Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Minivanistan]

So, Here is my question
"Was the Garden of Eden real?"

Eden, and the subsequent expulsion from it is partly metaphor for the transition
from hunter-gatherer to sedantic agriculture.

Life for the first generations of the first farmers was incredibly difficult physically and psychologically as people struggled with the initial developements of cultivation and husbandry.
By contrast, nomadic neolithic foragers still had it pretty easy.
For the first homesteaders, Eden was a state of being as well as mythological representation for the memory of a lifestyle left behind.

[Angleter]

Same.

I apply the Romans 14 approach where I won't judge another Christian about his beliefs as long as it doesn't compromise the Gospel of the doctrine of the Trinity. By labeling anything and everything we disagree with as heresy, we end up creating unnecessary division. Heresy tends to be the result of being too diverse to the point of sacrificing sound doctrine to try to appeal to as many people as possible, or being too dogmatic on non-essential issues to the point of being legalistic.

Are cathars Christians in your eyes?

I'd say no.

What's worth noting about Catharism (and Gnosticism in general) is that its worldview is completely at odds with that of Christianity, or of Abrahamic religion in general. Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike believe that all Creation is a monarchy, under one all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good Creator God; and that sin is a transgression of his law. In Christianity and Islam, Satan is a mere angel engaged in an ultimately futile rebellion against God; while in Judaism, Satan is a mere angel who has been appointed by God to tempt us and test our loyalty to God's law. Moreover, we share a belief that the body and soul are, though distinct, united. The person is of one nature, body and soul together, not a dualist creature subject to a constant body/soul conflict. We are not ghosts in a machine either - a disembodied soul is incomplete, and not a person in its own right; and when the End Times come we believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead. Indeed, Christians (but not Jews or Muslims, obviously) believe that God took on a human body, died, and rose again with a glorified, immortal body of the sort that we shall receive when we are resurrected.

All of that is anathema to Catharism. Catharism, other forms of Gnosticism ('Christian' or otherwise), Manichaeism, Neoplatonism and Zoroastrianism are (or were) all dualist religions, which present the Universe as a battlefield between two primordial, and usually equally-powerful forces of good and evil, or light and darkness, or suchlike. Instead of there being one God, in Catharism, there were two - the good god, whose son and representative in some way was Jesus; and the evil god, who is the god of the Old Testament. They might have believed that Satan was the evil god's son, and thus an evil counterpart to Jesus; or they may possibly have considered Satan to be the evil god itself. And while in Abrahamic religion, the person is a union of body and soul; in these dualist religions (except Zoroastrianism*), the real person is the incorporeal soul or spirit, which is good, but is unfortunately 'trapped' in an evil, physical body. In Catharism, for instance, the good god created the spiritual world, and the evil god created the physical world. And instead of looking forward to a bodily resurrection at the End Times, Cathars considered themselves incorporeal angels stuck in an endless cycle of bodily reincarnations, and hoped to break that cycle and enjoy eternal life as a free angel.

Put simply, Catharism had a totally different worldview to Abrahamic religion, in how it viewed God, Creation, good and evil, humanity, and eschatology. It was an inherently dualist religion, with just a thin veneer of Christianity.

*Zoroastrians believe that creation is good and destruction is evil. They therefore reject the idea that the physical world is evil.

[Sanctissima]

Are cathars Christians in your eyes?

I'd say no.

What's worth noting about Catharism (and Gnosticism in general) is that its worldview is completely at odds with that of Christianity, or of Abrahamic religion in general. Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike believe that all Creation is a monarchy, under one all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good Creator God; and that sin is a transgression of his law. In Christianity and Islam, Satan is a mere angel engaged in an ultimately futile rebellion against God; while in Judaism, Satan is a mere angel who has been appointed by God to tempt us and test our loyalty to God's law. Moreover, we share a belief that the body and soul are, though distinct, united. The person is of one nature, body and soul together, not a dualist creature subject to a constant body/soul conflict. We are not ghosts in a machine either - a disembodied soul is incomplete, and not a person in its own right; and when the End Times come we believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead. Indeed, Christians (but not Jews or Muslims, obviously) believe that God took on a human body, died, and rose again with a glorified, immortal body of the sort that we shall receive when we are resurrected.

All of that is anathema to Catharism. Catharism, other forms of Gnosticism ('Christian' or otherwise), Manichaeism, Neoplatonism and Zoroastrianism are (or were) all dualist religions, which present the Universe as a battlefield between two primordial, and usually equally-powerful forces of good and evil, or light and darkness, or suchlike. Instead of there being one God, in Catharism, there were two - the good god, whose son and representative in some way was Jesus; and the evil god, who is the god of the Old Testament. They might have believed that Satan was the evil god's son, and thus an evil counterpart to Jesus; or they may possibly have considered Satan to be the evil god itself. And while in Abrahamic religion, the person is a union of body and soul; in these dualist religions (except Zoroastrianism*), the real person is the incorporeal soul or spirit, which is good, but is unfortunately 'trapped' in an evil, physical body. In Catharism, for instance, the good god created the spiritual world, and the evil god created the physical world. And instead of looking forward to a bodily resurrection at the End Times, Cathars considered themselves incorporeal angels stuck in an endless cycle of bodily reincarnations, and hoped to break that cycle and enjoy eternal life as a free angel.

Put simply, Catharism had a totally different worldview to Abrahamic religion, in how it viewed God, Creation, good and evil, humanity, and eschatology. It was an inherently dualist religion, with just a thin veneer of Christianity.

*Zoroastrians believe that creation is good and destruction is evil. They therefore reject the idea that the physical world is evil.

Eh, I wouldn't go so far as to say it wasn't Christian. The word 'heresy' does exist for a reason.

Despite the dualism and tendency towards the occult, Cathars were still Christian, just of a different sort. They still worshiped God and held belief in Jesus as paramount to their faith. To be frank, that's all a sect really needs in order to be considered Christian, however heterodox it might be.

[Nordengrund]

I'd say no.

What's worth noting about Catharism (and Gnosticism in general) is that its worldview is completely at odds with that of Christianity, or of Abrahamic religion in general. Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike believe that all Creation is a monarchy, under one all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good Creator God; and that sin is a transgression of his law. In Christianity and Islam, Satan is a mere angel engaged in an ultimately futile rebellion against God; while in Judaism, Satan is a mere angel who has been appointed by God to tempt us and test our loyalty to God's law. Moreover, we share a belief that the body and soul are, though distinct, united. The person is of one nature, body and soul together, not a dualist creature subject to a constant body/soul conflict. We are not ghosts in a machine either - a disembodied soul is incomplete, and not a person in its own right; and when the End Times come we believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead. Indeed, Christians (but not Jews or Muslims, obviously) believe that God took on a human body, died, and rose again with a glorified, immortal body of the sort that we shall receive when we are resurrected.

All of that is anathema to Catharism. Catharism, other forms of Gnosticism ('Christian' or otherwise), Manichaeism, Neoplatonism and Zoroastrianism are (or were) all dualist religions, which present the Universe as a battlefield between two primordial, and usually equally-powerful forces of good and evil, or light and darkness, or suchlike. Instead of there being one God, in Catharism, there were two - the good god, whose son and representative in some way was Jesus; and the evil god, who is the god of the Old Testament. They might have believed that Satan was the evil god's son, and thus an evil counterpart to Jesus; or they may possibly have considered Satan to be the evil god itself. And while in Abrahamic religion, the person is a union of body and soul; in these dualist religions (except Zoroastrianism*), the real person is the incorporeal soul or spirit, which is good, but is unfortunately 'trapped' in an evil, physical body. In Catharism, for instance, the good god created the spiritual world, and the evil god created the physical world. And instead of looking forward to a bodily resurrection at the End Times, Cathars considered themselves incorporeal angels stuck in an endless cycle of bodily reincarnations, and hoped to break that cycle and enjoy eternal life as a free angel.

Put simply, Catharism had a totally different worldview to Abrahamic religion, in how it viewed God, Creation, good and evil, humanity, and eschatology. It was an inherently dualist religion, with just a thin veneer of Christianity.

*Zoroastrians believe that creation is good and destruction is evil. They therefore reject the idea that the physical world is evil.

Eh, I wouldn't go so far as to say it wasn't Christian. The word 'heresy' does exist for a reason.

Despite the dualism and tendency towards the occult, Cathars were still Christian, just of a different sort. They still worshiped God and held belief in Jesus as paramount to their faith. To be frank, that's all a sect really needs in order to be considered Christian, however heterodox it might be.

That's something that's been on my mind.

There is a group in the Restoration movement called the Disciples of Christ. In their sect, pretty much anything goes. The only required beliefs is that Jesus Christ is both Lord and Savior and they observe the Lord's Supper weekly.

They aren't strictly Trinitarian as both Trinitarians and Unitarians can and do worship in the same congregation, but they aren't anti-Trinitarian either and the majority seem to accept the doctrine of the Trinity.

[Sanctissima]

Eh, I wouldn't go so far as to say it wasn't Christian. The word 'heresy' does exist for a reason.

Despite the dualism and tendency towards the occult, Cathars were still Christian, just of a different sort. They still worshiped God and held belief in Jesus as paramount to their faith. To be frank, that's all a sect really needs in order to be considered Christian, however heterodox it might be.

That's something that's been on my mind.

There is a group in the Restoration movement called the Disciples of Christ. In their sect, pretty much anything goes. The only required beliefs is that Jesus Christ is both Lord and Savior and they observe the Lord's Supper weekly.

They aren't strictly Trinitarian as both Trinitarians and Unitarians can and do worship in the same congregation, but they aren't anti-Trinitarian either and the majority seem to accept the doctrine of the Trinity.

To be honest, even the most ardently anti-Trinitarian denominations can and should be considered Christian. Otherwise, you get a situation where even early Christians (some of which include Jesus' disciples) fit into the "not really Christian" category. It's why words like 'heterodox' and 'heresy' exist, because at the end of the day these groups do at the very least maintain a belief in God and consider Jesus to be the messiah, and that's enough for them to be considered Christian.

[Shyubi Koku Naishifun]

To be honest, even the most ardently anti-Trinitarian denominations can and should be considered Christian. Otherwise, you get a situation where even early Christians (some of which include Jesus' disciples) fit into the "not really Christian" category. It's why words like 'heterodox' and 'heresy' exist, because at the end of the day these groups do at the very least maintain a belief in God and consider Jesus to be the messiah, and that's enough for them to be considered Christian.

What, do we know of disciples of Jesus Christ who held heterodox beliefs?

[Sanctissima]

To be honest, even the most ardently anti-Trinitarian denominations can and should be considered Christian. Otherwise, you get a situation where even early Christians (some of which include Jesus' disciples) fit into the "not really Christian" category. It's why words like 'heterodox' and 'heresy' exist, because at the end of the day these groups do at the very least maintain a belief in God and consider Jesus to be the messiah, and that's enough for them to be considered Christian.

What, do we know of disciples of Jesus Christ who held heterodox beliefs?

Mary Magdalene, for one (she later became the leader of a group of Gnostics). There's a difference between Apostles and Disciples. Basically, not all of Jesus' disciples were considered by the early Church Fathers to be apostles, mainly because they founded groups after Jesus' death which were considered heterodox.

[Jamzmania]

So, Here is my question
"Was the Garden of Eden real?"

Eden, and the subsequent expulsion from it is partly metaphor for the transition
from hunter-gatherer to sedantic agriculture.

Life for the first generations of the first farmers was incredibly difficult physically and psychologically as people struggled with the initial developements of cultivation and husbandry.
By contrast, nomadic neolithic foragers still had it pretty easy.
For the first homesteaders, Eden was a state of being as well as mythological representation for the memory of a lifestyle left behind.

I'm no historian, but it seems to me that being a nomadic neolithic hunter-gatherer was not that easy, what with irregular food supplies and having to constantly move around to survive. If farming was incredibly difficult physically and psychologically while being a hunter-gatherer was easy by comparison, why did people become farmers?

[Shyubi Koku Naishifun]

Mary Magdalene, for one (she later became the leader of a group of Gnostics). There's a difference between Apostles and Disciples. Basically, not all of Jesus' disciples were considered by the early Church Fathers to be apostles, mainly because they founded groups after Jesus' death which were considered heterodox.

I haven't come across the information that Mary Magdalene became a leader of a group of Gnostics. From what sources of information are we able to come to such conclusion? It is interesting.

[Salus Maior]

What, do we know of disciples of Jesus Christ who held heterodox beliefs?

Mary Magdalene, for one (she later became the leader of a group of Gnostics). There's a difference between Apostles and Disciples. Basically, not all of Jesus' disciples were considered by the early Church Fathers to be apostles, mainly because they founded groups after Jesus' death which were considered heterodox.

Well, did they become heterodox because of what they taught? Or did they become heterodox further down the line?

[Sanctissima]

Mary Magdalene, for one (she later became the leader of a group of Gnostics). There's a difference between Apostles and Disciples. Basically, not all of Jesus' disciples were considered by the early Church Fathers to be apostles, mainly because they founded groups after Jesus' death which were considered heterodox.

I haven't come across the information that Mary Magdalene became a leader of a group of Gnostics. From what sources of information are we able to come to such conclusion? It is interesting.

For the most part, the Apocrypha. Specifically, the Gospel of Philip and Gospel of Mary. The latter was written by her Gnostic followers, which at the very least tells us there was a group of Gnostics who considered Mary Magdalene their leader. The former is a bit of a misnomer, since Philip the Apostle had nothing to do with its creation, but amongst other things it does state that Mary Magdalene played a prominent role amongst Jesus' early followers, and offers some insight on the conflict occurring within the early Church (basically, why some of Jesus' disciples ended up not being considered true disciples or apostles).

[Minivanistan]

I'm no historian, but it seems to me that being a nomadic neolithic hunter-gatherer was not that easy, what with irregular food supplies and having to constantly move around to survive. If farming was incredibly difficult physically and psychologically while being a hunter-gatherer was easy by comparison, why did people become farmers?

Because populations began to outpace foraging, and there were cultural benefits beginning to be seen in staying in one arable place. Keep in mind, not everybody jumped on that train. At least not all at once.
Im not saying that the age old foraging paradigm was a cake walk by any means, but it was the devil they knew. Which is always easier to cope with than the devil you dont know.

[Angleter]

I'd say no.

What's worth noting about Catharism (and Gnosticism in general) is that its worldview is completely at odds with that of Christianity, or of Abrahamic religion in general. Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike believe that all Creation is a monarchy, under one all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good Creator God; and that sin is a transgression of his law. In Christianity and Islam, Satan is a mere angel engaged in an ultimately futile rebellion against God; while in Judaism, Satan is a mere angel who has been appointed by God to tempt us and test our loyalty to God's law. Moreover, we share a belief that the body and soul are, though distinct, united. The person is of one nature, body and soul together, not a dualist creature subject to a constant body/soul conflict. We are not ghosts in a machine either - a disembodied soul is incomplete, and not a person in its own right; and when the End Times come we believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead. Indeed, Christians (but not Jews or Muslims, obviously) believe that God took on a human body, died, and rose again with a glorified, immortal body of the sort that we shall receive when we are resurrected.

All of that is anathema to Catharism. Catharism, other forms of Gnosticism ('Christian' or otherwise), Manichaeism, Neoplatonism and Zoroastrianism are (or were) all dualist religions, which present the Universe as a battlefield between two primordial, and usually equally-powerful forces of good and evil, or light and darkness, or suchlike. Instead of there being one God, in Catharism, there were two - the good god, whose son and representative in some way was Jesus; and the evil god, who is the god of the Old Testament. They might have believed that Satan was the evil god's son, and thus an evil counterpart to Jesus; or they may possibly have considered Satan to be the evil god itself. And while in Abrahamic religion, the person is a union of body and soul; in these dualist religions (except Zoroastrianism*), the real person is the incorporeal soul or spirit, which is good, but is unfortunately 'trapped' in an evil, physical body. In Catharism, for instance, the good god created the spiritual world, and the evil god created the physical world. And instead of looking forward to a bodily resurrection at the End Times, Cathars considered themselves incorporeal angels stuck in an endless cycle of bodily reincarnations, and hoped to break that cycle and enjoy eternal life as a free angel.

Put simply, Catharism had a totally different worldview to Abrahamic religion, in how it viewed God, Creation, good and evil, humanity, and eschatology. It was an inherently dualist religion, with just a thin veneer of Christianity.

*Zoroastrians believe that creation is good and destruction is evil. They therefore reject the idea that the physical world is evil.

Eh, I wouldn't go so far as to say it wasn't Christian. The word 'heresy' does exist for a reason.

Despite the dualism and tendency towards the occult, Cathars were still Christian, just of a different sort. They still worshiped God and held belief in Jesus as paramount to their faith. To be frank, that's all a sect really needs in order to be considered Christian, however heterodox it might be.

But it's not the same God. Almost all Gnostic sects (and the Marcionites) believed that Jesus was the a representative of some other deity that had previously not revealed themselves. I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to restrict the definition of 'Christian' to monotheists who worship the God of the Old Testament and recognise Jesus as his son (or some other form of representative). And who preferably ultimately derive their theology from Second Temple Judaism, not some other religious tradition onto which the Gospels have been awkwardly grafted.

[Menassa]

4. Mount Ararat of Turkey.

You're conflating Noah's Ark and the Ark of the Covenant.

O Zachariah son of Berichia!

[Sanctissima]

Mary Magdalene, for one (she later became the leader of a group of Gnostics). There's a difference between Apostles and Disciples. Basically, not all of Jesus' disciples were considered by the early Church Fathers to be apostles, mainly because they founded groups after Jesus' death which were considered heterodox.

Well, did they become heterodox because of what they taught? Or did they become heterodox further down the line?

Well, both. They became heterodox further down the line, but it was because of what they taught.

Keep in mind that there was a lot of infighting in the early Christian Church (by which I mean the 1st century AD). Basically, it's the era when there wasn't really a clear definition of what being a Christian actually meant (or rather, there were a hell of a lot of interpretations of what it meant), and one man's orthodoxy was another's heterodoxy. It's really not until the Council of Carthage in 397 that you see a somewhat clear sense of orthodoxy being established, and an establishment of biblical canon that rejects Gnosticism and other early heterodox groups.

[Sanctissima]

Eh, I wouldn't go so far as to say it wasn't Christian. The word 'heresy' does exist for a reason.

Despite the dualism and tendency towards the occult, Cathars were still Christian, just of a different sort. They still worshiped God and held belief in Jesus as paramount to their faith. To be frank, that's all a sect really needs in order to be considered Christian, however heterodox it might be.

But it's not the same God. Almost all Gnostic sects (and the Marcionites) believed that Jesus was the a representative of some other deity that had previously not revealed themselves. I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to restrict the definition of 'Christian' to monotheists who worship the God of the Old Testament and recognise Jesus as his son (or some other form of representative). And who preferably ultimately derive their theology from Second Temple Judaism, not some other religious tradition onto which the Gospels have been awkwardly grafted.

Eh, if you trace it far back enough, they're basically influenced by Zoroastrianism plus some surprisingly Buddhist views on reincarnation (how the Buddhism worked its way in, I don't know, but you can see a clear enough Zoroastrian line from the Manichaeans all the way to the Nestorians and Bogomils). So I guess one could make the argument that their God isn't really Yahweh, but rather Ahura Mazda.

Yeah, I see your point.

Still, I wouldn't say that Monotheism is strictly speaking necessary for a sect to be considered Christian. Although it would be highly unorthodox, henotheists can fit the bill, considering how that's pretty much how Judaism started out.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Eh, I wouldn't go so far as to say it wasn't Christian. The word 'heresy' does exist for a reason.

Despite the dualism and tendency towards the occult, Cathars were still Christian, just of a different sort. They still worshiped God and held belief in Jesus as paramount to their faith. To be frank, that's all a sect really needs in order to be considered Christian, however heterodox it might be.

But it's not the same God. Almost all Gnostic sects (and the Marcionites) believed that Jesus was the a representative of some other deity that had previously not revealed themselves. I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to restrict the definition of 'Christian' to monotheists who worship the God of the Old Testament and recognise Jesus as his son (or some other form of representative). And who preferably ultimately derive their theology from Second Temple Judaism, not some other religious tradition onto which the Gospels have been awkwardly grafted.

As far as the poll is concerned, as I said, due to the Etic nature of the forum,they remain classified as christian on the poll.

[Auristania]

Well, did they become heterodox because of what they taught? Or did they become heterodox further down the line?

Well, both. They became heterodox further down the line, but it was because of what they taught.

Keep in mind that there was a lot of infighting in the early Christian Church (by which I mean the 1st century AD). Basically, it's the era when there wasn't really a clear definition of what being a Christian actually meant (or rather, there were a hell of a lot of interpretations of what it meant), and one man's orthodoxy was another's heterodoxy. It's really not until the Council of Carthage in 397 that you see a somewhat clear sense of orthodoxy being established, and an establishment of biblical canon that rejects Gnosticism and other early heterodox groups.

NO. Gnostics wrote a book, BUT instead of calling it "the Gospel of the Heretics", they called it "Gospel of Magdalene". Don't judge a book by its cover.
You present no evidence that Magdalene wrote the book named for her,

[Sanctissima]

Well, both. They became heterodox further down the line, but it was because of what they taught.

Keep in mind that there was a lot of infighting in the early Christian Church (by which I mean the 1st century AD). Basically, it's the era when there wasn't really a clear definition of what being a Christian actually meant (or rather, there were a hell of a lot of interpretations of what it meant), and one man's orthodoxy was another's heterodoxy. It's really not until the Council of Carthage in 397 that you see a somewhat clear sense of orthodoxy being established, and an establishment of biblical canon that rejects Gnosticism and other early heterodox groups.

NO. Gnostics wrote a book, BUT instead of calling it "the Gospel of the Heretics", they called it "Gospel of Magdalene". Don't judge a book by its cover.
You present no evidence that Magdalene wrote the book named for her,

I never claimed she did, in fact I specifically said it was her followers who wrote it:

For the most part, the Apocrypha. Specifically, the Gospel of Philip and Gospel of Mary. The latter was written by her Gnostic followers, which at the very least tells us there was a group of Gnostics who considered Mary Magdalene their leader.

Heresy is in the eye of the beholder though. Like I said, back in the day one man's orthodoxy was another's heterodoxy. It's really just a matter of who gains the most followers and authoritative power, and in the case of Christianity, the Gnostics lost, thus becoming heterodox (at least in the eyes of the main Churches).

[Salus Maior]

I haven't come across the information that Mary Magdalene became a leader of a group of Gnostics. From what sources of information are we able to come to such conclusion? It is interesting.

For the most part, the Apocrypha. Specifically, the Gospel of Philip and Gospel of Mary. The latter was written by her Gnostic followers, which at the very least tells us there was a group of Gnostics who considered Mary Magdalene their leader. The former is a bit of a misnomer, since Philip the Apostle had nothing to do with its creation, but amongst other things it does state that Mary Magdalene played a prominent role amongst Jesus' early followers, and offers some insight on the conflict occurring within the early Church (basically, why some of Jesus' disciples ended up not being considered true disciples or apostles).

So, then it's not necessarily confirmed that Magdalene created some kind of Gnostic sect.

I mean, I'm fairly certain that various Gnostic groups claimed that many other Apostles were their leader, or gave them the "secret knowledge" they based their beliefs on.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

For the most part, the Apocrypha. Specifically, the Gospel of Philip and Gospel of Mary. The latter was written by her Gnostic followers, which at the very least tells us there was a group of Gnostics who considered Mary Magdalene their leader. The former is a bit of a misnomer, since Philip the Apostle had nothing to do with its creation, but amongst other things it does state that Mary Magdalene played a prominent role amongst Jesus' early followers, and offers some insight on the conflict occurring within the early Church (basically, why some of Jesus' disciples ended up not being considered true disciples or apostles).

So, then it's not necessarily confirmed that Magdalene created some kind of Gnostic sect.

I mean, I'm fairly certain that various Gnostic groups claimed that many other Apostles were their leader, or gave them the "secret knowledge" they based their beliefs on.

Maybe, maybe not. The gospel of Mary Magdalene is widely regarded as a gnostic forgery, and not actually written by Mary Magdelene. For this reason it doesn't really give us sound theology, but it does give us some interesting insights into early Christianity. For instance the Gospel of Mary spends a great deal of time focusing on dialogue between Peter and Mary, and claiming that Mary was to lead the disciples. While this doctrine is highly unlikely, and the words she says in the gospel give a notedly false doctrine, it does tell us that an early doctrine of Papal Supremacy was already well established at the time of its writing.

[Centuran Republic]

Hey guys, to sum it up I was raised as a Pentecostal, then as a non-denominational Christian. I was introduced to liturgical Christianity my first year at a local Catholic high school and became a High Church Episcopalian soon after. But I feel that the Episcopal Church has really failed as a Church so I started looking into Eastern Orthodoxy, like a lot of former Anglicans do, but now I think the Catholic Church is the correct choice, so I enrolled in RCIA a couple weeks ago.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Hey guys, to sum it up I was raised as a Pentecostal, then as a non-denominational Christian. I was introduced to liturgical Christianity my first year at a local Catholic high school and became a High Church Episcopalian soon after. But I feel that the Episcopal Church has really failed as a Church so I started looking into Eastern Orthodoxy, like a lot of former Anglicans do, but now I think the Catholic Church is the correct choice, so I enrolled in RCIA a couple weeks ago.

Welcome! Glad to found your way to our doors!

[The imperial canadian dutchy]

How do you all feel about the second Vatican council?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

How do you all feel about the second Vatican council?

Fine really. What about it?