My initial observation are: (1) that it makes sense that many lawyers are Roman Catholic (and obviously jews too) because to slog through figuring this out is much more complicated than reformed theology; (2) the average Roman Catholic has limited knowledge of the Bible, but tends to know the the rules in detail, even if they do not know them as canon law or part of the catechism per se; (3) Roman Catholics, and of course it varies, tend to be more serious about their faith insofar as that they actually believe than non-evangelical Protestants (I can’t say I know enough Eastern Orthodox to compare and non-denominations are a broader range), but don’t tend to follow the rules as much as reformed; (4) you can read the relevant parts of canon law fairly quickly (for example, I skipped those on ordination and schools), but getting through the catechism is daunting, especially if you are looking at the citations with any frequency, even just the citations to the canon law and Bible; (5) I am not sure how anyone short of a super study monk could read all of the early church fathers and the various changes throughout the centuries or even to keep up with the changes to Roman Catholic practices, just going through Vatican I and II sources takes days to get a superficial understanding.

Yours in Christ

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5715889&forum_id=2#48879107)

Faith begets works. There is very little difference between Roman Catholics and Reformed on this. Even the most conservative Roman Catholics will admit it’s faith alone.

I don’t have the wisdom to understand the division caused by the Filioque, but that orthodox are entitled to RC communion, but Protestants are not, tells me the catholic Church is not so catholic. I pray that the universal church becomes so again.

On papal infallibility, I spent hours on this, and as far as I can tell, post Vatican I the only ex catherdra statement that is subject to papal infallibility is the bodily assumption of the Mother of God Mary in 1950.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5715889&forum_id=2#48881996)

The key to justification for Catholics is innee renewal/divinization and what opens the path to a rich spiritual theology.

Filioque is insanely complicated if you really want to dig in (you'll need to learn Greek). I don't really care about it much since I think EOs will end up having to become RC out of necessity

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5715889&forum_id=2#48882018)

In those centuries they were under existential threat from Islamic hordes and frequently flirted with reunification even giving up key concessions to get help from Rome, but it never happened.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5715889&forum_id=2#48882028)

Drunkard you should read this 180 book on the papacy, great work on church history here: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-papacy-and-the-orthodox-9780190245252?cc=us&lang=en&

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5715889&forum_id=2#48882010)

The church has never believed in "faith and works" the way it's understood in popular discourse. Of course there's a difference between Catholics and protestants on soteriology but its a different issue

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5715889&forum_id=2#48881997)

I will say roman catholics have good apologetics. Compared to reformed anyway.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5715889&forum_id=2#48881999)

Edit: wait, there is a compendium? I have been slogging through 700 pages when there is a compendium?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5715889&forum_id=2#48882014)

Best thing benedict ever did

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5715889&forum_id=2#48882020)

I am too deep now, but I will read the compendium too. Thank you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5715889&forum_id=2#48882055)

I am sure it is hubris and doubt, but this one haunts me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5715889&forum_id=2#48882067)