Confusion and chaos reign supreme

I'll try to be as brief as I can, but here's where I'm at. Hopefully one of y'all can help me out.

I grew up in an extremely Baptist home, church hopping from fundie to charismatic to borderline cult to fundie again, before finally growing up and looking elsewhere. I realized that the people of God were not meant to be individualists, and the Baptist model of things has no root in Scripture or church history. That and baptism is for babies too.

So I try going to a presbyterian church. PCA of course, I'm no hippie. Well the congregation was made up of rejects from other Baptist churches and they couldn't find a pastor, so I left there because it too was shaky and uncertain. Been attending a CRC church for about nine months now, and the pastor is a scholar, a lover of God and of His people, and a genuine shepherd of his flock. Total brodie too. I love this man.

However, I still have issue with the low-churchness of everything…the pastor's hands are tied with the big decisions of course, but he doesn't even wear a Geneva gown or use the hymnal, and we have deaconesses. This combined with the fact that Protestant churches in general, even the most theological ones, really don't talk about church history prior to 1517, except to give context for the 95 theses.

On top of all the uncertainty and whimsy of Protestantism I've noticed, there remains the fact that the Eastern Orthodox church tangibly traces its history directly to the Apostles, and there is, at least to my observation, the least corruption of church officials overall in Orthodoxy.

I don't know what to do anymore, because my whole family would turn against me if I begome, I love my pastor at the CRC, and I have nothing in Sacred Scripture nor evident reason to convince me of anything other than justification by faith alone.

I need to figure this out soon though, cause my son is due to be born in a couple months and I need to know where he's gonna be baptized.

Attached: orthodogs pepe.png (600x600, 82.11K)

Other urls found in this thread:

pokrov.org/
youtube.com/watch?v=sxDvhDIiVc0&ab_channel=vaticancatholic.com
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I'm sorry you haven't been able to find adequate spiritual satisfaction yet. He sounds like a lovely man and I hope he goes to heaven, despite the uncertainty of him not being in the Orthodox church.
I was very dissatisfied with the Lutheranism of my youth. It provided a good foundation when I decided to return to religion in my late teens, but I found Protestantism overall to be theologically unsound and sometimes outright cruel.
I've been discerning into Orthodoxy for a long while now, and I'm going to start attend church soon. From reading Fr. Seraphim Rose, Kallistos Ware, listening to countless podcasts on the subject, I've become convinced that the Orthodox church is the church founded by Jesus and the apostles, the church of the early church fathers, the desert fathers, the church the gates of Hell will never prevail against. Only the Orthodox have sufficiently preserved the Nicene Creed, the essence-energies distinction, and patristic theology, with the Coptic Orthodox as a close second.
I hope you do keep inquiring into Orthodoxy, I'd recommend the podcasts Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, No Other Justification, Rome is Burning (their religious episodes in particular), and Fr. Spyridon's videos.
The thing with justification by faith alone vs works is it's a false dichotomy. We who subscribe to Orthodox patristic theology do not believe you acquire salvation points by doing good things, but that we participate in the mystery of life in Christ, and that true faith and theosis includes trying to act justly and kindly. The "works" are really just the ceremonial law of the Israelites. We're not saved through rituals, but through theosis, participation in - and unity with the uncreated divifying energies of God.
I hope your family will understand in time. They tend to be happy just that you remain Christian. We must always put truth first, even if it means being alone with Christ, but it's a far lighter cross to bear than eternal separation from God.

Have you visited an Orthodox church and attended Liturgy? Spoken to the priest there? Have you read any of the writings of the church fathers? The order that you do these things isn't important, but I recommend such actions. I simply showed up to liturgy one morning and afterwards spoke with the priest about what I was looking for and he recommended some readings for me to start with (everything by Kallistos Ware is fantastic, though he's a modern writer). What does your wife think of this? Is she in your same situation?

My wife trusts me with theological things because I've been intensely studying them for years, and she is only recently taking it seriously. That said, her family is a Baptist one, her dad is a stalwart Baptist theologian, and the "Eastern-ness" of the Liturgy, vesting, even architecture might be a bit much on her. I haven't spoken with her much about it tbh.

Forgot to mention this, but we're also going to go to a Vespers service in a couple weeks when I have Saturday off, hopefully I can talk to a priest then

the orthoprot meme is real

orthodox gets to have the apostolic authority, but still keeps the things most american protestants really want

which is sex in regards to priesthood/marriage, and disobedience to an authority figure, which I think is pretty uniquely American

Family is always the hardest to deal with, especially practicing Baptists. You and your wife will be in my prayers friend. If you have the time, I'd recommend you two read and study together about this a bit, perhaps after the vespers service when you speak to the priest ask for his suggestion as to what to start with. Send him an email as well if you haven't already, giving him a heads up that you're going to be there.

I just want objective truth and a life pleasing and acceptable to God.
And a history of papal inconsistency and horrible scandal combined with a dogma of absolute incorruptibility of the church doesn't sit well with the part of my brain that can into logic.

Try an OPC church

Even the popes themselves admit that Papal Supremacy is a latter theological development. Nowhere in the church fathers would you find anything similar. Even Paul corrected St Peter on the Judaizing issue, without Peter invoking his supposed Papal Authority. I hope you find your way to mother church, and I hope we meet in heaven.

Get your life sorted out my man

Popes still get corrected, it's only when theological pronouncements ex cathedra or done is it a no-go, which most Popes never do.

Another symptom of Americanism, is that people have 0 idea of how the Papal authority actually operates. Any Pope who tried to push doctrine that is anathema would get de-Poped, and any announcements ex-cathedra come out after meeting with the rest of the Church, too.

The whole point of Papal Supremacy is that legit agreements carry TRUE AUTHORITY stamped with the Holy Spirit.

the incorruptibility of the Church does not apply to the human operators, you should fire your almonds more.

Everytime.

Attached: All threads concern Catholics.png (494x82, 22.33K)

Protestants have more in common with Catholicism than they do with the Orthodox, I don't know of many Orthodox-Protestant conversions that really work well.

how much do you really know of inconcistencies and scandals in the history of the Orthodoxy Church? Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean it's not there:
pokrov.org/

If you feel like becoming Orthodox, begome, I have no quarrel with it. Just don't point to things like that as some proof that Orthodoxy is true, because perfection is not of this world, and certainily not in any institution in the world that is made up of men

strongly disagree. Protestantism and Orthodoxy have more in common because their doctrines in one way or another arise from a rejection of this or that Catholic dogma. That is true for Orthodoxy too, where their doctrine evolved, especially since the 19th century, in a constant attempt to pose themselves as an anti-thesis of Catholicism.
The internet is full orthoprots that go on youtube video asking for a "debate" and throwing around their talking points they never researched themselves, exactly like they used to do when they were prots. So yeah, it depends what you mean by "it doesn't work well".

Can you post an example where orthodox changed when the catholics stayed the ssme?
Isn't the inception of catholicism the roman cardinal wanting to change doctrine?
I'm neither so I only heard about it.

It is pointless to argue about this kind of thing. Both doctrines evolved organically over time (which does not mean they changed), I only made a difference about how one doctrine just did its own thing while the other one evolved to give itself an antithetical identity that frankly isn't really there to begin with.
The inception is the East not wanting to submit to the authority of the Pope. When the Churches were united most heresies actually came from the East and it was the West that had to fight against them.
But I don't want to start a pointless discussion about history. It's ok if someone chooses Orthodoxy, I just don't like the abuse of memes repeated cluelessly and the adversary attitude that some have.

It being so cartoonish and brazen should throw up more than a few red flags regarding is verisimilitude

My question was how did you come to that conclusion. What events unfolded that made it so.

The popes always attempted to assert what they viewed as their rightful supremacy. Later popes do not say that papal supremacy is a novel development. That is a misreading of what Benedict XVI said. The way supremacy is exercises has changed from the early days, but the pope has always been chief among his fellow bishops.

b u o m p

papists on suicide watch

Bumping with related history.

Thanks for that, it was exactly what I wanted to know

I don't get how that's different than saying he's just another bishop. On paper it makes a difference, I guess. In practice I don't see any difference. And the whole caesaro-papism critique - that Orthodox patriarchs will kiss the ass of the state - doesn't really apply to the vast world of Orthodoxy and I don't see how that wouldn't apply to post V2 popes. They might not be subservient to a particular state but they still appear to be subservient to worldly politics except that it's globalist ie they more or less endorse the European Union rather than endorsing, say, Putin.

I would be wary about investing too much of your faith in the church. I am Orthodox but church to be is mostly a reminder of the peril of damnation. If I ever feel myself unworthy to enter the church then how much more unworthy am I for the kingdom of God? It helps me maintain a pure life and honest heart.

Attached: 902.jpg (1000x800, 60.96K)

We have an authority figure in Jesus Christ and he chastises us with the conviction of the holy spirit. Having other authority figures in play just seems like a way of spreading the authority around if you ask me.

This. Disregard for mystery and the sort of rationally motivated legalistic doctrines of Aquinas and Anselm are something ubiquitous in the protestant sects. Only the Orthodox Church has had the humility to not incessantly intellectualize on the nature of The Father. If you want to do engage in that sort of prideful endeavor, then Kabbalah might be more your speed tbh.

Attached: fp,550x550,black,off_white,box20,s,ffffff.jpg (550x446, 40.7K)

But just think about it. Calvinists could say Catholics and Pentecostals have something in common because they reject TULIP. What a preposterous characterization.

Then you should ask Christ why He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, and ask why He breathed the authority of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles. Also, that whole pentacost thing, you know about this right?

If Christ is your sole authority, why do you persist in denying His authority?

only the orthodox church has had the courage to remain an ethnic sect, true

Because I don't have any faith that a man like Jean Paul II or Francis could have sole legal right to those keys. As the Bible says, we will know them by their fruits. Papal authority is a failed hypothesis at this point.

Then you deny Christ and His authority. He gave the keys to St. Peter, and the Petrine Seat has existed since that time. Just because it may hurt your feelings, does not mean that Christ did not institute the mandate.


Yes, the fruit of 2,000 years of an unbroken Church.

Friend, we in the Orthodox church believe in apostolic succession. We just don't believe in minor deities like The Pope.

Attached: 1518816956170.png (329x242, 121.35K)

True.
The one in Antioch or the one in Rome?
What mandate?
What was the Reformation?

The Pope is not a deity, neither was St. Peter a deity. Yet, the pronouncements made ex cathedra MUST HAVE THE MARK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, or they are just paper.

Until you realize this, then you will understand the need to recognize apostolic authority. It's not the Catholic Church's fault the Orthodox undermine their own apostolic authority by pretending the Petrine seat doesn't exist.

American orthodox in a nutshell. Entirely focused on what other people do and how he looks, rather than focused on God.

Rome.


Petrine seat.


God's will working throughout history. Despite the massive success of the thieves of the Reformation, the Catholic Church still stands, despite being made a target of the British Kingdom and Empire for a good 300 years.

As the false Churches get swallowed up, the Catholic Church will stand even unto the arrival of Christ. As He promised.

This seems to be the only "mystery" The Catholic church cares to maintain

papal authority*

You lie.

Why does Peter's seat in Rome carry more authority than his original seat in Antioch?
What does that mean?
You made the claim that the Church is unbroken, don't shift the goalposts.

You deny Christ and his authority because your popes already did that on your behalf through the ecumenical councils

The closest thing to a split in the Catholic Church was the western schism. Eastern/reformation is a bunch of states deciding they don't like the Church telling it what to do/holding land. Only Russians/Serbs think the Orthodox is anything more than an ethnic schism.

for instance? nicene creed?

Thank you for this

I meant when John Paul II brought in a bunch of voodoo priests and other leaders from other religions and engaged in their rituals and set up places of worship to false idols in the Vatican. There is no excuse for it, least of all the fact that he's the pope.

It is questionable whether Paul rebuked Peter at all.

A very interesting video on the subject.

youtube.com/watch?v=sxDvhDIiVc0&ab_channel=vaticancatholic.com

tfw Im a pentecostal and post this
Im der ewige pentecostal

Attached: 1508345005030.jpg (464x447, 13.09K)

Attached: My disappointment is immeasurable, and my day is ruined HD 1080P.mp4 (1280x720, 2.11M)

Orthodoxy and Pentecostalism are the two most related denominations of Christianity because they've both maintained the spirit of truth.

St. Peter was alive as the bishop of Rome during St. Evodius' time as Patriarch. The true successor to the keys given to Peter is the Roman bishop, who was St. Linus.