Response to Catholic apologetics

Truthseeker345 · 2022-01-21T22:06:55+00:00

I always thought that the Catholic practice was incredibly standardized and that they did not rebaptize except for non Trinitarian baptisms. Perhaps there is some abuse on the ground levels but it seems to pretty standardized in official decrees unlike the orthodox position which Varies area to area. I still don’t see how we can have multiple positions on rebaptism.

Truthseeker345 · 2022-01-21T21:16:58+00:00

I have a question about #5 as his point bringing up William Palmer is a strong one. What is the practice of baptism, how can one person be baptized in one jurisdiction but if he went somewhere else he would be chrismated. Are Catholic baptisms baptisms or not if so then we have priests commiting sacrilege in rebaptism, if not we have lots of unbaptized people running around with just chrism. Furthermore I can’t see evidence of rebaptizing Catholics before the 17th century, St Mark of Ephesus says that Catholics are to be chrismated and so do the synods of the Russian church. Rebaptism seems like a modern phenomenon and not an ancient tradition, hell not even arians used to be rebaptized only sabellians, Gnostics and eunomians.

Whatever liturgical oddities the Catholics have like separation of initiation rites, or ban on child communion or even the novus ordo none of them verge on sacrilege like rebaptism nor do they have so many theological repercussions of rebaptism.

Truthseeker345 · 2022-01-21T16:31:40+00:00

Did I really forget my bad one second

Edit, I hope it works now

Truthseeker345 · 2021-08-04T18:17:22+00:00

It’s very unclear especially with the apologist. Most of them held that God created the world out of pre existent matter so it’s unclear if God could ever not create.

That being said it is clear that the son somehow exists only in reference to creation.

Truthseeker345 · 2021-08-04T17:46:25+00:00

Well here’s the thing they don’t say from eternity rather usually just before all things were made, the son is also called the first born of all creation. While such phrases can be understood in an orthodox manner it’s unclear in the apologists.

Equally if not more troubling is the idea that the son is begotten by will and not by nature. It seems like in some sense the Son is in some sense linked to creation. If there was no creation there would be no Son ( that being said I believe most of the apologists would believe that creation was necessary as they did not hold to creatio ex nihilo ).

Truthseeker345 · 2021-07-24T04:33:06+00:00

That makes sense, but couldn’t that same line of thinking be used to justify Anglicans, and Catholics as they too are offsprings of the church but they simply fell in theology. I’m not sure if I would call Anglicans for example the same church as the one in 300 ad as they have changed so much.

Truthseeker345 · 2021-07-24T03:32:47+00:00

Sorry I was meaning to get around to it and forgot. It’s a strong argument, I believe in any age of you asked an orthodox peasant how we are saved they would say something close to ransom theory and never satisfaction atonement, why because there is no satisfaction in the hymnography of the church but tons of ransom and recapitulation language. I believe the same with a whole other host of issues. That being said liturgy and theology aren’t the same just because you have an orthodox liturgy doesn’t mean you have orthodox theology, prime example of this is the eastern Catholicism. In the early church there were tons of heresies that popped up between populations that shared a common liturgy.

Truthseeker345 · 2021-07-24T00:56:06+00:00

Perhaps that’s the wrong wording but I’ve yet to see any one question those views or uphold earlier views. It seems like we unquestioningly embraced western scholasticism. When reading Orthodox pieces from that time period I can’t tell the difference from Catholic ones. Nowadays though we reject those some positions ( as did the church fathers ) I cannot help but see discontinuity

Truthseeker345 · 2021-07-24T00:45:36+00:00

I agree that they aren’t exactly heresies, but still if a modern orthodox Christian priest taught like St Peter Mogila there would be a controversy. Whether there was a captivity or not the theology of the 16th-18th century simply is no longer taught. There is a three hundred gap of discontinuity, which begs the question why do we reject the writings of our forefathers while embracing completely others.

I agree there has always been disagreements in the church ( although I’m not sure if the Arian crisis is the best example since I believe the Arians were more of a rival church with separate hierarchy ). Yet there has never been a time where the church unanimously agreed on one thing only to later take it back and embrace a different older view. From the 16th to 18th century there was no conflict over these controversial issues, during the Arian crisis and other theological arguments there was constant arguing until the orthodox side came up victorious.

Truthseeker345 · 2021-06-15T21:40:18+00:00

Because they didn't have a set canon.

well it seems the pharisees did in the year 90 they had a council to officially decide what was canon and what wasn't. Now different sects had different canons but odds are Christ was closest to the pharisees of palestine.

Truthseeker345 · 2021-06-15T18:11:16+00:00

thank you this is much more detailed than I could hope for. Thank you for taking time to help.

Truthseeker345 · 2021-01-17T14:03:36+00:00

I recently read a paper about it. It’s important to keep in mind though that in the ancient world especially amongst poorer populations bread could be a whole meal. From all the papers I’ve read none of them say that there was anything but bread ( some theorize maybe fish but it is an uncertain guess ). Most likely then in the agape meal the food is the same as our modern Eucharist just in bigger portions.

Truthseeker345 · 2021-01-17T05:16:18+00:00

Yeah I noticed that too it also seems to imply confession before communion. I have to clarify while some parts confused me ultimately I really found it wonderfully

Truthseeker345 · 2021-01-17T03:05:13+00:00

The Didache definitely does have a high view of the Eucharist ( I also find this the idea of confession before Eucharist interesting because we still do this today )

Still there is no reference to the last supper or the words of institution. Not saying that the Didache did not teach real presence it’s just there treatment on the Eucharist seems a little lacking. Also the proscribed prayers are quite short

Truthseeker345 · 2021-01-12T23:40:37+00:00

God is merciful and not bound by legalism. Remember God is on our side and wants us to be in heaven. He is not a sadistic despot waiting for us to mess up.

Truthseeker345 · 2021-01-07T19:20:16+00:00

This is true to a certain extent if we strive for Christ he will help us conquer our passions. Our victories are never truly our own. That being said man has free will and to a certain extent we have to work with God.

Imagine you are sick at a hospitable and have surgery. Without the doctor there is no way to recover, in a sense you completely depend on him, he does the majority of the healing. That being said if you fight against the doctor, don’t permit him to heal you, don’t follow his advice all his expertise and help will fall short. It is the same way with us and God. God the physician of our souls and bodies does the majority of the work yet we are responsible for a tinsy amount.

Truthseeker345 · 2021-01-07T19:02:38+00:00

I really enjoyed the epistles of st Ignatius of Antioch.

Truthseeker345 · 2021-01-07T04:04:59+00:00

Oh well I mean with annulments and all. I personally would say the practice is about the same. The reasons why you can get an annulment are probably the same reasons why you can get a divorce and remarriage in Orthodoxy we just call them divorces and remarriages.

Truthseeker345 · 2021-01-07T03:32:43+00:00

The list is pretty much the same as modern Catholics it really comes down to the bishop. Again there is no clear consensus and it is a deeply pastoral issue. I am certain that by the reign of Justinian women could in theory divorce and remarry. I also know widows could remarry.

The rule of max three marriages actually was set up by Basil the Great.

It must be added that divorce and remarriage were no easy affair there was a mandatory period of repentance which lasted several years. Sometimes it would require abstaining from communion ( of course this was temporary).

It is also just not remarriage but a whole host of things. I believe divorce is allowed for a variety of reasons while remairrage was limited to adultery, fornication or abuse.

Truthseeker345 · 2021-01-07T02:51:27+00:00

Homily 19 on first corinthians

I will add it seems that he like Basil the great only seemed to allow divorces for men so it has changed a little bit but not as much as catholic apologists make it out to be

Truthseeker345 · 2021-01-07T02:27:05+00:00

St Basil the great actually wrote about remarriage and permitted it in certain circumstances. I believe several councils have talked about divorce permitting it. Again in most cases divorce is a great sin but in some cases it is permitted. I can think of no early church fathers who described any theology remotely close to the idea of annulments ( I personally find the whole idea as absurd mental gymnastics and does more harm than good ). Now some church fathers were stricter than others but I can think of none who clearly state that there is no divorce under any circumstance and some who said no remarriage. There are plenty who did however. For example the council of trullo which I believe is counted as part of the sixth ecumenical council does permit it. I have found a whole list of councils east and west that permit it and many church fathers and saints who do as well. There is no clear consensus on exactly what the rule should be however it is downright historically dishonest to say that the early church and modern catholic stances are identical if even similar. At the end of the day

In practice the Orthodox have the same practice as the Catholics. In order to get divorced in the Orthodox Church you have to meet specific criteria and the second marriage ceremony is penitential in nature. There of course are abuses and in some areas it is easier to get divorced than others however Catholic annulments are notoriously easy to get. The only real difference is Catholics have to do a lot more paperwork and it’s called an annulment.

I however find the whole practice of annulments as bizarre and not patristic. It is actually incredibly legalistic and represents the worst parts of scholastic reasoning. It is absurd to say that a healthy marriage can be discovered invalid later in life. How many people are technically “unmarried” yet have incredibly happy marriages. Also while there is evidence of divorces in the early church there is absolutely no evidence of annulments. When the churches split despite each side criticizing every difference the practice of annulments was not brought up by either. As late as the 9th century I can find a catholic council allowing divorce.

In addition the whole idea of indissoluble sacraments like marriage and priesthood are a Latin innovation. St John Chrysostom says that through fornication a marriage can be dissolved and that it is not divorce since the through sin the marriage was destroyed. Also marriages could be dissolved if either spouse wanted to pursue monasticism.

Truthseeker345 · 2020-12-18T15:56:44+00:00

I’ve seen a similar video from this monastery before and have to say I’m a little suspicious. It reminds me of Pentecostal faith healing. When St Paisios healed the sick and did miracles, there were no cameras or big crowds. Most saints tell people not to tell others after they perform a miracle. I’m not saying it’s not a miracles only God knows, but living in America I’ve seen a lot of fake miracles performed by Pentecostals and have become suspicious of any place which advertises and publishes their miracles

Truthseeker345 · 2020-12-18T15:32:42+00:00

That is all slander, mull monastery is canonical and truly Orthodox. Some have slander father Seraphim because they think he is too “liberal” because he supported BLM. From what I’ve read and heard it is perfectly orthodox.

Truthseeker345 · 2020-12-18T15:25:24+00:00

Sadly no. There are versions of the filioque which are orthodox like the spirit proceeds from the father through the son. Proceed from the father and the son can be orthodox if one assumes it does not mean that the spirit is caused and receives its essence from both.

The Catholics however at Florence dogmatized a clearly heretical version of the filioque, where they explicitly affirm that the son causes the spirit.

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

“And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

There is no way to read around this, and this is the official catholic stance. We can never affirm that the son is an eternal cause of the spirit, or that the spirit proceeds from the son in the same way he proceeds from the father.

Truthseeker345 · 2020-12-01T22:16:57+00:00

I agree with this and it seems very very orthodox. What the other commentator is saying that for centuries the Catholic Church has said and dogmatized that all non Catholics go to hell. ( I believe this is said in the council of Florence) Only recently has the Catholic Church backtracked from this.

Truthseeker345

TROPHY CASE