Christian Discussion Thread VII: The Christ Awakens.

[Constantinopolis]

(do non-Chalcedonians recognize any Chalcedonian saints?)

No, they do not.

And likewise, the Orthodox Church does not recognize any of their saints.

This problem is currently the only major stumbling block that continues to prevent reunification (as we have already agreed that miaphysitism and dyophysitism may be regarded as two ways to express the same reality).

[Salus Maior]

Ah, gotcha

Could you please remind me to which church you belong?

Ambiguous Protestant at the present. I'm planning on attending a different Church eventually once I can get around (don't have my own car). I have a few churches in mind I plan on visiting and researching.

[Muinordgrad]

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.

How will y'all solve the issue of cannon with the Tewahedos? Because I know that they have 1 Enoch, and half a dozen other books that are not in the normal cannon? Will it be like a sort of "if you can't find the answer in the normal cannon go check these books" or will it be straight up declared invalid?


Anyway, I'm Protestant, so I have no opinion of Catholic vs Orthodox XD

[Salus Maior]

This problem is currently the only major stumbling block that continues to prevent reunification (as we have already agreed that miaphysitism and dyophysitism may be regarded as two ways to express the same reality).

Oh? I find that a bit surprising. I was wondering if the Orientals would have had to renounce Miaphysitism in order to have communion with the Orthodox.

[Herith]

This problem is currently the only major stumbling block that continues to prevent reunification (as we have already agreed that miaphysitism and dyophysitism may be regarded as two ways to express the same reality).

Oh? I find that a bit surprising. I was wondering if the Orientals would have had to renounce Miaphysitism in order to have communion with the Orthodox.

In the last few decades more and more theologians and church leaders have begun to say that miaphysitism and dyophysitism are not all that different, just "two sides of the same coin." As a result, it isn't seen as a big deal as it has been in the past.

[Constantinopolis]

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.

How will y'all solve the issue of cannon with the Tewahedos? Because I know that they have 1 Enoch, and half a dozen other books that are not in the normal cannon? Will it be like a sort of "if you can't find the answer in the normal cannon go check these books" or will it be straight up declared invalid?

Canonical differences are not necessarily a problem as long as we can agree on the same dogmas and doctrines. Notice that the 6 member churches of the Oriental Communion already have different Biblical canons, but they all regard each other as legitimate and as parts of the same Church. And they all hold the same beliefs.

Remember, we do not adhere to Sola Scriptura. So we're ok with a certain degree of ambiguity as to precisely what is or isn't Scripture.

[Luminesa]

Could you please remind me to which church you belong?

Ambiguous Protestant at the present. I'm planning on attending a different Church eventually once I can get around (don't have my own car). I have a few churches in mind I plan on visiting and researching.

*Drives up to Salus's house.*

You me, my church downtown. Lez go.

[Salus Maior]

Ambiguous Protestant at the present. I'm planning on attending a different Church eventually once I can get around (don't have my own car). I have a few churches in mind I plan on visiting and researching.

*Drives up to Salus's house.*

You me, my church downtown. Lez go.

Woop woop

[Cill Airne]

Ambiguous Protestant at the present. I'm planning on attending a different Church eventually once I can get around (don't have my own car). I have a few churches in mind I plan on visiting and researching.

*Drives up to Salus's house.*

You me, my church downtown. Lez go.

I'd so go to church with Lumi.

But I don't like visiting Catholic Churches. I always feel sad after, not being able to take communion. xD

[Constantinopolis]

Don't listen to her. The penguins are with us.

[Muinordgrad]

How will y'all solve the issue of cannon with the Tewahedos? Because I know that they have 1 Enoch, and half a dozen other books that are not in the normal cannon? Will it be like a sort of "if you can't find the answer in the normal cannon go check these books" or will it be straight up declared invalid?

Canonical differences are not necessarily a problem as long as we can agree on the same dogmas and doctrines. Notice that the 6 member churches of the Oriental Communion already have different Biblical canons, but they all regard each other as legitimate and as parts of the same Church. And they all hold the same beliefs.

Remember, we do not adhere to Sola Scriptura. So we're ok with a certain degree of ambiguity as to precisely what is or isn't Scripture.

Well, that makes sense. Is it like where you take a book (say, 1 Enoch) and then compare it with a few things, like was it a.) written before Revelation because of Rev. 22:19, b.) match up with the rest of the Bible, and c.) is divinely inspired, or something like that?


I feel like the reason why Sola Scriptura was such a big deal to the Reformers and then many of the following churches was the fact that there is a certain peacefullness that comes when you are able to open a bible and without a doubt at all know it is what God says, because I feel like without Sola Scriptura there would always be a certain ambiguity. IDK, my personal ramblings.

On a more random note, will you consider reading some of the Tehawedo or Broader Cannon books if there is an Orthodox reunification?

[Muinordgrad]

Ambiguous Protestant at the present. I'm planning on attending a different Church eventually once I can get around (don't have my own car). I have a few churches in mind I plan on visiting and researching.

*Drives up to Salus's house.*

You me, my church downtown. Lez go.

No, me first! BLACKSHEAR PLACE IS BEST PLACE

[Grenartia]

How do you decide which parts of the Bible to interpret literally & which parts to interpret metaphorically?

That very question has nearly sparked wars

I'd say anything that directly contradicts known science should be taken metaphorically, since between science and fallible interpretations, science is least likely to be wrong.

[Menassa]

That very question has nearly sparked wars

I'd say anything that directly contradicts known science should be taken metaphorically, since between science and fallible interpretations, science is least likely to be wrong.

One word.

[Salus Maior]

Remember, we do not adhere to Sola Scriptura. So we're ok with a certain degree of ambiguity as to precisely what is or isn't Scripture.

Hmm, I'm not sure how big a role Sola Scriptura would play in the reunification or schism between Christian branches, even in Protestant Churches. Outside of those who specifically condemn Sola Scriptura.


I mean, even though nearly all Protestant groups (I'd say all the major ones) have the same Biblical Canon, they still have very different doctrines that keep them separate. For instance, Calvinists and Lutherans have the same canon and are both Sola Scriptura, but their doctrines are completely different and are no where near reconciling.

[Constantinopolis]

Canonical differences are not necessarily a problem as long as we can agree on the same dogmas and doctrines. Notice that the 6 member churches of the Oriental Communion already have different Biblical canons, but they all regard each other as legitimate and as parts of the same Church. And they all hold the same beliefs.

Remember, we do not adhere to Sola Scriptura. So we're ok with a certain degree of ambiguity as to precisely what is or isn't Scripture.

Well, that makes sense. Is it like where you take a book (say, 1 Enoch) and then compare it with a few things, like was it a.) written before Revelation because of Rev. 22:19, b.) match up with the rest of the Bible, and c.) is divinely inspired, or something like that?

Not really... We would simply accept that some of us consider 1 Enoch to be divinely inspired while others don't, but as long as this doesn't actually lead us to disagree about any matters of doctrine, it's fine.

And if doctrinal disagreements do appear (which is extremely unlikely), we would simply hold an Ecumenical Council to make a decision about who is right and who is wrong on the issues in question.

Eastern Christianity (including both the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Communion) doesn't see a strict division between books that are divinely inspired and therefore perfect and books that are useless. We recognize shades of grey - degrees of accuracy and usefulness. So, for example, there are several books that are considered by all Christians to be non-canonical, but which the Orthodox Church recognizes as valid sources of information about some parts of the life of Christ. Like the Protevangelium of James, for instance. It's not part of any canon, but it is the source for our celebration of the Entrance of the Mother of God into the Temple.

I feel like the reason why Sola Scriptura was such a big deal to the Reformers and then many of the following churches was the fact that there is a certain peacefullness that comes when you are able to open a bible and without a doubt at all know it is what God says, because I feel like without Sola Scriptura there would always be a certain ambiguity. IDK, my personal ramblings.

You are half right. Yes, there is a certain peace of mind that comes with Sola Scriptura, but there is also a certain peace of mind that comes with the alternative to Sola Scriptura.

And what is that alternative? Not ambiguity, but rather reliance on some type of divinely-appointed "final court of appeal" to settle disputes when two or more people disagree on doctrine. In other words, the alternative to Sola Scriptura is believing that God instituted the Church with the authority to make correct decisions on matters of doctrine.

And that is what all Christians believed prior to the Reformation. But when the Reformers rejected the authority of the Pope of Rome, they had to replace it with something. So they replaced it with Sola Scriptura.

They really should have replaced it with the authority of the Ecumenical Councils instead...

On a more random note, will you consider reading some of the Tehawedo or Broader Cannon books if there is an Orthodox reunification?

Of course! I would read them right now, if they were available in a language that I can understand.

[Salus Maior]

They really should have replaced it with the authority of the Ecumenical Councils instead...

I imagine they might have, but Orthodoxy wasn't exactly at it's peak of power and influence in the 16th century.

[Constantinopolis]

They really should have replaced it with the authority of the Ecumenical Councils instead...

I imagine they might have, but Orthodoxy wasn't exactly at it's peak of power and influence in the 16th century.

Quite the contrary... It was pretty much the worst time in the entire history of Orthodoxy (after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, but before the rise of Russia).

Although the 8th century can also compete for the title of "worst time for Orthodoxy".

[Salus Maior]

I imagine they might have, but Orthodoxy wasn't exactly at it's peak of power and influence in the 16th century.

Quite the contrary... It was pretty much the worst time in the entire history of Orthodoxy (after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, but before the rise of Russia).

Although the 8th century can also compete for the title of "worst time for Orthodoxy".

Yes, that's what I mean Hmm... I wonder what Martin Luther thought of Orthodoxy? If he did at all.

Ah, Iconoclasm, right?

[Luminesa]

Well, that makes sense. Is it like where you take a book (say, 1 Enoch) and then compare it with a few things, like was it a.) written before Revelation because of Rev. 22:19, b.) match up with the rest of the Bible, and c.) is divinely inspired, or something like that?

Not really... We would simply accept that some of us consider 1 Enoch to be divinely inspired while others don't, but as long as this doesn't actually lead us to disagree about any matters of doctrine, it's fine.

And if doctrinal disagreements do appear (which is extremely unlikely), we would simply hold an Ecumenical Council to make a decision about who is right and who is wrong on the issues in question.

Eastern Christianity (including both the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Communion) doesn't see a strict division between books that are divinely inspired and therefore perfect and books that are useless. We recognize shades of grey - degrees of accuracy and usefulness. So, for example, there are several books that are considered by all Christians to be non-canonical, but which the Orthodox Church recognizes as valid sources of information about some parts of the life of Christ. Like the Protevangelium of James, for instance. It's not part of any canon, but it is the source for our celebration of the Entrance of the Mother of God into the Temple.

I feel like the reason why Sola Scriptura was such a big deal to the Reformers and then many of the following churches was the fact that there is a certain peacefullness that comes when you are able to open a bible and without a doubt at all know it is what God says, because I feel like without Sola Scriptura there would always be a certain ambiguity. IDK, my personal ramblings.

You are half right. Yes, there is a certain peace of mind that comes with Sola Scriptura, but there is also a certain peace of mind that comes with the alternative to Sola Scriptura.

And what is that alternative? Not ambiguity, but rather reliance on some type of divinely-appointed "final court of appeal" to settle disputes when two or more people disagree on doctrine. In other words, the alternative to Sola Scriptura is believing that God instituted the Church with the authority to make correct decisions on matters of doctrine.

And that is what all Christians believed prior to the Reformation. But when the Reformers rejected the authority of the Pope of Rome, they had to replace it with something. So they replaced it with Sola Scriptura.

They really should have replaced it with the authority of the Ecumenical Councils instead...

On a more random note, will you consider reading some of the Tehawedo or Broader Cannon books if there is an Orthodox reunification?

Of course! I would read them right now, if they were available in a language that I can understand.

*Talking about authorities.*

*Pope Francis waves arms wildly from the background.*

*Patriarch Bartholomew I stares at him like he's nuts.*

*Pope Francis shows him cookies he brought.*

*Orthodox and Catholics united!*

Gosh, if only it was that easy.

[Constantinopolis]

Quite the contrary... It was pretty much the worst time in the entire history of Orthodoxy (after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, but before the rise of Russia).

Although the 8th century can also compete for the title of "worst time for Orthodoxy".

Yes, that's what I mean

Ah, Iconoclasm, right?

Yes, and not only that. The 8th century featured:

- Iconoclasm in (what was left of) the Roman Empire, with sometimes brutal oppression of Orthodox Christians by heretical Emperors
- Muslim rule over the majority of Christians in the world (with, ironically, significantly milder oppression than under the iconoclasts)
- Arianism on its last legs but still a presence among the Germanic tribes that ruled most of Western Europe
- Langobards conquering most of Italy

[Salus Maior]

Yes, that's what I mean

Ah, Iconoclasm, right?

Yes, and not only that. The 8th century featured:

- Iconoclasm in (what was left of) the Roman Empire, with sometimes brutal oppression of Orthodox Christians by heretical Emperors
- Muslim rule over the majority of Christians in the world (with, ironically, significantly milder oppression than under the iconoclasts)
- Arianism on its last legs but still a presence among the Germanic tribes that ruled most of Western Europe
- Langobards conquering most of Italy

And the Vikings about to do their thing in the latter part of that century and pretty much 200 years after that.

Fun times, Early Medieval Europe

[Muinordgrad]

Well, that makes sense. Is it like where you take a book (say, 1 Enoch) and then compare it with a few things, like was it a.) written before Revelation because of Rev. 22:19, b.) match up with the rest of the Bible, and c.) is divinely inspired, or something like that?

Not really... We would simply accept that some of us consider 1 Enoch to be divinely inspired while others don't, but as long as this doesn't actually lead us to disagree about any matters of doctrine, it's fine.

And if doctrinal disagreements do appear (which is extremely unlikely), we would simply hold an Ecumenical Council to make a decision about who is right and who is wrong on the issues in question.

Eastern Christianity (including both the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Communion) doesn't see a strict division between books that are divinely inspired and therefore perfect and books that are useless. We recognize shades of grey - degrees of accuracy and usefulness. So, for example, there are several books that are considered by all Christians to be non-canonical, but which the Orthodox Church recognizes as valid sources of information about some parts of the life of Christ. Like the Protevangelium of James, for instance. It's not part of any canon, but it is the source for our celebration of the Entrance of the Mother of God into the Temple.

I feel like the reason why Sola Scriptura was such a big deal to the Reformers and then many of the following churches was the fact that there is a certain peacefullness that comes when you are able to open a bible and without a doubt at all know it is what God says, because I feel like without Sola Scriptura there would always be a certain ambiguity. IDK, my personal ramblings.

You are half right. Yes, there is a certain peace of mind that comes with Sola Scriptura, but there is also a certain peace of mind that comes with the alternative to Sola Scriptura.

And what is that alternative? Not ambiguity, but rather reliance on some type of divinely-appointed "final court of appeal" to settle disputes when two or more people disagree on doctrine. In other words, the alternative to Sola Scriptura is believing that God instituted the Church with the authority to make correct decisions on matters of doctrine.

And that is what all Christians believed prior to the Reformation. But when the Reformers rejected the authority of the Pope of Rome, they had to replace it with something. So they replaced it with Sola Scriptura.

They really should have replaced it with the authority of the Ecumenical Councils instead...

On a more random note, will you consider reading some of the Tehawedo or Broader Cannon books if there is an Orthodox reunification?

Of course! I would read them right now, if they were available in a language that I can understand.

(I hope you excuse me, I'm not as proficient in editing these quotes as you are. I am trying to make each little paragraph represent an answer to each of your little paragraphs)

That's something else I really just don't understand: the sheer amount of revering towards Mary. I know it is probably more prominent in Catholic than Orthodox teachings, but I do not understand why Mary is nearly deified in at least Catholicism, and maybe Orthodox ( I am not familiar with the Orthodox policies towards Mary). There are all indications of Mary being a person just like us, who sinned and did other bad things. I am not saying I disrespect Mary, her model of quiet and determined perserverance is something we can all look up to, but why is she given the sheer amount of praise in both? But as for the main question, that makes sense. So basically Orthodoxy is like a house, with each "room" being a different form of interperitation of common teachings?

Why is a council of the church superior to the Word itself? John does say that the Word is God.

I have an old link to a copy of the Book of Enoch in English laying around. However, it isn't as impressive as you'd think. In fact, a fifth of the book is dedicated to a very, very intricate description of... a calendar, of all things. Albeit, it is a very accurate calendar, but a calendar nonetheless.

[Muinordgrad]

Not really... We would simply accept that some of us consider 1 Enoch to be divinely inspired while others don't, but as long as this doesn't actually lead us to disagree about any matters of doctrine, it's fine.

And if doctrinal disagreements do appear (which is extremely unlikely), we would simply hold an Ecumenical Council to make a decision about who is right and who is wrong on the issues in question.

Eastern Christianity (including both the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Communion) doesn't see a strict division between books that are divinely inspired and therefore perfect and books that are useless. We recognize shades of grey - degrees of accuracy and usefulness. So, for example, there are several books that are considered by all Christians to be non-canonical, but which the Orthodox Church recognizes as valid sources of information about some parts of the life of Christ. Like the Protevangelium of James, for instance. It's not part of any canon, but it is the source for our celebration of the Entrance of the Mother of God into the Temple.


You are half right. Yes, there is a certain peace of mind that comes with Sola Scriptura, but there is also a certain peace of mind that comes with the alternative to Sola Scriptura.

And what is that alternative? Not ambiguity, but rather reliance on some type of divinely-appointed "final court of appeal" to settle disputes when two or more people disagree on doctrine. In other words, the alternative to Sola Scriptura is believing that God instituted the Church with the authority to make correct decisions on matters of doctrine.

And that is what all Christians believed prior to the Reformation. But when the Reformers rejected the authority of the Pope of Rome, they had to replace it with something. So they replaced it with Sola Scriptura.

They really should have replaced it with the authority of the Ecumenical Councils instead...


Of course! I would read them right now, if they were available in a language that I can understand.

*Talking about authorities.*

*Pope Francis waves arms wildly from the background.*

*Patriarch Bartholomew I stares at him like he's nuts.*

*Pope Francis shows him cookies he brought.*

*Orthodox and Catholics united!*

Gosh, if only it was that easy.

In all honestly, if Orthodoxy and Catholicism and all the other Chalcedonian and Antechalcedonian churches under them united, I would at least register a membership in this new United Church, even if it is only a card XD

[Talvezout]

Sooooooo.....

What interesting topic are we discussing today?

(And I mean this sincerely)