Christian Discussion Thread III

[Czechanada]

Well, I hope everyone here will appreciate that I've unintentionally rode to the defense of Christendom (even though I'm not a Christian) when editing a paper on the history of the relationship between religion and politics in Egypt, by including an editor's note that the section discussing the Roman and Byzantine periods of Egypt should include a more fleshed out discussion of the development of Miaphysitism and such rather than simply leaving in the persecution of Christians by the Byzantines.

[Angleter]

What does everyone think of this?

I think it's a great development. The more unity, the better.

The article's factoids, bizarrely, focus on liturgical and practical differences, which are broadly irrelevant. Neither Catholics nor Orthodox believe that allowing or banning married priests is heretical, and there's a significant number of Eastern Catholics who practice liturgical rites traditionally associated with Orthodoxy (or Oriental Orthodoxy, or the Church of the East). The main theological issues can probably be divided into two categories:

The first are issues where the Catholics and Orthodox tend to talk past each other - though there's very little actual difference in teaching, the Orthodox in particular are wary of the way the Catholics express themselves, and this usually is attributed by the Orthodox to the Catholics over-analysing things under the influence of Greek philosophy. These issues include transubstantiation, purgatory, original sin, and the filioque. They can and ought to be overcome with further dialogue.

The second category comprises issues where both sides actually do seem to teach different things, and would have a hard time convincing themselves that any compromise acceptable to the other side wouldn't be a step into heresy. These issues include divorce, the role of the Papacy (which is, in the end, probably the ultimate stumbling block), and perhaps even the Immaculate Conception (the latter especially is a case of the Catholic Church defining piles of dogma over the last millennium that the Orthodox would have to accept, if perhaps with some 'clarification', if any union were to happen - there is absolutely no chance of the Vatican declaring, say, Lateran IV or Vatican I as latrocinia centuries after the fact, and that's a good thing, but if the Orthodox find anything non-negotiably heretical in any Catholic Ecumenical Council since 1054, then we may as well pick up our respective balls and go home).

And then even if all theological differences were overcome, there'd still be a mess of jurisdictional issues to overcome. The Orthodox, as far as I know, tend to favour a simpler structure of each see having only one bishop, and each autocephalous church having its own clear jurisdiction (although quite how they deal with the West hasn't entirely been worked out), and all currently follow the same Byzantine Rite (while the Catholic Church includes several different Rites). Catholic jurisdiction really is quite a mess, and I doubt the Orthodox would abide by it.

[The Archregimancy]

The Orthodox, as far as I know, tend to favour a simpler structure of each see having only one bishop, and each autocephalous church having its own clear jurisdiction (although quite how they deal with the West hasn't entirely been worked out), and all currently follow the same Byzantine Rite (while the Catholic Church includes several different Rites). Catholic jurisdiction really is quite a mess, and I doubt the Orthodox would abide by it.

One minor point here....

There is in fact more than one rite within Orthodoxy.

Technically, the Orthodox Church recognises all pre-schism rites as broadly valid (minus that pesky double procession). In practical terms, the overwhelming majority of Orthodox churches follow what Catholics refer to as the "Byzantine rite"; however, there are a small number of Western Rite parishes. The Antiochian Patriarchate is particularly active here (relatively speaking, anyway), but even a conservative canonical jurisdictions such as ROCOR [Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia] has a tentative Western Rite branch.

It's a comparatively new movement within Orthodoxy, essentially dating to the 19th century, and it isn't necessarily accepted uncritically; but exist it does.

There are a variety of Western Rite liturgies, but you might rather like the Orthodox Western Rite Liturgy of St. Gregory - which is essentially the Tridentine Mass with the filioque taken out.

[Distruzio]

Well, I hope everyone here will appreciate that I've unintentionally rode to the defense of Christendom (even though I'm not a Christian) when editing a paper on the history of the relationship between religion and politics in Egypt, by including an editor's note that the section discussing the Roman and Byzantine periods of Egypt should include a more fleshed out discussion of the development of Miaphysitism and such rather than simply leaving in the persecution of Christians by the Byzantines.

!!

In all seriousness, I'm very pleased to hear this, brother. Thank you. While persecution happened, it does no good to ignore the actual history involved in the region. Christian relations in the middle east have been tumultuous (at best) but that doesn't mean that those conflicts haven't helped to define the personality of region specific Christianity. If we hopped on the whole, "woe is me for belonging to a sect once persecuted" bandwagon, we'd only hamper any hopes of reconciliation and healing of any lingering pain.

[Distruzio]

So... the Church "kicked you out" for being LGBT...seems contradictory to what Christianity is supposed to be about.

They did. The church/school that I grew up in, St Peters Lutheran, kicked me out when they found out I was gay. They basically told me to never come back again.

Tarsonis is right. That kind of activity is expressly rejected according to Church doctrine. Being gay isn't a sin. Being gay instead of trying to live as Christ lived is. The Lutherans, of all Protestant sects, should know this.

[Constantinopolis]

I provided a list of the differences between Orthodox and Catholic theology (as I understand them) about 40 pages ago.

1. The Filioque - the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son rather than strictly from the Father, as the Creed states.

2. Papal primacy - the idea that one bishop (the bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope) is the head of the Church and has universal jurisdiction over other bishops and over all Christians.

3. Development of doctrine - the Catholic Church considers it acceptable to declare new doctrines which were not believed by Catholics in previous times (some of the other heresies in this list are precisely that: new doctrines introduced at a certain point in time, which were not supported or believed by most Catholics prior to that point). The Orthodox Church considers this idea to be insulting to God, since it implies that Jesus Christ did not tell us everything we need to know for salvation, but left it up to us to discover new requirements later. In the Orthodox view, while it's certainly possible to develop new opinions (= personal views about non-essential topics, which are not mandatory for all Christians), it is not possible to discover new doctrines (= beliefs that are mandatory for Christians). In other words, you can't impose new rules that weren't around before. All that is essential for salvation was known by the Church from the beginning. The Church may clarify doctrines or rephrase them in words that modern people can understand, but it cannot declare that something which was considered false in the past is to be considered true in the future.

4. The Catholic view of Original Sin as a guilt or debt that all humans are born with. The Orthodox Church believes that Original Sin (or "Ancestral Sin", as we sometimes call it to emphasize our different view) was a corrupting influence that made human beings predisposed to sin, but no one alive today is guilty of it. To put it differently: Orthodoxy views humans as addicted to sin, while Catholicism views humans as actually guilty of sin from the moment they are born.

5. The immaculate conception - the idea that Mary the Mother of God was born without the guilt of Original Sin, unlike all other human beings who are born guilty of Original Sin, and therefore Mary was in some sense more than human. This heresy is a consequence of the Catholic view of Original Sin, so it's a great example of the way one subtle heresy can lead to another, more serious one. (Note: This Catholic doctrine was only introduced in the 19th century - see point 3, above)

6. "Satisfaction soteriology", or the view of salvation as a type of satisfaction of debt - in other words the idea that sinning is like breaking a law, and God is like a policeman who has a duty to punish you for breaking that law, but there's a loophole (the sacrifice of Christ) which allows you to get away without punishment even though you deserve it. The Protestants really embraced this idea with open arms and took it to the extreme, but the Catholic Church endorses it as well. The Orthodox Church views sin more like an addiction or a disease, God more like a doctor, and the sacrifice of Christ more like the medicine that will cure you.

7. Purgatory - the Catholic idea of a "third place" in the afterlife where many souls undergo a "temporal punishment" which is necessary to fully purge them of the guilt of sin (because sin requires both a "temporal punishment" and an eternal "spiritual punishment", and it's only the eternal one that gets forgiven through the death and resurrection of Christ). This is actually very weird, and I don't think any non-Catholics understand it (I certainly don't). Catholic doctrine seems to be really obsessed with guilt and punishment.

8. Indulgences - today this is an almost-dead heresy, but in previous centuries the Catholic Church taught that it is possible to earn exemptions from purgatory, known as "indulgences" (selling indulgences was a type of political corruption and never part of Catholic doctrine, but indulgences themselves were officially approved - not to be sold, but to be given away for certain merits - and technically they are still allowed, although in practice they no longer exist).

9. Absolute divine simplicity and created grace - okay, I don't actually understand these two issues, but I have read that they are Catholic doctrines which the Orthodox consider to be heresies.

10. Papal infallibility - the idea that, under certain conditions, the Pope has the power to make infallible statements. (Note: This Catholic doctrine was only introduced in the 19th century - see point 3, above)

I also just realized that I never listed transubstantiation and divorce, but that's probably because these are issues which the Orthodox don't consider to be serious stumbling blocks - so my bias was showing in what I didn't talk about.

Hmm, and come to think of it, that post led to a debate with Tarsonis that I don't think we ever quite ended... Maybe I should get back to it.

Anyway, in the mean time, a few small points:

The first are issues where the Catholics and Orthodox tend to talk past each other - though there's very little actual difference in teaching, the Orthodox in particular are wary of the way the Catholics express themselves, and this usually is attributed by the Orthodox to the Catholics over-analysing things under the influence of Greek philosophy. These issues include transubstantiation, purgatory, original sin, and the filioque. They can and ought to be overcome with further dialogue.

The Catholic view of these issues is that they don't represent actual differences in teaching but are mostly just a matter of using different wording for the same thing.

The Orthodox view is that these issues do indeed represent real differences in teaching, and in some cases we find it hard to see how anyone could suggest that they're just the same thing worded differently. Take purgatory for example. How can the existence or non-existence of purgatory be just an issue of wording?

And then even if all theological differences were overcome, there'd still be a mess of jurisdictional issues to overcome. The Orthodox, as far as I know, tend to favour a simpler structure of each see having only one bishop, and each autocephalous church having its own clear jurisdiction (although quite how they deal with the West hasn't entirely been worked out), and all currently follow the same Byzantine Rite (while the Catholic Church includes several different Rites). Catholic jurisdiction really is quite a mess, and I doubt the Orthodox would abide by it.

Oh, trust me, Orthodox jurisdictional issues in the "new lands" (the places where Orthodoxy arrived recently, like the Western hemisphere) are a mess, too. But yeah, the basic principle is that every see has one bishop... why, do Catholics do it differently?

In any case, I wanted to mention that although the vast majority of Orthodox follow what you call the Byzantine Rite, there are in fact some (very tiny) exceptions. For instance, in the United States there are a number of parishes (no more than a few dozen, I believe) that use something called the "Western Rite". This rite was composed in the early 20th century, ostensibly as an attempt to revive the pre-Schism Latin Rite, but since we don't have any thousand-year-old liturgical books, it was in practice based largely on the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church as it stood around 1900 (i.e. pre-Vatican II), with some edits here and there to make it compatible with Orthodoxy.

This Western Rite is given as an option to Catholic or Anglican/Episcopalian parishes that want to convert wholesale to Orthodoxy (priest and all). As you might imagine, those are rare events, which is why the Western Rite is rarely used. It also has strong critics within the Orthodox Church.

In addition, all the ancient rites are accepted as valid and compatible with Orthodoxy, so, for instance, if we were to reunite with any of the Oriental churches (something that will hopefully happen soon), they would continue to use their current rites.

[Distruzio]

In addition, all the ancient rites are accepted as valid and compatible with Orthodoxy, so, for instance, if we were to reunite with any of the Oriental churches (something that will hopefully happen soon), they would continue to use their current rites.

Indeed. That's only one of the more wonderful things to come out of the collapse of the Soviet Union. I rather enjoy visiting the (very few) local Oriental parishes and its a great relief to see my son receive communion with long lost cousins in the faith. Once my fiance and I are married, then it'll be our turn. I can understand a schism out of fear and confusion, sure. But I'll sure be happy when all the kinks are worked out and full communion is recognized once more.

It can't come soon enough for my tastes.

As for the Catholics, my personal bias leans towards a full reconciliation. But I'm not blind. I don't think it'll happen in the next few decades but, hopefully, within the next century? Maybe. It'll be a breath of fresh air to see the two lungs of Christianity once more working together to oxygenate the Body of Christ.

[Constantinopolis]

In addition, all the ancient rites are accepted as valid and compatible with Orthodoxy, so, for instance, if we were to reunite with any of the Oriental churches (something that will hopefully happen soon), they would continue to use their current rites.

Indeed. That's only one of the more wonderful things to come out of the collapse of the Soviet Union. I rather enjoy visiting the (very few) local Oriental parishes and its a great relief to see my son receive communion with long lost cousins in the faith. Once my fiance and I are married, then it'll be our turn. I can understand a schism out of fear and confusion, sure. But I'll sure be happy when all the kinks are worked out and full communion is recognized once more.

Eh...? What does the collapse of the USSR have to do with it?

Also, what do you mean when you mention your son "receiving communion with long lost cousins in the faith"? While I pray for quick and immediate reunification with our long lost Oriental cousins (as soon as possible - tomorrow would be nice), we are not currently in ecclesiastical communion with them, and therefore we cannot receive the Eucharist at an Oriental liturgy and vice versa. Are Oriental parishes in your area disregarding this rule?

[Distruzio]

Indeed. That's only one of the more wonderful things to come out of the collapse of the Soviet Union. I rather enjoy visiting the (very few) local Oriental parishes and its a great relief to see my son receive communion with long lost cousins in the faith. Once my fiance and I are married, then it'll be our turn. I can understand a schism out of fear and confusion, sure. But I'll sure be happy when all the kinks are worked out and full communion is recognized once more.

Eh...? What does the collapse of the USSR have to do with it?

Everything.

Also, what do you mean when you mention your son "receiving communion with long lost cousins in the faith"? While I pray for quick and immediate reunification with our long lost Oriental cousins (as soon as possible - tomorrow would be nice), we are not currently in ecclesiastical communion with them, and therefore we cannot receive the Eucharist at an Oriental liturgy and vice versa. Are Oriental parishes in your area disregarding this rule?

It depends on the administering Bishop and Priest, honestly. Full communion doesn't exist, no. But enough of an understanding (as has been explained to me) and agreement exists that faith in the power of Grace fills any voids left.

[Grave_n_idle]

On a related note, I wonder why our time exhibits such a distinct lack of dualist religions, considering how popular they used to be from Classical Antiquity and up to about the 14th century (the Cathars were the last, as far as I know).

Zoroastrianism was once a great world religion, Manichaeism once rivaled Christianity in the number of followers and influence, and so on. The idea that there are two gods, one good and the other evil - often connected with the gnostic concept that the spiritual is good and the material is evil - seems to have radiated out from Persia several times in history. Then it just... ended.

It didn't, though - it's still present in the main religion that is (currently) dominant.

If you want to see an example of non-dualistic Abrahamic faith, you can look at Judaism, where all things, both good and evil, pour forth from God, and 'the Satan' is an agent of Jehovah God.

Once you get to Christianity, Satan has been granted agency to act as an opponent to God, and God is somehow only the creator of nice, fluffy things, and the root of all evil is the Devil's influence -but it's okay - because there'll ultimately be a war between God and Satan. and Satan will lose.

Christianity is an explicitly dualistic religion. The fact that they appoint their second god a slightly less elevated title doesn't mean it's not dualistic.

[Islamic republiq of Julundar]

Eh...? What does the collapse of the USSR have to do with it?

Everything.

Also, what do you mean when you mention your son "receiving communion with long lost cousins in the faith"? While I pray for quick and immediate reunification with our long lost Oriental cousins (as soon as possible - tomorrow would be nice), we are not currently in ecclesiastical communion with them, and therefore we cannot receive the Eucharist at an Oriental liturgy and vice versa. Are Oriental parishes in your area disregarding this rule?

It depends on the administering Bishop and Priest, honestly. Full communion doesn't exist, no. But enough of an understanding (as has been explained to me) and agreement exists that faith in the power of Grace fills any voids left.

My parish priest (Anglican) went on holiday to France. He wrote to the Roman Catholic bishop and asked permission to receive Communion. Bishop wrote a permission slip. Obviously, similiar rules apply between Orthodox and Oriental.

[Dangelia]

I provided a list of the differences between Orthodox and Catholic theology (as I understand them) about 40 pages ago.

1. The Filioque - the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son rather than strictly from the Father, as the Creed states.

2. Papal primacy - the idea that one bishop (the bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope) is the head of the Church and has universal jurisdiction over other bishops and over all Christians.

3. Development of doctrine - the Catholic Church considers it acceptable to declare new doctrines which were not believed by Catholics in previous times (some of the other heresies in this list are precisely that: new doctrines introduced at a certain point in time, which were not supported or believed by most Catholics prior to that point). The Orthodox Church considers this idea to be insulting to God, since it implies that Jesus Christ did not tell us everything we need to know for salvation, but left it up to us to discover new requirements later. In the Orthodox view, while it's certainly possible to develop new opinions (= personal views about non-essential topics, which are not mandatory for all Christians), it is not possible to discover new doctrines (= beliefs that are mandatory for Christians). In other words, you can't impose new rules that weren't around before. All that is essential for salvation was known by the Church from the beginning. The Church may clarify doctrines or rephrase them in words that modern people can understand, but it cannot declare that something which was considered false in the past is to be considered true in the future.

4. The Catholic view of Original Sin as a guilt or debt that all humans are born with. The Orthodox Church believes that Original Sin (or "Ancestral Sin", as we sometimes call it to emphasize our different view) was a corrupting influence that made human beings predisposed to sin, but no one alive today is guilty of it. To put it differently: Orthodoxy views humans as addicted to sin, while Catholicism views humans as actually guilty of sin from the moment they are born.

5. The immaculate conception - the idea that Mary the Mother of God was born without the guilt of Original Sin, unlike all other human beings who are born guilty of Original Sin, and therefore Mary was in some sense more than human. This heresy is a consequence of the Catholic view of Original Sin, so it's a great example of the way one subtle heresy can lead to another, more serious one. (Note: This Catholic doctrine was only introduced in the 19th century - see point 3, above)

6. "Satisfaction soteriology", or the view of salvation as a type of satisfaction of debt - in other words the idea that sinning is like breaking a law, and God is like a policeman who has a duty to punish you for breaking that law, but there's a loophole (the sacrifice of Christ) which allows you to get away without punishment even though you deserve it. The Protestants really embraced this idea with open arms and took it to the extreme, but the Catholic Church endorses it as well. The Orthodox Church views sin more like an addiction or a disease, God more like a doctor, and the sacrifice of Christ more like the medicine that will cure you.

7. Purgatory - the Catholic idea of a "third place" in the afterlife where many souls undergo a "temporal punishment" which is necessary to fully purge them of the guilt of sin (because sin requires both a "temporal punishment" and an eternal "spiritual punishment", and it's only the eternal one that gets forgiven through the death and resurrection of Christ). This is actually very weird, and I don't think any non-Catholics understand it (I certainly don't). Catholic doctrine seems to be really obsessed with guilt and punishment.

8. Indulgences - today this is an almost-dead heresy, but in previous centuries the Catholic Church taught that it is possible to earn exemptions from purgatory, known as "indulgences" (selling indulgences was a type of political corruption and never part of Catholic doctrine, but indulgences themselves were officially approved - not to be sold, but to be given away for certain merits - and technically they are still allowed, although in practice they no longer exist).

9. Absolute divine simplicity and created grace - okay, I don't actually understand these two issues, but I have read that they are Catholic doctrines which the Orthodox consider to be heresies.

10. Papal infallibility - the idea that, under certain conditions, the Pope has the power to make infallible statements. (Note: This Catholic doctrine was only introduced in the 19th century - see point 3, above)

I also just realized that I never listed transubstantiation and divorce, but that's probably because these are issues which the Orthodox don't consider to be serious stumbling blocks - so my bias was showing in what I didn't talk about.

Hmm, and come to think of it, that post led to a debate with Tarsonis that I don't think we ever quite ended... Maybe I should get back to it.

Anyway, in the mean time, a few small points:

The first are issues where the Catholics and Orthodox tend to talk past each other - though there's very little actual difference in teaching, the Orthodox in particular are wary of the way the Catholics express themselves, and this usually is attributed by the Orthodox to the Catholics over-analysing things under the influence of Greek philosophy. These issues include transubstantiation, purgatory, original sin, and the filioque. They can and ought to be overcome with further dialogue.

The Catholic view of these issues is that they don't represent actual differences in teaching but are mostly just a matter of using different wording for the same thing.

The Orthodox view is that these issues do indeed represent real differences in teaching, and in some cases we find it hard to see how anyone could suggest that they're just the same thing worded differently. Take purgatory for example. How can the existence or non-existence of purgatory be just an issue of wording?

And then even if all theological differences were overcome, there'd still be a mess of jurisdictional issues to overcome. The Orthodox, as far as I know, tend to favour a simpler structure of each see having only one bishop, and each autocephalous church having its own clear jurisdiction (although quite how they deal with the West hasn't entirely been worked out), and all currently follow the same Byzantine Rite (while the Catholic Church includes several different Rites). Catholic jurisdiction really is quite a mess, and I doubt the Orthodox would abide by it.

Oh, trust me, Orthodox jurisdictional issues in the "new lands" (the places where Orthodoxy arrived recently, like the Western hemisphere) are a mess, too. But yeah, the basic principle is that every see has one bishop... why, do Catholics do it differently?

In any case, I wanted to mention that although the vast majority of Orthodox follow what you call the Byzantine Rite, there are in fact some (very tiny) exceptions. For instance, in the United States there are a number of parishes (no more than a few dozen, I believe) that use something called the "Western Rite". This rite was composed in the early 20th century, ostensibly as an attempt to revive the pre-Schism Latin Rite, but since we don't have any thousand-year-old liturgical books, it was in practice based largely on the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church as it stood around 1900 (i.e. pre-Vatican II), with some edits here and there to make it compatible with Orthodoxy.

This Western Rite is given as an option to Catholic or Anglican/Episcopalian parishes that want to convert wholesale to Orthodoxy (priest and all). As you might imagine, those are rare events, which is why the Western Rite is rarely used. It also has strong critics within the Orthodox Church.

In addition, all the ancient rites are accepted as valid and compatible with Orthodoxy, so, for instance, if we were to reunite with any of the Oriental churches (something that will hopefully happen soon), they would continue to use their current rites.

interestingly enough, in my region, we observed that even the rites and the cuktures of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are similar. Such as the vestments.

[Cogitation]

So do you come out from under that bridge wearing a big white fur coat often?

*** Official Warning: Trollnaming. ***

Never called you a Troll directly.

Irrelevant. The meaning was clear. It's still a violation. Either debate him or report him (generally speaking, that is; in this case, I don't regard it as trolling).

And some of the rest of you might want to leave off the whole tapdancing around the trollnaming rule thing. To avoid any appearance of bias on my part, I've raised it with other members of the moderation team rather than act directly on it myself, but let's assume for the time being that it's not something we're not necessarily going to view with unmitigated pleasure.

As an uninvolved Moderator, I agree with The Archregimancy. So, I'm stamping it as official: please avoid threadjacking, discussion about whether or not Jesus was a real person (and if he was a real person, whether or not he was The Son of God) is off-topic, here. This thread is about the religions, organizations, and believers that derive from Jesus. No Official Warnings to anyone on this point, just keep it in mind going forward, please.

Which concerns? Is this some new Moderation approach we need to know about?

Hardly new. Moderators sometimes notice things in the game or forums and decide to discuss it with the other Moderators rather than act on it themselves and/or immediately. Players file requests for Moderator attention on the "Moderation" board, but if a Moderator needs to file such a request (because they're too close to the case), then they don't file the request in "Moderation", they file it on the Super Secret Moderation Discussion Board.

If you want to start a thread over it, perhaps I'll join - but you've effectively hijacked this thread to discuss moderation that you - by your own admission - are not likely to be involved in yourself.

Now you're nebulously talking about raising my concerns (whatever you think they are) internally (whatever that means), and you're neither doing it in an on-topic way, nor in a moderation thread - so I wonder what exactly you think this serves as a purpose.

What it serves as a purpose is to give a heads-up notice that you might want to shy away from a certain activity until another Moderator can get around to looking at this thread, just in case the other Moderator happens to agree with him.

If the other Moderator disagrees, then fine, you can carry on after that. However, if the other Moderator agrees and you had been carrying on in the meantime, then you're at an elevated risk of becoming the subject of Moderator action.

In the future, perhaps you should consider letting other people raise their own concerns, if they think they are worth making an issue of. As it is, it just looks like you are - as we say down south - 'stirring up shit'.

This makes no sense. Moderators are not prohibited from reporting concerns that they come across but can't act upon; as mentioned above, we just don't put our own reports on the "Moderation" board. Moderators who are too close to the case are only prohibited from issuing the actual official ruling, but are not prohibited from advising players that something might be a bad idea to continue on with.

To me, it looks like you're the one "stirring up s---", hence *** Official Warning: Flamebait ***.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

[Murkwood]

Indeed. That's only one of the more wonderful things to come out of the collapse of the Soviet Union. I rather enjoy visiting the (very few) local Oriental parishes and its a great relief to see my son receive communion with long lost cousins in the faith. Once my fiance and I are married, then it'll be our turn. I can understand a schism out of fear and confusion, sure. But I'll sure be happy when all the kinks are worked out and full communion is recognized once more.

Eh...? What does the collapse of the USSR have to do with it?

Also, what do you mean when you mention your son "receiving communion with long lost cousins in the faith"? While I pray for quick and immediate reunification with our long lost Oriental cousins (as soon as possible - tomorrow would be nice), we are not currently in ecclesiastical communion with them, and therefore we cannot receive the Eucharist at an Oriental liturgy and vice versa. Are Oriental parishes in your area disregarding this rule?

After Perestroika and the collapse of the USSR, Orthodox spread as religion was legalized.

[Distruzio]

Eh...? What does the collapse of the USSR have to do with it?

Also, what do you mean when you mention your son "receiving communion with long lost cousins in the faith"? While I pray for quick and immediate reunification with our long lost Oriental cousins (as soon as possible - tomorrow would be nice), we are not currently in ecclesiastical communion with them, and therefore we cannot receive the Eucharist at an Oriental liturgy and vice versa. Are Oriental parishes in your area disregarding this rule?

After Perestroika and the collapse of the USSR, Orthodox spread as religion was legalized.

Or, at least, was decriminalized in certain soviet republics and free of forced soviet collusion within the Union itself.

[Dangelia]

hey, does anyone know whats happened lately with the situation between the Churches of Antioch and Jerusalem

[Distruzio]

Everything.



It depends on the administering Bishop and Priest, honestly. Full communion doesn't exist, no. But enough of an understanding (as has been explained to me) and agreement exists that faith in the power of Grace fills any voids left.

My parish priest (Anglican) went on holiday to France. He wrote to the Roman Catholic bishop and asked permission to receive Communion. Bishop wrote a permission slip. Obviously, similiar rules apply between Orthodox and Oriental.

Pretty much. My local Catholic priests implore me to take communion with their parish (when I attend) but I haven't received the go ahead from either my Bishop or my priest (and wouldn't seek it). Perhaps if I lived in an area devoid of Orthodox community but, as it stands, I live near 6 Eastern parishes and 2 Oriental parishes. Each of whom regularly exchange parishioners and hold community inclusive feasts. While relations between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Patriarchates aren't what they should be they are certainly getting better. The more the ecclesia forces the issues to be set aside, the more likely communion between the two becomes official.

The Anglicans get much credit as far as relations between Catholicism and Orthodoxy go being possessed of a set of doctrines that place them on a parallel path to Orthodoxy. We consider the Anglican separation a move back toward Orthodoxy. Vatican II, unfortunately, took the Romans a bit further from us.... but I'm optimistic (perhaps too optimistic) that the rift can and will be healed.

[Neoconstantius]

hey, does anyone know whats happened lately with the situation between the Churches of Antioch and Jerusalem

I haven't heard any new developments...

[Mostrov]

The Anglicans get much credit as far as relations between Catholicism and Orthodoxy go being possessed of a set of doctrines that place them on a parallel path to Orthodoxy. We consider the Anglican separation a move back toward Orthodoxy. Vatican II, unfortunately, took the Romans a bit further from us.... but I'm optimistic (perhaps too optimistic) that the rift can and will be healed.

Yes and no, Anglicanism has a lot to do with the whole English parochialism and insularity that it is culturally renowned for. There are certainly similarities between it and the orthodox doctrines, but I think this is more a case of convergence than genuine desire for reconciliation. It should be noted that alot of the similarities have only emerged comparatively recently with the whole trend of ritualism and mediaevalism, prior to the general trend was that it was far more protestant in nature; particularly in the 16-17th centuries. This is naturally the result of it not having nearly the same breadth of actual written doctrine, and what being there is easily side-stepped as has been done by Anglo-Catholics in many cases despite them remaining within the communion.

Its better to view Anglicanism as an evolution of a third strand, primarily relating to concepts of national character, than subset of either. Of course you can take this with a pinch of salt as the idea that the English Reformation and church having its roots in the early middle ages is not universally accepted.

[Distruzio]

The Anglicans get much credit as far as relations between Catholicism and Orthodoxy go being possessed of a set of doctrines that place them on a parallel path to Orthodoxy. We consider the Anglican separation a move back toward Orthodoxy. Vatican II, unfortunately, took the Romans a bit further from us.... but I'm optimistic (perhaps too optimistic) that the rift can and will be healed.

Yes and no, Anglicanism has a lot to do with the whole English parochialism and insularity that it is culturally renowned for. There are certainly similarities between it and the orthodox doctrines, but I think this is more a case of convergence than genuine desire for reconciliation. It should be noted that alot of the similarities have only emerged comparatively recently with the whole trend of ritualism and mediaevalism, prior to the general trend was that it was far more protestant in nature; particularly in the 16-17th centuries. This is naturally the result of it not having nearly the same breadth of actual written doctrine, and what being there is easily side-stepped as has been done by Anglo-Catholics in many cases despite them remaining within the communion.

Its better to view Anglicanism as an evolution of a third strand, primarily relating to concepts of national character, than subset of either. Of course you can take this with a pinch of salt as the idea that the English Reformation and church having its roots in the early middle ages is not universally accepted.

Of course. I didn't mean to give the impression that the trend was a conscious one.

[Mostrov]

Of course. I didn't mean to give the impression that the trend was a conscious one.

My apologies, I have an almost instinctive reaction to this - Anglicanism is possible one of the most misrepresented religions I can think of; the popular conceptions of it are very poor.
Of course this might have a fair bit to do with the fact that historically it has always been at the top of the hierarchy (Ironically enough, the religious group with the highest IQ's in America are Anglicans/Episcopalians - more due to wealth and the like than any actual correlation, although sometimes I like to pretend otherwise) and so there is a great degree of resentment against it.
I, however, do not particularly like to hear the same old myths about it that are so often repeated; usually that surrounding that of Henry VIII's marriages and motivation. Its gross misrepresentation at best and effectively slander at worst, it is up there with the idea of Catholic Priests being compulsive child molesters (statistically its actually similar to teachers and any other Christian denomination).

[Distruzio]

Of course. I didn't mean to give the impression that the trend was a conscious one.

My apologies, I have an almost instinctive reaction to this - Anglicanism is possible one of the most misrepresented religions I can think of; the popular conceptions of it are very poor.
Of course this might have a fair bit to do with the fact that historically it has always been at the top of the hierarchy (Ironically enough, the religious group with the highest IQ's in America are Anglicans/Episcopalians - more due to wealth and the like than any actual correlation, although sometimes I like to pretend otherwise) and so there is a great degree of resentment against it.
I, however, do not particularly like to hear the same old myths about it that are so often repeated; usually that surrounding that of Henry VIII's marriages and motivation. Its gross misrepresentation at best and effectively slander at worst, it is up there with the idea of Catholic Priests being compulsive child molesters (statistically its actually similar to teachers and any other Christian denomination).

Too true! Anglicanism is a personal guilty pleasure of mine. Honestly, if I hadn't found the Eastern Orthodox Church, Anglicanism would have been my choice. In fact, the man who helped to guide me through my conversion from misotheism to Christianity was an Anglican.

And I absolutely agree about the slander bit.

[Czechanada]

Well, I hope everyone here will appreciate that I've unintentionally rode to the defense of Christendom (even though I'm not a Christian) when editing a paper on the history of the relationship between religion and politics in Egypt, by including an editor's note that the section discussing the Roman and Byzantine periods of Egypt should include a more fleshed out discussion of the development of Miaphysitism and such rather than simply leaving in the persecution of Christians by the Byzantines.

!!

In all seriousness, I'm very pleased to hear this, brother. Thank you. While persecution happened, it does no good to ignore the actual history involved in the region. Christian relations in the middle east have been tumultuous (at best) but that doesn't mean that those conflicts haven't helped to define the personality of region specific Christianity. If we hopped on the whole, "woe is me for belonging to a sect once persecuted" bandwagon, we'd only hamper any hopes of reconciliation and healing of any lingering pain.

Thanks.

I'm referring to the disagreements made in the Council of Chalcedon over the Emperor's inteference in church affairs in my editor's notes, and I'm worried that if I get something wrong then a squad of Orthodox pedants will kick in my door and give me a good drubbing.

[CTALNH]

Eastern Orthodox but I am actually an atheist anti theist

[Neo Rome Republic]

Eastern Orthodox but I am actually an atheist anti theist

Then how are you Eastern Orthodox?