Christian Discussion Thread VII: The Christ Awakens.

[Constantinopolis]

I missed responding to Tarsonis on a very important point - perhaps THE most important of our conversation:

No, you misunderstand. I would in fact accept the kind of "unity" I described above - I'm just not seeing the point of it. If the two sides continue to believe different things, and basically just agree not to discuss those differences for the sake of "unity", I am asking what's the point.

We can already talk and be friends and help each other in various ways without having this "unity" that you seek. We don't have unity because we disagree on a number of things. So if we continued to disagree - so that no one has to "surrender" - but suddenly proclaimed "we are united now", despite nothing having actually changed in the beliefs or practices of either side... then what's the point?

Unity is, in and of itself, the point.
John 17:11 "And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are."

Ah, but what is "unity", my friend? Is it merely saying "we are united" while continuing to hold opposing beliefs about theology or ecclesiology? No, I would say that is false unity.

True unity requires not just administrative unification, but even more importantly, it requires unity of faith: holding the same beliefs on every important topic in our religion.

So, without one side persuading the other to change its beliefs, true unity is impossible, because unity of faith is impossible. Therefore, when you say this:

But the point you don't seem to be grasping is, we're or at least I'm, not asking people to change their faith.

...that is precisely why you are wrong.

You should be asking people to change their faith. That is the only way that true unity can be achieved.

[Oscantlico]

As Catholics, can we ask for the intercession of martyrs before they are officially recognized as saints? I was thinking about praying to the priest recently killed in France

Definitely, but doing such in public worship is a little dicier.

[Constantinopolis]

Even if I am late, I also join in the celebration of the canonization of Mother Teresa.

Also, to extend the discussion on sainthood and canonization, this old news caught my attention when it was released: http://www.news.va/en/news/coptic-churc ... -coptic-ch

If the news is correct, and it is more likely reliable since it came from a source from the Vatican, it was said that the Coptic Church canonized the 21 Egyptian Christians martyred by ISIS. What was the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church's (name to clear confusion) reaction on the 21 Egyptian Christians as martyrs?

If my knowledge serves me right, the Catholic Church normally don't recognize the canonizations (or more accurately, their canonization equivalents) of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches due to them being not Catholic. This is also the same reason why the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches don't recognize the Catholic Church's canonizations. Is my understanding on these right?

But, if the person was martyred for his/her faith, is it an important thing to consider his/her faith and religion and theology, whether the person was Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox for canonization and recognition? Or, does the Catholic and the Orthodox Church recognize martyrs as saints regardless of whatever particular church they belonged to?

This has also been my personal observation, in the Christian Chinese Martyrs killed in China, only the Catholic ones were canonized by the Catholic Church, and only the Orthodox ones were recognized by the Orthodox Church.

Yes. To canonise/recognise a saint is to confirm and acknowledge that they are in Heaven, and none of the apostolic denominations would be able to do that for a schismatic or heretic. They may well consider it likely that they're in Heaven, but they'd be unable to definitively say so.

I'd like to confirm what Angleter said. Churches typically do not canonise anyone who wasn't a member of the Church in question, because to canonise someone is to say "we are certain that this person is in Heaven", and no Church claims to be able to know with certainty which non-members are in Heaven.

But see below for exceptions to this rule.

Things get interesting, however, with the Eastern Catholic Churches, most of which recognise saints who lived and died in the Orthodox/Miaphysite/Nestorian Church when it was entirely in schism, and were recognised as saints before the relevant reunion with the Holy See. As far as I can tell, these would surely include Nestorius, who is recognised as a saint by the Syro-Malabar Church and, I assume, also by the Chaldean Catholic Church.

I always found this implicit Catholic canonisation of people who were never Catholics to be very strange. After all, is the status of one's soul affected by whether one's church enters communion with Rome some centuries after one's death?

But to recognize a non-Catholic as a saint is one thing; to recognize someone as both a saint and a heretic, at the same time, depending on which part of the Catholic Church you ask, is downright absurd.

(to clarify, for those unfamiliar with Nestorius: He was officially condemned as a heretic by the Third Ecumenical Council, which the Catholic Church officially endorses. The Syro-Malabar and Chaldean churches originally rejected the 3rd Council and canonised Nestorius as a saint. But in recent centuries they united with the Catholic Church, with the result being that Nestorius is now, apparently, both a saint and a heretic in Catholicism)

This is one of my biggest problems with Catholicism: The Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches are allowed to hold mutually exclusive beliefs on a range of topics, with no effort being made to harmonize them, which sometimes results in Catholicism affirming that X is both true and false at the same time, depending on which part of the Church you ask. It appears that as long as you accept the supremacy of the Pope of Rome and follow an ancient liturgical tradition, anything else goes.

Of course, other Christian Churches are much worse in this respect (hello there Anglican Communion, how many different factions with utterly different theologies do you contain today?).

I can understand why a Church might have internal disagreements over various points of doctrine for a period of time, even a long period. What I cannot understand is how people are ok with keeping such internal disagreements as a permanent feature of their Church. Surely the correct reaction to finding that your Church contains people with mutually exclusive religious beliefs should be to try to resolve this contradiction, not to accept it as is.

I feel bad. If I become a Christian again, I think in going to join the episcopal church. But I'm not sure about women's ordination. I'm not sure how to resolve this issue.

Well... you could join another Church instead of the Episcopal one...

[The Princes of the Universe]

Definitely, but doing such in public worship is a little dicier.

Have you anything of substance to say about that topic?

[Diopolis]

This is more-or-less how the canonisation process works in the Orthodox Church as well. First, there is a group of people that consider a certain (deceased) person to have been a saint; these people pray for that person's intercession, and may also compose hymns and paint icons of that person. They petition the bishops of the Church to canonise the person in question. The bishops are usually expected to be resistant in the beginning (unless the sainthood of the person in question is particularly self-evident), because it's part of their job to act as gatekeepers and ensure that canonisation never becomes too easy or routine.

Some people are never canonised at all, for various reasons, even while they continue to be considered saints by a strong group of followers. The Orthodox Church does not oppose such unofficial veneration, as long as it is done privately.

It is private until that person becomes Blessed then its local, and of course a Saint is the entire Church

Thats interesting, I wouldnt know of any in Catholicism, though I've only been keeping up with two people, Venerable Henriette DeLille and (St) Charlene Richard.

I know the founder of the Carthusians- forgot his actual name- was never formally canonized, as his order eschews canonization procedings for its members as a form of particularly extreme interior mortification, but is considered a saint nonetheless(the last saint without a canonization proceding, if I remember correctly).
I also know that Charlemagne and blessed Alan were never declared saints and kept at the blessed level for an extremely long time. In Charlemagne's case, this was likely begun out of concern with some aspects of his lifestyle and continued out of ecumenical concerns. In Blessed Alan's case, this appears to be a bureaucratic oversight.

[Diopolis]

Have any of you guys read 'A Canticle for Leibowitz'? What did you think of it?

I've read it fairly recently. Although it did get a lot of things wrong about the future of the Catholic church in the US, it did get right that future Catholics would be protesting outside of death camps.
I thought it was pretty good, and I liked the Catholic themes.

[Diopolis]

Nonsense, the T1 mass produced church offer strategic advantages and low production costs. Once the priests are paratrooped behind capitalist lines these will break through into Poland in a true orthodox mechanised wave. Armed with a 76mm holy hand grenade launcher and holy water supersoakers, it will cause hostile priests to flee to Siberia for patriotic ecumenism quicker than the gulag train can carry them.

That is the most hilarious thing I read today!

That mobile chapel actually looks like a really good idea, though, for places with few or no Orthodox churches.

Most denominations have a few. I believe the diocese of Lafayette has a mobile confessional.

[Diopolis]

I missed responding to Tarsonis on a very important point - perhaps THE most important of our conversation:

Unity is, in and of itself, the point.
John 17:11 "And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are."

Ah, but what is "unity", my friend? Is it merely saying "we are united" while continuing to hold opposing beliefs about theology or ecclesiology? No, I would say that is false unity.

True unity requires not just administrative unification, but even more importantly, it requires unity of faith: holding the same beliefs on every important topic in our religion.

So, without one side persuading the other to change its beliefs, true unity is impossible, because unity of faith is impossible. Therefore, when you say this:

But the point you don't seem to be grasping is, we're or at least I'm, not asking people to change their faith.

...that is precisely why you are wrong.

You should be asking people to change their faith. That is the only way that true unity can be achieved.

As usual, the Orthodox continually make good points about ecumenism. Pity they have other doctrinal errors.

[-Fahrong-]

So I heard you like golden domes...

Nonsense, the T1 mass produced church offer strategic advantages and low production costs. Once the priests are paratrooped behind capitalist lines these will break through into Poland in a true orthodox mechanised wave. Armed with a 76mm holy hand grenade launcher and holy water supersoakers, it will cause hostile priests to flee to Siberia for patriotic ecumenism quicker than the gulag train can carry them.

Ah yes the Paratrooper chaplains are the best, have you seen the inflatable churches that they bring with them as they parachute to deploy on the field?

[Herskerstad]

Nonsense, the T1 mass produced church offer strategic advantages and low production costs. Once the priests are paratrooped behind capitalist lines these will break through into Poland in a true orthodox mechanised wave. Armed with a 76mm holy hand grenade launcher and holy water supersoakers, it will cause hostile priests to flee to Siberia for patriotic ecumenism quicker than the gulag train can carry them.

Ah yes the Paratrooper chaplains are the best, have you seen the inflatable churches that they bring with them as they parachute to deploy on the field?

Don't talk about Orthodox priests landing on German soil.

That makes me Fuhrerious.

[-Fahrong-]

Ah yes the Paratrooper chaplains are the best, have you seen the inflatable churches that they bring with them as they parachute to deploy on the field?

Don't talk about Orthodox priests landing on German soil.

That makes me Fuhrerious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5cgPu1c4wA

[Luminesa]

That is the most hilarious thing I read today!

That mobile chapel actually looks like a really good idea, though, for places with few or no Orthodox churches.

Most denominations have a few. I believe the diocese of Lafayette has a mobile confessional.

That sounds about right. X3

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

so as I saw Const just mentioned the Patriarchate of Constantinople has only existed since the 400s or so, and this confuses me

why is it then that the Patriarch of Constantinople holds the primacy of honour within the Orthodox Church, if he is not the most senior Patriarch?

[United Marxist Nations]

so as I saw Const just mentioned the Patriarchate of Constantinople has only existed since the 400s or so, and this confuses me

why is it then that the Patriarch of Constantinople holds the primacy of honour within the Orthodox Church, if he is not the most senior Patriarch?

Because Constantinople was New Rome. It isn't based on the age of the position, but on the honor of the city. Constantinople being the capital of the Eastern Empire and "New Rome" giving it a position equal to Rome.

[Auristania]

Of course, other Christian Churches are much worse in this respect (hello there Anglican Communion, how many different factions with utterly different theologies do you contain today?).

I can understand why a Church might have internal disagreements over various points of doctrine for a period of time, even a long period. What I cannot understand is how people are ok with keeping such internal disagreements as a permanent feature of their Church. Surely the correct reaction to finding that your Church contains people with mutually exclusive religious beliefs should be to try to resolve this contradiction, not to accept it as is.




Nioya wrote:
I feel bad. If I become a Christian again, I think in going to join the episcopal church. But I'm not sure about women's ordination. I'm not sure how to resolve this issue.
Well... you could join another Church instead of the Episcopal one...

We Anglicans have had multiple factions for 2,000 years, we are used to it. I don't know what we would do if we only had one faction.

When the issue of Women Priests came up, our Priest who is totally against made an excellent speech about keeping the parish together because we worship the God of Love.

[Herskerstad]

Most denominations have a few. I believe the diocese of Lafayette has a mobile confessional.

That sounds about right. X3

Here's the Lutheran one, resting close to the Polish border.



It guarantees to bring the Slavic people closer to God.

[The Alexanderians]

so as I saw Const just mentioned the Patriarchate of Constantinople has only existed since the 400s or so, and this confuses me

why is it then that the Patriarch of Constantinople holds the primacy of honour within the Orthodox Church, if he is not the most senior Patriarch?

Because Constantinople was New Rome. It isn't based on the age of the position, but on the honor of the city. Constantinople being the capital of the Eastern Empire and "New Rome" giving it a position equal to Rome.

Hence Moscow's "Third Rome" title I suppose.

[The Alexanderians]

That sounds about right. X3

Here's the Lutheran one, resting close to the Polish border.



It guarantees to bring the Slavic people closer to God.

fite me

[Diopolis]

That sounds about right. X3

Here's the Lutheran one, resting close to the Polish border.



It guarantees to bring the Slavic people closer to God.

Ah, but will it stand up to the winged Hussar's cavalry charge?

[The Alexanderians]

Here's the Lutheran one, resting close to the Polish border.

(Image)

It guarantees to bring the Slavic people closer to God.

Ah, but will it stand up to the winged Hussar's cavalry charge?

Well the hussars are best at removing kebab, but I think they'll hold. Remember when they were outnumbered 40 to 1?

[Constantinopolis]

As usual, the Orthodox continually make good points about ecumenism.

To be fair, we have ecumenists inside the Orthodox Church as well - most notably within the Patriarchate of Constantinople (I guess some people want their Patriarchate to be "Ecumenical" in more ways than one, heh). But fortunately, they are a minority and they are generally viewed with suspicion. Sometimes great suspicion.

This suspicion that Constantinople has ecumenist leanings was the main reason for the failure of the Crete Council earlier this year. It looks like there will never be a successful pan-Orthodox Council until Patriarch Bartholomew comes out and says in no uncertain terms that he condemns and rejects the heresy of branch theory.

so as I saw Const just mentioned the Patriarchate of Constantinople has only existed since the 400s or so, and this confuses me

why is it then that the Patriarch of Constantinople holds the primacy of honour within the Orthodox Church, if he is not the most senior Patriarch?

Because Constantinople was New Rome. It isn't based on the age of the position, but on the honor of the city. Constantinople being the capital of the Eastern Empire and "New Rome" giving it a position equal to Rome.

UMN is correct. This is explicitly laid out in Canon III of the Second Ecumenical Council (held in 381):

“The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.”

That's it, by the way. That is the full text of the decision that made Constantinople second after Rome. Notice the implication of this canon. An Ecumenical Council literally just reshuffled the order of primacy inside the Church simply because of the relative cultural/political/economic importance of a city. No other reason was given at all. This is one of the arguments that the Orthodox use to support the stance that there is nothing immutable or sacrosanct about the primacy of specific Sees. If Constantinople can be pushed up to second place by an Ecumenical Council just because "it is the New Rome" (i.e. the new capital of the Roman world), then presumably other Sees can also be moved up or down.

Canon III of the Second Ecumenical Council is our earliest written precedent for the Orthodox stance that the importance of a Patriarchate is not a matter of doctrine and can be changed.

[Coulee Croche]

I missed responding to Tarsonis on a very important point - perhaps THE most important of our conversation:


Ah, but what is "unity", my friend? Is it merely saying "we are united" while continuing to hold opposing beliefs about theology or ecclesiology? No, I would say that is false unity.

True unity requires not just administrative unification, but even more importantly, it requires unity of faith: holding the same beliefs on every important topic in our religion.

So, without one side persuading the other to change its beliefs, true unity is impossible, because unity of faith is impossible. Therefore, when you say this:


...that is precisely why you are wrong.

You should be asking people to change their faith. That is the only way that true unity can be achieved.

As usual, the Orthodox continually make good points about ecumenism. Pity they have other doctrinal errors.

In all honesty, we have just left the Eastern Catholics to think for themselves. Of course, unless their identity crisis in relation to Rome threatens unity, I dont expect anything to be done about it; I think some Eastern Catholics enjoy that fact.

From reading the ByzCath forums, apparently there's a Absolutist Petrine view, High Petrine view, and Low Petrine view.

From Father Joseph Ratzinger (before he became Pope) "Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millenium..." However the East must "cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium..."

[Luminesa]

That sounds about right. X3

Here's the Lutheran one, resting close to the Polish border.



It guarantees to bring the Slavic people closer to God.

I'M A COMMANDEERING THIS TANK!!!!

*Drives off with the mobile cathedral.*

*Takes over the world.*

[Nordengrund]

Here's the Lutheran one, resting close to the Polish border.
portable confessional trigun
(Image)

It guarantees to bring the Slavic people closer to God.

I'M A COMMANDEERING THIS TANK!!!!

*Drives off with the mobile cathedral.*

*Takes over the world.*

Since we're on the subject of mobile churches...

What about portable confessionals like the one from Trigun?

[Renewed Imperial Germany-]

40 to 1?

NEIN! PROPAGANDA! DEUTSCHLAND STRONK!