How would you respond to this EO claim about Catholicism as “post-truth”?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1inICXC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1

1inICXC

Guest

In essence, the priest claims that ROMAN Catholicism gave rise to more division, not unity by changing the faith, adding and subtracting from the original faith of the first 1000years.

He claims the Roman Catholicism caused the Reformation and the 10s of thousands of Christian denominations while in the East, the peace and unity has been preserved.

I would appreciate answers from Catholics and Orthodox alike
 
It is the satan who causes division

Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places

John 10:10 The thief (satan)comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.

Acts 13:10 and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?

1 Peter 5:8 Discipline yourselves, keep alert.[d] Like a roaring lion your adversary the devil prowls around, looking for someone to devour. 9 Resist him, steadfast in your faith, for you know that your brothers and sisters in all the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering.

Jude 1:19 It is these worldly people, devoid of the Spirit, who are causing divisions.

Titus 3:9 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10 After a first and second admonition, have nothing more to do with anyone who causes divisions, 11 since you know that such a person is perverted and sinful, being self-condemned.

1 John 2:22-23 They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us.

1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.

Don’t waste your time in finding out who’s at fault,we have better things to do,don’t we ?
 
Last edited:
I think this reinforces their belief that the RCC is the church of Satan 🙂
 
@1inICXC

May i ask are you a Roman Catholic or a Eastern Orthodox ,and what is your intention of your post
 
Last edited:
Lillypilly said:
I gave it away when this Fr Novak indicated he did not accept Vatican II.
Click to expand...
I cant get the article to load but i assume from the origional post that Fr. Novak is Orthodox, why would he accept Vatican II? It would be suprising if he did accept it.
 
First, I believe that working towards EO and Catholic reunification is crucially important. Second, when I was leaving Evangelicalism behind in the early 2000’s I flirted a little with EO. The EO propaganda literature I saw back then gave a veritable pollyanna view of the first millennium of Christianity, as if it were just all easy harmony. Then came the Schism, then came the Reformation, EO is the true church and everything else is schismatic, if not heretical, etc.

Back then I did not yet know what a struggle unity was in the first millennium of the Church, but I do know a little about that now. I also didn’t know how difficult is has been for the Orthodox to be of one mind in councils since the schism. For example, recently the Orthodox conducted a “Holy and Great Council” (2016) which for them is a rarity. And it is not rare because there has been nothing to discuss since the seventh ecumenical council. Rather, it’s just hard to get all the various Orthodox Sees and patriarchs to agree enough to conduct a council! Even the 2016 council had several important delegations missing due to various disputes (Antiochian, Russian, et al). So, this ongoing motif of “unity” within the Orthodox can often be overstated.

Now, I’m the last person who would disparage the Orthodox. The EO has valid priesthood and therefore valid sacraments and is a true church of God (Vatican II). But, at the same time, it takes a lot of self-control for me to not engage in excessive eye-rolling when I read propaganda that suggests that EO is the the true and only church, while Catholicism is so off-the-rails that it leads to awful things like the Reformation.

Besides which, there is a much better explanation for the Reformation which seats it in a peculiar time in Western history (which the East did not simultaneously experience). The 16th and 17th centuries were rife with revolution. It was occurring everywhere you looked, from the sciences to government and civil societies to philosophy to religion. Revolution was in the air in Europe during this entire time-period, culminating in the Enlightenment. If Copernicus can give us a new way of viewing the solar system, why couldn’t John Calvin give us a new approach to Christianity? I think there is good reason for believing that the Reformation was a product of this peculiar question-everything time period in Western history.

Also, and this is maybe a minor point, if Catholicism so easily and readily leads to denominationalism, why did it take it 500 years to do so? With Protestantism, denominationalism occurred practically overnight. Whence the 500 years of unity for the church in the West between the Schism and the Reformation?
 
Last edited:
1inICXC said:
He claims the Roman Catholicism caused the Reformation and the 10s of thousands of Christian denominations while in the East, the peace and unity has been preserved.
Click to expand...
This is dumb. If this is true, then from his perspective Eastern Orthodoxy caused the evil of Roman Catholicism. The true Church also gave rise to every heresy ever. I don’t think one can blame a heresy on the entity that condemns it.

Also, peace and unity is not preserved among the Eastern Orthodox Churches themselves–they are not one as the Creed requires.

They constantly get into situations where EO particular church A is in communion with B, B is in communion with C, but A and C are not in communion with each other (A=B=C≠A) (e.g. ROCOR currently; the Moscow Patriarchate breaking communion with Constantinople over who had jurisdiction over Estonia in 1996 while other Churches remained in communion with both; the Bulgarian schism of the 19th century when most patriarchates, but not Moscow, broke communion with the Bulgarian Churches; etc., etc.). How can one church simultaneously have some parts in communion with other parts, while other parts are separated from each other? That’s not unity. This can only make sense if there is a plurality of Churches–the “one” of the Creed is lacking–and without this oneness, the concept of a universal Church becomes untenable.

This was illustrated perfectly by the recent pan-Orthodox Synod (or whatever it ultimately was classified as). It barely even got off the ground because Churches were threatening to boycott (and many did) because they were fighting with other Churches over who had jurisdiction over what. Despite the EO polemics about all bishops being equal, if you look at how that synod was explicitly organized and carried out, the bishops who participated in that synod did not do so as equal bishops of one Church, but as representatives of multiple national Churches and patriarchates. What was sought was not a consensus of the bishops of one Church (or even a consensus of particular Churches), but rather a consensus of independent national Churches–which didn’t happen anyway.
 
Last edited:
I am R.C but spent a period of my life in the EO Church so I am very close to it.

My goal was to find some good and clear defenses against these claims, which are pretty widespread am EO Christians
 
1inICXC said:
In essence, the priest claims
Click to expand...
This article is appallingly weak. The author’s repeated claim of an undivided church in the first millennium shows an astounding ignorance of the Church History. His idea that the key issue in the Great Schism was the filioque, along with his remarks in Catholic dogma are equally uniformed. He has rounded up a number of post-truth polemics of intransigent EO’s, but contributes nothing on the subject of church history or EO-Catholic relations.
 
This has been a very helpful reply! I would have loved to read more 🙂

Indeed, the “unity of the faith” that they profess is not so much a reality.
 
Genesis315 said:
This was illustrated perfectly by the recent pan-Orthodox Synod (or whatever it ultimately was classified as). It barely even got off the ground because Churches were threatening to boycott (and many did) because they were fighting with other Churches over who had jurisdiction over what. Despite the EO polemics about all bishops being equal, if you look at how that synod was explicitly organized and carried out, the bishops who participated in that synod did not do so as equal bishops of one Church, but as representatives of multiple national Churches and patriarchates. What was sought was not a consensus of the bishops of one Church (or even a consensus of particular Churches), but rather a consensus of independent national Churches–which didn’t happen anyway.
Click to expand...
Uh…How is this different from Protestant sects…? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top