A Baptist was stranded on a remote island for 20 years. When rescuers finally got to him, they found he had built three structures. When they asked him about them, the man pointed to one building and said, “That’s my house.” “And over there?” the rescuers asked. “That’s my church,” the stranded man replied. “I’m Baptist and take my faith quite seriously.” “And over there? What is the third building?” the rescuers asked. “Oh,” said the man. “That’s where I used to go to church before the split.”
I agree with this and I upvoted you but it is worth mentioning that the truth conveyed to the sick and broken is likely the medicine. The question is, can we disagree a bit on what types of medicine to minister and have fellowship in the midst of that disagreement? Probably.
I think the opposite often happens with Orthodoxy, as well: men in particular get enamored with the very online version of Orthodoxy that (implicitly or not) is all about getting really smart, winning debates, and building a new social circle of based cool reactionary bros, and then they visit the only local parish, where the priest or laity have different political opinions or don't know the Church Fathers or care about theological topics or use their preferred translation of liturgical texts, and so on. And what happens is that either they're Orthodox online without really going to church much or at all, OR they drive three hours to go to a parish they feel is more conservative. I don't think either of these outcomes is all that great, but since I live close to a great parish I'm rather spoiled and realize I can't fully appreciate the challenges some others face, so I won't belabor this point too much. What I can say is that though I naturally fit in with the based reactionary young man crowd, I also love spending time with cradle Orthodox people and those from Romania, Russia, Georgia, and so on who also attend my parish. I learn more and get more out of my interactions with them than the fellow converts who all have the same opinions as me. People inquiring into Orthodoxy will benefit from having less presumption of what they think their local parish ought to be like, and be prepared for things to maybe be messy, chaotic, or to some extent in a foreign language.
I was raised Baptist, now converting to Lutheranism. This is exactly how I feel any time I watch Dr. Ortlund's videos, even though I love his channel. What you said about the real presence view is so true. This also applies to his view of baptism, which is far more developed than (most) any Baptist church you'll find in real life. Most Baptist churches do not adopt historic creeds or confessions either, nor do they have any concept of liturgy (usually). I am sure that the Lutheran church has their own unique set of problems, although my experience so far has been very positive. At the end of the day you do have to do some theological triage and decide what issues are most important.
I'm Orthodox and cannot agree more with what you said. I converted when I was living in Japan. Most of the Orthodox I knew were living outside of their home countries and the Japanese Orthodox weren't interested in upending Japan's political structure and society. The Orthodox life and experience were pure: how to work towards theosis and living in a non-Christian, non-Orthodox society. I moved back to the U.S. and was shocked at how many young men, inquirers, catechumens and Orthodox talked about politics and culture instead of the spiritual life. To this day, 3 years later, my heart drops when I'm in church and I ask young male inquirers or catechumens how they found Orthodoxy and why they are interested in the Orthodox Church. They found Orthodox through the internet. God bless the priests and laity. cause there's a lot of work to be done.
I’m at the part of you speaking of Catholicism and I agree we have major issues with our leaders. As a Catholic it makes me sad but doesn’t shake my foundation because I know my faith to be true even with all those issues. Jesus in the Eucharist washes away all problems we may have within the clergy And in the words of Peter “where else could we go to?”
Be careful with the issue of the priests… So many Catholics I know brush off the priest issue by saying something like ‘well, these things occur in other places in the world’. Ok. But wherever that happens, moral authority is lost. It just is.
There are a couple of issues here. The first is about imperfection within the Churches or ecclesial communities. Charles Spurgeon actually has a good quote on this, which may be funny to hear a Catholic use: “If I had never joined a church till I had found one that was perfect, I should never have joined one at all; and the moment I did join it, if I had found one, I should have spoiled it, for it would not have been a perfect church after I had become a member of it. Still, imperfect as it is, it is the dearest place on earth to us.” We're all sinners and certainly where we all currently belong and worship reflects that. The leadership and laity will at various times make boneheaded decisions incompatible with what the NT portrays, as well as what we see in the early Church. We can argue over what constitutes the Bride of Christ, but as a Catholic I would say that she IS perfect. The people who run it and the laity here on earth are most definitely not. Secondly, apologists whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant are of course focusing on the ideal of their faith traditions. I happen to believe that mine is the best, others disagree with me. So be it. I can only say that apologetics is useful at times to defend against attacks, can be edifying at other times for one's own faith journey, etc. but I wouldn't let it be at the core. That is liable to lead to disillusionment and burn-out. Much of Christianity is a mystery it can be argued and defies complete explanation to everyone's satisfaction. I am Catholic. I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Of those outside of that, I am not afraid of their materials I find useful and respect the Orthodox most of all in that regard. For example, I appreciate many works by N.T. Wright (Anglican) and am currently finishing Kenneth E. Bailey's (Presbyterian) "Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes", a superb book with enjoyable insights into the Gospels. I have a deep appreciation for Orthodox icons and find the Jesus Prayer to be a spiritual blessing. I guess I would sum all this up by echoing what Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware wrote: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not." Non-Catholics are dependent upon God's grace just like Catholics are.
Thumbs up for a Catholic quoting Spurgeon. I'm really curious by what you mean by "We can argue over what constitutes the Bride of Christ, but as a Catholic I would say that she IS perfect. The people who run it and the laity here on earth are most definitely not." To what extent does a good Catholic have to believe the Catholic Church is perfect? I ask, as some who is literally in RCIA and isn't planning on converting. I don't feel I could make that oath during confirmation, because I don't believe everything the Catholic church teaches is right. I don't think the Catholic church has behaved or taught perfectly throughout the years, I think it's still growing into a more perfect church and has some significant hurdles to overcome on the way there, I believe there's still error present in some of its official teachings. Of course - I love the mass, the respect and reverance towards the eucharist, the richness of history, the community of good Catholic friends I have, and the way Catholic devotions have deepened my faith - but I just can't take it all the way. And then I look at, you know, those famous statistics that say that over a third of regular mass attending Catholics don't affirm the real presence and yet still receive the eucharist - and I just do not understand what level of cafeteria Catholic is permissible or not, you know? Can I dismiss (or really, pray for reform over) the bits of Catholic teaching that strike me as non-apostolic, and jump in? Or not?
@ My apologies for missing this for so many days. To answer your question, it’s not that the people in the Church are perfect, clearly we are not, but that the Church itself is the spotless Bride of Christ. Every Catholic, from the pope to the laity, are sinners in need of Christ’s redemption. Second, I can understand struggling with some Catholic teachings. I did myself when I was coming from Lutheranism. You may come from a faith tradition that makes it more difficult. I would say pray about what troubles you and do your best to learn why we believe as we do.
@@johnmb69 Interestingly (and inadvertently, I guess), you make a case for the Lutheran motto "simul justus et peccator". In Christ, we are simultaneously imperfect and spotless.
The orthodox comment is so true. People putting politics or philosophy before life in Christ. I was one of this people. By gods mercy I found an “ideal church” that is helping me to unlearn these deceptions and find true orthodox spirituality and prayer
Thanks, Matt! I thought of you when I was making this with some of your recent comments about wondering if apologists have oversold people at times. Thanks for what you do!
In dealing with this understandable thought problem, I draw a parallel between the idea of living in the United States (arguably the greatest country in the world) and the reality of living in the US (it's pretty great but there certainly is corruption, mental health and moral issues and gov problems that are clear and frustrating). All those problems notwithstanding, I'm still very grateful and happy to be an American. In the same way I am very grateful and happy to be Catholic.
Struggling with this dilemma as well. Like, I bristle when people disparage the US for past crimes, am I being a hypocrite for doing the same against the church I was (nominally) raised in?
In the Catholic Church, I do find the beauty that is promised simply because, I think, I spiritually prepare myself for Mass. I understand, to the extent my limited human mind can, what is happening as I engage in the glory of the Mass. That is, that heaven and earth are meeting, that when the the words of consecration are spoken, that Jesus' promise is fulfilled - I AM receiving IS His Body and Blood. But if we go to be entertained, to be awed by the manmade beauty (no matter how lovely), to be impressed by the perfection of our clergy and fellow Catholics in the pew, then we will be disappointed. No question about that. But that's because we are required to be actively involved in our prayer and faith life - to seek union and communion with Christ in our daily lives, so that we recognize Him in His sacraments. Yet we are frail humans and the perfection we know exists will never be fully realized this side of Heaven yet in the Mass we can experience some of the glory promised on this side. I also think of this like a family. You will never find that perfect idealized family that we see in old movies or tv shows or books. And yet, the perfect family DOES exist in that God has given us, in our hearts, the knowledge that it is real, that this was the original plan, and that if we commit ourselves to the hard work involved in family life, then we can catch glimpses of it on this side of heaven. I worry, Austen, that you have become enamored with the idea of ideas rather than the sincere, private, holy search for God. I urge you to step away from UA-cam and enter a period of holy silence, of a prolonged retreat. Don't make this your livelihood. I think it will destroy your faith.
The Catholic Church is a mess, but it's home. "Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad for her, all you who love her; rejoice with her in joy, all you who mourn over her; that you may suck and be satisfied with her consoling breast; that you may drink deeply with delight from the abundance of her glory. For thus says the Lord: Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the nations like an overflowing stream; and you shall nurse, you shall be carried upon her hip, and dandled upon her knees. As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem" (Isaiah 66:10-13). No place I'd rather be. Thank you Jesus!
I think you're right that selling a bill of goods is bad apologetics. I grew up Catholic, spent a good chunk of my teens apostate and rejoined and was confirmed in my late teens, only growing in faith from there. I married a Protestant woman, whom I dated for nearly four years before my retroversion, and religion was often a tense subject in our household as long as I proposed Catholicism as a telos. Simply BEING Catholic around her, and inviting her to participate as far as she's willing, has done more ecumenical work-not to mention deepening and strengthening the unit of our marriage AND religious expression-than any word of argument I've ever given.
As someone who just converted to RC, There's definitely an overhype that you hear upon first interest, but it should be overcome before the conversion happens. Sort of like the puppy love phase of dating vs the companionship of marriage
If you are finding the Sacraments as over hyped I would just recommend asking God to deepen your connection to the reality of what is happening in them. Some of us are not connecting on a deeper level because we are not properly open to them.
I heard a wise Lutheran pastor give advice to those considering Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. He said "don't compare your Lutheran (or any Protestant) reality with an idealized Roman or EO scenario". If you are going to do that then compare the ideal Protestant scenario to the ideal RC scenario. Or compare your Protestant reality to a RC reality. To your point Austin, I think this is what a lot of people on all sides do. Not saying doctrine doesn't matter, or what church you join doesn't matter but don't convert for a mirage, and at least hear out the best arguments for each side, don't just listen to the best argument for the other side and only listen to the worst representations of your current church. Just a suggestion from someone who has been down this road... God bless your efforts, Austin. Good video.
That is excellent advice. Since all churches are comprised of human beings, in reality, we find all human failings and variations of spiritual qualities therein. So every church or human endeavor will have aspects that depart from the ideals they put out.
@@danielkaranja7978that’s the problem of Protestantism: thinking that the Church that Christ envisioned is a collection of aggregations of fallible people all going in different directions trying to follow Scripture as best as they can. This is a broken unbiblical system. It’s not what Christ envisioned. You identify the Church that Christ built and believe Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail on his Church. The Church Christ instituted is not a fallible aggregation of men. It’s a supernatural body that is guided by the Holy Spirit in all truth.
7:35 my biggest problem with Protestantism is that it seems like there are two Protestantisms. There are the confessional ones who can often make a good case to being a reformed version of the church of the First Millennium, and then there are the Baptist and Pentecostal derived ones. They don't usually seem to know that they are even within the Protestant tradition (even the non-denoms have easily demonstrable ecclesiastical family trees through Baptist and Methodist/Holiness theologies). I like to joke that the bapti-costals (aka Nondenominationals) have added a 6th Sola--sola smoke machine. The evangellifishes constitute by far the vast majority of church going Protestants. And the overwhelming majority of Protestants who adhere to anything resembling biblical orthodoxy.
This was exactly my experience as an evangelical for the first thirty plus years of my life. You can cite all these traditional liturgical Protestant traditions like Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, and Anglicanism, but most of them have been completely compromised by generations of people who basically don't even believe the Bible is true and hold beliefs essentially indistinguishable from the average Hollywood director. Continuing Anglicanism or conservative Lutheranism are little offshoots from the big river, so to speak. There were aspects of Anglicanism that I found appealing, like CS Lewis and the traditional music and liturgy, but I had a hard time believing that a church whose genesis was a early modern king wanting to divorce and remarry, and which in recent times has enthusiastically embraced all variety of progressive nonsense, is the "real church" and represented by the few conservative offshoot denominations. I felt Orthodoxy made a far more persuasive case for its claims about itself. In American and Western Europe, nearly all the Protestant Christians who actually believe in the integrity of Scripture and truth of Christianity are pretty much in congregations that fall somewhere in between Baptist and Pentecostal, with maybe a dash of John Calvin thrown in. I never even knew there was such a thing a conservative traditional Lutheranism for example before researching different denominations on the internet a few years ago. The point of all this, is that if you hold to Protestant convictions and are conservative, Bapticostalism and the typical beliefs associated with it, is the only real live option, and it feels a bit disingenuous to tell people, as some protestant apologists do, that you can still be a conservative protestant and have a liturgy, believe in the real presence or baptismal regeneration or veneration of saints because hey, look there's this one super obscure Presbyterian denomination right here!
Im Orthodox and find it amazing (and really believe it's true), but your descriptions of its issues in the USA are hilariously spot on. I hope of course these don't end up THE barriers for you, but regardless of that I have so much respect for your intense personal and public honesty. Too many people (me) really kind of temporarily brainwash themselves into something they see as the whole package when they convert, and have a rough adjustment later when they need to keep their faith but with more open eyes.
A personality who's a little bit under the radar, but might make an interesting interview for you, is Steve Robinson. He's an Orthodox layman who has an outsized voice online because of his penchant for keeping it real. I'm not sure what catchy topic you'd attach to the talk though. He recently did a retreat called "Orthodox asceticism in the real world", complete with a small choral rendition of "Troparion of a Mediocre Saint". The whole thing was quite humorous, but also very earthy. I think in the US Orthodoxy often has this very Other quality, which either attracts or repels. But in many places it's just church. That difference is important in the lived experience.
That is a fantastic idea, I have read Steve's writing before and it really resonated with me, and I loved his recent talk. I appreciate that there are people doing apologetics and theology in the online Orthodox sphere, but someone like Steve adds a very real and, as you put it, earthy dimension that's often a missing puzzle piece in the broader conversation. Voices like his make sense of the turbulence we tend to run into when the infatuation with the aesthetic aspects wears off, and you (or at least, I) start to realize that arguing with people and learning dense theology is often an easier substitute for the actual, hard, unglamorous, nitty-gritty work of confronting our own darkness. Make it happen Austin!
If the ultimate truth of which is the best religion and it boils down to a winner who can debate the best or write the best book or is the most charismatic, handsome or beautiful we are doomed to fall off a cliff. Certainly Peter the Fisherman would be disqualified along with disciples. Aren’t we all tired of “This is why Orthodox, Catholic, Protestants are WRONG!?” So what is RIGHT?!
As a catholic I just want to say your critique is very fair. I would just add that the doctrinal confusion should be between the bishops and the popes trying to figure that out and your average layman just to be living out his faith and receiving the sacraments. The main difference being that people can still have major disagreement with each other and still be in the umbrella of the Catholic Church and not have to schism on every difference like a lot of Protestants and orthodox do. Jesus didn’t intend his church to be so uniform. There’s a reason why he gave ways to solve the disputes within the Church themselves.
I agree but feel a need to asterisk your mention of the Orthodox since, while schisms do occur, they tend to be over church politics (see: Ukraine) and not on teachings or practices. Even on topics where there is disagreement, such as hygiene policies during Covid, tolerance of birth control, or how to receive previously-baptized heterodox converts, the churches respect each other's authority to decide these things in their own jurisdictions, and aren't excommunicating each other over them, because they aren't dogmas.
@@computationaltheist7267 So do protestants, but without a magisterium isn't this exactly what Gospel simplicity was critiquing? These are churches that are trying to defend a church that doesn't exist. At least with the Catholic Church, you know where that line exists. The Church has a unified ruling body that can actually try people and find people guilty of their sins like they did with Vigano. If there is no ruling body, than schism is actually just subjective. Am I committing schism if I leave the professing westminster to the Orthodox? Am I committing schism by going Orthodox into Anglicanism? Orthodoxy and protestantism have no Canon Law.
@@haronsmith8974 the Orthodox Church has official ruling bodies. We have canon law. We have a sole visible authoritative head of each patriarchate - the patriarch. The ecclesial structure is pretty similar to Roman Catholicism just minus a pope or patriarch of patriarchs. I think you should look into this more before commenting.
It's hard to want to be Protestant in my area, when an overwhelming majority of the Prot churches here are Marxist-adjacent politically and/or New Age in their beliefs, with the more conservative/traditional-type Prot churches either being glorified rock concerts, or ultra-calvinist. The Eastern Orthodox churches here are deeply ethnic and only provide services in languages I don't understand, and while the priests are cool guys, the laity seem stand-offish and make me feel like an interloper/unwelcomed. The two OCA churches are too far away and would impose an unnecessary economic burden on me. Many of the Roman Catholic churches here are in upscale neighborhoods, where attending them in anything other than a 3-piece suit draws ire; or they're in "rough" neighborhoods and are pretty well empty most of the time, seemingly on their last legs. So wading through this while still in discernment is frustrating. I know no church or denomination is perfect, but damn.
@@braix2 i see your point, its just hard to find an English speaking orthodox community otherwise i should learn some Greek which is not a big price to pay. Anyway i found an orthodox community that speaks English, best regards
@@braix2 To be fair, this person's criticism seems more to do with the fact that laymen seemed unwelcoming in part because he wasn't the same ethnicity as them. I've heard this criticism before; some churches foster communities that feel more like cultural centers. That is, many people attend to stay connected to their ethnic and cultural background. The Greek parishes near me, and the one I used to live by, placed a certain amount of emphasis on preserving Greek culture within America. They host annual Greek festivals and teach traditional Greek song and dance.
I remember several Catholic apologists saying, "Come on in, it's awful!" (I was told those exact words 3-4 times when I was considering becoming Catholic. It was a helpful warning.) I'm glad they said it, because in spite of the beauty and peace of the Catholic faith, sometimes, it _is_ awful. (Especially so when we live it the wrong way: When we spend zero time _kneeling in the chapel_ and _praying the hours_ and _feeding the poor,_ and instead spend all our time engaging in online polemics! The faith rarely looks worse than when you're standing in the no-man's-land between online ideologues!) So, sometimes it looks unappealing. But, there's a huge factor in its favor: And you, Austin, already said it: The arguments in favor are "good enough to keep you up at night." They _are_ that good. And even if you think they _aren't quite persuasive,_ then you're still forced to ask the next question: "Okay, if I'm _not_ persuaded, then what's the alternative?" Aye, there's the rub. The alternatives are all _worse,_ from a logical/historical perspective. If you think clearly about them, they all reduce to one conclusion: Jesus failed to make it possible for sincere seekers to _locate_ Christian orthodoxy and _know that they have found it,_ in every century. In fact, it would mean that He _failed so badly_ that "the required content of the Christian religion" is basically unknowable for us moderns. Sure, we can make rough approximations: We know it's _something like_ one of the Orthodoxies, or _something like_ Catholicism, or _something like_ a sort of high-church Presbyterianism. We can reasonably know that Seventh-Day Adventism and the JW's are _not plausible candidates._ But, if we're just arguing about individual doctrinal topics, that _rough approximation_ is about as close as we can get. The _real thing,_ as a body of faith and practice that I can _know and obey with confidence,_ is just gone. Lost in the mists of time. It's "Unobtainium." And in that case, it'd be pretty hard to sustain the claim that Jesus is God. But, He rose from the dead. Therefore, He is God. Therefore, principled knowledge of the required content of the Christian religion is _not_ unobtainable even-in-principle. Therefore, there _must be_ a principle by which we _can_ discover the required content of the Christian religion. But, what principle? Well, of the available alternative epistemologies for doing so, only the Catholic one can work _even in principle._ The others can't work, _even in principle._ They don't make sense, _even in principle._ One might ask: "If the Catholic epistemic principle works, whereas the others don't, then why does _being a Catholic_ still look so awful, sometimes?" Well, The "awfulness" of the Catholic proposal is not awful _in principle._ It is just awful _in practice!_ By that, I mean: It works only when you make allowances for humans screwing it up so badly that it _almost doesn't_ work any more! So, that's the difference. The Catholic epistemic principle for knowing (and thus, being in a position to obey) the required content of the Christian religion _works,_ on paper; and the others don't. It delivers clarity in principle; the others can't, in principle. But then, heretics and schismatics and well-meaning-but-ignorant persons muddy the waters so badly that it takes _work_ to find that clarity on any hotly-debated contemporaneous topic. (On things that _aren't_ currently contentious, it's much clearer though. Nobody quite knows whether "Federal Vision" is/isn't heterodox for a Reformed Christian -- it's purely a matter of shifting majorities -- but _everyone knows_ what the Catholic position is on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.) All the other competing epistemic principles fail. They're _all_ awful, from time-to-time. (If a Baptist church doesn't seem to rise to the level of grandiose awfulness of the Catholic Church, it's only because they're smaller: Each congregation is independent, such that Baptists as a whole are never impacted by the local pastor going wobbly on doctrine.) So we can't discern on the basis of _current awfulness._ And that impacts how a church feels _in practice,_ so that can't settle the question either. Only the _workability of the epistemic principle, in principle_ remains. And by that standard, the Catholic Church is the only game in town.
@EvelynKerubo-s5e: Maybe, but I've known people to straightforwardly _say_ "I don't want to" when what they really are thinking is "I don't want to." For example, Thomas Nagel says openly that he's an atheist because, although he has successfully argued against reductive materialism and recognizes that a world in which materialism has been refuted is likely to be a world run by _God,_ he doesn't "want the world to be that way." Now, I don't know Austin any more than one can know _any_ person through the medium of a UA-cam channel, which is a pretty distant kind of "knowledge." That said, he's my brother in Christ and seems on the surface to approach these things in a thoughtful, sincere, and self-aware kind of way. So, if _he says_ that he's looked inside himself and discovered an unreasoning dislike of becoming Catholic, and that he is avoiding being persuaded by the logical arguments because, in the end, he "doesn't want to," then _that's_ the point at which I'll agree with you that it's not a matter of intellect, but of will. _Until_ then, I'm going to make only the most-charitable assumptions about his inner-life, which I'm not in a position to know.
I think your epistemology is flawed. The Orthodox Church IS the Catholic Church. It’s not hard to find. Rome clearly broke away from the rest of the patriarchs in 1054. Look at how many of the doctrines that have “developed” aka changed since then. While the Orthodox have remained consistent in their teaching.
@@countryboyred: Sure, I understand where you're coming from. And if I thought there was a single Orthodox Church which could be distinguished from the other claimants to that title on a principled basis, I might think similarly. And of course I have immense respect for the churches of the east, which have retained so much of the patrimony of the first millennium, valid sacraments, etc. But if I had been raised an atheist, with no theological commitments, and suddenly became convinced that Jesus was God and rose from the dead and founded a church, and if I then went looking for that church, I would be unable on any principled basis to distinguish between the Assyrian Church of the East, the Russian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, the Antiochene Orthodox, the Copts and Tewahedo and Armenian Orthodox Churches, and all the rest. I would not have a preexisting commitment to find a church that acknowledged only seven ecumenical councils, or only three, or some other number; or any prior bias for or against Chalcedonian Christianity, or Nestorianism, or whatever. The challenge laid before me would be to... (a.) first figure out what the doctrines of the true faith were; and then, (b.) find the church that remained faithful to those doctrines; so that, (c.) having found the right Church, I could submit to its instruction; so that, (d.) I could thereby learn what the doctrines of the true faith were. That is _not_ a workable system, even in principle. At least, it doesn't seem so, to me. But I'm open to hearing rejoinders.
@ there is a single Orthodox Church. To conflate non-chalcedonian and Nestorian churches with the Orthodox Church is intellectually dishonest. That would be like me saying that Old Catholics are still technically Catholics because they call themselves Catholics. Just because a church has “orthodox” in their name doesn’t mean they are part of the One Holy Catholic Church- the Orthodox Church.
@ it’s a simple question really. Which church holds to the teachings of the United church of the first 1000 years of Christianity? Read the Alexandria document and Chieti documents from your own papal encyclicals. The Orthodox have kept the faith. The ecclesiology is exactly the same as it was in the first 1000 years. Rome innovated and left, the Orthodox stayed true to the faith.
What a nice thoughtful video. My wife and I are just getting into the Orthodox Church, hoping to be made catechumens soon. But I am a former Protestant minister myself, and I think I can speak across all faith traditions and saying that every parish or congregation is going to have its own flavor, in both problems and benefits. When I moved to my current area to find a new church, I went to like 12 different Protestant churches in a 30 mile radius, because you had to suss out the pros cons and culture of each congregation. Moving into orthodoxy, the Orthodox mission that we are attending is 2 hours away. And we love it. But we found another one that's only 1 hour away, and we didn't like that one as much. So we're going to drive 2 hours on Sundays. It is what it is, it's the way of the world and the way of people.
@GospelSimplicity it is, and it may be too much, but one thing that I learned through orthodoxy is the idea of worship as sacrifice... So we are trying in our own way to embody that through the small sacrifice of time and travel.
That’s not what Jesus taught. You don’t a pick a church (among many) that suits your needs. You identify the one Church that Christ instituted and rest in her.
As a long time church hopper and experiencing a ton of different services, masses and liturgies, I found my home church and am converting. The key? It was just a mixture of allowing the best way to express my faith and the community of people. There is no perfect church. But the best church is usually a mix between what you believe to be the truth and feel like you can express it best for you within it, and the people within it. A church is supposed to be a community of faith. I went to some great Catholic churches (was leaning towards catholicism), but also some horrible ones. The one I chose I went to one mass and within 15 min. knew it was the one. Signed up for RCIA, and it's been nothing short of the best church experience of my life. It's not the giant cathedral in downtown Chicago, but a smaller thriving community of faithful in the suburbs with a school system attached and tons of things to do to further your faith and help the community. I liked a lot of things from protestant churches as a protestant myself. Some better than others (I do like some Lutherans/anglican churches) But with Catholicism I find the fullness of faith. There was always something missing from the protestant path for me. I liked a lot of Orthodoxy too, but the ethnicity aspect was a bit irritating. Most churches near me were VERY based in their ethnic culture and there were a few weird things I didn't like. The liturgy is awesome though. Just did not vibe with everything.
That was good and encouraging and also kind of a rebuke for as I am exploring the different Protestant traditions as I study theology in school. Thank you for being down to earth and honest. It sounds very much like the idea of simply going where: You are deepened in faith in Jesus, can serve God and His people, hear His Word preached, and have the Sacraments/Ordinances administered. Theologically lining up on every point is probably not gonna happen sadly, but that's ok I reckon, as we are all disciples seeking to learn until we see the teacher face to face.
Jesus sets the standard, and every one of us fails to live up to it, from his first disciples and the Church Fathers to you and I to the Pope and Magisterium throughout Christian history and today.
@wruff378 well, the magesterium teaches that when scripture says "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it," it means the Roman church. This isn't true. Christ overcame "the gates of Hell" when He was resurrected. Hebrews 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil Christ did not establish a pope or magesterium. Christianity would be fine w/o both.
Before I became Catholic my eyes were wide open to the problems and the potential damage done by a heretical Pope was foremost in my mind. Benedict was wonderful and kept the church sane. But now we're seeing the damage that a heretic Pope can do and it's devedtating. Our greatest strength (strong leadership) is looking like our Achilles heel.
I had a long comment that disappeared before I could hit the "comment" button, so I'll try to be a lot shorter this time. I'm a former Protestant, since 2002 a convert to Orthodoxy. I've lived and experienced a lot of what Orthodoxy offers over the years. One thing that I feel changing now that I'm in my 40s is less the idea that church services are there for me to get something out of them, but that as a part of this Church, I have the responsibility to support it. One can have the "perfect" priest, but he can't be everything to everybody, he can't be everywhere and fix all things. The laity, then, has a huge responsibility to build the community, both within the parish, and as emissaries of Christ's church to the outside world. That comes with love. This is how it was said that we would be known, by our ability to love each other. I know there are the "purists" who like to push the idea that there is no grace outside the Orthodox Church, but that certainly hasn't been my experience, certainly not in my Protestant days, but I see it in my Protestant and Catholic friends. Yes, I believe that the fullness of the faith is found in its truest form in the Orthodox Church, but I think all of us who seek His Truth are truly brothers and sisters in Christ. This is how we stand fast against the onslaught of an insane world. (Also, if you've never heard of the White Rose - Sophie Scholl, Hans Scholl, Willi Graf, Alexander Schmorell, Christoph Probst, Prof. Kurt Huber, etc. it might interest you as an example of a group with different Christian backgrounds who did just that.)
Well said. I live on an Island so no matter what, you are stuck with the churches you have locally. And it is frankly destructive to the whole Island community to be sectarian. The reality of each congregation boils down the people, their personalities and tastes - no way around it. Any competition between Fr. Chip’s church vs. Pastor Leo’s would be met by the same scolding St. Paul gave those who bickered about being Apollo’s vs. Cephas’. He was addressing, via Catholic epistle, the Denominationalism of his time; the call is always to a regional ecumenism, hence Paul addressed his letters not to the denominations, but to their entire assembly on a regional basis, and admonished them to peace and order amongst themselves.
Britannica says around 6,000,000 Orthodox in the United States. Hard to say. One of our problems is that it's an immigrant Church here, and the the people who came from The Old Country use it as a cultural bedrock. The main problem, in my opinion, is the chaos created by the Russian Revolution. Originally, the Patriarch of Moscow had jurisdiction in the Americas because of the Russian missionaries to Alaska and Northern California. But, with the Russian Revolution and the disruption it caused, the Patriarch of Moscow, I think in 1921, pretty much said, "Because of the unusual circumstances, the Moscow Patriarchate can no longer act as a guide and spiritual touchstone for the Orthodox communities in America. You will have to look to your own native hierarchs, To Greece, to Jerusalem, to Antioch."
There's a podcast with Fr. Andrew Damick and Matthew Namee, where they really go into the numbers, and in their opinion, 1,000,000 in the US in 2020 or so is probably the very top of who might actually be Orthodox (many of the higher numbers are more adding ethnic Greeks, Russians, Serbians, etc. and assuming that they are all Orthodox, which is definitely not true). The chaos of the Russian Revolution cannot be understated, as they not only were funding clergy and building efforts, but they were the only jurisdiction that not only had a presence in the US, but were active in missionary endeavors. (The Greeks were establishing churches - actually, the first Orthodox parish established in the lower 48 is Greek - but there was really no outreach beyond the Greek community.) St. Sebastian Dabovich (Serbian, but part of the "Russian Mission") was publishing Orthodox books in English in 1898 already, and Isabel Hapgood's first edition of the English translation of the services came out in 1906. Orthodoxy in the US is definitely becoming more "native" (even in the two decades I've been Orthodox) but the Russian Revolution put something like a 100 year pause on those efforts.
This video is basically telling me he doesn’t understand papal infallibility and authority of the magisterium without telling me he doesn’t understand papal infallibility in the authority of the magisterium
I'm a Catholic and, to my great dismay, I must agree with you about the reality of the Catholic Church in our age. Today the saying, “The road to hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lampposts that light the path," seems to be the stark reality. The impression I get is that those bishops who are not heretics are cowards. And I don't give Francis nearly the "good qualities" points that you do. He is an utter, abysmal disaster for the Church, no doubt allowed by God to both chastise us and to turn us back towards the truth of the Catholic faith. And, by the grace of God, I do see a great faithfulness and energy and liturgical reverence in the young priests, religious, and lay faithful.
I think the struggle most Christians have is with finding a church that fits one’s own deeply seeded beliefs, whether they are founded in faith and the Bible or not. That’s a task that is nearly impossible, and I watch friends shop for churches for years without success. The key is to look at a church and determine whether its teachings can lead you to Heaven and follow it there, allowing your beliefs to be conformed to it. I am a lifelong Catholic, and I know how terribly fallible the people, priests and bishops of my church are because we are all humans. I thank God for his mercy to allow us to start over in the Sacrament of Confession! What is infallible is the Word of God, the Magesterium, and the Catechism. If I hear something at church that does not follow with what I know those three sources teach, I approach the teacher - clergy or laity - with kindness and share what I know to be true. This gentle, loving correction, called for by St. Paul, of those I encounter is extremely rare, less than once a decade. I am so fallible, but I want to be conformed to God’s will in the church Jesus himself established.
The Catholic Church is better viewed from the perspective of family with Sheppard. Families go through challenging times. We all desire relationships strengthened by challenges rather than weakened by them. Jesus will prepare us for loyal committed relationships through challenges. Saying yes to his Church is saying yes to His Passion and Resurrection. His Church participates in the cycles he established of death and resurrection into a greater glory. History of the Catholic Church reveals this to those with spiritual eyes
I've been doing my own exploration as I'm sure many have been, and I agree very much with this video. Realities on the ground can be so different from the pristine image presented by the best apologists for each denomination! 😁 Of course the most gregarious and convincing folks are the ones we see on YT and of course they represent their churches well. May we all learn to follow the only person reliably worth following: Jesus!
As someone who converted from Protestantism into Catholicism and then into orthodoxy, I relate to this all too much. I left the Catholic Church because modern innovations to the liturgy. I just couldn’t stand. I left orthodoxy because after spending two years in a monastery, I realize it was overrun with ideological fundamentalist, and now the orthodox say I just didn’t have the correct faith. Everybody is searching for perfection and unfortunately it isn’t there. I’ve abandoned at all.
As an Orthodox, I want to follow the spirit of the video and share my experience regarding this topic: when I converted from decades of atheism, the selling point was the amazing symbolic understanding of reality of the EO Church. For me, that was the ground in which this whole "God thing" made sense, nothing else. When I started attending Liturgy, I quickly found out that at least in my parish most people understood the faith like Catholics and Protestants... I was actually participating in "normal Christianity", not the special "totally not Christianity" I had in mind. In retrospective, that was a blessing. That desire for novelty was a expression of my pride and rejection of Christ. That being said, your Priest will not be Jonathan Pageau!
This is a great point. The fact that we have arrived at a time when people base their expectations and experiences on what they see on UA-cam and Twitter is one of the lowest points in the history of humanity. As a species, we are, to be frank, getting dumber.
That is the beauty, that it works on all levels for all people. Esoteric mystery cults are engaging to smart people, but regular people have no idea what's going on. Low church Protestantism is engaging to a lot of regular people, but smart people can see all the holes where things are missing and don't make sense. In Orthodoxy I can read St. Ephrem and St. Maximus, but once I understand what they're saying I know the summary is just "Go to church, pray, and be kind to people like Jesus told you to, dummy."
yes, so much beautiful symbolism that words and categories can't express and fail to take us where we long to go.. How else can the created reach the Uncreated?
Ecclesiology is a tricky issue. But I think the most important thing is our unity and finding places where we overlap, instead of insisting on the super-rightness of one or two things that make us distinct.
It's good to read and learn about these other experiences in the comments. My own perspective is that YHWH is quite capable of using flawed people for His glory, and so long as we abide in Yeshua the Messiah and follow Him where He guides, we will be in the "right" church community, exactly where He wants us.
I do agree with the potential mismatch between what a tradition should offer vs what’s actually found in a local Parish. Turns out the level of depth and beauty one is looking for is best preserved in a monastic setting, given the increasing pressure on churches to become secularized.
Your argument here is sound, and I find your charitable interaction with all three great traditions very refreshing. I interpret the problem as an overemphasis on subjective experience to find or validate the Church. Instead of looking for a Church based on downstream apologetics like these, I think one ought to have made up their mind prior to any practical experience of a particular church and should not let flawed groups of men in practice damage their faith. Jesus founded a Church in Matthew 16:18. If you believe the Bible is the Word of God and interpret the verse as founding it on Peter with an institutional authority given to him uniquely symbolized by the keys, and that the authority but not the keys was then given to all the Apostles in Matthew 18:18, you have no choice but to be Catholic. If you interpret it as Him founding it on Peter's confession of faith but not him uniquely, you can pick between Protestantism and Orthodoxy. The latter downplays Peter's unique role without eliminating it and emphasizes the Orthodox confession of faith in Tradition; the former focuses on the confession of faith as formally derived from Scripture. As a Catholic convert of a decade or so, the problem I see with both is not an issue of diversity of practice but of theoretical foundation. Both rely entirely on one's own interpretation of the sources of their traditions: Tradition for Orthodoxy, Scripture for Protestants. In theory, that yields churches prone to divisions on any number of possible disputes with little to no authoritative way to settle those disputes. One's own interpretation and conscience is the ultimate arbiter, and no one else has the authority to say you or the tradition you follow is wrong unless they can convince you otherwise, but reason is woefully inadequate for such a task in itself-something Orthodox realize making it much more difficult to make headway, but something Protestants don't having been founded on a late Medieval precursor to rationalism and the Enlightenment. Since the Catholic Church maintains a living Magisterium, however flawed in practice, it's the only Church on Earth that can authoritatively exclude all others if you believe in it. Yes, that means if the Pope says something I don't like or that seems confusing or contradictory with doctrine, I must submit and do whatever I can to reconcile it with the rest of Tradition, but at least I have something living and breathing to submit to that isn't ideas in my own mind. If the Catholic Church ever really went too far and invalidated itself, I'd either become Orthodox and bite the bullet to maintain my personal relationship with God or lose all faith and become a "cultural Christian" agnostic since I distrust subjective experience and rational inquiry, but given my faith in Christ's promises, I have to exhaust every possible option to give the Church the benefit of the doubt first. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk, and thank you for a refreshingly good video!
You have to believe. That’s the main thing. Be Obiedant to our Lord Jesus Christ and we’re he deposited the faith. The Church will always work its self out because Jesus Christ is in charge.
Basically Austin: “The Catholic Church has issues.” “The Protestant churches definitely have issues.” “The Orthodox Church is pretty 🔥, maybe some of the people inside it are strange.” Hmmmm, very interesting. Thank you for reaffirming my choice to pursue Orthodoxy! Haha in all seriousness I really appreciate your channel Austin, it’s been so helpful to me. I love the way you approach these subjects.
coming from an orthodox perspective your right that converts definitly have some issues in how they act sometimes which i guess includes me since im a convert. Speaking less about church and people in general i think we do need to remember tht no matter which church we go to people are still people. I belive Orthodoxy is true but it doesn't make people perfect overnight which I think goes for any church. A saying ive heard several times is that the church is infallible but people are not. The church is a hospital and so it will be full of sick people, we need to do a better job at stopping negative behavior. This is honestly what made me choose to become orthodox partially because of its focus on the struggle to become holy which is an often hard journey. Their are many temtations, Too laxed or too zealus, too conservative or too liberal, There was a priest who responed to a question these temtations stating, "Orthodoxies simplist definition is balance" and I think this phrase can be used for a lot of these examples of how people act or should act. Anyway I hope this made sence and wasn't to rambley, Have a blessed day.
Everything you said is true, especially about Orthodoxy. That last point made me want to quit because I'm not conservative. I am a black male married to a Irish/ german woman and it's been frowned upon by some of these conservatives in my parish. There is an Orthodox saint that warn that the Orthodox church would be filled to the brim with people but their hearts will be far from true Orthodoxy. I already see it and it's rather scary.
I can only give my two cents, but at my quite traditional and conservative parish in the southeast US which has not just a lot of cradle Orthodox from eastern Europe, but very online guys who discovered Orthodoxy from Jay Dyer and such... we have at least two families with a black father and white mother, and at least half a dozen other black men and women who joined our church, and everybody gets along quite nicely. So please don't let your circumstances discourage you, just prove the doubters wrong by being the best Orthodox Christian you can.
@@brothergerasimos-bd3pq the blood of Jesus Christ knows no color, but red. Be encouraged, brother. You have the Lord, God, Jesus Christ of Nazareth within you.
To me, this all proves we’re in the last days and we all need to get back to the “roots” of The Faith and trust God with what happens or how things “look.”
I think at the end of the day we have to find our own way of being Christians, which I suppose is a lifelong quest. In my case it is neither remaining within the Catholic Church nor exactly outside of it. I have learned to navigate my Catholicism in such a way as to avoid the parish office entirely, for my experience taught me the view of the Church from the sacristy is never pretty. Catholic priests are wonderful, open-minded, kind, intelligent people AS LONG AS you don`t deal with them in the parish office - where you obviously come because you want something from them - for in the parish office these wonderful souls tend to turn into petty, mean administrators . The best thing about the Catholic church is that in most places you just go to mass unmolested, no questions asked, to fingers pointed "who the hell are you and what do you want?" as in so many protestant churches. I understand that when I go to a mass, there are bills they have to pay so I am more than happy to contribute, but other than I don`t want to deal with their organization. In a church want the Gospel, I want the sermon, I want the singing etc. ,but I don`t want to be part of their parish life. It`s much like going to the opera: some people go for the opera itself (the performance), some go for the social event, some for both. I only want the opera itself. I don`t know how others might view my christianity and I don`t really care, for the only way for me is the way of the lone wolf, the Solitary Christian.
I can honestly feel all that, Austin. I can’t speak for Protestants and Orthodox, but I think the problems in Catholicism like those described can get overly dimensioned by the Internet mass presence in our daily lives and the kind of “tabloid media” always trying to make news out of Rome polemics or the institution’s governance itself. In that sense, I live the life of the parish first and foremost. That’s not a false immunity to bad news, but the mere Christian wisdom of all times being lived out. For good or bad, the Catholic Church is not an indifferent player concerning the issues that relate to present and future human drama. She is - and she has always been, and she will always be - the universal answer God gives to an obstinate humanity that prefers the other way around, without this very merciful God driving us through His paths. Whenever one perceives it and sees how the Church always acted like that, surrounding and dealing with the political and social problems of the day, in order to ultimately protect all souls, then they can rest a little bit amidst the tabloid polemics concerning an interview of the pope or his decisions concerning who he puts as cardinals, for example. I really don’t know how can people miss it. But it probably relates to how they are putting the self over the rest maybe without even knowing that they project the self to a small warming group that doesn’t threaten that very self. But didn’t it sound absolutely crazy when we saw woke militants speaking of “safe spaces” on university campuses? Because we are now overly politicized and sunken into social wars, it disturbs. Sure. I don’t particularly like the pope for the reasons predictable, but I understand he is there to push the limits of mercy where the limits of Justice came as a response to a wacky world inside our Church. And in the OT the Holy Spirit was there - as a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night - to conduct us through the desert into the Holy Land, feeding us with the daily manna, not to offer us analgesics falling from the sky. But as I see, maybe American Protestantism (or maybe American Evangelicalism) is indeed filtered by a self-serving mode of Christian life that focuses on comfort (spiritual or otherwise) and on how the individual self can get the better out of the faith for himself, and another for himself (and so on). If that’s the premise, I don’t know how one can weigh truth where it is due, because truth won’t ever matter. Maybe that’s that. But does it relate to the real authentic faith of all times, bared by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? Of course not. It is not that truth becomes important but utility becomes even more somehow; it is that utility and the individual self become idols - and truth becomes kind of irrelevant. At last, I don’t know if it’s up to me to say it’s probably wrong to see things that way, but I sense there is something different in that. It may sound grandiose, but if ones insists, for a sort of equivalentism, to see the Catholic Church as one denomination among many, he won’t understand the role of the Church in the world and how she is here to transform our petrified hearts into hearts akin to the one of Jesus. For two thousand of years! And it goes with our disturbance, NOT with our personal comfort. I can’t help but feel it’s a kind of domesticated Christianity, contaminated by the classical Liberalism “consensus” and how Americans are fighting hard to stop the other effects of the ultra Liberal agenda; in other words, I can’t avoid to feel our American brothers are obstinately imprisoned by the sensation of comfort and the urge for utility, to a point that it interferes with Truth: either they muscle out what seems “true” or “untrue” by the way it can or can’t get comfortable, either they simply think truth is not up there in the top ranks, at least not an strict version of it that is independent on relative conditions filtered by the self. I tend to say Americans - and I love you, brothers! - maybe lost the way somehow into the cult of the individual, implicitly or not. And the small safe groups that feel like a “warm community” akin to me isn’t really a response to the self, but a safe space for it that is detrimental to the whole. But our faith IS the whole. The world is much bigger than the windows of our homes; and Jesus Christ, winning over death, offers provisory redeeming suffering (have we all even seen real misery and suffering?) through the wilderness if we are there to understand, accept and take it, so that we have everlasting peace. God bless you all, my friends! From 🇧🇷 Brazil with love.
Hey Austin, I've decided to search for the correct church, similar to you. At the end I've found flaws in every, which leads me to believe salvation can be found in every (Christian) church. I won't deny the journey has been frustrating as I thought the decision would be easier the more I studied, but then my hunger for knowledge also grew, there's just too many questions to ask. Multiple denominations pose good points that conflict with one another, yet see equally viable, so that's why I've settled for being non-denominational (for the time being). Could I ask what church you belong to you and how you got there? Thanks for reading :) God bless!
As a Catholic, I understand your concerns but the way I view it is, we are called to follow the way Jesus lived and live to be saints. The Catholic Church is that complete vehicle that offers me the ability to possibly reach the destination with all the sacraments, traditions, teachings, etc. but what some people forget is that we as individuals need to focus on the virtues and practicing those virtues within ourselves. Now, once a part of the Catholic Church, you'll find different flavors in terms of rites or the way it's celebrated. Some are more charismatics while others more traditional. You have different flavors to choose from within the Catholic Church based on what calls you. All in communion with the church Jesus founded.
I once considered converting to Judaism, but it was very much based on books. I wouldn't say that the books were wrong or false, it's just that lived reality is very different from pictures in our mind. Real life is messy and imperfect in a way that is hard to imagine or predict.
Sometimes we get caught in Church politics, liturgy, the human institution, etc. for their own sake. We forget that Christ is the point of all of this, and our relationship with Him. If we seek Christ first, and couch all of this within him, to generate lives conformed to His...then I think we will begin to see seeds of unity bear fruit.
Always a good reminder when I see the comments on these videos on why I would never be a Roman Catholic. So bent of wanting to be "right" rather than anything else. As a Gay man, I had terrible experiences with many churches when searching.
@@iblameabel I know who my God is and I love him. Mine is all encompassing. Stop trying to subtly gatekeep me to yours. Let me know when you are sin free
I would say that there could be a context in which we could talk about an idealised church, namely when we talk about church as it ought to be. But we should simultaneously acknowledge that that ideal will never exist literally, nor are we humans very good at getting the ideal right.
I liked this subject but feel there is something at the end you touched on. Monasteries. Why don’t Protestants have them and why don’t they want to have any?
There are Anglican monasteries. It was sort of a revival movement resulting from the Oxford Movement. Anglicans realized they made an oopsie by dissolving all the monasteries after the Reformation. At the time there were certainly abuses that needed to be corrected, but the pendulum swung too far. There's definitely a movement of Protestants interested in monastic life (see John Mark Comer). But it's definitely pretty incompatible and in my mind an attempt to just strip mine whatever seems interesting without reconciling with the fact that it's a completely different tradition.
@@matthew7491 I mean there are some Prot monks etc, but the exception to prove the rule. Basically they for all intents and purposes do not exist. And I 100% agree, trying to recreate monastic life without any of the underlying aspects of it, is just cosplay.
Historically the argument is extremely solid for the Catholic Church as we know the church names itself that in the first century. And over 2,000 years this Church has grown. There have been good and bad popes, good and bad parish priests etc but the faith is still here. What we know for sure 100% is that what we identify as Protestant churches didn’t exist before the Reformation and all of the pre denominational Churches, Greek Orthodox, Coptic, Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Church ALL came out of the Catholic Church. None of them existed on their own before the CC. The historical facts are what they are. You’re free to disagree with the theology and the claims the church makes. However the historical evidence is pretty good. And of course there is corruption in the Church just as there is corruption in every organization. Name one that doesn’t have it? Lastly Dr. Peterson said something quite insightful that evil corrupts the most good. So if you want to find the Church Christ installed u should EXPECT corruption. The Bible says that evil will not prevail not that there wouldn’t be evil within the Church! And yes I really dislike the evil in the Church any Church Protestant of Catholic and I agree with you on Pope Francis’s. I think it’s only the HS he hasn’t became a formal heretic. He’s way into liberation theology which is Marxists so comments of his on international relations for example of way off putting such as investigating Israel for genocide. Utterly ridiculous. So some of it is yes, read more Aquinas, read the Bible more. Don’t get stuck in the weeds to much into apologetics that these statements and allow the evil to destroy your peace. Keep your peace.
You're absolutely right here, but miss one thing: functions (teleology). The Christian, and indeed non reductive, non-naturalist worldview is that organisms have final causes that inform their formal configurations, activities, matter, etc. The nature of a thing IS its final cause being striven for through matter, activity, space, and time. At no point in time is an organism fully itself, fully realizing its final cause. The nature of an organism is to strive towards its cause and achieve it through development over time. The Church is no different. The question we should ask is not what the Church IS, but what the Church OUGHT to be, and what its FINAL CAUSE (telos) is. Then we must see whether any Churches are actually living out and pursuing that final cause. This is how Orthodox and Catholic think. The "liberal" Orthodox like myself, David Bentley Hart, Kallistos Ware will emphasize the organic nature of the Church in the way I have described.
I am always sad when I see a fellow Catholic make an idealized case for Catholicism and yet reject their Church. E.g. "we have the 3 legs...Bergoglio is NOT the pope" or "we have Sacred Tradition...the councils are full of freemasons". Every case for your church needs to understand that they are meant to be hospitals for sinners, and some sinners do a very good job at pretending to be not a sinner. At no point in the history of Christianity were heretics a myth, they even appeared in the Bible! If your case for your Christian Church does not include the reality of sinners and heretics being present in the Church, your case is idealized and doomed to fail. You can't opt out by saying "well they are not 'True' Christians", the world sees them as members of your church. I get so frustrated when Christians argue for an ideal Church but never take action to actualize the ideal Church. They usually point at sinners and say "he is the reason our Church is not ideal" instead of trying to be a saint and healing the church to be a better hospital to that sinner. Christians that spread division and hate while 'prosletyzing' are harming the Body of Christ regardless of how many people they "convert". I want people to become Catholic because they love Catholicism and want to be part of it, not because they hate their religion, but that love of Catholicism must include the hospital full of sinners that they will be a part of. If I get hired into an amazing company only to find out they have no training and it is sink or swim, I would be frustrated. But if I willingly joined a company knowing that all training has to be done on your own initiative, I would be happy to continue my job.
Well said ! I think you indirectly make a point that is: churches are made up of people and people are diverse, fallen and imperfect. However, the arguement that the Orthodox church is a minority church is not a very good arguement and that non-Orthodox becoming Orthodox will effect the church, this is always true no matter what chuch one belongs to. But if the structure and doctrine of the church is steadfast then what individual are and how they act is not going to make much difference in the long run. If angry young men join maybe the ones who stay will eventually be enlightened and understand thier roles and live a life as God intended and even reach Theosis.
I think you can turn this argument around (partly based on my own experience) and say "Choose a church not based on information online and in books but from going to the church and actually experiencing Christian life there." That way, you can get past the "marketing" and experience the real world, which is always messy and imperfect.
I 100% agree with the first part of your proposition but not the second. Yes, don't hang your faith on online apologetics, but don't rely entirely on subjective experience and aesthetic sense either. Christ comes first, and that means grappling with Scripture and its varied interpretations, and searching your heart with your mind to find God there, but doing so in community and not as a rational island. If raised in a tradition, never stop questioning it lest our hearts and minds be closed off and we presume to have the truth. Finding a grounded faith is hard!
Very good. Great even. I recommend Mosebach's Heresy of Formlessness. One thing he talks about is that most people shouldn't think too much about most things. He has good authority for this attitude "into things beyond your grasp seek not" and "do not exercise yourself in great matters or things too high for you". We're not saved by knowing stuff. We're saved by loving God and doing His Holy Will because it's His, where we are. The rest? Well, if it helps you do God's will in your station of life, you have a duty to seek into it. For example when I first thought about business school I thought it'd be a good idea to learn what Sacred Tradition has to say about business. I don't think the stool image works. Scripture is a subset of Sacred Tradition, which is too big to think of in any ideological sense -- it's not going to give you a pat answer about very much. Sacred Tradition is a platform -- you could say it *is* the religion. You can reject bits of it without destabilizing it but for you it's smaller, less complete, less helpful. You might find yourself able to say The Apostles' Creed, but after that... hmmm. You don't have the time or talent to work it all out for yourself, so what do you do? You don't choose a church, by which I think you really mean a congregation of particular people. I think you choose the Tradition and decide whether to choose all of it.
I don't think we have to put it in starkly negative terms. The Catholic Church simply doesn't believe, or act like it believes, in its own supremacy, with the exception of a few sidelined apologists, and neither do the traditionalists, who defend rigid doctrinal definitions but ignore the people whom the doctrines define. In other words, it's not that the Pope sows doctrinal confusion, it's just very clear that he doesn't fully believe the things that apologists are saying he should. As for Orthodox, I think we oversell the idea of there being a consistent, single "Orthodox" answer to everything, when that is not what Orthodoxy is about and doesn't match the reality of our Churhlch. Also, there are folks on here from the Russian tradition who get on here decrying "ecumenism" when the Patriarch of Moscow is constantly engaged in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue.
Roman catholic on internet sounded so historical, solemn and orthodox, but in Peru it seems so shallow, even if it's a deeply catholic country. People attribute too much their miracles to saints and objects, almost like talisman (not a hint of them undestanding proper intercession). Praying to a baby Jesus dressed as a doctor seemed laughable to me. Bible knowledge amongst assistants tend to be lower than prots. Liturgical music is plain NO music. And if they're so deeply rooted in the history of my country, why has the government been so corrupt and apathetic? Why we have such high crime rates? It's like the church just pats everyone on the shoulder like "don't do that again" and just keep on charity activities instead of permeating in politics and the streets and calling everyone to come to Christ. That's without mentioning all the pdf SA cases that damaged deeply some cities.
My church is Serbian orthodox and I’m 100% American. After going to a few American churches and realizing there was a lot of incel like characters, I’m thankful that my church doesn’t attract those folks. I do feel sorry for them that they feel lost but many of them gave me creepy vibes.
Thanks for this! Some really insightful reflections. I agree with you that we should aim for what is good, beautiful, and true. I agree with you that what we get at the local level parish may be a different experience than the apologetical giants (Augustine, Aquinas) we read while burning the midnight candle. That is definitely a problem. But I think it is a sin problem and has to do with the dissenters from the creeds, councils, and sacred traditions. I still do think there is an objective and visible Church that Christ established that every christian is called to belong which would mean all other ecclesial communities are in schism or man made. Wouldn't this have to be the case if in fact Christ did establish a visible hierarchical church? I do not see how it could be any other way. Christ's church will be full of unfaithful (weeds) and faithful (wheat) until the end of time this includes those within the hierarchy. I think it is important that I remain faithful and remain a lit candle even if those around me have blown out their candle. I pray I follow unity in (creed, governance, liturgy) because it is the Truth even if everyone else has become unfaithful. But, after all I have stated, I do feel the internal spiritual struggle at the local level parish because it is not always a beautiful picture. Sometimes after the liturgy I need to go home and listen to Gregorian chant.
For Protestants, The Church is just a building. The People Are the church. For Orthodox and Catholics, The Church Is the people... The Church is a refuge and home. A foretaste of the Kingdom and a glimpse of union with God.
These are interesting remarks. As a cradle Catholic living in a predominantly Catholic country, I'd say that say that Catholicism is sth very ordinary. So I accept the fact that we have this extraordinary Church, body of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit, true in its teachings... With some flawed leadership, weird relationship with the public and all that. As a Catholic, I know that that is nothing new under the sun, but Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I extend the same grace to my brothers and sisters in Christ outside of the Catholic Church.
I guess I’m too realistic. I’ve only been a member of two congregations but I know something about Christendom. I wouldn’t ever expect there to be uniformity of culture, quality, devotion, etc., etc. except in cults.
Brethren, trust God when you pray it works. He said all we need to do is ask in prayers. My testimony spans from penury to $57,000 bimonthly, and you stay and doubt that he doesn't answer prayers. Make that alter now and spend time there. A change is in the way. Amen!!!🙏
It is the digital market. That's been the secret to this wealth transfer. A lot of folks in the US amd abroad are getting so much from it, God has been good to my household Thank you Jesus
Frankly, I find the reality of doctrinal confusion reassuring, not disturbing. We're all fallible human beings who make mistakes and constantly disagree with each other. Great consistency in morals is something I associate with mind controlling cults and dictatorships, not with free and open societies. We might as well say that Pope Francis is allowing more freedom of opinion in the church.
Your comments about Pope Francis are shared by many Catholics. We have to continue to pray with the knowledge that eventually we will have a different Pople.
As an Orthodox catechuman, I've gotta say that you made some spot on, but ultimately meaningless critiques. "Orthobros" will either convert for real or leave the Church. I think every convert should watch Father Moses' video "Don’t Convert to Orthodox Christianity, Convert to Jesus Christ!"
There is a massive difference between the intellect and the 'mind of the heart' aka 'nous'. It is only from the nous that we get the right ordering of our growing relationship with God. Sometimes it seems almost opposed to sensible decisions. If I were looking for church and hospitality and friendship were my primary motive, I would be Evangelical. If I were looking for a church with a recent track record of suffering and persecution (at least here in Romania) I would be Greek-Catholic. If I were purely looking at the written deposit of faith and the clarity of that deposit, I would be Catholic. If I were after community and asceticism I would be Mennonite or Old Believer. As things stand I am Orthodox and my intellect battles it! My intellect will show me everything there is to criticise about Orthodoxy, and many of those criticisms are valid. But the struggle is part of a healthy internal dialectic. The nous always replies by questioning the strength of my love for the unloved, my willingness to pray over doing anything else and the state of my soul and my praise of God. A few years ago, I saw something here which made me squirm and say to myself 'thank God I am not Orthodox', well God had other plans for me and I am eternally grateful now to be Orthodox and to go wherever that takes me. Just don't ask me to verbalise why. The Risen Lord everywhere in Orthodoxy and that is all I need!
Excellent video! I grew up in a mixed-denominational family…dad was Antiochian Orthodox and mom was Southern Baptist. My faith was challenged by the polarization and as an adult I left organized religion for a few decades. In the last year I found my way back to Christ and joined an Episcopal church. I’m so grateful for a faith community that embraces the “via media”.
Hi Austin! Those Orthodox ‘Bro’s’ get excited like someone who just quit smoking and has to tell everyone! Annoying but very much like youngsters. Protestants do it too. We have 85 inquirers right now in my Parish. Some have come from no churches at all so we have a class on ‘What is Christianity?’ Others attend Orthodoxy 101 to learn what Orthodox believe they ask lots of questions. I’m often a greeter of first time walk-in’s (the deer in headlights look). I have had a few from other churches that think we are the ‘conservative church’ in some bazaar way. But…I cut off the conversation saying “Oh no wait. We are not the Church of conspiracy theories! Those are meant to detract people from prayer and worship. We don’t speak about politics at Church either. Just don’t do it here!” I know that for some people who are coming out of Churches that talk about politics all the time, it’s probably hard to let this go. Some can’t hack a life of prayer, fasting, almsgiving and repentance. It’s normal to take a year to decide if they want to enter the Orthodox Church. We have no desire to rush then have someone regret their choice. As for me, I’m approaching the end of a long life and a relationship with Christ is serious business. Church is serious business. For thirty years now, I know exactly what to expect from the Liturgy. The Eucharist will be served and the seasons of fasting and feasts will order (redeem) the time as it has for over 1400 years.
Bait and switch is one way of framing it. Another way is to say that the convert is the leaven for renewal. St. Francis of Assisi in the 1200s heard the Lord say, "Rebuild my church." Even then the Church was in trouble. Nothing new. In the long history of the Catholic church there have been summits and there have been nadirs. I suggest that the convert brings with him a vision of what the Church ideally should be. That is one way the Church is ever new. Catholics don't have the option of splitting and starting their own church as Protestants do when they feel their church has failed them. We have to be the change we want to see in the church. Because for the Catholic, there is no other church. It is definitely much harder for Catholics to reform from within because we are struggling against existing structures, habits, personalities, powers. We as Catholics cannot start from scratch. The Lord knew that the centrifugal forces that drive disunity are powerful hence His prayer. But He explicitly wished us to remain one and so we who claim to be His followers have no choice but to obey. Whether we succeed or fail is often beyond our control. But we are always comforted with the knowing that it is HIS church. He is in control not us. He will not abandon His Bride. And He will not abandon us. That is the source of our joy. Thanks be to God. Glory to You O Lord, my God in whom I trust. Amen.
In the Catholic Church lies the unity in diversity that is craved by Christians. 24 different rites (traditions) that all assent to the same dogmas and the first among equals (Pope) who holds it all together. The church is a perfect society full of imperfect people doing their best to become and stay sanctified. The fulness of truth.
I think that whether you call yourself Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox or Coptic or some other thing, you’d have to open up the New Testament and quickly say to yourself, “WOW! It did not take long for serious problems to develop after Christ left!” There is only one difference, the scale of it, there’s a lot more Christians these days.
I think its about the office or institution over time, not the random pop up of weirdness here and there. In that light, I think it's been working over the last 2,000 years.
A Baptist was stranded on a remote island for 20 years. When rescuers finally got to him, they found he had built three structures. When they asked him about them, the man pointed to one building and said, “That’s my house.” “And over there?” the rescuers asked. “That’s my church,” the stranded man replied. “I’m Baptist and take my faith quite seriously.” “And over there? What is the third building?” the rescuers asked. “Oh,” said the man. “That’s where I used to go to church before the split.”
😂
The Church is not a museum, nor a courthouse.
It's a hospital for the sick and the broken.
I agree with this and I upvoted you but it is worth mentioning that the truth conveyed to the sick and broken is likely the medicine. The question is, can we disagree a bit on what types of medicine to minister and have fellowship in the midst of that disagreement? Probably.
I think the opposite often happens with Orthodoxy, as well: men in particular get enamored with the very online version of Orthodoxy that (implicitly or not) is all about getting really smart, winning debates, and building a new social circle of based cool reactionary bros, and then they visit the only local parish, where the priest or laity have different political opinions or don't know the Church Fathers or care about theological topics or use their preferred translation of liturgical texts, and so on.
And what happens is that either they're Orthodox online without really going to church much or at all, OR they drive three hours to go to a parish they feel is more conservative. I don't think either of these outcomes is all that great, but since I live close to a great parish I'm rather spoiled and realize I can't fully appreciate the challenges some others face, so I won't belabor this point too much.
What I can say is that though I naturally fit in with the based reactionary young man crowd, I also love spending time with cradle Orthodox people and those from Romania, Russia, Georgia, and so on who also attend my parish. I learn more and get more out of my interactions with them than the fellow converts who all have the same opinions as me. People inquiring into Orthodoxy will benefit from having less presumption of what they think their local parish ought to be like, and be prepared for things to maybe be messy, chaotic, or to some extent in a foreign language.
Less time on the Internet and more time in prayer is the obvious answer
I was raised Baptist, now converting to Lutheranism. This is exactly how I feel any time I watch Dr. Ortlund's videos, even though I love his channel. What you said about the real presence view is so true. This also applies to his view of baptism, which is far more developed than (most) any Baptist church you'll find in real life. Most Baptist churches do not adopt historic creeds or confessions either, nor do they have any concept of liturgy (usually). I am sure that the Lutheran church has their own unique set of problems, although my experience so far has been very positive. At the end of the day you do have to do some theological triage and decide what issues are most important.
I'm Orthodox and cannot agree more with what you said. I converted when I was living in Japan. Most of the Orthodox I knew were living outside of their home countries and the Japanese Orthodox weren't interested in upending Japan's political structure and society. The Orthodox life and experience were pure: how to work towards theosis and living in a non-Christian, non-Orthodox society. I moved back to the U.S. and was shocked at how many young men, inquirers, catechumens and Orthodox talked about politics and culture instead of the spiritual life. To this day, 3 years later, my heart drops when I'm in church and I ask young male inquirers or catechumens how they found Orthodoxy and why they are interested in the Orthodox Church. They found Orthodox through the internet. God bless the priests and laity. cause there's a lot of work to be done.
Thank you for sharing your experience!
I’m at the part of you speaking of Catholicism and I agree we have major issues with our leaders. As a Catholic it makes me sad but doesn’t shake my foundation because I know my faith to be true even with all those issues. Jesus in the Eucharist washes away all problems we may have within the clergy
And in the words of Peter “where else could we go to?”
Be careful with the issue of the priests…
So many Catholics I know brush off the priest issue by saying something like ‘well, these things occur in other places in the world’. Ok. But wherever that happens, moral authority is lost. It just is.
There are a couple of issues here. The first is about imperfection within the Churches or ecclesial communities. Charles Spurgeon actually has a good quote on this, which may be funny to hear a Catholic use:
“If I had never joined a church till I had found one that was perfect, I should never have joined one at all; and the moment I did join it, if I had found one, I should have spoiled it, for it would not have been a perfect church after I had become a member of it. Still, imperfect as it is, it is the dearest place on earth to us.”
We're all sinners and certainly where we all currently belong and worship reflects that. The leadership and laity will at various times make boneheaded decisions incompatible with what the NT portrays, as well as what we see in the early Church. We can argue over what constitutes the Bride of Christ, but as a Catholic I would say that she IS perfect. The people who run it and the laity here on earth are most definitely not.
Secondly, apologists whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant are of course focusing on the ideal of their faith traditions. I happen to believe that mine is the best, others disagree with me. So be it. I can only say that apologetics is useful at times to defend against attacks, can be edifying at other times for one's own faith journey, etc. but I wouldn't let it be at the core. That is liable to lead to disillusionment and burn-out. Much of Christianity is a mystery it can be argued and defies complete explanation to everyone's satisfaction. I am Catholic. I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Of those outside of that, I am not afraid of their materials I find useful and respect the Orthodox most of all in that regard. For example, I appreciate many works by N.T. Wright (Anglican) and am currently finishing Kenneth E. Bailey's (Presbyterian) "Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes", a superb book with enjoyable insights into the Gospels. I have a deep appreciation for Orthodox icons and find the Jesus Prayer to be a spiritual blessing. I guess I would sum all this up by echoing what Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware wrote: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not." Non-Catholics are dependent upon God's grace just like Catholics are.
Thumbs up for a Catholic quoting Spurgeon.
I'm really curious by what you mean by "We can argue over what constitutes the Bride of Christ, but as a Catholic I would say that she IS perfect. The people who run it and the laity here on earth are most definitely not."
To what extent does a good Catholic have to believe the Catholic Church is perfect?
I ask, as some who is literally in RCIA and isn't planning on converting. I don't feel I could make that oath during confirmation, because I don't believe everything the Catholic church teaches is right. I don't think the Catholic church has behaved or taught perfectly throughout the years, I think it's still growing into a more perfect church and has some significant hurdles to overcome on the way there, I believe there's still error present in some of its official teachings. Of course - I love the mass, the respect and reverance towards the eucharist, the richness of history, the community of good Catholic friends I have, and the way Catholic devotions have deepened my faith - but I just can't take it all the way.
And then I look at, you know, those famous statistics that say that over a third of regular mass attending Catholics don't affirm the real presence and yet still receive the eucharist - and I just do not understand what level of cafeteria Catholic is permissible or not, you know? Can I dismiss (or really, pray for reform over) the bits of Catholic teaching that strike me as non-apostolic, and jump in? Or not?
@ My apologies for missing this for so many days. To answer your question, it’s not that the people in the Church are perfect, clearly we are not, but that the Church itself is the spotless Bride of Christ. Every Catholic, from the pope to the laity, are sinners in need of Christ’s redemption. Second, I can understand struggling with some Catholic teachings. I did myself when I was coming from Lutheranism. You may come from a faith tradition that makes it more difficult. I would say pray about what troubles you and do your best to learn why we believe as we do.
@@johnmb69 Interestingly (and inadvertently, I guess), you make a case for the Lutheran motto "simul justus et peccator". In Christ, we are simultaneously imperfect and spotless.
The orthodox comment is so true. People putting politics or philosophy before life in Christ. I was one of this people. By gods mercy I found an “ideal church” that is helping me to unlearn these deceptions and find true orthodox spirituality and prayer
You're a good man, Austin and you're rocking that beard, bro!
Thanks, Matt! I thought of you when I was making this with some of your recent comments about wondering if apologists have oversold people at times. Thanks for what you do!
In dealing with this understandable thought problem, I draw a parallel between the idea of living in the United States (arguably the greatest country in the world) and the reality of living in the US (it's pretty great but there certainly is corruption, mental health and moral issues and gov problems that are clear and frustrating). All those problems notwithstanding, I'm still very grateful and happy to be an American.
In the same way I am very grateful and happy to be Catholic.
Struggling with this dilemma as well. Like, I bristle when people disparage the US for past crimes, am I being a hypocrite for doing the same against the church I was (nominally) raised in?
In the Catholic Church, I do find the beauty that is promised simply because, I think, I spiritually prepare myself for Mass. I understand, to the extent my limited human mind can, what is happening as I engage in the glory of the Mass. That is, that heaven and earth are meeting, that when the the words of consecration are spoken, that Jesus' promise is fulfilled - I AM receiving IS His Body and Blood. But if we go to be entertained, to be awed by the manmade beauty (no matter how lovely), to be impressed by the perfection of our clergy and fellow Catholics in the pew, then we will be disappointed. No question about that. But that's because we are required to be actively involved in our prayer and faith life - to seek union and communion with Christ in our daily lives, so that we recognize Him in His sacraments. Yet we are frail humans and the perfection we know exists will never be fully realized this side of Heaven yet in the Mass we can experience some of the glory promised on this side. I also think of this like a family. You will never find that perfect idealized family that we see in old movies or tv shows or books. And yet, the perfect family DOES exist in that God has given us, in our hearts, the knowledge that it is real, that this was the original plan, and that if we commit ourselves to the hard work involved in family life, then we can catch glimpses of it on this side of heaven. I worry, Austen, that you have become enamored with the idea of ideas rather than the sincere, private, holy search for God. I urge you to step away from UA-cam and enter a period of holy silence, of a prolonged retreat. Don't make this your livelihood. I think it will destroy your faith.
The Catholic Church is a mess, but it's home. "Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad for her, all you who love her; rejoice with her in joy, all you who mourn over her; that you may suck and be satisfied with her consoling breast; that you may drink deeply with delight from the abundance of her glory. For thus says the Lord: Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the nations like an overflowing stream; and you shall nurse, you shall be carried upon her hip, and dandled upon her knees. As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem" (Isaiah 66:10-13). No place I'd rather be. Thank you Jesus!
I think you're right that selling a bill of goods is bad apologetics. I grew up Catholic, spent a good chunk of my teens apostate and rejoined and was confirmed in my late teens, only growing in faith from there. I married a Protestant woman, whom I dated for nearly four years before my retroversion, and religion was often a tense subject in our household as long as I proposed Catholicism as a telos. Simply BEING Catholic around her, and inviting her to participate as far as she's willing, has done more ecumenical work-not to mention deepening and strengthening the unit of our marriage AND religious expression-than any word of argument I've ever given.
As someone who just converted to RC, There's definitely an overhype that you hear upon first interest, but it should be overcome before the conversion happens.
Sort of like the puppy love phase of dating vs the companionship of marriage
@@isaacbisbee6727 well said
If you are finding the Sacraments as over hyped I would just recommend asking God to deepen your connection to the reality of what is happening in them. Some of us are not connecting on a deeper level because we are not properly open to them.
@MrPeach1 I think you're missing the point here. it's similar to when people pray. They expect instant gratification, that's the same with church.
@@prestonyannotti7661 Maybe I am. Who knows the point of what anyone is saying in you tube comment sections.
@MrPeach1 It's a literal hellscape lol
I heard a wise Lutheran pastor give advice to those considering Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. He said "don't compare your Lutheran (or any Protestant) reality with an idealized Roman or EO scenario". If you are going to do that then compare the ideal Protestant scenario to the ideal RC scenario. Or compare your Protestant reality to a RC reality. To your point Austin, I think this is what a lot of people on all sides do. Not saying doctrine doesn't matter, or what church you join doesn't matter but don't convert for a mirage, and at least hear out the best arguments for each side, don't just listen to the best argument for the other side and only listen to the worst representations of your current church. Just a suggestion from someone who has been down this road... God bless your efforts, Austin. Good video.
That is excellent advice. Since all churches are comprised of human beings, in reality, we find all human failings and variations of spiritual qualities therein. So every church or human endeavor will have aspects that depart from the ideals they put out.
@@danielkaranja7978that’s the problem of Protestantism: thinking that the Church that Christ envisioned is a collection of aggregations of fallible people all going in different directions trying to follow Scripture as best as they can.
This is a broken unbiblical system. It’s not what Christ envisioned.
You identify the Church that Christ built and believe Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail on his Church.
The Church Christ instituted is not a fallible aggregation of men. It’s a supernatural body that is guided by the Holy Spirit in all truth.
7:35 my biggest problem with Protestantism is that it seems like there are two Protestantisms. There are the confessional ones who can often make a good case to being a reformed version of the church of the First Millennium, and then there are the Baptist and Pentecostal derived ones. They don't usually seem to know that they are even within the Protestant tradition (even the non-denoms have easily demonstrable ecclesiastical family trees through Baptist and Methodist/Holiness theologies). I like to joke that the bapti-costals (aka Nondenominationals) have added a 6th Sola--sola smoke machine.
The evangellifishes constitute by far the vast majority of church going Protestants. And the overwhelming majority of Protestants who adhere to anything resembling biblical orthodoxy.
This was exactly my experience as an evangelical for the first thirty plus years of my life. You can cite all these traditional liturgical Protestant traditions like Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, and Anglicanism, but most of them have been completely compromised by generations of people who basically don't even believe the Bible is true and hold beliefs essentially indistinguishable from the average Hollywood director. Continuing Anglicanism or conservative Lutheranism are little offshoots from the big river, so to speak.
There were aspects of Anglicanism that I found appealing, like CS Lewis and the traditional music and liturgy, but I had a hard time believing that a church whose genesis was a early modern king wanting to divorce and remarry, and which in recent times has enthusiastically embraced all variety of progressive nonsense, is the "real church" and represented by the few conservative offshoot denominations. I felt Orthodoxy made a far more persuasive case for its claims about itself.
In American and Western Europe, nearly all the Protestant Christians who actually believe in the integrity of Scripture and truth of Christianity are pretty much in congregations that fall somewhere in between Baptist and Pentecostal, with maybe a dash of John Calvin thrown in. I never even knew there was such a thing a conservative traditional Lutheranism for example before researching different denominations on the internet a few years ago.
The point of all this, is that if you hold to Protestant convictions and are conservative, Bapticostalism and the typical beliefs associated with it, is the only real live option, and it feels a bit disingenuous to tell people, as some protestant apologists do, that you can still be a conservative protestant and have a liturgy, believe in the real presence or baptismal regeneration or veneration of saints because hey, look there's this one super obscure Presbyterian denomination right here!
Im Orthodox and find it amazing (and really believe it's true), but your descriptions of its issues in the USA are hilariously spot on. I hope of course these don't end up THE barriers for you, but regardless of that I have so much respect for your intense personal and public honesty. Too many people (me) really kind of temporarily brainwash themselves into something they see as the whole package when they convert, and have a rough adjustment later when they need to keep their faith but with more open eyes.
A personality who's a little bit under the radar, but might make an interesting interview for you, is Steve Robinson. He's an Orthodox layman who has an outsized voice online because of his penchant for keeping it real. I'm not sure what catchy topic you'd attach to the talk though. He recently did a retreat called "Orthodox asceticism in the real world", complete with a small choral rendition of "Troparion of a Mediocre Saint". The whole thing was quite humorous, but also very earthy.
I think in the US Orthodoxy often has this very Other quality, which either attracts or repels. But in many places it's just church. That difference is important in the lived experience.
An Austin & Steve Robinson conversation would be amazing!
That is a fantastic idea, I have read Steve's writing before and it really resonated with me, and I loved his recent talk. I appreciate that there are people doing apologetics and theology in the online Orthodox sphere, but someone like Steve adds a very real and, as you put it, earthy dimension that's often a missing puzzle piece in the broader conversation.
Voices like his make sense of the turbulence we tend to run into when the infatuation with the aesthetic aspects wears off, and you (or at least, I) start to realize that arguing with people and learning dense theology is often an easier substitute for the actual, hard, unglamorous, nitty-gritty work of confronting our own darkness.
Make it happen Austin!
I agree. Attending Liturgy for decades, you can be worshipping with 600 people but feel like you’re by yourself. You and Christ.
If the ultimate truth of which is the best religion and it boils down to a winner who can debate the best or write the best book or is the most charismatic, handsome or beautiful we are doomed to fall off a cliff.
Certainly Peter the Fisherman would be disqualified along with disciples.
Aren’t we all tired of “This is why Orthodox, Catholic, Protestants are WRONG!?”
So what is RIGHT?!
That guy's blogs and little comics ended up being more important to me than I expected
As a catholic I just want to say your critique is very fair. I would just add that the doctrinal confusion should be between the bishops and the popes trying to figure that out and your average layman just to be living out his faith and receiving the sacraments.
The main difference being that people can still have major disagreement with each other and still be in the umbrella of the Catholic Church and not have to schism on every difference like a lot of Protestants and orthodox do.
Jesus didn’t intend his church to be so uniform. There’s a reason why he gave ways to solve the disputes within the Church themselves.
I agree but feel a need to asterisk your mention of the Orthodox since, while schisms do occur, they tend to be over church politics (see: Ukraine) and not on teachings or practices.
Even on topics where there is disagreement, such as hygiene policies during Covid, tolerance of birth control, or how to receive previously-baptized heterodox converts, the churches respect each other's authority to decide these things in their own jurisdictions, and aren't excommunicating each other over them, because they aren't dogmas.
To be fair, the Orthodox also believe schism is a sin.
@@computationaltheist7267 So do protestants, but without a magisterium isn't this exactly what Gospel simplicity was critiquing? These are churches that are trying to defend a church that doesn't exist.
At least with the Catholic Church, you know where that line exists. The Church has a unified ruling body that can actually try people and find people guilty of their sins like they did with Vigano.
If there is no ruling body, than schism is actually just subjective. Am I committing schism if I leave the professing westminster to the Orthodox? Am I committing schism by going Orthodox into Anglicanism? Orthodoxy and protestantism have no Canon Law.
@@haronsmith8974 the Orthodox Church has official ruling bodies. We have canon law. We have a sole visible authoritative head of each patriarchate - the patriarch. The ecclesial structure is pretty similar to Roman Catholicism just minus a pope or patriarch of patriarchs. I think you should look into this more before commenting.
@@harrygarris6921 which Orthodox Church? The one of Constantinople or the one in Moscow?
It's hard to want to be Protestant in my area, when an overwhelming majority of the Prot churches here are Marxist-adjacent politically and/or New Age in their beliefs, with the more conservative/traditional-type Prot churches either being glorified rock concerts, or ultra-calvinist.
The Eastern Orthodox churches here are deeply ethnic and only provide services in languages I don't understand, and while the priests are cool guys, the laity seem stand-offish and make me feel like an interloper/unwelcomed. The two OCA churches are too far away and would impose an unnecessary economic burden on me.
Many of the Roman Catholic churches here are in upscale neighborhoods, where attending them in anything other than a 3-piece suit draws ire; or they're in "rough" neighborhoods and are pretty well empty most of the time, seemingly on their last legs.
So wading through this while still in discernment is frustrating. I know no church or denomination is perfect, but damn.
Yes orthodox churches tend to be Russian or Greek so if you dont understand the language it’s hard to comprehend the real meaning.
I'm Catholic and you're argument against the Orthodox church being "deeply ethnic" is such an American (I assume you're American) viewpoint.
@@braix2 i see your point, its just hard to find an English speaking orthodox community otherwise i should learn some Greek which is not a big price to pay. Anyway i found an orthodox community that speaks English, best regards
@ my mistake
@@braix2 To be fair, this person's criticism seems more to do with the fact that laymen seemed unwelcoming in part because he wasn't the same ethnicity as them. I've heard this criticism before; some churches foster communities that feel more like cultural centers. That is, many people attend to stay connected to their ethnic and cultural background. The Greek parishes near me, and the one I used to live by, placed a certain amount of emphasis on preserving Greek culture within America. They host annual Greek festivals and teach traditional Greek song and dance.
I remember several Catholic apologists saying, "Come on in, it's awful!" (I was told those exact words 3-4 times when I was considering becoming Catholic. It was a helpful warning.)
I'm glad they said it, because in spite of the beauty and peace of the Catholic faith, sometimes, it _is_ awful. (Especially so when we live it the wrong way: When we spend zero time _kneeling in the chapel_ and _praying the hours_ and _feeding the poor,_ and instead spend all our time engaging in online polemics! The faith rarely looks worse than when you're standing in the no-man's-land between online ideologues!)
So, sometimes it looks unappealing. But, there's a huge factor in its favor: And you, Austin, already said it: The arguments in favor are "good enough to keep you up at night."
They _are_ that good. And even if you think they _aren't quite persuasive,_ then you're still forced to ask the next question: "Okay, if I'm _not_ persuaded, then what's the alternative?"
Aye, there's the rub.
The alternatives are all _worse,_ from a logical/historical perspective. If you think clearly about them, they all reduce to one conclusion: Jesus failed to make it possible for sincere seekers to _locate_ Christian orthodoxy and _know that they have found it,_ in every century.
In fact, it would mean that He _failed so badly_ that "the required content of the Christian religion" is basically unknowable for us moderns. Sure, we can make rough approximations: We know it's _something like_ one of the Orthodoxies, or _something like_ Catholicism, or _something like_ a sort of high-church Presbyterianism. We can reasonably know that Seventh-Day Adventism and the JW's are _not plausible candidates._
But, if we're just arguing about individual doctrinal topics, that _rough approximation_ is about as close as we can get. The _real thing,_ as a body of faith and practice that I can _know and obey with confidence,_ is just gone. Lost in the mists of time. It's "Unobtainium."
And in that case, it'd be pretty hard to sustain the claim that Jesus is God.
But, He rose from the dead. Therefore, He is God.
Therefore, principled knowledge of the required content of the Christian religion is _not_ unobtainable even-in-principle.
Therefore, there _must be_ a principle by which we _can_ discover the required content of the Christian religion.
But, what principle?
Well, of the available alternative epistemologies for doing so, only the Catholic one can work _even in principle._ The others can't work, _even in principle._ They don't make sense, _even in principle._
One might ask: "If the Catholic epistemic principle works, whereas the others don't, then why does _being a Catholic_ still look so awful, sometimes?"
Well, The "awfulness" of the Catholic proposal is not awful _in principle._ It is just awful _in practice!_ By that, I mean: It works only when you make allowances for humans screwing it up so badly that it _almost doesn't_ work any more!
So, that's the difference.
The Catholic epistemic principle for knowing (and thus, being in a position to obey) the required content of the Christian religion _works,_ on paper; and the others don't. It delivers clarity in principle; the others can't, in principle. But then, heretics and schismatics and well-meaning-but-ignorant persons muddy the waters so badly that it takes _work_ to find that clarity on any hotly-debated contemporaneous topic. (On things that _aren't_ currently contentious, it's much clearer though. Nobody quite knows whether "Federal Vision" is/isn't heterodox for a Reformed Christian -- it's purely a matter of shifting majorities -- but _everyone knows_ what the Catholic position is on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.)
All the other competing epistemic principles fail.
They're _all_ awful, from time-to-time. (If a Baptist church doesn't seem to rise to the level of grandiose awfulness of the Catholic Church, it's only because they're smaller: Each congregation is independent, such that Baptists as a whole are never impacted by the local pastor going wobbly on doctrine.)
So we can't discern on the basis of _current awfulness._ And that impacts how a church feels _in practice,_ so that can't settle the question either. Only the _workability of the epistemic principle, in principle_ remains.
And by that standard, the Catholic Church is the only game in town.
@EvelynKerubo-s5e:
Maybe, but I've known people to straightforwardly _say_ "I don't want to" when what they really are thinking is "I don't want to." For example, Thomas Nagel says openly that he's an atheist because, although he has successfully argued against reductive materialism and recognizes that a world in which materialism has been refuted is likely to be a world run by _God,_ he doesn't "want the world to be that way."
Now, I don't know Austin any more than one can know _any_ person through the medium of a UA-cam channel, which is a pretty distant kind of "knowledge."
That said, he's my brother in Christ and seems on the surface to approach these things in a thoughtful, sincere, and self-aware kind of way.
So, if _he says_ that he's looked inside himself and discovered an unreasoning dislike of becoming Catholic, and that he is avoiding being persuaded by the logical arguments because, in the end, he "doesn't want to," then _that's_ the point at which I'll agree with you that it's not a matter of intellect, but of will.
_Until_ then, I'm going to make only the most-charitable assumptions about his inner-life, which I'm not in a position to know.
I think your epistemology is flawed. The Orthodox Church IS the Catholic Church. It’s not hard to find. Rome clearly broke away from the rest of the patriarchs in 1054. Look at how many of the doctrines that have “developed” aka changed since then. While the Orthodox have remained consistent in their teaching.
@@countryboyred:
Sure, I understand where you're coming from. And if I thought there was a single Orthodox Church which could be distinguished from the other claimants to that title on a principled basis, I might think similarly.
And of course I have immense respect for the churches of the east, which have retained so much of the patrimony of the first millennium, valid sacraments, etc.
But if I had been raised an atheist, with no theological commitments, and suddenly became convinced that Jesus was God and rose from the dead and founded a church, and if I then went looking for that church, I would be unable on any principled basis to distinguish between the Assyrian Church of the East, the Russian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, the Antiochene Orthodox, the Copts and Tewahedo and Armenian Orthodox Churches, and all the rest. I would not have a preexisting commitment to find a church that acknowledged only seven ecumenical councils, or only three, or some other number; or any prior bias for or against Chalcedonian Christianity, or Nestorianism, or whatever.
The challenge laid before me would be to...
(a.) first figure out what the doctrines of the true faith were; and then,
(b.) find the church that remained faithful to those doctrines; so that,
(c.) having found the right Church, I could submit to its instruction; so that,
(d.) I could thereby learn what the doctrines of the true faith were.
That is _not_ a workable system, even in principle.
At least, it doesn't seem so, to me. But I'm open to hearing rejoinders.
@ there is a single Orthodox Church. To conflate non-chalcedonian and Nestorian churches with the Orthodox Church is intellectually dishonest. That would be like me saying that Old Catholics are still technically Catholics because they call themselves Catholics. Just because a church has “orthodox” in their name doesn’t mean they are part of the One Holy Catholic Church- the Orthodox Church.
@ it’s a simple question really. Which church holds to the teachings of the United church of the first 1000 years of Christianity? Read the Alexandria document and Chieti documents from your own papal encyclicals. The Orthodox have kept the faith. The ecclesiology is exactly the same as it was in the first 1000 years. Rome innovated and left, the Orthodox stayed true to the faith.
What a nice thoughtful video. My wife and I are just getting into the Orthodox Church, hoping to be made catechumens soon. But I am a former Protestant minister myself, and I think I can speak across all faith traditions and saying that every parish or congregation is going to have its own flavor, in both problems and benefits. When I moved to my current area to find a new church, I went to like 12 different Protestant churches in a 30 mile radius, because you had to suss out the pros cons and culture of each congregation. Moving into orthodoxy, the Orthodox mission that we are attending is 2 hours away. And we love it. But we found another one that's only 1 hour away, and we didn't like that one as much. So we're going to drive 2 hours on Sundays. It is what it is, it's the way of the world and the way of people.
That's quite the commitment to drive 2 hours every week!
@GospelSimplicity it is, and it may be too much, but one thing that I learned through orthodoxy is the idea of worship as sacrifice... So we are trying in our own way to embody that through the small sacrifice of time and travel.
Find the church that will help you live out the Christian life to the fullest. Have a leap of faith with the rest. We are called to be saints. ☦️
That’s not what Jesus taught. You don’t a pick a church (among many) that suits your needs.
You identify the one Church that Christ instituted and rest in her.
@gloriapatriparcedomineRome left the Church Christ founded.
One Church has the authority to bind and to loosen on earth and in heaven. Don't join the ones that don't.
@coil8906 the way is Christ though... He said He is the way, the truth and the life. The way to the Father is not a Church, it is Jesus Christ.
As a long time church hopper and experiencing a ton of different services, masses and liturgies, I found my home church and am converting. The key? It was just a mixture of allowing the best way to express my faith and the community of people. There is no perfect church. But the best church is usually a mix between what you believe to be the truth and feel like you can express it best for you within it, and the people within it. A church is supposed to be a community of faith. I went to some great Catholic churches (was leaning towards catholicism), but also some horrible ones. The one I chose I went to one mass and within 15 min. knew it was the one. Signed up for RCIA, and it's been nothing short of the best church experience of my life. It's not the giant cathedral in downtown Chicago, but a smaller thriving community of faithful in the suburbs with a school system attached and tons of things to do to further your faith and help the community.
I liked a lot of things from protestant churches as a protestant myself. Some better than others (I do like some Lutherans/anglican churches) But with Catholicism I find the fullness of faith. There was always something missing from the protestant path for me. I liked a lot of Orthodoxy too, but the ethnicity aspect was a bit irritating. Most churches near me were VERY based in their ethnic culture and there were a few weird things I didn't like. The liturgy is awesome though. Just did not vibe with everything.
That was good and encouraging and also kind of a rebuke for as I am exploring the different Protestant traditions as I study theology in school. Thank you for being down to earth and honest. It sounds very much like the idea of simply going where: You are deepened in faith in Jesus, can serve God and His people, hear His Word preached, and have the Sacraments/Ordinances administered. Theologically lining up on every point is probably not gonna happen sadly, but that's ok I reckon, as we are all disciples seeking to learn until we see the teacher face to face.
I find the Roman Church creates a standard, fails to live up to it, then says "trust me bro"
Jesus sets the standard, and every one of us fails to live up to it, from his first disciples and the Church Fathers to you and I to the Pope and Magisterium throughout Christian history and today.
@wruff378 well, the magesterium teaches that when scripture says "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it," it means the Roman church. This isn't true. Christ overcame "the gates of Hell" when He was resurrected.
Hebrews 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil
Christ did not establish a pope or magesterium. Christianity would be fine w/o both.
The overselling is ubiquitous . Good advice here.
Before I became Catholic my eyes were wide open to the problems and the potential damage done by a heretical Pope was foremost in my mind. Benedict was wonderful and kept the church sane. But now we're seeing the damage that a heretic Pope can do and it's devedtating. Our greatest strength (strong leadership) is looking like our Achilles heel.
I had a long comment that disappeared before I could hit the "comment" button, so I'll try to be a lot shorter this time. I'm a former Protestant, since 2002 a convert to Orthodoxy. I've lived and experienced a lot of what Orthodoxy offers over the years. One thing that I feel changing now that I'm in my 40s is less the idea that church services are there for me to get something out of them, but that as a part of this Church, I have the responsibility to support it. One can have the "perfect" priest, but he can't be everything to everybody, he can't be everywhere and fix all things. The laity, then, has a huge responsibility to build the community, both within the parish, and as emissaries of Christ's church to the outside world. That comes with love. This is how it was said that we would be known, by our ability to love each other. I know there are the "purists" who like to push the idea that there is no grace outside the Orthodox Church, but that certainly hasn't been my experience, certainly not in my Protestant days, but I see it in my Protestant and Catholic friends. Yes, I believe that the fullness of the faith is found in its truest form in the Orthodox Church, but I think all of us who seek His Truth are truly brothers and sisters in Christ. This is how we stand fast against the onslaught of an insane world. (Also, if you've never heard of the White Rose - Sophie Scholl, Hans Scholl, Willi Graf, Alexander Schmorell, Christoph Probst, Prof. Kurt Huber, etc. it might interest you as an example of a group with different Christian backgrounds who did just that.)
Well said. I live on an Island so no matter what, you are stuck with the churches you have locally. And it is frankly destructive to the whole Island community to be sectarian. The reality of each congregation boils down the people, their personalities and tastes - no way around it. Any competition between Fr. Chip’s church vs. Pastor Leo’s would be met by the same scolding St. Paul gave those who bickered about being Apollo’s vs. Cephas’. He was addressing, via Catholic epistle, the Denominationalism of his time; the call is always to a regional ecumenism, hence Paul addressed his letters not to the denominations, but to their entire assembly on a regional basis, and admonished them to peace and order amongst themselves.
Dude this is probably your best video o my opinion.
I do not argue for a church. I argue for the Gospel.
Word. We need to do better as protestants. Thankfully, protestantism CAN do that.
Britannica says around 6,000,000 Orthodox in the United States. Hard to say. One of our problems is that it's an immigrant Church here, and the the people who came from The Old Country use it as a cultural bedrock. The main problem, in my opinion, is the chaos created by the Russian Revolution. Originally, the Patriarch of Moscow had jurisdiction in the Americas because of the Russian missionaries to Alaska and Northern California. But, with the Russian Revolution and the disruption it caused, the Patriarch of Moscow, I think in 1921, pretty much said, "Because of the unusual circumstances, the Moscow Patriarchate can no longer act as a guide and spiritual touchstone for the Orthodox communities in America. You will have to look to your own native hierarchs, To Greece, to Jerusalem, to Antioch."
There's a podcast with Fr. Andrew Damick and Matthew Namee, where they really go into the numbers, and in their opinion, 1,000,000 in the US in 2020 or so is probably the very top of who might actually be Orthodox (many of the higher numbers are more adding ethnic Greeks, Russians, Serbians, etc. and assuming that they are all Orthodox, which is definitely not true). The chaos of the Russian Revolution cannot be understated, as they not only were funding clergy and building efforts, but they were the only jurisdiction that not only had a presence in the US, but were active in missionary endeavors. (The Greeks were establishing churches - actually, the first Orthodox parish established in the lower 48 is Greek - but there was really no outreach beyond the Greek community.) St. Sebastian Dabovich (Serbian, but part of the "Russian Mission") was publishing Orthodox books in English in 1898 already, and Isabel Hapgood's first edition of the English translation of the services came out in 1906. Orthodoxy in the US is definitely becoming more "native" (even in the two decades I've been Orthodox) but the Russian Revolution put something like a 100 year pause on those efforts.
This video is basically telling me he doesn’t understand papal infallibility and authority of the magisterium without telling me he doesn’t understand papal infallibility in the authority of the magisterium
I'm a Catholic and, to my great dismay, I must agree with you about the reality of the Catholic Church in our age. Today the saying, “The road to hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lampposts that light the path," seems to be the stark reality. The impression I get is that those bishops who are not heretics are cowards. And I don't give Francis nearly the "good qualities" points that you do. He is an utter, abysmal disaster for the Church, no doubt allowed by God to both chastise us and to turn us back towards the truth of the Catholic faith. And, by the grace of God, I do see a great faithfulness and energy and liturgical reverence in the young priests, religious, and lay faithful.
I will always remain Catholic, but i love your channel.
Thanks! That means a lot
I think the struggle most Christians have is with finding a church that fits one’s own deeply seeded beliefs, whether they are founded in faith and the Bible or not. That’s a task that is nearly impossible, and I watch friends shop for churches for years without success. The key is to look at a church and determine whether its teachings can lead you to Heaven and follow it there, allowing your beliefs to be conformed to it. I am a lifelong Catholic, and I know how terribly fallible the people, priests and bishops of my church are because we are all humans. I thank God for his mercy to allow us to start over in the Sacrament of Confession! What is infallible is the Word of God, the Magesterium, and the Catechism. If I hear something at church that does not follow with what I know those three sources teach, I approach the teacher - clergy or laity - with kindness and share what I know to be true. This gentle, loving correction, called for by St. Paul, of those I encounter is extremely rare, less than once a decade. I am so fallible, but I want to be conformed to God’s will in the church Jesus himself established.
I must add that I gratefully receive Christian correction as well - much more frequently than once per decade!
So you also hope hell is empty and all religions lead to God? And no salvation outside the Roman church?
The Catholic Church is better viewed from the perspective of family with Sheppard. Families go through challenging times.
We all desire relationships strengthened by challenges rather than weakened by them. Jesus will prepare us for loyal committed relationships through challenges.
Saying yes to his Church is saying yes to His Passion and Resurrection. His Church participates in the cycles he established of death and resurrection into a greater glory. History of the Catholic Church reveals this to those with spiritual eyes
I've been doing my own exploration as I'm sure many have been, and I agree very much with this video. Realities on the ground can be so different from the pristine image presented by the best apologists for each denomination! 😁 Of course the most gregarious and convincing folks are the ones we see on YT and of course they represent their churches well. May we all learn to follow the only person reliably worth following: Jesus!
As someone who converted from Protestantism into Catholicism and then into orthodoxy, I relate to this all too much. I left the Catholic Church because modern innovations to the liturgy. I just couldn’t stand. I left orthodoxy because after spending two years in a monastery, I realize it was overrun with ideological fundamentalist, and now the orthodox say I just didn’t have the correct faith. Everybody is searching for perfection and unfortunately it isn’t there. I’ve abandoned at all.
This is very important to hear. Thanks
As an Orthodox, I want to follow the spirit of the video and share my experience regarding this topic: when I converted from decades of atheism, the selling point was the amazing symbolic understanding of reality of the EO Church. For me, that was the ground in which this whole "God thing" made sense, nothing else. When I started attending Liturgy, I quickly found out that at least in my parish most people understood the faith like Catholics and Protestants... I was actually participating in "normal Christianity", not the special "totally not Christianity" I had in mind. In retrospective, that was a blessing. That desire for novelty was a expression of my pride and rejection of Christ.
That being said, your Priest will not be Jonathan Pageau!
This is a great point. The fact that we have arrived at a time when people base their expectations and experiences on what they see on UA-cam and Twitter is one of the lowest points in the history of humanity. As a species, we are, to be frank, getting dumber.
That is the beauty, that it works on all levels for all people. Esoteric mystery cults are engaging to smart people, but regular people have no idea what's going on. Low church Protestantism is engaging to a lot of regular people, but smart people can see all the holes where things are missing and don't make sense.
In Orthodoxy I can read St. Ephrem and St. Maximus, but once I understand what they're saying I know the summary is just "Go to church, pray, and be kind to people like Jesus told you to, dummy."
yes, so much beautiful symbolism that words and categories can't express and fail to take us where we long to go.. How else can the created reach the Uncreated?
Are you aware of Tom Wadsworth and his study of 1st Century "worship" services?
Ecclesiology is a tricky issue. But I think the most important thing is our unity and finding places where we overlap, instead of insisting on the super-rightness of one or two things that make us distinct.
It's good to read and learn about these other experiences in the comments. My own perspective is that YHWH is quite capable of using flawed people for His glory, and so long as we abide in Yeshua the Messiah and follow Him where He guides, we will be in the "right" church community, exactly where He wants us.
I do agree with the potential mismatch between what a tradition should offer vs what’s actually found in a local Parish. Turns out the level of depth and beauty one is looking for is best preserved in a monastic setting, given the increasing pressure on churches to become secularized.
Your argument here is sound, and I find your charitable interaction with all three great traditions very refreshing. I interpret the problem as an overemphasis on subjective experience to find or validate the Church. Instead of looking for a Church based on downstream apologetics like these, I think one ought to have made up their mind prior to any practical experience of a particular church and should not let flawed groups of men in practice damage their faith.
Jesus founded a Church in Matthew 16:18. If you believe the Bible is the Word of God and interpret the verse as founding it on Peter with an institutional authority given to him uniquely symbolized by the keys, and that the authority but not the keys was then given to all the Apostles in Matthew 18:18, you have no choice but to be Catholic.
If you interpret it as Him founding it on Peter's confession of faith but not him uniquely, you can pick between Protestantism and Orthodoxy. The latter downplays Peter's unique role without eliminating it and emphasizes the Orthodox confession of faith in Tradition; the former focuses on the confession of faith as formally derived from Scripture.
As a Catholic convert of a decade or so, the problem I see with both is not an issue of diversity of practice but of theoretical foundation. Both rely entirely on one's own interpretation of the sources of their traditions: Tradition for Orthodoxy, Scripture for Protestants. In theory, that yields churches prone to divisions on any number of possible disputes with little to no authoritative way to settle those disputes. One's own interpretation and conscience is the ultimate arbiter, and no one else has the authority to say you or the tradition you follow is wrong unless they can convince you otherwise, but reason is woefully inadequate for such a task in itself-something Orthodox realize making it much more difficult to make headway, but something Protestants don't having been founded on a late Medieval precursor to rationalism and the Enlightenment.
Since the Catholic Church maintains a living Magisterium, however flawed in practice, it's the only Church on Earth that can authoritatively exclude all others if you believe in it. Yes, that means if the Pope says something I don't like or that seems confusing or contradictory with doctrine, I must submit and do whatever I can to reconcile it with the rest of Tradition, but at least I have something living and breathing to submit to that isn't ideas in my own mind.
If the Catholic Church ever really went too far and invalidated itself, I'd either become Orthodox and bite the bullet to maintain my personal relationship with God or lose all faith and become a "cultural Christian" agnostic since I distrust subjective experience and rational inquiry, but given my faith in Christ's promises, I have to exhaust every possible option to give the Church the benefit of the doubt first.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk, and thank you for a refreshingly good video!
You have to believe. That’s the main thing. Be Obiedant to our Lord Jesus Christ and we’re he deposited the faith. The Church will always work its self out because Jesus Christ is in charge.
Basically Austin:
“The Catholic Church has issues.”
“The Protestant churches definitely have issues.”
“The Orthodox Church is pretty 🔥, maybe some of the people inside it are strange.”
Hmmmm, very interesting. Thank you for reaffirming my choice to pursue Orthodoxy!
Haha in all seriousness I really appreciate your channel Austin, it’s been so helpful to me. I love the way you approach these subjects.
The phyletism of Orthodoxy in the Orthodox homeland is telling of a greater issue in their church…
coming from an orthodox perspective your right that converts definitly have some issues in how they act sometimes which i guess includes me since im a convert. Speaking less about church and people in general i think we do need to remember tht no matter which church we go to people are still people. I belive Orthodoxy is true but it doesn't make people perfect overnight which I think goes for any church. A saying ive heard several times is that the church is infallible but people are not. The church is a hospital and so it will be full of sick people, we need to do a better job at stopping negative behavior. This is honestly what made me choose to become orthodox partially because of its focus on the struggle to become holy which is an often hard journey. Their are many temtations, Too laxed or too zealus, too conservative or too liberal, There was a priest who responed to a question these temtations stating, "Orthodoxies simplist definition is balance" and I think this phrase can be used for a lot of these examples of how people act or should act. Anyway I hope this made sence and wasn't to rambley, Have a blessed day.
This was really worth listening to- thanks.
My pleasure!
Everything you said is true, especially about Orthodoxy. That last point made me want to quit because I'm not conservative. I am a black male married to a Irish/ german woman and it's been frowned upon by some of these conservatives in my parish. There is an Orthodox saint that warn that the Orthodox church would be filled to the brim with people but their hearts will be far from true Orthodoxy. I already see it and it's rather scary.
As long as you’re not morally a democrat. You’re fine.
I can only give my two cents, but at my quite traditional and conservative parish in the southeast US which has not just a lot of cradle Orthodox from eastern Europe, but very online guys who discovered Orthodoxy from Jay Dyer and such... we have at least two families with a black father and white mother, and at least half a dozen other black men and women who joined our church, and everybody gets along quite nicely. So please don't let your circumstances discourage you, just prove the doubters wrong by being the best Orthodox Christian you can.
@@SinkingStarship I appreciate the comment. It's hard because I'm literally the only black person in my parish.
@@brothergerasimos-bd3pq the blood of Jesus Christ knows no color, but red. Be encouraged, brother. You have the Lord, God, Jesus Christ of Nazareth within you.
To me, this all proves we’re in the last days and we all need to get back to the “roots” of The Faith and trust God with what happens or how things “look.”
I think at the end of the day we have to find our own way of being Christians, which I suppose is a lifelong quest. In my case it is neither remaining within the Catholic Church nor exactly outside of it. I have learned to navigate my Catholicism in such a way as to avoid the parish office entirely, for my experience taught me the view of the Church from the sacristy is never pretty. Catholic priests are wonderful, open-minded, kind, intelligent people AS LONG AS you don`t deal with them in the parish office - where you obviously come because you want something from them - for in the parish office these wonderful souls tend to turn into petty, mean administrators . The best thing about the Catholic church is that in most places you just go to mass unmolested, no questions asked, to fingers pointed "who the hell are you and what do you want?" as in so many protestant churches. I understand that when I go to a mass, there are bills they have to pay so I am more than happy to contribute, but other than I don`t want to deal with their organization. In a church want the Gospel, I want the sermon, I want the singing etc. ,but I don`t want to be part of their parish life. It`s much like going to the opera: some people go for the opera itself (the performance), some go for the social event, some for both. I only want the opera itself. I don`t know how others might view my christianity and I don`t really care, for the only way for me is the way of the lone wolf, the Solitary Christian.
Very well said.
Great points!!
Sounds like sinful people doing sinful things is the problem
I can honestly feel all that, Austin. I can’t speak for Protestants and Orthodox, but I think the problems in Catholicism like those described can get overly dimensioned by the Internet mass presence in our daily lives and the kind of “tabloid media” always trying to make news out of Rome polemics or the institution’s governance itself. In that sense, I live the life of the parish first and foremost. That’s not a false immunity to bad news, but the mere Christian wisdom of all times being lived out. For good or bad, the Catholic Church is not an indifferent player concerning the issues that relate to present and future human drama. She is - and she has always been, and she will always be - the universal answer God gives to an obstinate humanity that prefers the other way around, without this very merciful God driving us through His paths. Whenever one perceives it and sees how the Church always acted like that, surrounding and dealing with the political and social problems of the day, in order to ultimately protect all souls, then they can rest a little bit amidst the tabloid polemics concerning an interview of the pope or his decisions concerning who he puts as cardinals, for example. I really don’t know how can people miss it. But it probably relates to how they are putting the self over the rest maybe without even knowing that they project the self to a small warming group that doesn’t threaten that very self. But didn’t it sound absolutely crazy when we saw woke militants speaking of “safe spaces” on university campuses?
Because we are now overly politicized and sunken into social wars, it disturbs. Sure. I don’t particularly like the pope for the reasons predictable, but I understand he is there to push the limits of mercy where the limits of Justice came as a response to a wacky world inside our Church. And in the OT the Holy Spirit was there - as a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night - to conduct us through the desert into the Holy Land, feeding us with the daily manna, not to offer us analgesics falling from the sky. But as I see, maybe American Protestantism (or maybe American Evangelicalism) is indeed filtered by a self-serving mode of Christian life that focuses on comfort (spiritual or otherwise) and on how the individual self can get the better out of the faith for himself, and another for himself (and so on). If that’s the premise, I don’t know how one can weigh truth where it is due, because truth won’t ever matter. Maybe that’s that. But does it relate to the real authentic faith of all times, bared by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? Of course not. It is not that truth becomes important but utility becomes even more somehow; it is that utility and the individual self become idols - and truth becomes kind of irrelevant.
At last, I don’t know if it’s up to me to say it’s probably wrong to see things that way, but I sense there is something different in that. It may sound grandiose, but if ones insists, for a sort of equivalentism, to see the Catholic Church as one denomination among many, he won’t understand the role of the Church in the world and how she is here to transform our petrified hearts into hearts akin to the one of Jesus. For two thousand of years! And it goes with our disturbance, NOT with our personal comfort. I can’t help but feel it’s a kind of domesticated Christianity, contaminated by the classical Liberalism “consensus” and how Americans are fighting hard to stop the other effects of the ultra Liberal agenda; in other words, I can’t avoid to feel our American brothers are obstinately imprisoned by the sensation of comfort and the urge for utility, to a point that it interferes with Truth: either they muscle out what seems “true” or “untrue” by the way it can or can’t get comfortable, either they simply think truth is not up there in the top ranks, at least not an strict version of it that is independent on relative conditions filtered by the self. I tend to say Americans - and I love you, brothers! - maybe lost the way somehow into the cult of the individual, implicitly or not. And the small safe groups that feel like a “warm community” akin to me isn’t really a response to the self, but a safe space for it that is detrimental to the whole. But our faith IS the whole. The world is much bigger than the windows of our homes; and Jesus Christ, winning over death, offers provisory redeeming suffering (have we all even seen real misery and suffering?) through the wilderness if we are there to understand, accept and take it, so that we have everlasting peace.
God bless you all, my friends! From 🇧🇷 Brazil with love.
This is more orthodox but I recommend Bottom of the Rabbit Holes video on "No church has perfect theology"
Sounds interesting
Hey Austin, I've decided to search for the correct church, similar to you. At the end I've found flaws in every, which leads me to believe salvation can be found in every (Christian) church. I won't deny the journey has been frustrating as I thought the decision would be easier the more I studied, but then my hunger for knowledge also grew, there's just too many questions to ask. Multiple denominations pose good points that conflict with one another, yet see equally viable, so that's why I've settled for being non-denominational (for the time being).
Could I ask what church you belong to you and how you got there?
Thanks for reading :) God bless!
As a Catholic, I understand your concerns but the way I view it is, we are called to follow the way Jesus lived and live to be saints. The Catholic Church is that complete vehicle that offers me the ability to possibly reach the destination with all the sacraments, traditions, teachings, etc. but what some people forget is that we as individuals need to focus on the virtues and practicing those virtues within ourselves. Now, once a part of the Catholic Church, you'll find different flavors in terms of rites or the way it's celebrated. Some are more charismatics while others more traditional. You have different flavors to choose from within the Catholic Church based on what calls you. All in communion with the church Jesus founded.
I once considered converting to Judaism, but it was very much based on books. I wouldn't say that the books were wrong or false, it's just that lived reality is very different from pictures in our mind. Real life is messy and imperfect in a way that is hard to imagine or predict.
Sometimes we get caught in Church politics, liturgy, the human institution, etc. for their own sake. We forget that Christ is the point of all of this, and our relationship with Him. If we seek Christ first, and couch all of this within him, to generate lives conformed to His...then I think we will begin to see seeds of unity bear fruit.
Always a good reminder when I see the comments on these videos on why I would never be a Roman Catholic. So bent of wanting to be "right" rather than anything else. As a Gay man, I had terrible experiences with many churches when searching.
Of course it is important to pursue the Truth in the Church Jesus founded, right? What is the alternative?
I hope you’re not out off by your sin being exposed. That’s probably the best thing about going to church.
@@iblameabel "put off by your sin being exposed". Lovely terminology. Try living in another's shoes. Isnt that what humility is all about.
@@IAMNationX “love your neighbor as yourself” is the 2nd greatest commandment. Do you know what the 1st one is & how to do so?
@@iblameabel I know who my God is and I love him. Mine is all encompassing. Stop trying to subtly gatekeep me to yours. Let me know when you are sin free
I would say that there could be a context in which we could talk about an idealised church, namely when we talk about church as it ought to be. But we should simultaneously acknowledge that that ideal will never exist literally, nor are we humans very good at getting the ideal right.
I liked this subject but feel there is something at the end you touched on. Monasteries. Why don’t Protestants have them and why don’t they want to have any?
There are Anglican monasteries. It was sort of a revival movement resulting from the Oxford Movement. Anglicans realized they made an oopsie by dissolving all the monasteries after the Reformation. At the time there were certainly abuses that needed to be corrected, but the pendulum swung too far.
There's definitely a movement of Protestants interested in monastic life (see John Mark Comer). But it's definitely pretty incompatible and in my mind an attempt to just strip mine whatever seems interesting without reconciling with the fact that it's a completely different tradition.
@@matthew7491 I mean there are some Prot monks etc, but the exception to prove the rule. Basically they for all intents and purposes do not exist. And I 100% agree, trying to recreate monastic life without any of the underlying aspects of it, is just cosplay.
Historically the argument is extremely solid for the Catholic Church as we know the church names itself that in the first century. And over 2,000 years this Church has grown. There have been good and bad popes, good and bad parish priests etc but the faith is still here.
What we know for sure 100% is that what we identify as Protestant churches didn’t exist before the Reformation and all of the pre denominational Churches, Greek Orthodox, Coptic, Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Church ALL came out of the Catholic Church. None of them existed on their own before the CC.
The historical facts are what they are. You’re free to disagree with the theology and the claims the church makes. However the historical evidence is pretty good.
And of course there is corruption in the Church just as there is corruption in every organization. Name one that doesn’t have it?
Lastly Dr. Peterson said something quite insightful that evil corrupts the most good. So if you want to find the Church Christ installed u should EXPECT corruption. The Bible says that evil will not prevail not that there wouldn’t be evil within the Church!
And yes I really dislike the evil in the Church any Church Protestant of Catholic and I agree with you on Pope Francis’s. I think it’s only the HS he hasn’t became a formal heretic. He’s way into liberation theology which is Marxists so comments of his on international relations for example of way off putting such as investigating Israel for genocide. Utterly ridiculous.
So some of it is yes, read more Aquinas, read the Bible more. Don’t get stuck in the weeds to much into apologetics that these statements and allow the evil to destroy your peace. Keep your peace.
You're absolutely right here, but miss one thing: functions (teleology). The Christian, and indeed non reductive, non-naturalist worldview is that organisms have final causes that inform their formal configurations, activities, matter, etc. The nature of a thing IS its final cause being striven for through matter, activity, space, and time. At no point in time is an organism fully itself, fully realizing its final cause. The nature of an organism is to strive towards its cause and achieve it through development over time. The Church is no different. The question we should ask is not what the Church IS, but what the Church OUGHT to be, and what its FINAL CAUSE (telos) is. Then we must see whether any Churches are actually living out and pursuing that final cause. This is how Orthodox and Catholic think. The "liberal" Orthodox like myself, David Bentley Hart, Kallistos Ware will emphasize the organic nature of the Church in the way I have described.
I am always sad when I see a fellow Catholic make an idealized case for Catholicism and yet reject their Church. E.g. "we have the 3 legs...Bergoglio is NOT the pope" or "we have Sacred Tradition...the councils are full of freemasons". Every case for your church needs to understand that they are meant to be hospitals for sinners, and some sinners do a very good job at pretending to be not a sinner. At no point in the history of Christianity were heretics a myth, they even appeared in the Bible! If your case for your Christian Church does not include the reality of sinners and heretics being present in the Church, your case is idealized and doomed to fail. You can't opt out by saying "well they are not 'True' Christians", the world sees them as members of your church. I get so frustrated when Christians argue for an ideal Church but never take action to actualize the ideal Church. They usually point at sinners and say "he is the reason our Church is not ideal" instead of trying to be a saint and healing the church to be a better hospital to that sinner. Christians that spread division and hate while 'prosletyzing' are harming the Body of Christ regardless of how many people they "convert". I want people to become Catholic because they love Catholicism and want to be part of it, not because they hate their religion, but that love of Catholicism must include the hospital full of sinners that they will be a part of. If I get hired into an amazing company only to find out they have no training and it is sink or swim, I would be frustrated. But if I willingly joined a company knowing that all training has to be done on your own initiative, I would be happy to continue my job.
I appreciate this video. I've been on this journey for a long time. The church is complex
I left Catholicism for Orthodoxy knowing full well the issues that occur in Orthodoxy because I believe it’s the true Church
Well said ! I think you indirectly make a point that is: churches are made up of people and people are diverse, fallen and imperfect. However, the arguement that the Orthodox church is a minority church is not a very good arguement and that non-Orthodox becoming Orthodox will effect the church, this is always true no matter what chuch one belongs to. But if the structure and doctrine of the church is steadfast then what individual are and how they act is not going to make much difference in the long run. If angry young men join maybe the ones who stay will eventually be enlightened and understand thier roles and live a life as God intended and even reach Theosis.
I think you can turn this argument around (partly based on my own experience) and say "Choose a church not based on information online and in books but from going to the church and actually experiencing Christian life there."
That way, you can get past the "marketing" and experience the real world, which is always messy and imperfect.
I 100% agree with the first part of your proposition but not the second. Yes, don't hang your faith on online apologetics, but don't rely entirely on subjective experience and aesthetic sense either.
Christ comes first, and that means grappling with Scripture and its varied interpretations, and searching your heart with your mind to find God there, but doing so in community and not as a rational island. If raised in a tradition, never stop questioning it lest our hearts and minds be closed off and we presume to have the truth. Finding a grounded faith is hard!
Very good. Great even.
I recommend Mosebach's Heresy of Formlessness. One thing he talks about is that most people shouldn't think too much about most things. He has good authority for this attitude "into things beyond your grasp seek not" and "do not exercise yourself in great matters or things too high for you". We're not saved by knowing stuff. We're saved by loving God and doing His Holy Will because it's His, where we are. The rest? Well, if it helps you do God's will in your station of life, you have a duty to seek into it. For example when I first thought about business school I thought it'd be a good idea to learn what Sacred Tradition has to say about business.
I don't think the stool image works. Scripture is a subset of Sacred Tradition, which is too big to think of in any ideological sense -- it's not going to give you a pat answer about very much. Sacred Tradition is a platform -- you could say it *is* the religion. You can reject bits of it without destabilizing it but for you it's smaller, less complete, less helpful. You might find yourself able to say The Apostles' Creed, but after that... hmmm. You don't have the time or talent to work it all out for yourself, so what do you do?
You don't choose a church, by which I think you really mean a congregation of particular people. I think you choose the Tradition and decide whether to choose all of it.
Wow, thank you. Nicely said.
I don't think we have to put it in starkly negative terms. The Catholic Church simply doesn't believe, or act like it believes, in its own supremacy, with the exception of a few sidelined apologists, and neither do the traditionalists, who defend rigid doctrinal definitions but ignore the people whom the doctrines define. In other words, it's not that the Pope sows doctrinal confusion, it's just very clear that he doesn't fully believe the things that apologists are saying he should.
As for Orthodox, I think we oversell the idea of there being a consistent, single "Orthodox" answer to everything, when that is not what Orthodoxy is about and doesn't match the reality of our Churhlch. Also, there are folks on here from the Russian tradition who get on here decrying "ecumenism" when the Patriarch of Moscow is constantly engaged in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue.
If I wanted to understand the truth of Catholicism from a Protestant background I would reach out to Dr Scott Hahn.
Roman catholic on internet sounded so historical, solemn and orthodox, but in Peru it seems so shallow, even if it's a deeply catholic country. People attribute too much their miracles to saints and objects, almost like talisman (not a hint of them undestanding proper intercession). Praying to a baby Jesus dressed as a doctor seemed laughable to me. Bible knowledge amongst assistants tend to be lower than prots. Liturgical music is plain NO music.
And if they're so deeply rooted in the history of my country, why has the government been so corrupt and apathetic? Why we have such high crime rates? It's like the church just pats everyone on the shoulder like "don't do that again" and just keep on charity activities instead of permeating in politics and the streets and calling everyone to come to Christ. That's without mentioning all the pdf SA cases that damaged deeply some cities.
My church is Serbian orthodox and I’m 100% American. After going to a few American churches and realizing there was a lot of incel like characters, I’m thankful that my church doesn’t attract those folks. I do feel sorry for them that they feel lost but many of them gave me creepy vibes.
Thanks for this! Some really insightful reflections. I agree with you that we should aim for what is good, beautiful, and true. I agree with you that what we get at the local level parish may be a different experience than the apologetical giants (Augustine, Aquinas) we read while burning the midnight candle. That is definitely a problem. But I think it is a sin problem and has to do with the dissenters from the creeds, councils, and sacred traditions. I still do think there is an objective and visible Church that Christ established that every christian is called to belong which would mean all other ecclesial communities are in schism or man made. Wouldn't this have to be the case if in fact Christ did establish a visible hierarchical church? I do not see how it could be any other way. Christ's church will be full of unfaithful (weeds) and faithful (wheat) until the end of time this includes those within the hierarchy. I think it is important that I remain faithful and remain a lit candle even if those around me have blown out their candle. I pray I follow unity in (creed, governance, liturgy) because it is the Truth even if everyone else has become unfaithful. But, after all I have stated, I do feel the internal spiritual struggle at the local level parish because it is not always a beautiful picture. Sometimes after the liturgy I need to go home and listen to Gregorian chant.
For Protestants, The Church is just a building. The People Are the church.
For Orthodox and Catholics,
The Church Is the people...
The Church is a refuge and home.
A foretaste of the Kingdom and a glimpse of union with God.
These are interesting remarks. As a cradle Catholic living in a predominantly Catholic country, I'd say that say that Catholicism is sth very ordinary. So I accept the fact that we have this extraordinary Church, body of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit, true in its teachings... With some flawed leadership, weird relationship with the public and all that. As a Catholic, I know that that is nothing new under the sun, but Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I extend the same grace to my brothers and sisters in Christ outside of the Catholic Church.
I guess I’m too realistic. I’ve only been a member of two congregations but I know something about Christendom. I wouldn’t ever expect there to be uniformity of culture, quality, devotion, etc., etc. except in cults.
Find somewhere that brings salvation and preach the Gospel. If there’s none, make one.
Still searching for that one true Platonic idealist swashbuckling church
Brethren, trust God when you pray it works. He said all we need to do is ask in prayers. My testimony spans from penury to $57,000 bimonthly, and you stay and doubt that he doesn't answer prayers. Make that alter now and spend time there. A change is in the way. Amen!!!🙏
God bless you more abundantly for your generosity
But then, what do you do? How do you come about that in that period?
It is the digital market. That's been the secret to this wealth transfer. A lot of folks in the US amd abroad are getting so much from it, God has been good to my household Thank you Jesus
Thanks to God, my daughter who introduced me into the digital market. Moreso, thanks to Ms *Kathleen Mary Vella*
Big thanks to Ms *Kathleen Mary Vella*
Frankly, I find the reality of doctrinal confusion reassuring, not disturbing. We're all fallible human beings who make mistakes and constantly disagree with each other. Great consistency in morals is something I associate with mind controlling cults and dictatorships, not with free and open societies.
We might as well say that Pope Francis is allowing more freedom of opinion in the church.
Your comments about Pope Francis are shared by many Catholics. We have to continue to pray with the knowledge that eventually we will have a different Pople.
Did Jesus intended to found one true Church or did He wanted us to have a whole smorgasbord of churches to choose from?
As an Orthodox catechuman, I've gotta say that you made some spot on, but ultimately meaningless critiques. "Orthobros" will either convert for real or leave the Church. I think every convert should watch Father Moses' video "Don’t Convert to Orthodox Christianity, Convert to Jesus Christ!"
There is a massive difference between the intellect and the 'mind of the heart' aka 'nous'. It is only from the nous that we get the right ordering of our growing relationship with God. Sometimes it seems almost opposed to sensible decisions. If I were looking for church and hospitality and friendship were my primary motive, I would be Evangelical. If I were looking for a church with a recent track record of suffering and persecution (at least here in Romania) I would be Greek-Catholic. If I were purely looking at the written deposit of faith and the clarity of that deposit, I would be Catholic. If I were after community and asceticism I would be Mennonite or Old Believer.
As things stand I am Orthodox and my intellect battles it! My intellect will show me everything there is to criticise about Orthodoxy, and many of those criticisms are valid. But the struggle is part of a healthy internal dialectic. The nous always replies by questioning the strength of my love for the unloved, my willingness to pray over doing anything else and the state of my soul and my praise of God. A few years ago, I saw something here which made me squirm and say to myself 'thank God I am not Orthodox', well God had other plans for me and I am eternally grateful now to be Orthodox and to go wherever that takes me. Just don't ask me to verbalise why. The Risen Lord everywhere in Orthodoxy and that is all I need!
Excellent video! I grew up in a mixed-denominational family…dad was Antiochian Orthodox and mom was Southern Baptist. My faith was challenged by the polarization and as an adult I left organized religion for a few decades. In the last year I found my way back to Christ and joined an Episcopal church. I’m so grateful for a faith community that embraces the “via media”.
Hi Austin! Those Orthodox ‘Bro’s’ get excited like someone who just quit smoking and has to tell everyone! Annoying but very much like youngsters. Protestants do it too.
We have 85 inquirers right now in my Parish. Some have come from no churches at all so we have a class on ‘What is Christianity?’
Others attend Orthodoxy 101 to learn what Orthodox believe they ask lots of questions.
I’m often a greeter of first time walk-in’s (the deer in headlights look).
I have had a few from other churches that think we are the ‘conservative church’ in some bazaar way. But…I cut off the conversation saying “Oh no wait. We are not the Church of conspiracy theories! Those are meant to detract people from prayer and worship. We don’t speak about politics at Church either. Just don’t do it here!”
I know that for some people who are coming out of Churches that talk about politics all the time, it’s probably hard to let this go. Some can’t hack a life of prayer, fasting, almsgiving and repentance.
It’s normal to take a year to decide if they want to enter the Orthodox Church.
We have no desire to rush then have someone regret their choice.
As for me, I’m approaching the end of a long life and a relationship with Christ is serious business. Church is serious business.
For thirty years now, I know exactly what to expect from the Liturgy.
The Eucharist will be served and the seasons of fasting and feasts will order (redeem) the time as it has for over 1400 years.
Bait and switch is one way of framing it.
Another way is to say that the convert is the leaven for renewal.
St. Francis of Assisi in the 1200s heard the Lord say, "Rebuild my church."
Even then the Church was in trouble. Nothing new.
In the long history of the Catholic church there have been summits and there have been nadirs.
I suggest that the convert brings with him a vision of what the Church ideally should be.
That is one way the Church is ever new.
Catholics don't have the option of splitting and starting their own church as Protestants do when they feel their church has failed them.
We have to be the change we want to see in the church.
Because for the Catholic, there is no other church.
It is definitely much harder for Catholics to reform from within because we are struggling against existing structures, habits, personalities, powers.
We as Catholics cannot start from scratch.
The Lord knew that the centrifugal forces that drive disunity are powerful hence His prayer.
But He explicitly wished us to remain one and so we who claim to be His followers have no choice but to obey.
Whether we succeed or fail is often beyond our control.
But we are always comforted with the knowing that it is HIS church.
He is in control not us.
He will not abandon His Bride.
And He will not abandon us.
That is the source of our joy.
Thanks be to God.
Glory to You O Lord, my God in whom I trust. Amen.
In the Catholic Church lies the unity in diversity that is craved by Christians. 24 different rites (traditions) that all assent to the same dogmas and the first among equals (Pope) who holds it all together. The church is a perfect society full of imperfect people doing their best to become and stay sanctified. The fulness of truth.
I think that whether you call yourself Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox or Coptic or some other thing, you’d have to open up the New Testament and quickly say to yourself, “WOW! It did not take long for serious problems to develop after Christ left!” There is only one difference, the scale of it, there’s a lot more Christians these days.
church is not a denomination. it is Christ and his bible
I think its about the office or institution over time, not the random pop up of weirdness here and there. In that light, I think it's been working over the last 2,000 years.