“I’m a faithful student of the Tradition, not an inventor” Amen!!

I can definitely understand reading Church history and becoming Orthodox, though I personally was convinced by the Catholic claims. But I just can't imagine reading the Fathers and not becoming a part of apostolic Christianity. I was having a hard enough time as a Baptist/Non-Denom Christian reading more of Scripture for myself and holding to Sola Fide.

@StoaoftheSouth

24 күн бұрын

I think that most people who encounter these things in the Fathers will retreat into a very Evangelical understanding of sola scriptura. If they encounter a doctrine in Patristics which contradicts their exegesis, they will just leave the Fathers behind.

@cw-on-yt

21 күн бұрын

@@StoaoftheSouth: I agree with that analysis. This is why, in my view, it's a bit of a dodge -- or, since I don't think it's actually _dishonest,_ perhaps I should say it's rather _naïve,_ it's Pollyanna-ish -- when some Protestants distinguish themselves by saying, "We believe in the REAL version of Sola Scriptura, which _acknowledges_ the Fathers as authorities, but merely regards the Scriptures as the supreme authority. This means we are immune to the criticisms levied at the Just-My-Bible-And-Me crowd, who aren't _really_ doing Sola Scriptura the way the Magisterial Reformers did. What _they're_ doing is more like _Nuda_ Scriptura, or Solo Scriptura as a _Solo_ Act! But our version of Sola Scriptura is scholarly and principled and the only legitimate way to be a Protestant..." etc., etc. I believe they really believe what they're saying, when they say that. But I think it's wrong. I think that, sooner or later, ALL attempts to practice Sola Scriptura, instead of relying on the judgments of some kind of ecclesial magisterium, will _inevitably_ reduce to a practice of "Solo Scriptura." It cannot be avoided, not even in principle, for the moment one starts to honestly confront the Fathers, one will find that they sometimes hold views that lie well outside the _tradition_ (yep, I said the "T" word) of interpretation that defines one's denominational allegiances. And, _when_ this happens, one faces a choice: 1. Accept the view of the Fathers is correct, even though it doesn't match what _you_ think the Scriptures mean; or, 2. Retain your own view, and claim, "Oh, well, that's one of the things the Fathers got wrong; after all, they're not infallible." But, once one does Item #1, one has left one's existing denominational tradition. This means you're either going to launch your own unique house-church -- and if you're the kind of person searching for Patristic evidence of your own error, you're already intellectually humble enough that you're NOT going to do that! -- OR, you're going to leave your denomination and probably become Orthodox or Catholic.* So that means anyone who does #1 doesn't stay Protestant. Ergo, anyone who remains Protestant is consistently in the habit of choosing Option #2. But in that case, he really isn't deferring to the Fathers at all. He's quote-mining them for occasions where they happen to agree with his preexisting opinions about Scripture, but that's just a fig leaf to allow him to argue that _his_ version of Sola Scriptura is superior to the other kind. Again, I'm not saying he's being consciously deceptive. But it plays out that way _so_ consistently that, in the end, I think it has an evolutionary effect on the organization: All the members of Denomination X who _really do_ defer to the Fathers wind up leaving the organization. Thus, the remaining organization is self-selected to be a concentrated group of persons evolving social dynamics and traditions which inevitably reinforce a "Solo Scriptura" approach. There is thus no _principled_ difference, over time, between "Sola Scriptura, practiced the way the Magisterial Reformers Did It," and the "Jus'-Me-An'-My-Bible" crowd. * = I admit, there _is_ a third option: One can stay in one's own denomination and try to launch an insider campaign for that denomination to _change its tradition_ to become more in-accord with the Patristic view. This happens _so rarely_ that it's barely worth mentioning. The last bunch of folks to _really_ try to do it was the Oxford or "Tractarian" movement in the Anglican Church. Many folk may recall that their leading intellectual champion, John Henry Newman, attempted in his famous Tract 90 to interpret the Anglican Church's "39 Articles of Religion" in a way that their original authors clearly hadn't intended; namely, in a way which would allow them to agree with the Catholicism! But in the end, this was roundly rejected, and the outcome wasn't much of a surprise, inasmuch as the Articles were clearly written to _foreclose_ such an agreement, on several points. In the end, Newman was forced to view the Anglican tradition as the illegitimate theological development, the unauthorized innovator. He became Catholic, and that basically killed the Tractarian effort in an instant. I don't think anything of similar magnitude has happened in all the years since then.

@XiHamORTHOCN

19 күн бұрын

What reading did you do? There are no Catholic answers to the modern scholarship in most theological areas, and there are plainly unexamined issues from the Vatican such as the Alexandria document, Lumen Gentium, the acceptance of Cappadocian triadology at the 2nd ec, the suspension in the west of the 7th ec, etc. I was Roman Catholic until I started actually studying the history of the church, and realized Orthodoxy is radically different in every possible lens; it's grace-filled. Experientially, I was transformed, just as I was rationally transformed by studying these things. I have never met a Roman Catholic who has actually done the reading to a similar degree; strangely enough, I have met Protestants who have.

@bradyhayes7911

19 күн бұрын

@@XiHamORTHOCN Mostly just the Bible. I've read some Patristics but probably not nearly as much as you. The papacy made more sense Biblically than any theories opposing it. And the notion that the Papacy would naturally grow in scope and power over time made more sense to me than the idea that the True Church's 'First Among Equals' has been excommunicated for 1000 years. Also, the fact that the Orthodox had no universally recognized catechism, no authoritative ecumenical councils since the schism, no clearly defined answers to birth control and other current issues (and the answers are always different depending on who I'd ask), and the tendency to continually schism over political conflicts as we saw recently with the Moscow-Constantinople split. If the Papacy is true, Catholicism is true. Likewise, if the Orthodox are the ones in schism, Catholicism is true between the two. But my conversion was primarily spiritual - my encounter with the Eucharist at the Latin Mass was life changing.

@cw-on-yt

19 күн бұрын

@@XiHamORTHOCN: Welp, I _have_ met Catholics who've done the reading. The Cappadocians seem to me to fall on the Latin side of certain matters, notably the _filioque._ Most notably, the Petrine-Successor supremacy seems to be an on-again, off-again practice in the East, but among those who supported it rank several Orthodox saints who are remembered at the altar _to this day._ So many Orthodox say that to be in communion with a heretic is to _become_ a heretic and separate oneself from the Church. How, then, do they continue to commemorate Leo the Great, and Agatho, and Hormisdas, and John of Damascus? And even Photius at some points (but obviously not at others)? Crucially, I don't see that any of the various Orthodox Churches have a functioning ecclesiology. They have three or four proposals for how to distinguish a valid Ecumenical Council from a "robber council," but none of those proposals have majority-support, and none claim continuity back to the apostolic age; and thus none of them can claim to be divinely-instituted, not even in principle. I was open to thinking differently, but the failure of the most recent Pan-Orthodox attempt to call a Great and Holy Council, combined with the ongoing schism between Constantinople and Moscow, only served to emphasize this ecclesiological lacuna. How can anyone rely upon an ecclesiology unable to resolve disputes within one's own walls, because all the players _within_ one's walls refuse to abide, and can leave with impunity knowing that no outside observer has any principled way of distinguishing _who left whom,_ and _which side remains the Church,_ and which side is the _new spinoff?_ Finally, in evaluating Orthodoxy, I became enamored of the spirituality of the East -- I agree, there is grace on-offer there -- but I don't subjectively detect more or less of it than in the best practices of the West. Even if there were, the Eastern Catholics represent a near-identical expression of it, but without the ecclesiological problems. In the meantime, I detected something else among the Orthodox: An inclination that any stick is good enough to whack Rome with it, no matter how much of a straw-man it was when compared against what the Catholics actually believed or did. It was the same uncharitable Two Minutes Hate that I recalled from some Baptists (in my earliest years) and some Presbyterians (later on) when Catholicism came up. It is that _visceral reaction_ which seems most consistent across both Protestant and Orthodox polemics. In that sense, truly the Bishop of Rome seems to unite Christians of all stripes. With respectful disagreement, CW

How anyone could read Church history and not come away with the necessity of the Eucharist, Bishops/Deacons/etc., Apostolic Succession, Liturgical worship, Sacraments, and so on without leading to cognitive dissonance is beyond me.

@jasoncunninghammovies

24 күн бұрын

So you're Orthodox? Or Anglican? Lutheran? Catholic? Because all of these traditions believe in those things but are not each other. Private judgement is still needed if authority comes from ecclesiology.

@kazager11

24 күн бұрын

The real question is whether the magesterium should exist and if leaving the true gospel would forfeit that authority (if it was legitimate). What the magesterium has done through history is focus on the retention of power rather than hold on to the apostolic deposit as it was first delivered. The Eucharist for example started as a meal, not a single crumb & taste. The magesterium got to the point of killing people for giving the Eucharist in both kinds.

@StoaoftheSouth

24 күн бұрын

​@jasoncunninghammovies I think this is something St. John Newman even acknowledged about the Catholic Church. There needs to be a judgment of the claims of the tradition by the individual. But once submitted to there isn't room to pick and choose about the Church's teachings. They have to be submitted to if taught authoritatively.

@StoaoftheSouth

24 күн бұрын

​@@kazager11 Implicit in your comment is the assumption of what constitutes "the Gospel," which, if you are Protestant, is actually something that might be up for debate. Also implicit is the idea that doctrines and practices cannot develop, which any Christian is going to quibble with.

@StoaoftheSouth

24 күн бұрын

I think that your comment is right when it comes to most forms of Evangelical Christianity, especially American and very low church types. But it still wouldn't make a big impression dent in forms of Christianity which do have those.

My hurdle with the Catholic notion of authority is that the history is quite muddled. As far as my studying has taken me, it appears that the centrality and authority of the papacy developed throughout late antiquity, and was certainly not present in its medieval form during the early patristic era. The question of "how do Protestants (or any of the non-Catholic, apostolic, historical churches) determine which doctrine is true?" is answered the exact same way as before Rome enforced claims of supremacy... by going back to Scripture and the tradition handed down by the Fathers. Yes, it is true that this doesn't answer all the questions and there are still divisions. There were divisions before the Roman magisterium developed, and there have been divisions after. What we cannot do is take a development from late antiquity and early medieval era such as an infallible and universally supreme magisterial institution and make that the center piece of the faith, the gravity which holds all teaching together. So while I sympathize with the search for a stable, consistent, and infallible teaching office, the fact that a time existed when the church didn't have this means that I remain skeptical that one exists now.

@barnabasaspray9417

23 күн бұрын

Thanks for this perspective. Do you consider the first few Ecumenical Councils to be authoritative?

@Cteabis

22 күн бұрын

This is why so many people lean to Orthodoxy. Because the conciliar model more readily aligns with the pre-Great Schism Church

@Jeremy.Mathetes

22 күн бұрын

@@barnabasaspray9417 thanks for the reply! I would certainly affirm the authority of the first several councils; I would also point to the “three legged stool” of tradition, scripture, and teaching office of the Church to keep doctrine in check, I just don’t see infallibility as a necessary trait of the one true Church-and such a claim seems tenuous when searching both Sacred Scripture and events throughout history. I appreciate and see the need for the epistemological benefits of papal infallibility, but I can’t bring myself to accept the implications in good conscience. While such a doctrine seems sensible today, studying the medieval church and reformation, my confidence wavers. After thinking it through over the last couple years, I’m more or less convinced that accepting the Catholic definition of authority boils down to arriving at the philosophical conviction that infallibility is, and has always been, entirely epistemologically necessary-a place I haven’t yet arrived. I hope that makes sense!

@theosophicalwanderings7696

22 күн бұрын

@@Jeremy.Mathetes good points. As for most things, we simply dont need infallibility to be reliably certain. You also see this when it comes to people who convert to Roman Catholicism. They undertake having to interpret (fallibly, for themselves) scripture, tradition, history, etc in order to determine whether the claims of Rome are true. And it seems to me that if they can reliably interpret an essential belief of which is the true church, then it seems like special pleading to say you cant do this with anything else.

@barnabasaspray9417

22 күн бұрын

Great answer, and I agree! But whenever someone says "necessary" we must ask "necessary for what?" In this case, I would say "necessary for unity on the essentials of Christian doctrine." I will assume that you agree that unity really matters (John 17:21; 1 Corinthians 1, etc. etc.). But the key question is: what do you think it takes to be united, not on ALL doctrine, but on a common understanding of which doctrines are essential for Christian identity? Let's swap out the word "infallibility" for the word "authority." and pursue these two lines of thinking: (1) Does the history of Protestantism show that 'sola scriptura' leads to unity on the essentials? (2) Can we hope for unity without a recognized living authority to arbitrate and resolve disagreements when they arise?

I personally think that God knows that like 98 percent of Christians arent intellectuals or theologians regardless of what tradition we come from. I think he will be fairly understanding if we do have some errors in our short lives. I dont have any scripture to back this up but in my mind from Gods perspective as an infinite being looking at our lives it must be like us looking at an infant.

😇Austin, your videos have been amazingly inspiring. As a Catholic I have been curious about many Christian churches. My curiosity was not looking at the depth of each church as you have. Mostly I was interested in what other friends practiced. Also i found myself defending comments that ' Catholics are not REAL. Christians'. Then someone gave me sage advice. Take away the politics, the social network, the historical study, the building structure etc and ask God to lead you where he wants you to be. Go where you 'feel the presence of the Lord Jesus '. Every church I have visited , Baptist, Episcopal, Mega Church, small shopping center churches etc have all had the ' Love of Jesus' being celebrated. I celebrated with each group. However, for me I felt the 'SPIRIT / PRESENCE OF JESUS 'in the Catholic Church. I did not need to intellectualize where to practice my love of The Lord. His love surrounded me in the Catholic Church. I still visit Mega churches where others profess their love of the Lord. I am so happy others found a place of worship . I have truly enjoyed your videos. I hope your ministry will continue to bring us together as Christians. So many seek to divide and make others wrong. Just let the Lord lead you and you will find where your heart and spirit are happy. God Bless You 😇😇❤❤

@everrettbreezewood3665

24 күн бұрын

By that logic I should switch to being a Conservative Mennonite. I have always had a deep respect for them, and when I visited one of their churches, I was awed by their love and devotion to God and one another. I really believe they have one of the best expressions and spirits among the Christian traditions. But I disagree with some of their core doctrines: Symbolic communion, baptism, and others (reasons I stopped being a Baptist). Instead I am attending a Methodist Church now, even though they are lacking compared with the Mennonites, they still have true belief in Christ (and have such broad theological views that they accept me by default).

@IAMFISH92

24 күн бұрын

@@everrettbreezewood3665I’m going back and forth between Methodist and Brethren in Christ right now for these same reasons.

@joekey8464

24 күн бұрын

The world is a jungle out there. We need all the sacraments to endure until the end.. “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

7:36 WOW! Mic drop!

@theosophicalwanderings7696

23 күн бұрын

I honestly think everyone is pretty much doing this. Its not like each Protestant "invents" the tradition all over again for themselves. No, they join an already existent tradition, the one they find most plausible, and the one God has called them to. The question though, is which tradition is most plausible. It seems this gentleman was looking for institutional authority that can enforce unity. This is what his soul needed. So thats what he found. You find what you are looking for. Me, on the other hand, I am looking for what's true more than I am looking for an institution. I am looking for the fountain itself and what Christ and the apostles actually taught. Thats what is true. And I cannot forfeit truth for institutional authority.

As an old fart catholic my individual identity and issues were overwhelmed by my attempts at deep prayer. When the love of Christ on the cross becomes more apparent to me and the lives of these human creatures by the millions become paramount my individual stuff stinks to nothing. The love Christ has is too overwhelming in its dimensions. My petty shelf is so feeble it’s embarrassing. I have a small devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. If I add. For me the Holy Eucharist is very real and alive.

7:36 I honestly think everyone is pretty much doing this. Its not like each Protestant "invents" the tradition all over again for themselves. No, they join an already existent tradition, the one they find most plausible, and the one God has called them to. The question then is which tradition is most plausible. It seems this gentleman was looking for institutional authority that can enforce unity. This is what his soul needed. So thats what he found. You find what you are looking for. Me, on the other hand, I am looking for what's true more than I am looking for an institution. I am looking for the fountain itself and what Christ and the apostles actually taught. Thats the truth right there. And if an institution adds things to what Christ and the apostles taught, then I cannot forfeit truth for institutional authority.

@jmferris542

23 күн бұрын

That's a very good summary of our priorities and concerns

@barnabasaspray9417

23 күн бұрын

Bless you for prioritizing truth over all other concerns! That is what all of us should do. For me, the search for truth and the search for unity were not separate concerns, but the same. Consider that we treat a scientific theory as 'true' when it has a consensus within the scientific community, i.e. unity. The same for history and the community of historians. It's a fascinating question whether the Catholic Church has added to what Christ and the apostles taught. You may see above there is a lively discussion about the role of doctrinal development in theology. Do you think all development of doctrine is illegitimate 'adding' to the tradition? Or do you see some role for doctrines like the Trinity, even though it was not taught by the Apostles the way it was later formulated by the Athanasian Creed?

If people only ever passed on what was given to them, no doctrinal development would have ever occurred. We would not have a developed doctrine of the Trinity or the hypostatic union. We would not have anything at all except for verbatim parroting of the apostles words.

@barnabasaspray9417

23 күн бұрын

Thanks for making this point - a really good one! (I tried to reply earlier but it doesn't seem to like me including a link). The question is far more complicated than can be encapsulated in a single insight. The theology of doctrinal development was really important in my conversion as well. If you search for "barnabas aspray doctrinal development" you'll see the article I wrote about it and how it progresses from a Protestant to a Catholic conception. It was, in fact, the last thing I published before becoming Catholic.

@taylorbarrett384

23 күн бұрын

@@barnabasaspray9417 The epistemology that undergirds your positive assessment of theological innovation/development within a tradition cuts against the sentiment you embraced in your turning point, that you didn't want to figure things out, but simply "pass on what youve been given."

@barnabasaspray9417

23 күн бұрын

@@taylorbarrett384 Yes that's right. Do you think there's a logical contradiction there, or simply a healthy yet resolvable tension?

@taylorbarrett384

23 күн бұрын

@@barnabasaspray9417 First I want to thank you for your humility in these replies. As to your question, I do not think there is a contradiction between Catholicism and development, as I am a Catholic in favor of development, but I do think some of the epistemic assumptions you seem to have embraced, which at other times you seem to realize are erroneous, do contradict this other sentiment about the positive nature of development. For starters, teaching Catholicism is still teaching what you, in your own head, have reasoned to be true (which you seem to admit). But teaching Catholicism, if it is only parroting what other Catholics have said, results in the problem of "repeating orthodoxy so many times it becomes heresy." I think about Catholics in the early 1900's who were hamstrung by an ecclessial epistemology and who could not articulate an ecumenical theology until Vatican 2 spelled it out for them, despite it being painfully obvious in scripture, in common sense, and in Christian experience. I am probably going off into tangents now, but perhaps this has been the start of a fruitful conversation.

@barnabasaspray9417

23 күн бұрын

@@taylorbarrett384 Yes indeed. You say "teaching Catholicism is still teaching what you, in your own head, have reasoned to be true." My best friend challenged me on precisely this point. He said that being Catholic is no different to being Protestant because either way, one reasons one's way to the position one finds most intellectually compelling. However I think this is a misleading way of putting the problem. Consider this example: those who believe the earth is flat vs. those who believe it is round. Both of them have reasoned their way to their position, right? Yet in reality, most of the latter haven't reasoned much at all: they have simply accepted the scientific consensus without question. My 'reasoning' for believing the earth is round is very simple: scientists probably know more than me, even though what they say contradicts my daily experience in which the earth appears flat. This example highlights the difference between Protestant and Catholic reasoning. The former is a reasoning to a set of theological opinions that have private judgment as their foundation. The latter is reasoning to the radical submission of my reason to something larger than it. It is reason relinquishing control and accepting its limits. To become Catholic is not to choose a set of theological opinions in the same way that every Protestant does: it is to give up the pretense that my theological opinions are adequate to grasp the truth. Now this is where doctrinal development comes in. Once one has relinquished the right to private judgment (by means of private judgment), one rediscovers it again in chastened and resurrected form on the other side of it. Jesus said "those who lose their life will save it." I would say this extends to private judgment: those who relinquish it will find it again. Inside the Church there is space for reasoning and debate, but it is a chastened space, no longer with the hubris that thinks it can judge heaven and earth. It is reason placed within its rightful limits. Does that help at all to show the connection between "faithfully passing on the tradition" and "doctrinal development"?

Austin-thank you for this great video. I had not heard of Dr. Aspray before but will seek out more content by him. He reminds me of you-a very thoughtful, logical, prayerful man seeking truth. With both of you, there is a kindness, generosity of spirit, and respect that is not only so refreshing, but also, I think, is reflective of the interior states of your souls. God bless.

@GospelSimplicity

23 күн бұрын

You should definitely check out his podcast, "Faith at the Frontiers" if you enjoyed this clip!

The video ends right before he says what tradition he's talking about. Was it the Catholic Church?

@GospelSimplicity

23 күн бұрын

Sorry for the cutoff! Full video comes out tomorrow

I understand the great burden Dr. Aspray felt as a rather tradition-untethered Protestant facing the James 3:1 warning, but in reality a teacher cannot off-load that responsibility to the Magisterium. He has now chosen to affirm, commit to, and teach others the Roman Catholic tradition and will be no less responsible to give account for what he teaches. It may give a sense of relief in the present day to day, but the accountability before God is no less there. Dr Aspray has also chosen to take the position that the Reformation was invention rather than reclamation of the apostolic deposit, the latter being how conservative Protestant traditions see it (See Matthew Barrett's, "The Reformation as Renewal"). This choice is also a position of his own judgment. We are all equally accountable in any tradition, and that is a good thing.

@barnabasaspray9417

23 күн бұрын

Thank you for this point, and you're absolutely right. We all remain responsible - whether 'formally' teachers or not - for the way we influence others' understanding and perception of the world, and accountable to God for that. And yes, there was an element of private judgment involved in considering the Reformation as an inventor. My published conversion story (which Austin links to above) goes into this in more detail. I found disagreement everywhere I looked in Academic theology, except on one thing: the early church had an Episcopal model for resolving disputes. Of course people disagreed on whether that was a good thing or a bad thing. But they didn't disagree that it was true. Sola scriptura was not how any of the early disputes were settled; rather, they were settled by bishops locally and by church councils globally. So the idea that scripture can sustain a unified position does seem to me an invented idea from the Reformation.

Very Important discussion. Christians of whatever denominations wrestle with certain issues.

"The Orthodox Church can't deal with the errors Rome is in love with, therefore, Rome"

@barnabasaspray9417

23 күн бұрын

Hi, thank you for engaging with this video. Is this your summary of how you understand it?

3:40 I think 1 kings 19 is similar to these times. The magesterium was never the valid head of the church. It was the same as the church living under Roman rule, some gave into the changes and I'm sure many did not.

As Catholics we don’t “interpret” in the same individual way Protestants do. We obey and submit to what the Catholic Church in her hermeneutic of continuity have always taught through the infallible promise Our Lord gave to her. “He will teach you all truth” This does not require “private judgment” but the ability to reason, witness history, and submit intellect and will - often referred to as the “Sensus fidei” “sense of the faithful”

@virgilcrowe7795

5 күн бұрын

But it is still dynamic and has constantly been changed over history by individuals unless you are a history denier. Catholic theology did not emerge fully formed at the end of Acts, it is the product hundreds of not thousands of individual innovations.

As protestants, we do not need to throw out all the tradition of the tradional churches. It is true we disagree with them on justification, and consequently on the meaning of the sacraments related to it. On the other topics, such as the Trinity, Christology, or Morality, we can agree with the traditional churches.

@StoaoftheSouth

24 күн бұрын

I could ask, why would one, as a Protestant, need to hold to justification sola fide? I know that it is a strong Protestant tradition, but what actually makes it obligatory to believe to be Protestant?

@BombadilsBoots

24 күн бұрын

The interpretation of the faith is quite different between the east and the west, which is why there is not union between the two

@mathiasweil3507

24 күн бұрын

@@StoaoftheSouth That implies another question : if one rejects the justification by faith, why would not that person rather decide to be Catholic or Orthodox ?

When Christ tells believers to go to the church to hear the truth in matt18- what church does he mean?

Color coordinated

Non believers begin the truth search for Christ in a common realm of subjective judgement. Catholics have left the realm of subjectivity for Objectivity, and accept objective authoritative truths outside their own interpretation of reality. Protestants remain in the realm of personal subjectivity, always subject to the strength of their own personal judgment.

I think it's unwise to blindly trust your doctor, if you're able to do your own research and learn that what your doctor is telling you doesn't fit the scientific literature. (This is in the reference to the guest's analogy in the last third of the video)

Very interesting conversation. I've contended for a while now that the appeal of the Catholic church is 'certainty', in the sense that those who are drawn to become Catholic are those who desire rules and structure that cover every possibility i.e. scholasticism. Orthodoxy seems to strike the opposite desire by being much more open to mystery. As for me, I'm Protestant because that's where God led me. Different people need different things from the church which is why there is diversity along them, and that's a good thing.

@Demetra719

24 күн бұрын

When I was a Protestant, it was the certainty (which Protestantism inheireited from Rome) that bothered me. A bit of certainty via personal experience makes sense, but the level of certainty around vagueness (really a lack of understanding of church history and Apostolic Tradition, and the mystery associated) was too much for me in Protestantism … Roman Catholicism is on the opposite side of the spectrum of the certainty with their complex web of legalism. Orthodoxy is the balance, to me, retaining tradition but not being so humanly rigid or self righteous as to become in essence a religious law firm that is missing a lot of the mystery that truly is the essence of Christianity.

That seems to be more of a problem for Orthodoxy, as he noted. This isn't surprising their proto-Protestant recognition of multiple autocephalous authorities in the various patriarchates, which have began to veer apart from each other in light of national controversies; inability to address modern issues like contraception and transgenderism; and the introduction of heresies like the introduction of female "deaconesses" in the Orthodox Church. With traditional Catholicism, private judgment amounts to very little, and certainly doesn't touch on matters as substantive as those that Protestants tend to deal with.

@nuzzi6620

24 күн бұрын

Please don’t attempt to make a distinction between “traditional Catholicism” and Catholicism as a whole-especially without doing the same for Orthodoxy. It’s disingenuous at best, and at worst it’s a complete fabrication to assert implicitly or explicitly that “traditional Catholics” are somehow exempt or immune to the criticism levelled against the Roman Catholic Church in light of the complete, undeniable gongshow that the church as become since V2. Unless you’re a sede, you have no way out of those same criticisms, because it’s your church, your supreme pontiff, with which you must be in communion with or perish.

@bigfootapologetics

24 күн бұрын

@@nuzzi6620 My criticisms are the inability to address modern issues and the allowance of heresies and sinful practices we're now seeing in Orthodoxy, like deaconesses and contraception. I don't need a way out of those criticisms because they don't apply to the Catholic Church.