/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>830848

I guess it depends on what kind of Protestant you are. Lutherans and the English Reformation (Anglicans or Methodists) never entirely wanted to break from history. They were never the radical reformers like Anabaptists or minimalists that Calvinists were (although England had it's share of them in the Puritans).

Also, for the record, Catholics do the same in return. I don't know any who dislikes Bach, for example.

>>830852

No protestantism involved, that's why I'm asking. Orthodoxy, I believe.

>>830857

Ohhh… you're Orthodox, but like Western aesthetics? Interesting. I think you all share more aesthetics than not, but I'm just a casual observer. Don't mind me then.

>>830858

If you spend all your time reading orthodox literature, (not that I'm such a scholar, but WHEN you read Theology and whatnot) and about leaving the world behind and the sheer extent to which the saints performed feats of asceticism and disassociation from the world, and blood and sand and and rock and martyrdom etc, as well as fighting against any and all heresy or err in dogma and teachings, you can't help but feel pretty guilty and very retarded when one day you ask yourself Is it even right to listen to Bach? and then the next day play Viper meme rap all day.

>>830852

You realize these so-called "radical reformers" were always there? I wouldn't call those "reformers" at all but rather primitive churches. They weren't trying to reform anything, they were continuing the primitive tradition of Christianity. That's why you find them in so distantly removed areas in the 1500's such as Switzerland, Germany, Wales and England (were also very widespread in France and Italy as well before the inquisition) and why they have no founder other than the apostles.

>>830861

That's a fantasy. There's no evidence of their existence. Neither in documents or physical evidence. Not even mentioned in a bad light as "heretics" that were outlawed in the early church, like the vast number of other sects (Arians, Nestorians, Gnostics, etc). Believe me, if they existed it, you would have seen diatribe after diatribe about them. The earliest group that even slightly resembles this are Waldensians, but that's still post 1000 AD.

>>830848

>Is it considered ecumenism or otherwise unlawful/even sinful to belong to one denomination and yet spend most of one's time looking at the aesthetics, listening to and identifying with that which belongs to the catholic church, because I'm a European and that is what I grew up with albeit by proxy?

Nothing wrong with enjoying Catholic art… according to the modern Catechism, knowing that The Holy Catholic Church is the One True Church established by the Lord Jesus Christ and not belonging to it is a mortal sin, however.

Yes, the Church was designed by our Lord Jesus Christ to accommodate man's understanding for the first 18 centuries. You might have fallen into the belief that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't make sense, but this is a naive opinion not supported by the evidence.

Married for life DOES make sense.

The Holy Eucharist on the tongue DOES make sense, as does the knowledge that the Host is truly the body of Christ.

Praying the rosary DOES make sense, it helps to create mental discipline.

Fasting and absence DOES make sense. It gives physical discipline over your body.

Confession to a priest DOES make sense: you stop and think "if I do that, I'm going to have to confess it to my Priest!" and it helps you to stop sinning. You can't just shrug your shoulders and say "Eh, Christ died so I can do this sin!"

>>830863

Suppose for a moment their claims were accurate. Suppose that it was really the case that we were only supposed to be following the written word of God and not adding to it with other things. In that case, the fact we successfully received the transmission of the Gospel from them can be the greatest vindicating proof of their existence, as all we have to do is look and see how it is being followed. If you want to justify any other practice beyond this then you have to begin by establishing documentation of where it began, how it came to pass and so forth.

>There's no evidence of their existence.

You know, I hear this claim a lot but I've found what it really means is anything you present I will not accept as evidence, goalposts are moved, not that there actually is none. But this is in line with what we know about confirmation bias and how that works. Anything tending to confirm a bias is accepted uncritically, but the opposite is the case for things going against it.

>Not even mentioned in a bad light as "heretics" that were outlawed in the early church, like the vast number of other sects (Arians, Nestorians, Gnostics, etc).

Ok how about the fact that in Justinian's code of laws (Codex Justinianus Book 1 Title 6) he made it a specific thought-crime to baptize anyone who had supposedly already been baptized. Why do you suppose he went out of his way to make this a death penalty if there was no one breaking it? Do you think it is a coincidence that the only two thought-crimes he thought capital crimes were Arianism, or alleged "re-baptism" as he puts it?

You also have to understand, that many church writers know the gravity of accepting the antiquity of this practice, it meant undermining their own tradition. Yet enough evidence exists to still show that they failed to eradicate the more ancient church. This is what we would expect if their claims were valid. I can detect the opposition in the insistence that they were "radical reformers," despite what they themselves say.

What kind of legalism do you subscribe to if you think appreciating art is sin

You can like Muslim architecture too while you're at it

Here's a protip for your conscience, pre-reformation Christian architecture can't be monopolized by the Roman church