I heard that Greg Griffith of StandFirm has recently converted to the church of Rome. This honestly left me scratching my head. After stating that the Anglican doctrine is "as nearly perfect as I believe man has ever succeeded in achieving," he cites Episcopal faults for his switch. As a longtime member of the Episcopal church it's highly puzzling that he's never sought alternate Anglican oversight and threw baby out with the bathwater, but, that's a side point. What's puzzling is that the same exact kind of gnashing over heresies and liberalism is found over in the trad Romanist circles, expressing anguish and despair over Rome, on sites like Cathinfo.com, with threads like this: Another thread says this: Now help me out here... How how can the same church be the source of depression for some, and a cause for hope in others? How can serious Catholics say that without pre-V2 nuns they just "wouldn't be Catholic today", while people who've never had V2 nuns, sign up into the church of Rome? To make matters more interesting, Griffith admitted having serious doubts about several Roman doctrines, a fact which which has not prevented him from joining. Perhaps he just doesn't understand what Rome is, and that by its own standard it has apostasized same as the mainline Prots? A Rome which looks at a man who rejects some of its doctrines, or views Anglicanism as "the closest system to perfection ever designed by man," and then admits that man, is a very different Rome from anything we have known before. So maybe Griffith just doesn't understand what Rome is? These are the only kinds of people who'd consider switching to Rome today.