Orthodoxy, Protestantism or Roman Catholicism?

let me ask you something. do you think marriage is really a "vocation" or is it just normie cope? i think i remember reading somewhere that this is a modern concept.

catholicism.org/is-marriage-a-vocation.html

God is dead, but religion unfortunately isn’t. :(

God bless you user.

Attached: 1566472729544.jpg (2000x7655, 3.34M)

Get the orthodox study Bible, and you will understand how its the true faith. or read some of the church fathers. Or some Fr. Seraphim Rose has great books about it.
pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm here is the catahisim.

thank you. based on this i think i'm justified by getting kind of annoyed when normie catholic youtubers talk about marriage as a vocation. it seems like they're exalting themselves and putting themselves on the same level as priests who sacrifice so much. idk, i'm just kind of grappling with my future personally, and marriage to me seems selfish. it feels like if i decide to just go find a girl to get married to because it would make me happy and i would get my cummies, that it would just be selfish and an "i got mine" type of decision that disregards the problems of our time.

the matrimony is all about procreation. All those catholics in a relationship without children and active sex life are fornicating --- been there done that and repented. If you realize the matrimony exists with the sole purpose of having children to increase the adoration of God then that's a very holy an venerable thing.

people often say "sex is both unitive and procreative" but the PRIMARY AIM of sex is procreation. That's catholic dogma. Unchangeable. A relationship closed to the possibility of life is plain prostitution.

Attached: 442799857.jpg (912x1774, 817K)

Based and easternpilled

OP, I grew up Protestant, and I don't think there's anything like evil about it-- but I think the Eastern Orthodox are far deeper, more spiritual, and more historical than protestants and less stuck in doctrine and dogma than Catholics. (Plus imo the novus ordo is a catastrophe--So if you're going to go catholic, I'd stick to older rites). Ultimately though argument can only get me so far-- the Brothers Karamazov is really a great place to start for Orthodoxy. It was what converted me eventually. You'll get a taste of orthodox spirituality--"come taste and see" as they say. Visit a parish too, perhaps. If you don't like it, so be it.

I congratulate you on your decision. It's a HUGE journey!

Attached: orthodoxy-penguin-d-classic-s-fyodor-dostoyevsky-the-brothers-karamazov-13610375.png (500x300, 84K)

read New testament then old testament then New testament again. then continue with the charts

honestly just want to have sex. i'll admit it. but i'm not gonna go fornicate with some slut who's already had multiple unholy unions, if you will. i would only do it within marriage and i would never use birth control, not because of some moral reason, but because it seems cucked to me, like you're effectively giving yourself a vasectomy. also raw sex sounds like its a lot better. i'm horny as fuck and if this were 800 AD i would just get married asap and live a humble a laborious life fucking my wife raw daily, but the world is so severely fucked now that not only is this not a viable option financially, it doesn't even seem moral because in order to support your family you would have to basically cuck out to satan and the world by working for them because there really isn't any other way to live anymore, their power being so ubiquitous. not to mention the soul crushing nature of labor in the 21st century. joining a religious order seems like the only moral option left. either that or somehow trying to destroy the evil culture we live in, but you can't really do that without the authority of the church either.

How very spiritual user.

i can't help it. i'm a fucking cumbrain. i'm sorry, but thats factually where i stand. i'm trying to fix it, but at my core, i'm a cumbrain through and through. and its only made worse by the crushing isolation and loneliness.

Attached: 1515542030239.jpg (645x773, 62K)

There is no way a monastery is even going to accept you for a visit.

the desire for sex is natural, user, but you can't let it have control over your mind nor delight in your thoughts. i personally think it's the biggest struggle contemporary christians have to face since it's all about sex nowadays to a point it has reached the level of an entertainment. talk to a priest

I might also say that from my experience:
1) protestantism resembles a capitalistic type business, and represents the "gut"--"MY church, businesslike pragmatism, "ill just make my own church" and whatnot
2) Catholicism resembles a bit of a government-- hierarchy, rules, big books of law (CCC), a sort of president of sorts, etc-- the "head/ mind"
3) in my opinion orthodoxy is the only one that truly resembles a church-- the "heart"

Of course this is not a perfect description of these three enormous branches of Christianity-- im painting in very broad strokes here. I don't mean to offend anyone, I assure you I have only the purest intentions.

We love you user. If that means anything. Don't be down on yourself-- the pit of despair means you're progressing!

Attached: 1_lg8oMoZuGKqO0So7DxENdw.png (559x451, 96K)

exactly, i'm too fucked for marriage and i'm way too fucked for religious life. like what am i even supposed to do? i've jacked off to way too much hentai to live a normal life. i should be put to death because its impossible for me to reintegrate with any honorable society. if this were the middle ages, i could repent and then be put to death for my crimes, and accept a humble spot in the kingdom of heaven as one of the very bottom bitch saints. yeah, yeah, i know - st paul, but jacking off to the shit i jacked off to is probably way worse than anything he ever did. i'm not even despairing, i just don't know where to go from here.

>these are the people larping as devout catholics on Yea Forums(nel)

Attached: 1520524162132.jpg (804x805, 75K)

That particular translation of Interior Castle is SJW-infested cancer.

when was the last time you confessed? i also struggle with that and ive been chaste for 60 days (broke a 60+ days period before that last failure). last week i was being so tempted i started to delight in my own thoughts. confessed it to the priest and never felt better. so seek the absolution and stay off boards that post too many lewd pictures. when the lustful thoughts appear readily reject them and start a prayer (the jesus prayer is very short and powerful).

temptations are real and exist. the trick is to not fall for them.

our lord jesus came here mainly for the sick. that's too harsh. if there's anyone who needs Him it's that user. but yeah, he can not in any way disturb the monastic environment

How about none of them?

Attached: 1552995100378.jpg (512x512, 58K)

St mary of egypt was legit a total whore who slept with like possibly hundreds of people. She may be a great person to look into. I would say that the feelings you're feeling are good though-- you're no longer in double ignorance. You're at least aware of the problem-- which is very good-- and you're not prideful-- which is even better. God is a God of the utmost mercy, remember.

you are standing in a truth now. and truth will set you free.

None of the anons here proclaiming Orthodox Christianity have any idea how things really are in the Orthodox church. Unless you're born into it, there's absolutely no reason for you to be one, you'll just be LARP'ing - and I'm saying it as one who grew up in it. It's mentality is tied to its ethnic groups, and very political in all aspects with its divisions as well. However I don't mean to discourage you, but if you ever visit one, you'll see why I am saying this.

SSPX groups in the RCC are quite good, and I would also suggest doing a retreat with either the Dominicans or Franciscans. Saint Michael be with you, brother

2 weeks ago. i usually confess once a week, but i haven't done anything super bad lately because i've been pretty busy. my parents got divorced and i had to move and also my beloved childhood dog died the day before i moved. believe me, i confess A LOT, and not because i'm really good at noticing little sins.

>one person

You'd really like the character dmitri from the brothers karamazov--a very Christian book. Profoundly illustrates the very human condition that you describe yourself being in. Doesn't Paul say something like "I do what I do not want to do and vice versa"?

thats good user. you are in the right path

*Fssp, my bad

>absolutely no reason to be in one
What???

Tell you what— I used ta get the people jumpin' an' talkin' in tongues and glory-shoutin' till they just fell down an' passed out. An' some I'd baptize to bring 'em to. An' then—you know what I'd do? I'd take one of them girls out in the grass, an' I'd lay with her. Done it ever' time. Then I'd feel bad, an' I'd pray an' pray, but it didn't do no good. Come the next time, them an' me was full of the sperit, I'd do it again. I figgered there just wasn't no hope for me, an' I was a damned ol' hypocrite. But I didn't mean to be."

Attached: livros-de-john-steinbeck.jpg (750x500, 74K)

Hi, this is OP, I went away to do other stuff. I'm gonna head to bed and check the thread tomorrow morning, but thanks to everyone who posted so far, I've read through it all and it's been very helpful.
The same to you.

Attached: representation.png (1200x1440, 3.55M)

What's confusing? Orthodoxy requires its own mentality, and user sounds very well suited for Catholicism. There's converts to and from both Churches, but because the Med and slav ethnic nature of the Orthos, fewer really fit into it if they weren't already born into it. Again, it depends on the person, but that's usually the case, nonetheless, glad to have another brother willing to join Christ

i've always wondered: if sex is only for procreation, then does that mean women only exist for procreation?

The way you worded it just seemed a bit odd. I was a convert to Orthodoxy, not being born into it and all, and I felt like nothing could've made a bigger difference in my life. Orthodoxy was the thing I had been searching for my whole life. Of course, I am also a student of Russian literature and language-- which may be part of why it makes so much sense to me, since I understand the slavic people more than your average person. But still, I'd encourage OP to try it out and see--i would say it has a lot to offer, ultimately, even to people who (like me) have not grown up in it. This is especially true when you study the history and politics of the church and whatnot. But, I must emphasize to OP that Orthodoxy is not something you'll understand right off. The first day I went to a liturgy I thought it was really silly. But over time it begins to make sense, and to moreover become beautiful.

Yes. But also to indirectly motivate men to do shit.

Catholics worship a wafer
This post made by Reformed gang

a) Jesuits don't have monasteries, they're not monks
b) Jesuits are really not that bad. Went to a Jesuit university and while some of them are very "open minded," lots of them remain very orthodox - especially the younger ones

There is a fourth way user, Baptist

Regardless of what Anderson told you Baptists are Protestants.

Baptist = protestant

Regardless of what the Vatican told you, Baptists beliefs existed prior to the formation of the Catholic church by various Christian groups

>Catholicism
Chardinist transhumanism

Attached: Pope-Hall-2.jpg (750x500, 237K)

No, both sexes have equal dignity and it's an insult to God who gave us all souls. Reducing women to Darwinism's "le monky XD" plays right into scientism and undermines that it takes two honour the glory of God in holy matrimony.

Protestant here.

Orthodoxy and Catholicism are just two sides of the same coin, and as such, have very much in common. Both venerate saints, both venerate Mary, both have similar concepts related to rituals like the Eucharist and the other Sacraments.

I prefer Protestantism because it strips away all of this unnecessary fluff that is largely absent from the bible, if not down right made up as human-borne tradition.

But the use of scripture and its authority is the biggest difference. Orthodoxy and Catholicism put a lot of faith in Pseudepigrapha texts that Protestants reject as not being divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. Protestants may read these texts, but we take them with a grain of salt, skeptical about their authority because they contradict what is otherwise accepted as canon in the Protestant bible and teach a different doctrine than the canonical books.

You can see more about this at blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_395.cfm

You may also be interested in a comparison of the three versions at christianityinview.com/comparison.html

If you are truly interested, asking for people's opinions on a Yea Forums thread is probably going to do nothing but lead you in the wrong direction. The first thing you should do is go to representatives of the denomination you are interested in. Catholics will have adult RCIA classes you can take at least to find out more about the faith, even if you don't want to commit to converting. I don't know enough about the conversion process in other denominations.

cringe

What about the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East? For one, their liturgy is still Aramaic.

yeah, just let me drive down to my local parish and ask for some info!

>trail of blood
The biggest joke in both theology and history

The difference here, is that protestants view these things as "extra fluff" whereas orthodox/ Catholics view them as an overflowing cornucopia of beauty and truth. One may survive on nothing but black bread and water-- but we have been given fruit, meat, etc. which are (albeit not """necessary""" for survival) make our lives (i.e., in this case, our spiritual lives) great. Mary, icons, gold churches, etc are, after all, beautiful! (And beauty will save the world)

Additionally, consider that the Bible, to the Orthodox, is not the sole authority. This usually gets a lot of negativity. But consider-- who chose the books of the Bible to be canon? A bunch of guys at a council-- who were (importantly) divinely inspired. Everyone was sort of aware at the time that "these books are good for the canon, and these are not", with a few up for debate. We Orthoodox (as far as I am aware) consider Holy Tradition to be in the same boat. Everyone kind of knew how to worship, what was good for the church, etc., just as they did with what books would go in the canon--God had shown them the truth. In other words, Holy Tradition is just as inspired and crucial to the Christian faith as the Bible. This included the "extra fluff".

How do you square conflicting doctrine i the pseudepigrapha with the rest of the canon? Like I said, although these texts can be read and you can get important things out of them, they are in no way authoritative or inspired scripture via the Holy Spirit. The canonical books weren’t just “chosen in a council”. Those are the books that 100% agree with each other with no contradictions in relation to each other. The pseudepigrapha on the other hand have doctrines not taught or in direct conflict with the canonical books, so they were removed from the canon (if they were ever considered canonical at all).

Humans are inherently fallible. The Pope is fallible. Priests and preachers are fallible. Likewise, tradition not found in scripture is subject to fallibility as there is no other authority other than “I said so”. That’s not good liturgy because you can’t even verify that any of these traditions are authoritative outside of a tradition of “I said so”.

What specific contradictions do you mean?

The canon, like I said, was informally known long before anyone put a definite label on them.

Im not so sure that the Bible (even without the apocrypha) contains no problems or slight contradictions within itself.

At least you do admit that they were "taken out", which is correct-- significantly, the Catholic/Orthodox Church did not add to the OT, as many seem to believe. The Catholic OT Canon (also the numbering of the Psalms) came from the ancient Greek Septuagint Bible. Protestants, following the tradition of the Pharisaic Jews, accept the shorter Hebrew Canon, even though the Jews also reject the NT Books.

>no other authority
See previous post-- we would argue that Holy tradition is truly divinely inspired. Just as the informal idea of "the canon" came up long before anyone affirmed it was canon, so too does the informal practice of Holy Tradition come up as a practice by the early church to worship God. And, frankly, we HAVE practiced it for 2k years.

Yes priests are fallible-- which is why we have to keep them accountable through hierarchy. Yes, the Pope is fallible, I agree-- however, Catholics would disagree.

As in my other post, see blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_395.cfm for specific contradictions with the canon and the pseudepigrapha.

If you are already of the mind that the Bible contains contradictions outside of the pseudepigrapha, then frankly, were already on different level. Because if the Bible is fallible, then the only thing you have to rely on are the traditions of the church, as you would in Othodoxy. But why posit that the Bible itself would be contradictory (outside of the pseudepigrapha) and not the traditions themselves that have no scriptural authority backing them up? I suppose faith plays the biggest part, but for my part, that is way too big of a leap of faith to take. I have faith in the Bible specifically because I have faith in the Holy Spirit having guided the scriptural authors so as not to produce contradictions within the canon. That may too require a leap of faith in my part, I admit, but I am putting my faith directly in God, not in traditions not backed up by scriptural authority which have a bigger chance of being manipulated than the text itself, which as we see with stuff like the Dead Sea scrolls, has almost perfect substantiation with texts from 2,000 years ago i.e. there are very little textual differences between those ancient transcriptions and what we read in our translations today.

Find pastors at local churches of the denomination you're interested in, discuss it more with them. You'll get a better view than you will from Yea Forums. I'd recommend Chesterton's Orthodoxy, his writing in general isn't so much apologetics as an aesthetic view of life that is quite essential to Christianity of any denomination.
Basically all Catholic or Orthodox writers will be comprehensible to either tradition. They differ from Protestantism in placing the Church hierarchy, ie the apostles chosen by Christ and their successors, over the book that (I'll admit bias here) was assembled by exactly that group of apostles.
That's a terribly weak list of contradictions. He interprets the verses about almsgiving in Tobit far more strongly than the passages require, the difference between allusion and direct quoting would exclude other books, and the Septuagint texts were accepted by Jews in the time of Christ and rejected by Jews in part for their Christian implications. The division among early Church leaders about which books to include seems more evidence for a centrally decided canon than the absolute truth of the protestant bible. Also, several were found to exist in Hebrew in the dead sea scrolls, refuting Jerome's argument. And the idea that the new testament describes a time after Malachi in which no divine utterances were made is outright false.
Marriage is definitely a vocation, especially given the command to "be fruitful and multiply", but it shouldn't be placed on the same level as the priesthood or monastic/cloistered life. It's also very possible to approach with ill intent even without fornication or adultery.

There are, incidentally, very few changes in how we're doing the liturgy since 2k years ago. The orthodox are very aversive to change.

Again, I think (based on your repeated pointing out that the tradition has "no scriptural basis") that I should point out that the Tradition itself IS an authority (just like scripture is) in our eyes.

I don't think that "contradictions" are bad, per se. I think that for every "contradiction" there is a deeper answer, likely, that we are simply unable to see. In this sense I dont think that there are contradictions that are so deep that there is no answer to them-- it is divinely inspired, after all. I apply this same logic to the apocrypha. I should really have said (as was my first word I used) "problems" and not "slight contractions".

As for leaps of faith, I definitely think my priests/ friends at the orthodox church would be a bit concerned that I speak so much about orthodox teaching-- for truly, orthodoxy is much more concerned about "the heart" (i.e. leaps of faith, thumos, etc) than it is dogma. We are heavily mystical and spiritual.

This-- everything ive written about orthodoxy may be wrongheaded or worded improperly. I implore you to the highest degree to seek someone who knows more than we do in Yea Forums. Specifically, in my case, an orthodox priest would be much better to talk to than me. I am actually very simple

Join an Eastern Catholic Rite and get the best of both worlds

I legit would, if a) I knew Latin and b) there were any within a like 5 trillion mile radius

traditionalist catholicism, anything that avoids vatican 2 at the very least
most orthodoxy is fine also

From my experience of digging through literally 50+ churches before making a final conclusion, I chose a Fundemental Independent Baptist church.

>Doctrine is the most biblical
>men are masculine women are feminine
>no self-hatred
>embrace of the 2nd amendment and the culture around it
>pro homeschooling
>strict lifestyle
>Increasingly anti-zionist
Listen to Pastor Anderson for a sample. Only bad part is that the aesthetics can sometimes be lacking.

Orthodox had the best aesthetics but I found their doctrine to be off

American Evangelical