Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The Latin Church doesn't have a duty to promote other liturgical rites. If the Maronites and the Melkite want to expand their membership they have to get out there and recruit like everyone else.

So we're not friends, we're competitors.

My point exactly.

You're the only one looking at it as a competition, because you're a non-Latin Eastern Orthodox dwarfed by the Latin Church. To us, It's just a matter of realism and practicality. The Church is 99% Latin, you can't reasonably expect them to commit to a top down missionary system designed to funnel converts into different rites to satisfy your diversity quota. The Latin Rite is the main rite of the Latin Church. Non-Latin Churches in communion with Rome make up an extreme minority of the Church. The Church Leadership have no vested interest in expanding these non-Latin rites beyond maintaining said communion, and expanding the faith in areas where these Churches operate. They'll give them the resources, but the Churches are responsible for producing their own converts. Latin churches make Latin converts. Non-Latin Churches make non-Latin converts. It's. that. Simple.

And that wouldn't change in a hypothetical restoration of communion with the Orthodox. You would still be responsible for your own missionary work, only now you'd presumably have access to the vatican's deep pockets. What would have to change is how the leadership would be constituted. Orthodox leadership and Catholic leadership would have to converge into a single body.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Making lots of babies is the best way to recruit people into the church, though. So, get to work, soldier!

It's how the Catholics became the largest Christian denomination in the Netherlands.

And The Americas too

[United Muscovite Nations]

So we're not friends, we're competitors.

My point exactly.

You're the only one looking at it as a competition, because you're a non-Latin Eastern Orthodox dwarfed by the Latin Church. To us, It's just a matter of realism and practicality. The Church is 99% Latin, you can't reasonably expect them to commit to a top down missionary system designed to funnel converts into different rites to satisfy your diversity quota. The Latin Rite is the main rite of the Latin Church. Non-Latin Churches in communion with Rome make up an extreme minority of the Church. The Church Leadership have no vested interest in expanding these non-Latin rites beyond maintaining said communion, and expanding the faith in areas where these Churches operate. They'll give them the resources, but the Churches are responsible for producing their own converts. Latin churches make Latin converts. Non-Latin Churches make non-Latin converts. It's. that. Simple.

And that wouldn't change in a hypothetical restoration of communion with the Orthodox. You would still be responsible for your own missionary work, only now you'd presumably have access to the vatican's deep pockets. What would have to change is how the leadership would be constituted. Orthodox leadership and Catholic leadership would have to converge into a single body.

And this is why I don't think it would be beneficial to heal the schism at this stage. I would be fine with the Latin Church being an autocephalous church, but the centralized structure of the Latin Church would basically force us to be in-line with the Latins on any issue should we combine our leadership.

[The Archregimancy]

Not gonna lie, that's just your bias talking. The Western Hemisphere didn't have any Christian rites. Christianity didn't rescue the America's until the age of exploration. which countries set up colonies in the West? Spain, France, Portugal, and Great Britain. Guess which tradions these countries had in common? The Latin Rite.

Not gonna lie, that's just your bias talking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_c ... e_Americas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_America

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_of_Alaska

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_of_Alaska

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Aleut

http://www.rossialaska.org/

The Spanish and the Jesuits spread Catholicism to the new world more than anyone else.

That much, however, is true. Though the Portuguese and French also made significant contributions, of course.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You're the only one looking at it as a competition, because you're a non-Latin Eastern Orthodox dwarfed by the Latin Church. To us, It's just a matter of realism and practicality. The Church is 99% Latin, you can't reasonably expect them to commit to a top down missionary system designed to funnel converts into different rites to satisfy your diversity quota. The Latin Rite is the main rite of the Latin Church. Non-Latin Churches in communion with Rome make up an extreme minority of the Church. The Church Leadership have no vested interest in expanding these non-Latin rites beyond maintaining said communion, and expanding the faith in areas where these Churches operate. They'll give them the resources, but the Churches are responsible for producing their own converts. Latin churches make Latin converts. Non-Latin Churches make non-Latin converts. It's. that. Simple.

And that wouldn't change in a hypothetical restoration of communion with the Orthodox. You would still be responsible for your own missionary work, only now you'd presumably have access to the vatican's deep pockets. What would have to change is how the leadership would be constituted. Orthodox leadership and Catholic leadership would have to converge into a single body.

And this is why I don't think it would be beneficial to heal the schism at this stage. I would be fine with the Latin Church being an autocephalous church, but the centralized structure of the Latin Church would basically force us to be in-line with the Latins on any issue should we combine our leadership.

Even if provinces of the church are self governing, the they're still one Church. The call is for one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not one loose confederation of churches that claim Apostolic succession.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And this is why I don't think it would be beneficial to heal the schism at this stage. I would be fine with the Latin Church being an autocephalous church, but the centralized structure of the Latin Church would basically force us to be in-line with the Latins on any issue should we combine our leadership.

Even if provinces of the church are self governing, the they're still one Church. The call is for one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not one loose confederation of churches that claim Apostolic succession.

As long as there is communion, councils, and concelebration, the Orthodox Church is one Church.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Not gonna lie, that's just your bias talking. The Western Hemisphere didn't have any Christian rites. Christianity didn't rescue the America's until the age of exploration. which countries set up colonies in the West? Spain, France, Portugal, and Great Britain. Guess which tradions these countries had in common? The Latin Rite.

Not gonna lie, that's just your bias talking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_c ... e_Americas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_America

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_of_Alaska

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_of_Alaska

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Aleut

http://www.rossialaska.org/

It's an oversight, true enough. But in my defense That's like going out to an expensive dinner with a group, throwing down a dollar for the bill. Did they contribute? Technically. Substantially? Not really. The French colonized Eastern Canada, The Portuguese in Brazil, and the Spanish colonized Latin America, Southern American and a good portion of the carribean. The Russians reached the very nomadic and isolated people's of Alaska.

The Spanish and the Jesuits spread Catholicism to the new world more than anyone else.

That much, however, is true. Though the Portuguese and French also made significant contributions, of course.

Yes but the Spanish and Jesuits did by far the most.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Even if provinces of the church are self governing, the they're still one Church. The call is for one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not one loose confederation of churches that claim Apostolic succession.

As long as there is communion, councils, and concelebration, the Orthodox Church is one Church.

Theres a loose confederation of ethnic churches that claim to be one church.

[United Muscovite Nations]

As long as there is communion, councils, and concelebration, the Orthodox Church is one Church.

Theres a loose confederation of ethnic churches that claim to be one church.

That "loose confederation" is still one Church through concelebration, sharing of communion, and shared doctrine.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Theres a loose confederation of ethnic churches that claim to be one church.

That "loose confederation" is still one Church through concelebration, sharing of communion, and shared doctrine.

In your opinion. As an outsider I see multiple Churches with a loose affiliation. You can't tell me you're "one church" when crap like the Crete council shenangan happens.

[Constantinopolis]

The call is for one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not one loose confederation of churches that claim Apostolic succession.

Remind me, how was the Church organized in ancient times? One centralized hierarchy? Or a loose confederation of local and regional churches that were in communion with each other but operated mostly independently?

[United Muscovite Nations]

That "loose confederation" is still one Church through concelebration, sharing of communion, and shared doctrine.

In your opinion. As an outsider I see multiple Churches with a loose affiliation. You can't tell me you're "one church" when crap like the Crete council shenangan happens.

While not all of the Churches attended the council, they all reviewed the documents drafted there. That is fairly ordinary with the historical councils as well.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The call is for one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not one loose confederation of churches that claim Apostolic succession.

Remind me, how was the Church organized in ancient times? One centralized hierarchy? Or a loose confederation of local and regional churches that were in communion with each other but operated mostly independently?

Limitations deriving from practical necessity. With advent of mass communication we're under no such limitations anymore.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

In your opinion. As an outsider I see multiple Churches with a loose affiliation. You can't tell me you're "one church" when crap like the Crete council shenangan happens.

While not all of the Churches attended the council, they all reviewed the documents drafted there. That is fairly ordinary with the historical councils as well.

If he Russians can boycott a council and make it non-binding. You're not one church.

[The Archregimancy]

Not gonna lie, that's just your bias talking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_c ... e_Americas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_America

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_of_Alaska

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_of_Alaska

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Aleut

http://www.rossialaska.org/

It's an oversight, true enough. But in my defense That's like going out to an expensive dinner with a group, throwing down a dollar for the bill. Did they contribute? Technically. Substantially? Not really. The French colonized Eastern Canada, The Portuguese in Brazil, and the Spanish colonized Latin America, Southern American and a good portion of the carribean. The Russians reached the very nomadic and isolated people's of Alaska.

And the Pacific Northwest, and California as far south as the outskirts of the Bay Area (have you been to Fort Ross? It's well worth a visit), and Hawaii.

You should read up on the history of Russian America; it's fascinating.

Likewise the history of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Americas, which didn't just extend to Alaska - though the Alaskan contribution is historically important given the c.20,000 indigenous Alaskans who remain members of the Orthodox Church, many of them in entirely Aleut-speaking parishes. But never mind the Alaskans; the Orthodox Church in America - which encompasses the historical Alaskan diocese and parishes as well as parishes across the Western Hemisphere - considers itself the direct lineal descendant of the colonial Orthodox missions to the Americas. And even if we do focus solely on Alaska, describing its indigenous people as 'nomadic and isolated' is fairly geo- and culture-centric given the strong implication that this means they're not particularly significant.

You're really not going to win too many friends with the Orthodox here with this attitude; I can only assume that you've decided that your lifetime quest for reconciliation between our churches is dead, and you don't need to win us over.

That much, however, is true. Though the Portuguese and French also made significant contributions, of course.

Yes but the Spanish and Jesuits did by far the most.

I've already noted this part of your statement was true; I'm merely acknowledging some other historically important contributions.

[Constantinopolis]

You can't tell me you're "one church" when crap like the Crete council shenangan happens.

What happened in Crete was basically that the modernist/ecumenist faction in the Orthodox Church tried to hold a Council and the traditionalist faction sabotaged it. Traditionalists see this as a victory for Church unity, because they believe they successfully prevented the ecumenists from making any changes.

It's as if the Catholic Church tried holding Vatican II but most of the bishops didn't show up and later refused to sign anything - without a Pope to force the issue.

[United Muscovite Nations]

While not all of the Churches attended the council, they all reviewed the documents drafted there. That is fairly ordinary with the historical councils as well.

If he Russians can boycott a council and make it non-binding. You're not one church.

The Russians didn't boycott, they simply didn't attend, and they didn't attend because many other groups weren't attending. Nevertheless, Russia reviewed the documents submitted at the council.

[Constantinopolis]

Remind me, how was the Church organized in ancient times? One centralized hierarchy? Or a loose confederation of local and regional churches that were in communion with each other but operated mostly independently?

Limitations deriving from practical necessity. With advent of mass communication we're under no such limitations anymore.

You're assuming that the organization of the Church in ancient times was bad, and we can do better.

We assume that the organization of the Church in ancient times - actually pretty much everything about the ancient Church - is the model that we should aim to imitate as much as possible.

That's why we're called Orthodox. As far as we're concerned, in all Church-related matters, the Old Ways are the Best Ways.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It's an oversight, true enough. But in my defense That's like going out to an expensive dinner with a group, throwing down a dollar for the bill. Did they contribute? Technically. Substantially? Not really. The French colonized Eastern Canada, The Portuguese in Brazil, and the Spanish colonized Latin America, Southern American and a good portion of the carribean. The Russians reached the very nomadic and isolated people's of Alaska.

And the Pacific Northwest, and California as far south as the outskirts of the Bay Area (have you been to Fort Ross? It's well worth a visit), and Hawaii.

You should read up on the history of Russian America; it's fascinating.

Likewise the history of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Americas, which didn't just extend to Alaska - though the Alaskan contribution is historically important given the c.20,000 indigenous Alaskans who remain members of the Orthodox Church, many of them in entirely Aleut-speaking parishes. But never mind the Alaskans; the Orthodox Church in America - which encompasses the historical Alaskan diocese and parishes as well as parishes across the Western Hemisphere - considers itself the direct lineal descendant of the colonial Orthodox missions to the Americas. And even if we do focus solely on Alaska, describing its indigenous people as 'nomadic and isolated' is fairly geo- and culture-centric given the strong implication that this means they're not particularly significant.

You're really not going to win too many friends with the Orthodox here with this attitude; I can only assume that you've decided that your lifetime quest for reconciliation between our churches is dead, and you don't need to win us over.

I'll admit to being ignorant of the Russian expansion in the age of empire, but you're subverting the point. The discussion was about prevelance of the Latin right in the Catholic Church. The Russian orthodox conversion and expansion is irrelevant to that conversation as, they're not Catholic.

That much, however, is true. Though the Portuguese and French also made significant contributions, of course.

Yes but the Spanish and Jesuits did by far the most.

I've already noted your statement was true; I'm merely acknowledging some other contributions.[/quote]


Which was honesty unnecessary to the point that was made.

[Constantinopolis]

If he Russians can boycott a council and make it non-binding. You're not one church.

The majority of bishops did not attend the council. Not just the Russians, but also the Georgians, Bulgarians, and Antiochians.

If we weren't one church, no one would even be talking about global councils and global decisions in the first place. Each autocephalous church would simply do whatever it wanted without consulting the others. That is not the case. The very fact that nothing can get done unless all the autocephalous churches agree, shows that they are One Body. They recognize each other's veto.

[Salus Maior]

[The Archregimancy]

I'll admit to being ignorant of the Russian expansion in the age of empire, but you're subverting the point. The discussion was about prevelance of the Latin right in the Catholic Church. The Russian orthodox conversion and expansion is irrelevant to that conversation as, they're not Catholic.

You're unfortunately reminding me of why I've mostly given up on this thread.

I was responding to this point:

Not gonna lie, that's just your bias talking. The Western Hemisphere didn't have any Christian rites. Christianity didn't rescue the America's until the age of exploration. which countries set up colonies in the West? Spain, France, Portugal, and Great Britain. Guess which tradions these countries had in common? The Latin Rite.

This is, as demonstrated, factually inaccurate, and my posts are entirely germane to pointing out why this assertion is inaccurate. It's by no means unprecedented in polite discussion to point out where a specific assertion within a broader argument may be inaccurate; that doesn't stop you from attempting to make your broader point, but will hopefully encourage you to support your point with more accurate assertions; which you can no doubt do with ease if your broader point is easily defended. After all, littering an argument with demonstrably false claims doesn't make people more likely to accept your point of view.

You've also now directly admitted to arguing from a position of ignorance over the history of the colonisation of the Americas. This is unfortunate. While Wikipedia no doubt has its flaws, if you follow some of the links I've provided, you might learn something that will make it less likely that you'll make a similar factual error in the future, and allow you to make more nuanced arguments on this point - rather than, say, lashing out at everyone who has the temerity to disagree with your point of view.

[United Muscovite Nations]

(Image)

This gives me an idea, brb.

[Pasong Tirad]

(Image)

[Hakons]

Kentucky town seeks to block Traditional Catholic Church building permit.

That's unreasonable. The Church should obviously get a permit to build on land that it already owns. It is absurd that some townsfolk list increased traffic as a grievance. An increase in the number of people visiting the town would provide an economic boost, and just about every town in America would want this. The resistance, I believe, is because they dislike traditional religion. The people that claim to want secularism sure seem fine with having the town government mettle with Church affairs.

Making lots of babies is the best way to recruit people into the church, though. So, get to work, soldier!

It's how the Catholics became the largest Christian denomination in the Netherlands.

Assisted with the utter collapse of Protestantism in the Netherlands.

While not all of the Churches attended the council, they all reviewed the documents drafted there. That is fairly ordinary with the historical councils as well.

If he Russians can boycott a council and make it non-binding. You're not one church.

Tars, the Orthodox Church is obviously one Church, and it has been since the Apostles.