Christian Discussion Thread VII: The Christ Awakens.

[Cill Airne]

Then you are High-Church Anglican, and not Anglo-Catholic. High Church Anglicanism is Catholic Practice + some Catholic Theology + Protestant Theology. Anglo-Catholicism is Catholic Theology + Catholic Practice + Some reformed views.

Is there a Low-Church?

There is. There is Low Church, Broad Church, High Church and Anglo-Catholicism. Anglo-Catholicism is usually considered "the highest of the High Church" or its own "branch." Low Church Anglicanism is very reformed and very protestant - priests (which they normally call pastors in my experience) do not wear vestments for example. Low Church Anglicanism came out of the Puritan movement in England, and as a result, their churches are very plain, and they are very protestant theologically. Conversely, High Church Anglicanism is also very protestant theologically but have very Catholic-style worship plus some Catholic theological influences. Broad Church Anglicanism is what most Anglicans are today - they have a little bit of both. They may have a priest or a pastor, they may wear vestments or not, they may worship in a Catholic style or not. Anglo-Catholicism is very Catholic theologically, with some reformed theology (and as a result it ends up being somewhere between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy theologically) with very Catholic practice.

[Bari]

St. John Damascene, Syrian Arab Catholic monk and scholar.

Really? Really? You're calling one of the greatest Fathers of the Orthodox Church a "Syrian Arab Catholic monk and scholar"?

I mean, sure, St. John lived in a time before the Great Schism, so if you believe the pre-Schism Church was the Catholic Church, then I guess you can call him "Catholic", but only in the same sense in which we can call St. Patrick "Orthodox".

He belonged to the Church before your schism. He is a Catholic Saint. He is also a Doctor of the Church. I don't see why you think he can't be regarded as Catholic.

[Salus Maior]

(Image)

Really? Really? You're calling one of the greatest Fathers of the Orthodox Church a "Syrian Arab Catholic monk and scholar"?

I mean, sure, St. John lived in a time before the Great Schism, so if you believe the pre-Schism Church was the Catholic Church, then I guess you can call him "Catholic", but only in the same sense in which we can call St. Patrick "Orthodox".

He belonged to the Church before your schism. He is a Catholic Saint. He is also a Doctor of the Church. I don't see why you think he can't be regarded as Catholic.

In the same way, as Const said, St. Patrick could be considered an Orthodox Saint. Or any number of Saints pre-schism for that matter.

[Bari]

Welcome, I am an Anglican as well

"I am a Libertarian Calvinstic Anglo-Catholic"

I am curious, why do you consider yourself Anglo-Catholic?

I am a Catholic traditionalist member of the Latin Church.

[Salus Maior]

"I am a Libertarian Calvinstic Anglo-Catholic"

I am curious, why do you consider yourself Anglo-Catholic?

I am a Catholic traditionalist member of the Latin Church.

I think he was talking to Tutukerala.

[Bari]

He belonged to the Church before your schism. He is a Catholic Saint. He is also a Doctor of the Church. I don't see why you think he can't be regarded as Catholic.

In the same way, as Const said, St. Patrick could be considered an Orthodox Saint. Or any number of Saints pre-schism for that matter.

Yes. They are two pre-Congregational saints.

[Bari]

I am a Catholic traditionalist member of the Latin Church.

I think he was talking to Tutukerala.

I was just sharing the status of my membership...

[Salus Maior]

I think he was talking to Tutukerala.

I was just sharing my status of membership...

Ah, gotcha

[Bari]

I was just sharing my status of membership...

Ah, gotcha

Could you please remind me to which church you belong?

[Constantinopolis]

Really? Really? You're calling one of the greatest Fathers of the Orthodox Church a "Syrian Arab Catholic monk and scholar"?

I mean, sure, St. John lived in a time before the Great Schism, so if you believe the pre-Schism Church was the Catholic Church, then I guess you can call him "Catholic", but only in the same sense in which we can call St. Patrick "Orthodox".

He belonged to the Church before your schism. He is a Catholic Saint. He is also a Doctor of the Church. I don't see why you think he can't be regarded as Catholic.

Because he belonged to a part of the universal Church that never paid any attention to claims of supremacy by the bishop of Rome, and which was organized like the present-day Orthodox Church, held precisely the same beliefs as the present-day Orthodox Church, and used the same liturgies as the present-day Orthodox Church.

And because it is beyond preposterous to suggest that St. John Damascene would have ever endorsed your heresy of the filioque, the submission of his Patriarch to the bishop of Rome, or the imposition of Latin Rite practices on his flock, which is what your Church promoted for 90% of its existence before suddenly changing its mind when it was no longer convenient.

[Herith]

He belonged to the Church before your schism. He is a Catholic Saint. He is also a Doctor of the Church. I don't see why you think he can't be regarded as Catholic.

Because he belonged to a part of the universal Church that never paid any attention to claims of supremacy by the bishop of Rome, and which was organized like the present-day Orthodox Church, held precisely the same beliefs as the present-day Orthodox Church, and used the same liturgies as the present-day Orthodox Church.

And because it is beyond preposterous to suggest that St. John Damascene would have ever endorsed your heresy of the filioque, the submission of his Patriarch to the bishop of Rome, or the imposition of Latin Rite practices on his flock, which is what your Church promoted for 90% of its existence before suddenly changing its mind when it was no longer convenient.

Out of interest, what would you call him? Since there was, technically, neither an Orthodox or Catholic Church? Would you just say catholic (as in the universal church) saint?

[Muinordgrad]

And you can always call him "Catholic/Orthodox".

(or "Chalcedonian Christian", I guess, but the vast majority of people would have absolutely no idea what that means)

...Nope. Enlighten me!

Basically, if you ae Chalcedonian, you belive that Jesus was BOTH man and God. If I am not mistaken, the Nestorians believe that Jesus was both God and the man that was supposed to inhabit the body living together, thus why, among other things, God seemed to pray to himself. And then there are the Coptics, who have some... fun beliefs. Like the Book of Enoch.

[Bari]

He belonged to the Church before your schism. He is a Catholic Saint. He is also a Doctor of the Church. I don't see why you think he can't be regarded as Catholic.

Because he belonged to a part of the universal Church that never paid any attention to claims of supremacy by the bishop of Rome, and which was organized like the present-day Orthodox Church, held precisely the same beliefs as the present-day Orthodox Church, and used the same liturgies as the present-day Orthodox Church.

And because it is beyond preposterous to suggest that St. John Damascene would have ever endorsed your heresy of the filioque, the submission of his Patriarch to the bishop of Rome, or the imposition of Latin Rite practices on his flock, which is what your Church promoted for 90% of its existence before suddenly changing its mind when it was no longer convenient.

I don't see such a holy person as the Saint being a heretic or a schismatic. Don't slander his good name.

[Salus Maior]

...Nope. Enlighten me!

Basically, if you ae Chalcedonian, you belive that Jesus was BOTH man and God. If I am not mistaken, the Nestorians believe that Jesus was both God and the man that was supposed to inhabit the body living together, thus why, among other things, God seemed to pray to himself. And then there are the Coptics, who have some... fun beliefs. Like the Book of Enoch.

Copts are Miaphysites, which means they believe that Christ had only one nature that was simultaneously Divine and Human. Which is different from the Chalcedonian view which is Dyophysite which is that Christ had two natures (Divine and Human) that worked as one (as opposed to the Nestorian view which is that Christ had two completely separate natures that did not necessarily work as one).

Edit: And for fun's sake, MORE Christologies!

Then there's Monophysites, who believed that Christ had a single nature that was wholly divine (This is often confused with Miaphysitism, but Miaphysites find being called Monophysites to be offensive), and then there's Monothelites, who believed that Christ had two natures but only one will, and finally there's Arianism (the last one I can think of) who believed that Christ was not divine but still above humanity.

[Czechanada]

Nonsense, come with me to Hell and we'll smoke cigars with Allen Ginsberg.

Pretty sure the only cigars in hell are made by Dutch Masters

I thought that Satan would be a fallen angel of quality, and not cheap out on the fine things.

[Constantinopolis]

Because he belonged to a part of the universal Church that never paid any attention to claims of supremacy by the bishop of Rome, and which was organized like the present-day Orthodox Church, held precisely the same beliefs as the present-day Orthodox Church, and used the same liturgies as the present-day Orthodox Church.

And because it is beyond preposterous to suggest that St. John Damascene would have ever endorsed your heresy of the filioque, the submission of his Patriarch to the bishop of Rome, or the imposition of Latin Rite practices on his flock, which is what your Church promoted for 90% of its existence before suddenly changing its mind when it was no longer convenient.

Out of interest, what would you call him? Since there was, technically, neither an Orthodox or Catholic Church? Would you just say catholic (as in the universal church) saint?

I would call him an Orthodox saint, as I believe that the Orthodox Church is the original Church of Christ, which included the Patriarchs of Rome as first among equals for almost a thousand years, until their pride combined with Frankish political pressure caused them to fall away from the true Church and to form the breakaway group known today as the Roman Catholic Church.

But for the sake of being charitable, I can also refer to all pre-11th century saints as simply Christian saints, or Chalcedonian Christian saints.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Really? Really? You're calling one of the greatest Fathers of the Orthodox Church a "Syrian Arab Catholic monk and scholar"?

I mean, sure, St. John lived in a time before the Great Schism, so if you believe the pre-Schism Church was the Catholic Church, then I guess you can call him "Catholic", but only in the same sense in which we can call St. Patrick "Orthodox".

He belonged to the Church before your schism. He is a Catholic Saint. He is also a Doctor of the Church. I don't see why you think he can't be regarded as Catholic.

Because regarding him as a Catholic only is disingenuous.

[Muinordgrad]

Basically, if you ae Chalcedonian, you belive that Jesus was BOTH man and God. If I am not mistaken, the Nestorians believe that Jesus was both God and the man that was supposed to inhabit the body living together, thus why, among other things, God seemed to pray to himself. And then there are the Coptics, who have some... fun beliefs. Like the Book of Enoch.

Copts are Miaphysites, which means they believe that Christ had only one nature that was simultaneously Divine and Human. Which is different from the Chalcedonian view which is Dyophysite which is that Christ had two natures (Divine and Human) that worked as one (as opposed to the Nestorian view which is that Christ had two completely separate natures that did not necessarily work as one).

Then wait, what is the difference (besides initial location) that separates the Coptics from normal Catholics/Orthodox besides Patriarch? And what about the Tehawedos?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because he belonged to a part of the universal Church that never paid any attention to claims of supremacy by the bishop of Rome, and which was organized like the present-day Orthodox Church, held precisely the same beliefs as the present-day Orthodox Church, and used the same liturgies as the present-day Orthodox Church.

And because it is beyond preposterous to suggest that St. John Damascene would have ever endorsed your heresy of the filioque, the submission of his Patriarch to the bishop of Rome, or the imposition of Latin Rite practices on his flock, which is what your Church promoted for 90% of its existence before suddenly changing its mind when it was no longer convenient.

I don't see such a holy person as the Saint being a heretic or a schismatic. Don't slander his good name.

I don't see how the Catholic Church is "the original church" either when the Orthodox Church has a perfectly legitimate claim.

[Constantinopolis]

Because he belonged to a part of the universal Church that never paid any attention to claims of supremacy by the bishop of Rome, and which was organized like the present-day Orthodox Church, held precisely the same beliefs as the present-day Orthodox Church, and used the same liturgies as the present-day Orthodox Church.

And because it is beyond preposterous to suggest that St. John Damascene would have ever endorsed your heresy of the filioque, the submission of his Patriarch to the bishop of Rome, or the imposition of Latin Rite practices on his flock, which is what your Church promoted for 90% of its existence before suddenly changing its mind when it was no longer convenient.

I don't see such a holy person as the Saint being a heretic or a schismatic. Don't slander his good name.

You might want to have a chat with your Eastern Rite Catholic churches, then, because almost all of them (with one exception) venerate as saints people who lived after the 11th century and who were in schism with Rome throughout their entire lives.

The moment you look outside the Latin Rite, you realize that your Church isn't very big on theological consistency.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Out of interest, what would you call him? Since there was, technically, neither an Orthodox or Catholic Church? Would you just say catholic (as in the universal church) saint?

I would call him an Orthodox saint, as I believe that the Orthodox Church is the original Church of Christ, which included the Patriarchs of Rome as first among equals for almost a thousand years, until their pride combined with Frankish political pressure caused them to fall away from the true Church and to form the breakaway group known today as the Roman Catholic Church.

But for the sake of being charitable, I can also refer to all pre-11th century saints as simply Christian saints, or Chalcedonian Christian saints.

I would call them simply Christian saints, for the sake of accuracy, given both denominations venerate them, along with others who venerate the Saints.

[Salus Maior]

I usually refer to the pre-Schism Church as just Chalcedonian. I feel like that makes the most sense as it wouldn't exclude non-Chalcedonians in the definition of "Christian" (do non-Chalcedonians recognize any Chalcedonian saints?).

[Menassa]

Ah, gotcha

Could you please remind me to which church you belong?

No Church.

[Constantinopolis]

Copts are Miaphysites, which means they believe that Christ had only one nature that was simultaneously Divine and Human. Which is different from the Chalcedonian view which is Dyophysite which is that Christ had two natures (Divine and Human) that worked as one (as opposed to the Nestorian view which is that Christ had two completely separate natures that did not necessarily work as one).

Then wait, what is the difference (besides initial location) that separates the Coptics from normal Catholics/Orthodox besides Patriarch? And what about the Tehawedos?

There is a third group called the Oriental Communion, which is composed of the Coptic Church, the two Tewahedo Churches (Ethiopian and Eritrean), the Armenian Church, the Malankara Church (located in southern India), and the Syriac Church (not to be confused with the Orthodox and Catholic churches that are also located in Syria).

The Oriental Communion upholds miaphysitism and venerates certain saints that other Churches regard as heretics, but except for these two issues, they agree with the Orthodox Church on all other matters. For this reason, they have excellent relations with the Orthodox, and there is a real possibility of reunification this century.

[Czechanada]

Ah, gotcha

Could you please remind me to which church you belong?

Monday left me broken
Tuesday I was through with hoping
Wednesday my empty arms were open
Thursday waiting for love, waiting for love
Thank the stars it's Friday
I'm burning like a fire gone wild on Saturday
Guess I won't be coming to church on Sunday
I'll be waiting for love, waiting for love
To come around