= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lukstafi comments on Thwarting a Catholic conversion? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (201)
I'm somewhat baffled by the downvotes. I have some anecdotal evidence that considering the Orthodox Church and analyzing the dogma that differs the two (and how they came about) thwarts (Roman) Catholic conversion.
If you judge them based on canonical doctrines, then I (largely) agree that Catholicism is a subset of Orthodoxy. (And they are interchangeable in many ways, so just going with the locally more convenient one is a reasonably safe bet, assuming you buy the shared package.)
However, it's not obvious to me that Catholicism is less probable if you include their doctrine-generating mechanism. If you accept Orthodoxy, you fundamentally reject papal primacy. The Pope either is or isn't the (unique) successor of Peter. Neither option seems trivially simpler to me. (In the same sense that I couldn't a priori tell if Sunni or Shia claims of succession are more probable.)
That accepting one claim leads to a smaller (and so more probable) set of doctrines is irrelevant, if the mechanism that gets you there is itself less probable.
I agree. (I disagree with the application of the example about the Pope being in some sense the successor of Peter, but it doesn't matter.) ETA: what I agree is the meta-statement, there is still some tension in the Roman Catholic Church wanting to have the cake and eat it too... There are Reformed Churches "on offer", one could also be an unaffiliated Jesus follower, no? Never mind though.