Enjoyed all the thoughts on the RCC/Protestant divide here.
As for this statement:
>Catholicism is a religion of the past, with trad Catholicism almost explicitly being positioned in those terms. Protestantism is a religion of the future, indeed which has created the future, the modern world in which we live.
Enjoyed all the thoughts on the RCC/Protestant divide here.
As for this statement:
>Catholicism is a religion of the past, with trad Catholicism almost explicitly being positioned in those terms. Protestantism is a religion of the future, indeed which has created the future, the modern world in which we live.
I can't help but think this statement is doubly true for EO, which has always struck me as being structured in a way that would make a lot of sense if you thought the discovery of the New World was an inconvenient and temporary fact that would work itself out without need for further action.
By contrast America is the exemplar of Protestantism. New World Protestantism is Protestantism unfettered, Protestantism taken to its natural conclusions; both its best and its worst can be found here, regardless of what you think its best and its worst *are*.
I think the forces in the RCC that tried to modernize it, that pushed ahead with Vatican II, saw what Aaron sees here. They were dissatisfied with the position of being a faith that merely attracted intellectual converts with reactionary inclinations -- "Medieval history nerds," in my parlance (which I say with all due respect as a medieval history nerd myself).
But the lesson of Vatican II's failure is that structurally, in the contest of better adapting to modernity, a bureaucratic Old World organization can't keep up with the decentralized and entrepreneurial New World approach. The RCC survives, in the face of Protestant competition, by accepting this reactionary niche, with EO surviving by occupying an even more reactionary niche.
Sure, there is a sense in which converting to RC as opposed to EO is a sort of half-measure, and who likes half-measures? Maybe if you attend TLM or SSPX masses, it's somewhat less of a half-measure (I've never personally visited either of those).
At least in part for this reason, I'll admit that I have never personally known someone who has converted to RC, while I've had two friends who converted to EO. Of course, Francis has been Pope for most of my adult life, and I think that has something to do with EO being more appealing than RC. Still, in elite right circles, that doesn't seem to be stopping the JD Vances of the world, who converted to RC and then immediately found themselves at odds with Francis. The weirdness of converting to EO is still bad branding for a politician, I think. A Catholic who butts heads with the Pope is relatable; maybe even better politics than to be seen as someone who takes the Pope too seriously, whether as a sycophant or an enemy.
Though per my other comment, when it comes to shifting your family's Christian tradition, I think there's a case for half-measures as opposed to more radical breaks from your past and from your family's well of faith. My unheeded advice to my friends, when they started feeling conviction to go this direction, was to ask themselves if they could be happy going Anglican, balancing the Protestant familiar with the high church alien; the accomplishments of the Reformation with the connection to the medieval past.
Yes, but I wonder if Eastern Orthodoxy can survive the influx of Americans pouring into it! I can hardly imagine a more fundamental clash of mindsets. Americans may be enamored by the traditions of an ancient denomination, but can they really grasp what that means, when in this country, REALLY OLD is maybe 250 years??
Sooner or later, the American in them is going to get impatient, and begin expecting change.
Though I don’t have evidence, I’ve long had the suspicion that when you embrace an alien tradition, it’s less likely to take root and stick around in the next generation.
This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t embrace an alien tradition if you are thoroughly convinced it is correct. At some point Christianity was an alien tradition to our ancestors.
But I do think that on the margin, we should have a bias towards staying in our Christian tradition, if our conscience will allow. We are Baptist. My maternal side were Northern Baptists. My wife’s family is entirely Southern Baptist. I think this makes it rather easier with kids, if grandparents can help reinforce Christianity as family tradition. When we go to funerals, they are Baptist. Generations of our family are buried in a certain Baptist church graveyard in Illinois, where you can still hear the same Gospel preached any given Sunday.
For both me and my wife, extended family was instrumental in introducing us to the Gospel.
If I suddenly decided that conscience required me to convert my family to EO, I know none of the grandparents would get it at all. To them it would be a bizarre choice we made that they would just try to keep their mouths shut about. I’m sure this is a familiar experience to many who go down this path.
Enjoyed all the thoughts on the RCC/Protestant divide here.
As for this statement:
>Catholicism is a religion of the past, with trad Catholicism almost explicitly being positioned in those terms. Protestantism is a religion of the future, indeed which has created the future, the modern world in which we live.
I can't help but think this statement is doubly true for EO, which has always struck me as being structured in a way that would make a lot of sense if you thought the discovery of the New World was an inconvenient and temporary fact that would work itself out without need for further action.
By contrast America is the exemplar of Protestantism. New World Protestantism is Protestantism unfettered, Protestantism taken to its natural conclusions; both its best and its worst can be found here, regardless of what you think its best and its worst *are*.
I think the forces in the RCC that tried to modernize it, that pushed ahead with Vatican II, saw what Aaron sees here. They were dissatisfied with the position of being a faith that merely attracted intellectual converts with reactionary inclinations -- "Medieval history nerds," in my parlance (which I say with all due respect as a medieval history nerd myself).
But the lesson of Vatican II's failure is that structurally, in the contest of better adapting to modernity, a bureaucratic Old World organization can't keep up with the decentralized and entrepreneurial New World approach. The RCC survives, in the face of Protestant competition, by accepting this reactionary niche, with EO surviving by occupying an even more reactionary niche.
Yes. I've long thought that if it's tradition you want, go with the Eastern Orthodox church, which is the real thing.
Sure, there is a sense in which converting to RC as opposed to EO is a sort of half-measure, and who likes half-measures? Maybe if you attend TLM or SSPX masses, it's somewhat less of a half-measure (I've never personally visited either of those).
At least in part for this reason, I'll admit that I have never personally known someone who has converted to RC, while I've had two friends who converted to EO. Of course, Francis has been Pope for most of my adult life, and I think that has something to do with EO being more appealing than RC. Still, in elite right circles, that doesn't seem to be stopping the JD Vances of the world, who converted to RC and then immediately found themselves at odds with Francis. The weirdness of converting to EO is still bad branding for a politician, I think. A Catholic who butts heads with the Pope is relatable; maybe even better politics than to be seen as someone who takes the Pope too seriously, whether as a sycophant or an enemy.
Though per my other comment, when it comes to shifting your family's Christian tradition, I think there's a case for half-measures as opposed to more radical breaks from your past and from your family's well of faith. My unheeded advice to my friends, when they started feeling conviction to go this direction, was to ask themselves if they could be happy going Anglican, balancing the Protestant familiar with the high church alien; the accomplishments of the Reformation with the connection to the medieval past.
But again, who likes half-measures?
Yes, but I wonder if Eastern Orthodoxy can survive the influx of Americans pouring into it! I can hardly imagine a more fundamental clash of mindsets. Americans may be enamored by the traditions of an ancient denomination, but can they really grasp what that means, when in this country, REALLY OLD is maybe 250 years??
Sooner or later, the American in them is going to get impatient, and begin expecting change.
Though I don’t have evidence, I’ve long had the suspicion that when you embrace an alien tradition, it’s less likely to take root and stick around in the next generation.
This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t embrace an alien tradition if you are thoroughly convinced it is correct. At some point Christianity was an alien tradition to our ancestors.
But I do think that on the margin, we should have a bias towards staying in our Christian tradition, if our conscience will allow. We are Baptist. My maternal side were Northern Baptists. My wife’s family is entirely Southern Baptist. I think this makes it rather easier with kids, if grandparents can help reinforce Christianity as family tradition. When we go to funerals, they are Baptist. Generations of our family are buried in a certain Baptist church graveyard in Illinois, where you can still hear the same Gospel preached any given Sunday.
For both me and my wife, extended family was instrumental in introducing us to the Gospel.
If I suddenly decided that conscience required me to convert my family to EO, I know none of the grandparents would get it at all. To them it would be a bizarre choice we made that they would just try to keep their mouths shut about. I’m sure this is a familiar experience to many who go down this path.