Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[The imperial canadian dutchy]

How do you all feel about the second Vatican council?

Fine really. What about it?

Specifically going away from the Roman Missel and the granting of Salvation all without the church

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Fine really. What about it?

Specifically going away from the Roman Missel and the granting of Salvation all without the church

I don't think that's quite accurate. They reformed the liturgy but the Roman missal is still important to the functions of the mass.

As for salvation, that's a gross oversimplification. They didn't authorize universalism, that would put them into heresy right quick.

[Centuran Republic]

Hey guys, to sum it up I was raised as a Pentecostal, then as a non-denominational Christian. I was introduced to liturgical Christianity my first year at a local Catholic high school and became a High Church Episcopalian soon after. But I feel that the Episcopal Church has really failed as a Church so I started looking into Eastern Orthodoxy, like a lot of former Anglicans do, but now I think the Catholic Church is the correct choice, so I enrolled in RCIA a couple weeks ago.

Welcome! Glad to found your way to our doors!

The first RCIA class was just an introduction to RCIA and we talked about what we were gonna do, and today was the second class so we just talked about God the Father. Pretty self-explanatory stuff but you know how it is.

[The imperial canadian dutchy]

Specifically going away from the Roman Missel and the granting of Salvation all without the church

I don't think that's quite accurate. They reformed the liturgy but the Roman missal is still important to the functions of the mass.

As for salvation, that's a gross oversimplification. They didn't authorize universalism, that would put them into heresy right quick.

Sorry for the generalizations but I'm on my phone which should at least somewhat pardon me. Mostly was I mean is the Margianilization of the Latin mass and liturgical tradition, while I recognize the switch to the new liturgy was one that had some benefits, I myself prefer the old mass, and is a reason while shamefully I preffer going to a SSPX church

[Talvezout]

oh hallo new christian thread

how was mass this fine day everyone

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I don't think that's quite accurate. They reformed the liturgy but the Roman missal is still important to the functions of the mass.

As for salvation, that's a gross oversimplification. They didn't authorize universalism, that would put them into heresy right quick.

Sorry for the generalizations but I'm on my phone which should at least somewhat pardon me. Mostly was I mean is the Margianilization of the Latin mass and liturgical tradition, while I recognize the switch to the new liturgy was one that had some benefits, I myself prefer the old mass, and is a reason while shamefully I preffer going to a SSPX church

Have you read the sacrosanctum concilium?

[Nordengrund]

I voted Baptist on the poll because I attend a Southern Baptist Church, but I am exploring the various denominations in Christianity.

Idk if I lean Calvinist or Arminian, and I have been looking into Assemblies of God, Church of Christ, Lutheranism, and Presbyterianism, and maybe the Catholic Apostolic Church, in particular.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I voted Baptist on the poll because I attend a Southern Baptist Church, but I am exploring the various denominations in Christianity.

Idk if I lean Calvinist or Arminian, and I have been looking into Assemblies of God, Church of Christ, Lutheranism, and Presbyterianism, and maybe the Catholic Apostolic Church, in particular.

You seem to have a thing for 19th century revivalism.

[Nordengrund]

I voted Baptist on the poll because I attend a Southern Baptist Church, but I am exploring the various denominations in Christianity.

Idk if I lean Calvinist or Arminian, and I have been looking into Assemblies of God, Church of Christ, Lutheranism, and Presbyterianism, and maybe the Catholic Apostolic Church, in particular.

You seem to have a thing for 19th century revivalism.

I guess so. One of my favorite evangelists is from the 19th century.

Lutheranism and Presbyterianism seem a little older, though.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You seem to have a thing for 19th century revivalism.

I guess so. One of my favorite evangelists is from the 19th century.

Lutheranism and Presbyterianism seem a little older, though.

I'm still hoping you'll expound on your objections to Roman Catholicism.

[Nordengrund]

I guess so. One of my favorite evangelists is from the 19th century.

Lutheranism and Presbyterianism seem a little older, though.

I'm still hoping you'll expound on your objections to Roman Catholicism.

I hold to the Five Solas of the Reformation, and the RCC doesn't. I also believe that the true church consists of all born-again believers who gather together in fellowship, regardless of what they call themselves (Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.)

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I'm still hoping you'll expound on your objections to Roman Catholicism.

I hold to the Five Solas of the Reformation, and the RCC doesn't. I also believe that the true church consists of all born-again believers who gather together in fellowship, regardless of what they call themselves (Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.)

For give me I wasn't specific enough. I meant I was hoping you could expand on why you believe those, against what The Catholic Church teaches or at least what you think it teaches, in manner that could be parsed and debated, to both help you clarify your beliefs to yourself so you better know which denomination suits you, and giving us heathens a chance to convince you to come over to our side.

[The New Sea Territory]

Thoughts on liberation Theology?

I've thought about picking up Gutierrez's A Theology of Liberation after I finish some stuff I'm reading right now.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Thoughts on liberation Theology?

I've thought about picking up Gutierrez's A Theology of Liberation after I finish some stuff I'm reading right now.

Like most doctrines there legitimate thought and those that go to far

[Salus Maior]

Thoughts on liberation Theology?

I've thought about picking up Gutierrez's A Theology of Liberation after I finish some stuff I'm reading right now.

What's the basics of it?

[Jumalariik]

Welcome! Glad to found your way to our doors!

The first RCIA class was just an introduction to RCIA and we talked about what we were gonna do, and today was the second class so we just talked about God the Father. Pretty self-explanatory stuff but you know how it is.

I'm doing my first class today. I have no idea how it will be. The priest, though really good at simplifying concepts is maybe not my favorite giver of homilies. Sadly the best preacher near where I live is at a University church, and that would mean going to the very unpleasant and non-parish Masses. Not really my cup of tea. There is a EF church, but I already go to the regular parish and I don't want to switch during RCIA. :/

[Nordengrund]

I hold to the Five Solas of the Reformation, and the RCC doesn't. I also believe that the true church consists of all born-again believers who gather together in fellowship, regardless of what they call themselves (Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.)

For give me I wasn't specific enough. I meant I was hoping you could expand on why you believe those, against what The Catholic Church teaches or at least what you think it teaches, in manner that could be parsed and debated, to both help you clarify your beliefs to yourself so you better know which denomination suits you, and giving us heathens a chance to convince you to come over to our side.

I don't call or consider Catholics heathens. I was anti-Catholic for a time, but it was mostly due to attitude a lot of Catholics and Orthodox on here have rather than their beliefs and practices.

I get that you don't "worship idols" but "venerate icons." It's an area with lots of debates and disagreements. I only avoid calling it idolatry in order to maintain civil discussion and "idolatry" is a fighting word. I am not and never was comfortable with the practice even if it isn't idolatry. I also think it's unnecessary as we have God to provide us with all that we need.

I will be fair about the Reformation. It was a confusing time and I don't think either side was completely right or wrong number and it wasn't black and white. Both sides had sincere and genuine Christians and some people were hypocrites and opportunists. In fact, if there was a "good" side, it would be the Anabaptists as they endured persecution from both Protestants and Catholics and it seems to me that a lot of their doctrine and practice is closer to that of the Early Church than either the Protestants or Catholics.

The Church throughout all ages of its history was a blend of good and bad. The bad is due partially to human nature and fallibility and the attacks by Satan. He tries to corrupt both Protestants and Catholics. Neither side has everything right or everything wrong. As long as the core tenets of Christianity are being upheld and the Gospel is being carried to the four corners is what matters most. I doubt either of us have everything right about theology and I'm sure God uses both Catholics and Protestants for His plans and glory.

I also find ironic that the RCC calls itself the Roman Catholic Church, which basically means the Roman Universal Church, which implies a universal Roman Empire, albeit in a religious form.

Something both sides are guilty of is being too dogmatic about non-essentials. Part of the reason for the denominationalism among Protestants isn't so much Scripture itself, but having certain preconceptions. Politics also plays a role.

Catholics are guilty of this too. Does it really matter what one believes about Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper as long observes it in the proper manner and with the right attitude. To me, it just seems more like philosophical speculation than soteriological. I'm the same way about Calvinism.

A lot of people grow up believing in Calvinism or Arminianism, creation or evolution, etc not out of Scriptural conviction, but rather from tradition that they were taught while growing up. The Reformed branch teaches sola scriptura, but still has a high reverence for tradition as it retains paedobaptism, doing worship a certain way (known as the regulative principle of worship). Heck, one can argue that sola scriptura itself is a tradition. So both Protestants and Catholics alike generally rely on tradition rather than Scripture for themselves. That is not to say that there aren't any people well-versed in Scripture, I'm just saying that it is true for the average Protestant and Catholic laity alike.

The Protestant Reformation wasn't a protest against all tradition or everything Catholic, they were protesting over what they saw as abuse and corruption in the church and disagreed with some of what the church taught and practiced. Anglicans and some Lutherans retain a lot of Catholic practices, they just had a problem with certain practices and teachings, not all of them.

The main issue Protestants have with the RCC is its unwillingness to budge. Compromise and ecumenicalism works both ways and both sides have to be willing to do their part. One side shouldn't have to give up all their beliefs just to please the other.

I was part of a conversation with a Lutheran who said that while Evangelical Lutherans disagree with the concept of the papacy and the veneration of icons, their main issue is the RCC's rejection of sola fide and they could tolerate the papacy and icons of the RCC was at affirming of sola fide. I also remember a Reformed Protestant on here who said he wouldn't have had a problem with being Roman Catholic if Jansenism wasn't condemned as a heresy.

Luther wanted to remain Roman Catholic, but only left after he saw that he had no choice.

[Jumalariik]

Thoughts on liberation Theology?

I've thought about picking up Gutierrez's A Theology of Liberation after I finish some stuff I'm reading right now.

Liberation Theology is one of those things that is based in good theology but eventually goes one toke over the line. Indeed, a Church that is not on the side of the poor and oppressed is one that is not worth communing with, however, Jesus promised more than communism. Communism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, or some other empty political doctrine are not essential by any means to the faith, and really, in their pure forms are pretty anti-christian. It seems to me that the people involved with Liberation Theology were a lot more interested in politics than the Gospel. The Church's job is making saints and holy people, not bolshevist activism.

[Jumalariik]

For give me I wasn't specific enough. I meant I was hoping you could expand on why you believe those, against what The Catholic Church teaches or at least what you think it teaches, in manner that could be parsed and debated, to both help you clarify your beliefs to yourself so you better know which denomination suits you, and giving us heathens a chance to convince you to come over to our side.

I don't call or consider Catholics heathens. I was anti-Catholic for a time, but it was mostly due to attitude a lot of Catholics and Orthodox on here have rather than their beliefs and practices.

I get that you don't "worship idols" but "venerate icons." It's an area with lots of debates and disagreements. I only avoid calling it idolatry in order to maintain civil discussion and "idolatry" is a fighting word. I am not and never was comfortable with the practice even if it isn't idolatry. I also think it's unnecessary as we have God to provide us with all that we need.

I will be fair about the Reformation. It was a confusing time and I don't think either side was completely right or wrong number and it wasn't black and white. Both sides had sincere and genuine Christians and some people were hypocrites and opportunists. In fact, if there was a "good" side, it would be the Anabaptists as they endured persecution from both Protestants and Catholics and it seems to me that a lot of their doctrine and practice is closer to that of the Early Church than either the Protestants or Catholics.

The Church throughout all ages of its history was a blend of good and bad. The bad is due partially to human nature and fallibility and the attacks by Satan. He tries to corrupt both Protestants and Catholics. Neither side has everything right or everything wrong. As long as the core tenets of Christianity are being upheld and the Gospel is being carried to the four corners is what matters most. I doubt either of us have everything right about theology and I'm sure God uses both Catholics and Protestants for His plans and glory.

I also find ironic that the RCC calls itself the Roman Catholic Church, which basically means the Roman Universal Church, which implies a universal Roman Empire, albeit in a religious form.

Something both sides are guilty of is being too dogmatic about non-essentials. Part of the reason for the denominationalism among Protestants isn't so much Scripture itself, but having certain preconceptions. Politics also plays a role.

Catholics are guilty of this too. Does it really matter what one believes about Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper as long observes it in the proper manner and with the right attitude. To me, it just seems more like philosophical speculation than soteriological. I'm the same way about Calvinism.

A lot of people grow up believing in Calvinism or Arminianism, creation or evolution, etc not out of Scriptural conviction, but rather from tradition that they were taught while growing up. The Reformed branch teaches sola scriptura, but still has a high reverence for tradition as it retains paedobaptism, doing worship a certain way (known as the regulative principle of worship). Heck, one can argue that sola scriptura itself is a tradition. So both Protestants and Catholics alike generally rely on tradition rather than Scripture for themselves. That is not to say that there aren't any people well-versed in Scripture, I'm just saying that it is true for the average Protestant and Catholic laity alike.

The Protestant Reformation wasn't a protest against all tradition or everything Catholic, they were protesting over what they saw as abuse and corruption in the church and disagreed with some of what the church taught and practiced. Anglicans and some Lutherans retain a lot of Catholic practices, they just had a problem with certain practices and teachings, not all of them.

The main issue Protestants have with the RCC is its unwillingness to budge. Compromise and ecumenicalism works both ways and both sides have to be willing to do their part. One side shouldn't have to give up all their beliefs just to please the other.

I was part of a conversation with a Lutheran who said that while Evangelical Lutherans disagree with the concept of the papacy and the veneration of icons, their main issue is the RCC's rejection of sola fide and they could tolerate the papacy and icons of the RCC was at affirming of sola fide. I also remember a Reformed Protestant on here who said he wouldn't have had a problem with being Roman Catholic if Jansenism wasn't condemned as a heresy.

Luther wanted to remain Roman Catholic, but only left after he saw that he had no choice.

I'd say there is a big difference between what the original reformers believed and what their followers did. Calvin was a great guy, but his followers wound up being pretty bad at following the Gospel. The Reformation seemed to start with trying to get more orthodox, while it ended in going the other way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_cross#Exclusion
I guess the cross was a real stumbling blockfor Beza.

[The Princes of the Universe]

Hey guys, to sum it up I was raised as a Pentecostal, then as a non-denominational Christian. I was introduced to liturgical Christianity my first year at a local Catholic high school and became a High Church Episcopalian soon after. But I feel that the Episcopal Church has really failed as a Church so I started looking into Eastern Orthodoxy, like a lot of former Anglicans do, but now I think the Catholic Church is the correct choice, so I enrolled in RCIA a couple weeks ago.

Welcome! Glad to found your way to our doors!

Amen!

[Shyubi Koku Naishifun]

I also find ironic that the RCC calls itself the Roman Catholic Church, which basically means the Roman Universal Church, which implies a universal Roman Empire, albeit in a religious form.

"Roman" does not mean any relation to the Roman Empire or being Roman for the sake of it, "Roman" refers to the Bishop of Rome, the Pope who is headquartered in the city of Rome. We call the Catholic Church the "Roman" Catholic Church to differentiate it from other Apostolic Christians because not only the Roman Catholics call themselves Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Anglicans at various degrees call themselves "Catholics" as well. Out of an insult "Roman Catholic" developed for practical purposes to differentiate Catholic from other Apostolic Christians. As a side note, we Catholics find it unnecessary to call "Roman Catholic" but often prefer "Catholic", or merely "The Church".

The main issue Protestants have with the RCC is its unwillingness to budge. Compromise and ecumenicalism works both ways and both sides have to be willing to do their part. One side shouldn't have to give up all their beliefs just to please the other.

I was part of a conversation with a Lutheran who said that while Evangelical Lutherans disagree with the concept of the papacy and the veneration of icons, their main issue is the RCC's rejection of sola fide and they could tolerate the papacy and icons of the RCC was at affirming of sola fide. I also remember a Reformed Protestant on here who said he wouldn't have had a problem with being Roman Catholic if Jansenism wasn't condemned as a heresy.

Well, good luck. We cannot even mend the Great Schism after all these centuries. Making the Catholic Church compromise to sola fide and Jansenism is like making the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.

[Nordengrund]

I don't call or consider Catholics heathens. I was anti-Catholic for a time, but it was mostly due to attitude a lot of Catholics and Orthodox on here have rather than their beliefs and practices.

I get that you don't "worship idols" but "venerate icons." It's an area with lots of debates and disagreements. I only avoid calling it idolatry in order to maintain civil discussion and "idolatry" is a fighting word. I am not and never was comfortable with the practice even if it isn't idolatry. I also think it's unnecessary as we have God to provide us with all that we need.

I will be fair about the Reformation. It was a confusing time and I don't think either side was completely right or wrong number and it wasn't black and white. Both sides had sincere and genuine Christians and some people were hypocrites and opportunists. In fact, if there was a "good" side, it would be the Anabaptists as they endured persecution from both Protestants and Catholics and it seems to me that a lot of their doctrine and practice is closer to that of the Early Church than either the Protestants or Catholics.

The Church throughout all ages of its history was a blend of good and bad. The bad is due partially to human nature and fallibility and the attacks by Satan. He tries to corrupt both Protestants and Catholics. Neither side has everything right or everything wrong. As long as the core tenets of Christianity are being upheld and the Gospel is being carried to the four corners is what matters most. I doubt either of us have everything right about theology and I'm sure God uses both Catholics and Protestants for His plans and glory.

I also find ironic that the RCC calls itself the Roman Catholic Church, which basically means the Roman Universal Church, which implies a universal Roman Empire, albeit in a religious form.

Something both sides are guilty of is being too dogmatic about non-essentials. Part of the reason for the denominationalism among Protestants isn't so much Scripture itself, but having certain preconceptions. Politics also plays a role.

Catholics are guilty of this too. Does it really matter what one believes about Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper as long observes it in the proper manner and with the right attitude. To me, it just seems more like philosophical speculation than soteriological. I'm the same way about Calvinism.

A lot of people grow up believing in Calvinism or Arminianism, creation or evolution, etc not out of Scriptural conviction, but rather from tradition that they were taught while growing up. The Reformed branch teaches sola scriptura, but still has a high reverence for tradition as it retains paedobaptism, doing worship a certain way (known as the regulative principle of worship). Heck, one can argue that sola scriptura itself is a tradition. So both Protestants and Catholics alike generally rely on tradition rather than Scripture for themselves. That is not to say that there aren't any people well-versed in Scripture, I'm just saying that it is true for the average Protestant and Catholic laity alike.

The Protestant Reformation wasn't a protest against all tradition or everything Catholic, they were protesting over what they saw as abuse and corruption in the church and disagreed with some of what the church taught and practiced. Anglicans and some Lutherans retain a lot of Catholic practices, they just had a problem with certain practices and teachings, not all of them.

The main issue Protestants have with the RCC is its unwillingness to budge. Compromise and ecumenicalism works both ways and both sides have to be willing to do their part. One side shouldn't have to give up all their beliefs just to please the other.

I was part of a conversation with a Lutheran who said that while Evangelical Lutherans disagree with the concept of the papacy and the veneration of icons, their main issue is the RCC's rejection of sola fide and they could tolerate the papacy and icons of the RCC was at affirming of sola fide. I also remember a Reformed Protestant on here who said he wouldn't have had a problem with being Roman Catholic if Jansenism wasn't condemned as a heresy.

Luther wanted to remain Roman Catholic, but only left after he saw that he had no choice.

I'd say there is a big difference between what the original reformers believed and what their followers did. Calvin was a great guy, but his followers wound up being pretty bad at following the Gospel. The Reformation seemed to start with trying to get more orthodox, while it ended in going the other way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_cross#Exclusion
I guess the cross was a real stumbling blockfor Beza.

I feel similarly about the Anabaptists. I greatly admire the tradition in its doctrine and all that it went through. It was a step in the right direction, but unfortunately the modern Anabaptists are too legalistic and lack the zeal of their forefathers.

[Auristania]

For give me I wasn't specific enough. I meant I was hoping you could expand on why you believe those, against what The Catholic Church teaches or at least what you think it teaches, in manner that could be parsed and debated, to both help you clarify your beliefs to yourself so you better know which denomination suits you, and giving us heathens a chance to convince you to come over to our side.

I will be fair about the Reformation....

The Church throughout all ages of its history was a blend of good and bad. ...

I also find ironic that the RCC calls itself the Roman Catholic Church, which basically means the Roman Universal Church, which implies a universal Roman Empire, albeit in a religious form.

Something both sides are guilty of is being too dogmatic about non-essentials. Part of the reason for the denominationalism among Protestants isn't so much Scripture itself, but having certain preconceptions. Politics also plays a role.

Catholics are guilty of this too. Does it really matter what one believes about Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper as long observes it in the proper manner and with the right attitude. To me, it just seems more like philosophical speculation than soteriological. I'm the same way about Calvinism.

A lot of people grow up believing in Calvinism or Arminianism, creation or evolution, etc not out of Scriptural conviction, but rather from tradition that they were taught while growing up.....

The Protestant Reformation wasn't a protest against all tradition or everything Catholic, they were protesting over what they saw as abuse and corruption in the church and disagreed with some of what the church taught and practiced. Anglicans and some Lutherans retain a lot of Catholic practices, they just had a problem with certain practices and teachings, not all of them.

The main issue Protestants have with the RCC is its unwillingness to budge. Compromise and ecumenicalism works both ways and both sides have to be willing to do their part. One side shouldn't have to give up all their beliefs just to please the other.

I was part of a conversation with a Lutheran who said that while Evangelical Lutherans disagree with the concept of the papacy and the veneration of icons, their main issue is the RCC's rejection of sola fide and they could tolerate the papacy and icons of the RCC was at affirming of sola fide. I also remember a Reformed Protestant on here who said he wouldn't have had a problem with being Roman Catholic if Jansenism wasn't condemned as a heresy.

Luther wanted to remain Roman Catholic, but only left after he saw that he had no choice.

The main issue Protestants have with the RCC is its unwillingness to budge.

WRONG. You don't speak for all Prods, neither do I. I am just a Prod with an opinion, so are you.

MY issue with RCC is that they are always changing, and changing for worse and nailing in those changes with Papal Infallilibiliibilty. Clerical celibacy was invented for political reasons. The People were forbidden to drink Jesu's blood. The Holy Office of the Inquisition. Sale of Indulgences. All of these changes were changes for the bad.

I wish RCC had NOT budged. I wish they hadn't invented more and more doctrines. If they had kept to Gospel Purity, the Reformation would never have happened.

I could not tolerate a Papacy. I could accept Primacy of Constantinople because Constantinople does not have a 1500 year Tradition of tyranny.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I will be fair about the Reformation....

The Church throughout all ages of its history was a blend of good and bad. ...

I also find ironic that the RCC calls itself the Roman Catholic Church, which basically means the Roman Universal Church, which implies a universal Roman Empire, albeit in a religious form.

Something both sides are guilty of is being too dogmatic about non-essentials. Part of the reason for the denominationalism among Protestants isn't so much Scripture itself, but having certain preconceptions. Politics also plays a role.

Catholics are guilty of this too. Does it really matter what one believes about Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper as long observes it in the proper manner and with the right attitude. To me, it just seems more like philosophical speculation than soteriological. I'm the same way about Calvinism.

A lot of people grow up believing in Calvinism or Arminianism, creation or evolution, etc not out of Scriptural conviction, but rather from tradition that they were taught while growing up.....

The Protestant Reformation wasn't a protest against all tradition or everything Catholic, they were protesting over what they saw as abuse and corruption in the church and disagreed with some of what the church taught and practiced. Anglicans and some Lutherans retain a lot of Catholic practices, they just had a problem with certain practices and teachings, not all of them.

The main issue Protestants have with the RCC is its unwillingness to budge. Compromise and ecumenicalism works both ways and both sides have to be willing to do their part. One side shouldn't have to give up all their beliefs just to please the other.

I was part of a conversation with a Lutheran who said that while Evangelical Lutherans disagree with the concept of the papacy and the veneration of icons, their main issue is the RCC's rejection of sola fide and they could tolerate the papacy and icons of the RCC was at affirming of sola fide. I also remember a Reformed Protestant on here who said he wouldn't have had a problem with being Roman Catholic if Jansenism wasn't condemned as a heresy.

Luther wanted to remain Roman Catholic, but only left after he saw that he had no choice.

The main issue Protestants have with the RCC is its unwillingness to budge.

WRONG. You don't speak for all Prods, neither do I. I am just a Prod with an opinion, so are you.

MY issue with RCC is that they are always changing, and changing for worse and nailing in those changes with Papal Infallilibiliibilty. Clerical celibacy was invented for political reasons. The People were forbidden to drink Jesu's blood. The Holy Office of the Inquisition. Sale of Indulgences. All of these changes were changes for the bad.

I wish RCC had NOT budged. I wish they hadn't invented more and more doctrines. If they had kept to Gospel Purity, the Reformation would never have happened.

I could not tolerate a Papacy. I could accept Primacy of Constantinople because Constantinople does not have a 1500 year Tradition of tyranny.

Wow, all of this is wrong.
I'm willing to bet you don't actually know what Papal infallibility actually is, rather just use it as a buzzword.
I'd to see a source for that claim about clerical celibacy that doesn't have "Jesus-is-savior" in the URL.
The people were not forbidden from taking the precious blood.
The church has been rooting out heretics for millennia, that's not new. The inquisitions were actually called by the layity and when the scope violence reached the Vatican they condemned it.
And believe it or not the Protestants actually expanded and continued the scope of the violence.
Based on the above I'm also willing to be the you don't actually know what indulgences were either, let alone why their sale was innapropriate.

Believe it or not the reformation is the group who invented doctrines such as sola scriptura. The Reformation however was also inevitable. Not because of any divine providence on the Reformers, but because the world had changed. The Church was still holding on to pre-renaissance ideas. Italian humanism upended the feudal concepts and because the Church refused to budge, conflict was inevitable.
Also if you think the Eastern Church has its hands clean, you're sorely mistaken.

[Diopolis]

How do you all feel about the second Vatican council?

Vatican II was an excellent example of the holy spirit stopping things from going too far- most of the really damaging things that get pinned on it weren't actually part of the council. They were changes made afterwards- such as the novus ordo missae and making Friday abstinence optional.