divine law is above state law. And her brother deserves a proper burial.

(You also learn about Gilgamesh and pope Encyclices. We were made out of clay, etc. But it´s not important here.)

Secondly you read ethics of Nichomean from Artistotles. You learn equity is above human law. There were some architects who had a rule which bended to the shape of the rock. And you are taught to desobey a law. Which goes against natural law. Equity has many functions one of them is to correct a human law.

If you receive an order to bomb a territory but your troops already won this territory should you desobey the order? If a nurse is told to give a sleeping injections. But the patient is already sleeping should she carry the order.

You learn to heavily criticize nazism. Because their laws. Forgot human dignity. Even jews. Have human dignity. And therefore cannot be harmed. It was Kelsen who tried to detach laws from human dignity. And the way he did it. And I read some of it´s toilet paper. Until I gave up. Was he argued everybody had a different idea of natural law. For vegetarians it would be one thing. For others another. But he was wrong. This detachment of humanity lead to the horrors of Nazism and war. (Holocaust didn´t had the number jews claim. But jews were stupidly persecuted. And one death would have been enough to condemn it).
Same goes for commies.

The comparison with nazism laws were similar to book worms. Laws which are not rooted in human dignity are eaten by bookworms. They change everyday and are gone because they are not stable/rooted in natural law.

The natural law is written in the bible. Human law must adhere to it.

Caths Orthos and original Prots all believed in the same basic principles of natural law. The fundamentals. Even though with time. The divorce/separation has been proven disastrous.

Catholics are not legalists.

Catholics are taught from day one that natural law is above man law. That Pope is a mortal man. He is not Christ. You do expect him to be guided by God in his role. You can disagree unless it´s in fundamental teachings. Which Francis didn´t touch. Because he can´t. He is testing the waters it seems.

Come to think of it what we are witnessing is really the influence of german positivism. And not catholic natural law stance. With Corona it was clear people followed human law more than human dignity. It was drones repeating the bullshit tv vomited without any critical thinking. Experimental injections violated human dignity. Only nazis did the same shit.

Catholics believe in natural law (which is a set of principles stated in the bible). And this law is above any other human law.

As for rituals etc. It´s what makes us a group a bond. In mass in the end you shake or give kisses to the person next to you. Even if it´s a stranger.
This is good. You might not like one or other thing. But fundamentally Catholic Church is still on the right path. Even though it´s really really boring.

What some ortho church did to Roosh refusing entry is totally unnaceptable. NEVER EVER Christ would have agreed to something like this. It´s actually the opposite which should have been done. And even Roosh said catholics were the people he enjoyed being with. He had never met a catholic he disliked. The problem is we are seen like Ned Flanders. Not cool. People forget about Templars. Ortho feels more like an underground movement like game was. Fight Club vibes. But it´s at least for now totally inconsequential in western countries.
 
Last edited:
Samseau said:
That said, contraceptives depend on several factors within a marriage but are heavily discouraged.
Click to expand...

From Outlines of Moral Theology, by Rev. Francis J. Connell, Imprimatur 1953, p.172:
Onanism or contraception is the sin of a married couple who take positive means of avoiding conception, while participating in marital relations. It is a very grave violation of the married state...The main argument of the Church against this vice, so common today, is that it is a frustration of the principal end of marriage, as intended by the Creator. No reason ever justifies a couple in the commission of this sin...
Click to expand...
IMG_4267.jpeg


ibid., p. 231:
Contraception is a very grave sin, which no situation can justify...The basic reason for the sinfulness of contraception is that it is a frustration of the primary purpose of the married state by the unnatural use of the generative faculty.
Click to expand...
IMG_4269.jpeg

The primary end of marriage is procreation, i.e. the generation and upbringing of children. There are also other purposes of marriage, such as mutual aid and the morally-regulated satisfaction of the sexual instinct, but these are secondary ends that are subordinate to the primary purpose.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top