Chud Episcopalian (6’5”)

@BillyBob1776now @FrLillie You started your post with the idea that attacking other Christians is uncool, and concluded by describing Protestants as agents of Satan responsible for ruining the country. Huh Either is fine I guess but let’s take a principled position here

It’s very strange to me why Protestants think that simply attacking other Christians is a cool move. They shun and avoid Orthodox. Not all. But a LOT. I take this as a compliment, despite the fact that two really close Protestant friends (who actually helped me reorient my filthy brain back to sanity) just stop speaking to me. One was very close, and a fellow lawyer. Protestants helped ruin this country. They are easily manipulated. Many now are Sionist illegals. Former Catholics stolen by Satan.

Yeah, Protestants are really scared so many are finding the Church.

@DoctrinalPossum An interesting reflection of the complete lack of Lutheran influence on American evangelicalism

*Unless he's a Calvinistic preacher attempting a stealth-takeover of a non-Calvinistic church. Then that's exactly what he'll say.

@Postulliok @ErickYbarra3

Roman Catholics basically have just two theologians as their go-to references for pretty much everything: St. Augustine and Aquinas. Everything else is treated as secondary or just a footnote. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, is much more eclectic. St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Basil the Great, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Cyril, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Dionysius, St. John of Damascus, St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, and many others all stand on equal footing in our tradition. Ask an average Catholic for their main theological references and they’ll usually just name Augustine and Aquinas. Ask an average Orthodox Christian and they’ll reel off a long list. Your theology is objectively inferior and deficient, and that theological deficiency was inherited by Protestantism.

Fr. Stephen de Young says the Latin West went off the rails with Augustine and his legacy, which defined Latin Theology in the first millennium. How does this not contradict his own Ecumenical Councils. He is a mere priest who seeks to correct the holy fathers who were inspired by the Holy Spirit in the Ecumenical Councils. Meanwhile, he is trying to tell a Catholic that he has no authority to speak with him. What I see here is precisely the self-destruct that I spoke of in Jonathan Pageau’s talk with Ortlund. They cut the tree in half and only go with a distorted sense of what is left of tree free from the East, and then still try to say they preserve the Church of the first millennium.

@drnibble @briankeepsworth That’s not a refutation, it’s just a conclusion asserted confidently and without any analysis, and then an appeal to authority. It’s extremely weak

@briankeepsworth He did, he said "yes that's what the Catholic church teaches, but not Orthodox" and the guy started to say the Orthodox teaches it too.

If this was a Catholic priest talking to just about anybody, I would be thoroughly embarrassed for our side. You join a platform that is meant to debate & then refuse to debate on the grounds that your interlocuter is of too low a standing for you. This is anti-Christ.

@Clint_Davey1 Idk it’s not hard to see it for what it is: the beautiful heart of the western Catholic Church which has never quite recovered from its long dalliance with corrupt medieval politics. Like most complex things I see it both positively and negatively. Chesterton was a midwit

I think its very hard to be neutral about the Catholic Church once you actually learn about it. You could say it's the kingdom of God on earth, the universal Messianic empire that includes all nations and has brought the Gospel to billions. But then you need to join it. Or you can say its the ultimate in idolatry, whore of Babylon, etc. Hard to say it's just another denomination. The sheer scale of the thing, and the radically distinctive nature of its claims, means it's not in the same category as anything else. This is why Chesterton says its impossible to sit on the fence once you start researching Catholicism. You end up hating it or joining it.

@JTJosephauthor @NateBornAgain Pretty weird then that the RCC’s primary spokesman against Luther at Augsburg, Thomas Cajetan, also did not believe those 7 books to be inspired. Why is that?

@NateBornAgain You are delusional, Martin Luther removed 7 books

How can Catholics and Orthodox "aTTACK" the Protestants Canon, when we "CANONIZED" Our Scriptures first?

@AutismLutheran1 @NateBornAgain Why is this trope so common online? It’s trivially incorrect and no serious Roman Catholic advances it. Whatever obscure local council you’re thinking of, it is in no sense a “canonization.” At best it’s marginal evidence that your preferred canon may have been apostolic

@NateBornAgain The Scriptures were first canonized in the 3rd century. I'm pretty sure there weren't Protestants at that time.

@realbenbriggs @NateBornAgain You can see how disingenuous your “we gave you” is when you consider that Protestants view ourselves as the rightful continuation of the western Catholic church. I’m sure you view that as ‘ridiculous’ or whatever, but when you critique a system you engage it on its own terms

@NateBornAgain You don’t have any scriptures other than the ones we gave you. Or prove me wrong by telling me how you know you have the right copy of John

@naveen4god @NateBornAgain “The Church” didn’t do anything at Carthage or Hippo, which were obscure local councils. Remind me, what was the canon endorsed by Cardinal Cajetan (the RCC’s spokesman against Luther)? And what does this tell us about the permissible views of the canon within the RCC pre-Trent?

@NateBornAgain The Church recognized the full 73-book canon at Carthage (397 AD) & Hippo (393 AD), centuries before Luther. In 1546, Trent merely confirmed what was already ancient. You didn't canonize first — you deleted 7 books 1,100 years after the Church already settled it

@DarrenCowafdvw @blthfc I’m guessing the evil big six held eight other clubs at gunpoint in order to get the 14 votes necessary for a rule change?

@blthfc STFU you clown. Soon as Newcastle get rich owners restrictions were put in place to stop us spending like City PSR is wrong and only protects the cartel.

Villa and Newcastle fans think they’re getting shafted with PSR forget that a decade ago whilst building the stadium that allows us financial freedom, We spent £0 in 3 consecutive windows whilst finishing 2nd and 3rd. Anything we spend now is because of that sacrifice.

@HarryBr93704385 @SB8308715342770 No you don’t understand, the evil Big 6 forced them to vote for it

@SB8308715342770 Also worth remembering that they voted for it

Sick of hearing Aston Villa, Newcastle United fans moan about the rules of PSR & FFP. Sick of the moaning about having to sell your best players, like Spurs didn’t sell: Kane, Berbatov, Modric, Bale, Eriksen, Walker. It’s food chain it’s football, one club turns over £200m the other £600m + the rules and playing field are based on that, Spurs had a 30k stadium and poor training facilities the work and investment came at a cost of success on the pitch, Tottenham fans understand sacrifice very well!

@MrWhite1313 They never really wanted to “make orthodoxy grow” in America because they never actually believed in orthodox ecclesiology

All the Orthodox boomers are mad at "orthobros" cause their whole lives they were ineffective at making Orthodoxy grow in America. The "orthobros" have done that and all these boomers can do is look at us with discontent instead of acknowledging their failures.

@ZinoFN @sumani2tonka @WelBeast Wearing the helmets allows for contact at much higher speeds, which is more dangerous for the brain. The brain is at the most risk when there’s rapid whiplash of the neck. I’ve played both, and they’re both very rough, but football poses a higher risk of serious head injuries.

@saybrook_22 @sumani2tonka @WelBeast Rugby is the same but with no helmet ?

What do Americans do with all these big stadiums?

@kingofthehood89 Most OSAS people are running a Calvinist OS and would view partying as a sign that they’re not bearing fruit and are therefore not elect. Genuinely some of the most anxious people around, ironically There are some antinomian “free grace” people but that’s really a small minority

If I truly believed I was once saved always saved you wouldn’t see me on here arguing theology. I’d be out partying baby

@capitolhillcath @OpStCyprian Ah, started off baptist I assume? A tale as old as time

@saybrook_22 @OpStCyprian It didnt start that way. I promise you that

I have learned more about the Gospel and Christ since converting to Catholicism than I ever did as a Protestant.

@capitolhillcath @OpStCyprian Completely irrelevant to the fact that you converted from a hipster non-denominational church and are pretending to know anything about Protestant theology

@saybrook_22 @OpStCyprian Right, you have a woman as the alleged Archbishop of Canterbury. So I dont knownif you have much room to talk

@capitolhillcath @OpStCyprian “random guy with a 6-week crash course in theology” Just say you left a t-shirt, strip-mall megachurch, don’t say you left “Protestantism”

@OpStCyprian No haha. Because the Church actually teaches it. Im not reliant on some random guy with a 6-week crash course in theology to tell me what it meant when Christ Breathed on the disciples. The Church has had an unchanging explanation for thousands of years

@Makarios69 @AL_J82 How did you respond then? I’m still here

@saybrook_22 @AL_J82 Blocked me 🤣🤣🤣

The average protestant knows more about and can articulate the gospel better than the average Roman Catholic or Orthodox. Especially more than those who just converted from Protestantism.

@cnb1106 @OpStCyprian @CharlesTingler They do take a little time to learn the positions, they just learn them from people who are either dishonest or who genuinely don’t understand them themselves. Then they act incredulous when the actual positions are explained to them

@OpStCyprian @CharlesTingler It seems like people who leave Protestantism rarely take the time to learn the positions before leaving. This is probably a product of evangelical and charismatic disregard for doctrinal clarity beyond the very very basic fundamentals.

Salvation 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Salvation 𝐢𝐬 by grace through faith, and lived out by good works/charity. Faith without works is dead, and a dead faith cannot save.

@Makarios69 @AL_J82 I agree that’s why I’m Anglican

@saybrook_22 @AL_J82 Humility is not pretending every interpretation is equally valid—it is submitting yourself to the faith handed down from the Apostles.