Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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.

And I'd say you cling into the age of a church governance that saw Byzantine Supremacy, under the guise of maintaining "Orthdoxy". If you truly wanted to be the like the "Ancient Church" you'd still worship in basements and back rooms hiding from secular authorities.

The "old ways" were a result of practical necessity, not divine credence. Christians worshiped in secret because they were being persecuted. A decentralized, cell like structure was necessary because a unified body could more easily be targeted. After the edict of Milan, the church changed.

Patriarchates operated msotly independently, though much more unified than before, because it was simply more practical. Let's looks at the Schism. Leo excommunicated Cerularius and died before his legate could deliver the message.

Today that could be delivered in an email. I jest but the point is there. Mass communication, and mass travel have shrunk the world. It used to take weeks to travel from Italy to Greece. Today, I can be in Moscow from New York in less than a day. The church should be unified, and it can.

You claim your way is better, but again from the outside it looks otherwise. You're factionalized, and those factions just happen to break largely along ethnic lines. You're not a unified Church, you're a loose affiliation of tribes squablingn for supremacy, forgive me for being blunt.

[United Muscovite Nations]

(Image)

This gives me an idea, brb.

[United Muscovite Nations]

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.

And I'd say you cling into the age of a church governance that saw Byzantine Supremacy, under the guise of maintaining "Orthdoxy". If you truly wanted to be the like the "Ancient Church" you'd still worship in basements and back rooms hiding from secular authorities.

The "old ways" were a result of practical necessity, not divine credence. Christians worshiped in secret because they were being persecuted. A decentralized, cell like structure was necessary because a unified body could more easily be targeted. After the edict of Milan, the church changed.

Patriarchates operated msotly independently, though much more unified than before, because it was simply more practical. Let's looks at the Schism. Leo excommunicated Cerularius and died before his legate could deliver the message.

Today that could be delivered in an email. I jest but the point is there. Mass communication, and mass travel have shrunk the world. It used to take weeks to travel from Italy to Greece. Today, I can be in Moscow from New York in less than a day. The church should be unified, and it can.

You claim your way is better, but again from the outside it looks otherwise. You're factionalized, and those factions just happen to break largely along ethnic lines. You're not a unified Church, you're a loose affiliation of tribes squablingn for supremacy, forgive me for being blunt.

Unification doesn't necessarily mean centralization of authority. We would say that a centralized authority, if it can fall into the hands of teachers of false doctrines (as we believe the Papacy has fallen into), then it could destroy the Church.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I take it nobody here likes Rastafari.

[Pasong Tirad]

I take it nobody here likes Rastafari.

They believe the Emperor of Ethiopia was the reincarnated Christ, so...

[Nordengrund]

This gives me an idea, brb.

Which church is the one with the gold cross inside the black square. It's the only I do not recognize.

[United Muscovite Nations]

(Image)

Which church is the one with the gold cross inside the black square. It's the only I do not recognize.

The Coptic Church.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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.

And I've conceded the point, that I overlooked Russian colonies in the Western areas of the "New World".

A. The Russian American expansion didn't kick off until the 18th century, after the other European powers had been in the new world for over 200 years. So the point that NA didn't have Christian rites until the Latins came along was factually accurate.

B. The point that in this age of expansion, that four great powers that did settle the new world were either Latin Catholics, or a had up until very recently been Latin Catholic, is in fact accurate.

C. The point in the context of the conversation on this is why the vast majority of Catholics in NA, and he church in large, are Latin Rite, is in fact Accurate.




You can criticise me for poo pooing the Russians out of ignorance fair enough, it was hasten.

But my points to which you initially responded were not innaccurate. And if I respond somewhat negatively, it is not because someone has a different view point, but specifically you: a well respected, notably educated academic and archeologist, not to mention moderator of the forum. Your voice carries weight, and while you could have just said "The Russians settle the Americas too, you should check it out," instead you delivered that information in a way, that given your stature, appears in a way meant to undermine points that I new to be accurate.


Like with the comment about the Spanish and Jesuits doing more to spread Latin rites more than anyone else. I'm not omitting French and Portuguese contributions I'm making a point that the primary players were true Spanish and Jesuits. But commenting about the French and a Portuguese, makes it look like my statement was inaccurate, given that it's you making the comment.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

This gives me an idea, brb.

I'm making this my flag

[Tarsonis Survivors]

And I'd say you cling into the age of a church governance that saw Byzantine Supremacy, under the guise of maintaining "Orthdoxy". If you truly wanted to be the like the "Ancient Church" you'd still worship in basements and back rooms hiding from secular authorities.

The "old ways" were a result of practical necessity, not divine credence. Christians worshiped in secret because they were being persecuted. A decentralized, cell like structure was necessary because a unified body could more easily be targeted. After the edict of Milan, the church changed.

Patriarchates operated msotly independently, though much more unified than before, because it was simply more practical. Let's looks at the Schism. Leo excommunicated Cerularius and died before his legate could deliver the message.

Today that could be delivered in an email. I jest but the point is there. Mass communication, and mass travel have shrunk the world. It used to take weeks to travel from Italy to Greece. Today, I can be in Moscow from New York in less than a day. The church should be unified, and it can.

You claim your way is better, but again from the outside it looks otherwise. You're factionalized, and those factions just happen to break largely along ethnic lines. You're not a unified Church, you're a loose affiliation of tribes squablingn for supremacy, forgive me for being blunt.

Unification doesn't necessarily mean centralization of authority. We would say that a centralized authority, if it can fall into the hands of teachers of false doctrines (as we believe the Papacy has fallen into), then it could destroy the Church.

And we have faith that God would prevent such heresy, and/or the destruction of the Church. He's did promise that after all.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Unification doesn't necessarily mean centralization of authority. We would say that a centralized authority, if it can fall into the hands of teachers of false doctrines (as we believe the Papacy has fallen into), then it could destroy the Church.

And we have faith that God would prevent such heresy, and/or the destruction of the Church. He's did promise that after all.

And we don't think that the Church was destroyed. We think that the Church persists; however, we do absolutely think the Latin Church has fallen into heresy due to its centralization of authority in one man.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

And we have faith that God would prevent such heresy, and/or the destruction of the Church. He's did promise that after all.

And we don't think that the Church was destroyed. We think that the Church persists; however, we do absolutely think the Latin Church has fallen into heresy due to its centralization of authority in one man.

A centralized authority we recognize as being unique to the Latins and have acknowledged that we would need to negotiate on how that authority is undstood and realized, should our communions reunite, but until both sides are willing to sit down at the table, it's a moot point.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And we don't think that the Church was destroyed. We think that the Church persists; however, we do absolutely think the Latin Church has fallen into heresy due to its centralization of authority in one man.

A centralized authority we recognize as being unique to the Latins and have acknowledged that we would need to negotiate on how that authority is undstood and realized, should our communions reunite, but until both sides are willing to sit down at the table, it's a moot point.

I, of course, can't speak for the entire Church, but this would be the understanding I would be willing to accept.
>Pope chairman of Ecumenical Councils
>Pope has authority in Western Patriarchate, but must recognize the Orthodox Patriarchates and their jurisdictions (Africa, Palestine, Syria, Rus', Constantinople, etc.)
>new patriarchates created in other countries

One thing I do agree with you on, is that there has to be better communication in the Orthodox Church, and something I have always supported is having a Synaxis of Primates every 5 years. It wouldn't be able to have the authority of an ecumenical council, but it could settle administrative matters in the same way the Russians have the Most Holy Synod run the affairs of their autocephalous church in between the meetings of the full synod.

[Salus Maior]

I take it nobody here likes Rastafari.

Does anyone really like the Rastafari?

[Socialista Libertario]

I take it nobody here likes Rastafari.

Does anyone really like the Rastafari?

I have no problem with them.

[Pasong Tirad]

I take it nobody here likes Rastafari.

Does anyone really like the Rastafari?

The Rastafarians do.

And I'm guessing medical dispensaries?

[Constantinopolis]

You're not a unified Church, you're a loose affiliation of tribes squablingn for supremacy, forgive me for being blunt.

And the result of that squabbling, combined with a system where consensus is necessary to change anything significant, is that nothing significant changes.

Which is precisely our desired result. So, as far as we're concerned, this is a feature, not a bug. The squabbling of the factions prevents anyone from going against the Holy Tradition of the Church.

Of course, if you don't value doctrinal and liturgical traditionalism as much as we do, you may consider it a problem instead.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You're not a unified Church, you're a loose affiliation of tribes squablingn for supremacy, forgive me for being blunt.

And the result of that squabbling, combined with a system where consensus is necessary to change anything significant, is that nothing significant changes.

Which is precisely our desired result. So, as far as we're concerned, this is a feature, not a bug. The squabbling of the factions prevents anyone from going against the Holy Tradition of the Church.

Of course, if you don't value doctrinal and liturgical traditionalism as much as we do, you may consider it a problem instead.

I didn't realize the Orthodox were such libertarians. Preservation is not inherent to the squabbling, such preservation can endure harmonious, unfractured Church.

Liturgical and Doctrinal traditionalism are every bit as important to the Catholics as they are the Orthodox. Our ideas on how that traditionalism is supposed to work however, is different than yours.

I realize I am throwing rocks from my glass parapet, the Catholic Church has just as many if not more factions as the Orthodox Church, and perhaps it's just my insiders perspective but despite these factions we still tend to be more unified than our Orthodox Bretheren.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You're not a unified Church, you're a loose affiliation of tribes squablingn for supremacy, forgive me for being blunt.

And the result of that squabbling, combined with a system where consensus is necessary to change anything significant, is that nothing significant changes.

Which is precisely our desired result. So, as far as we're concerned, this is a feature, not a bug. The squabbling of the factions prevents anyone from going against the Holy Tradition of the Church.

Of course, if you don't value doctrinal and liturgical traditionalism as much as we do, you may consider it a problem instead.

Also, please don't single out and crop a single sentence of a larger post to respond to. I know you don't mean any malice but I'd prefer if you take my posts as a whole.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And the result of that squabbling, combined with a system where consensus is necessary to change anything significant, is that nothing significant changes.

Which is precisely our desired result. So, as far as we're concerned, this is a feature, not a bug. The squabbling of the factions prevents anyone from going against the Holy Tradition of the Church.

Of course, if you don't value doctrinal and liturgical traditionalism as much as we do, you may consider it a problem instead.

I didn't realize the Orthodox were such libertarians. Preservation is not inherent to the squabbling, such preservation can endure harmonious, unfractured Church.

Liturgical and Doctrinal traditionalism are every bit as important to the Catholics as they are the Orthodox. Our ideas on how that traditionalism is supposed to work however, is different than yours.

I realize I am throwing rocks from my glass parapet, the Catholic Church has just as many if not more factions as the Orthodox Church, and perhaps it's just my insiders perspective but despite these factions we still tend to be more unified than our Orthodox Bretheren.

You appear more unified because you have a central authority that forces the other factions (like the traditionalists) to shut up or be excommunicated.

Our bishops can complain about ecumenism, but when Cardinals question whether divorced couples should receive communion, they are stripped of their administrative positions.

[Cote Acreole]

You're not a unified Church, you're a loose affiliation of tribes squablingn for supremacy, forgive me for being blunt.

And the result of that squabbling, combined with a system where consensus is necessary to change anything significant, is that nothing significant changes.

Which is precisely our desired result. So, as far as we're concerned, this is a feature, not a bug. The squabbling of the factions prevents anyone from going against the Holy Tradition of the Church.

Of course, if you don't value doctrinal and liturgical traditionalism as much as we do, you may consider it a problem instead.

Even with a centralised authority, there are still squabbling factions. An Ecumenical Council is what prevents anyone from going against Tradition. Its not like the Papacy has the political power to militarily enforce its decisions. The voting for the Pope is like what is found in Acts so its not as if the pluralty have a better chance of getting the candidate they picked, and its not like candidates cant be chosen from among other rites, we've had several Byzantine Popes for instance.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I didn't realize the Orthodox were such libertarians. Preservation is not inherent to the squabbling, such preservation can endure harmonious, unfractured Church.

Liturgical and Doctrinal traditionalism are every bit as important to the Catholics as they are the Orthodox. Our ideas on how that traditionalism is supposed to work however, is different than yours.

I realize I am throwing rocks from my glass parapet, the Catholic Church has just as many if not more factions as the Orthodox Church, and perhaps it's just my insiders perspective but despite these factions we still tend to be more unified than our Orthodox Bretheren.

You appear more unified because you have a central authority that forces the other factions (like the traditionalists) to shut up or be excommunicated.

Our bishops can complain about ecumenism, but when Cardinals question whether divorced couples should receive communion, they are stripped of their administrative positions.

You mean how the Church has done to Heretics since it's inception? Or should have Arius been allowed to stay and teach since his faction had considerable size.

When Benedict and the College autoexcomunnicated any woman who seeks ordination and any bishop who ordinates a woman, what was wrong about that exactly?

I mean, the today TIL that orthodox are against authoritarianism and protection of unified doctrine.

All jest aside, the central authority of the Church is not nearly as powerful as you think it is. Traditionalists cannot be excommunicated unless they commit heresy, which requires much more effort an authority than you think it does. The pope would have a hard time simply excommunicating a significant portion of the Church. For Pete's sake, the outcry I heard from liberal Catholics over Francis's mere consideration of prohibiting the Tridentine Mass was immense, let alone the trads. The priests at St. Mary's here nearly blew a gasket.


As for the cardinals issue, none of them to my knowledge none of them were actually stripped of their titles and the hype was overblown from miffed lawyers pissed off that they pretty much publically called the Pope a heretic.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And the result of that squabbling, combined with a system where consensus is necessary to change anything significant, is that nothing significant changes.

Which is precisely our desired result. So, as far as we're concerned, this is a feature, not a bug. The squabbling of the factions prevents anyone from going against the Holy Tradition of the Church.

Of course, if you don't value doctrinal and liturgical traditionalism as much as we do, you may consider it a problem instead.

Even with a centralised authority, there are still squabbling factions. An Ecumenical Council is what prevents anyone from going against Tradition. Its not like the Papacy has the political power to militarily enforce its decisions. The voting for the Pope is like what is found in Acts so its not as if the pluralty have a better chance of getting the candidate they picked, and its not like candidates cant be chosen from among other rites, we've had several Byzantine Popes for instance.

What recourse exists for the rest of the bishops to oppose an act by the Pope? Catholics like to say that the Pope can't go against doctrine, but he has the sole power to appoint and dismiss bishops and cardinals from their posts. No recourse really exists except going into schism.

[United Muscovite Nations]

You appear more unified because you have a central authority that forces the other factions (like the traditionalists) to shut up or be excommunicated.

Our bishops can complain about ecumenism, but when Cardinals question whether divorced couples should receive communion, they are stripped of their administrative positions.

You mean how the Church has done to Heretics since it's inception? Or should have Arius been allowed to stay and teach since his faction had considerable size.

When Benedict and the College autoexcomunnicated any woman who seeks ordination and any bishop who ordinates a woman, what was wrong about that exactly?

I mean, the today TIL that orthodox are against authoritarianism and protection of unified doctrine.

All jest aside, the central authority of the Church is not nearly as powerful as you think it is. Traditionalists cannot be excommunicated unless they commit heresy, which requires much more effort an authority than you think it does. The pope would have a hard time simply excommunicating a significant portion of the Church. For Pete's sake, the outcry I heard from liberal Catholics over Francis's mere consideration of prohibiting the Tridentine Mass was immense, let alone the trads. The priests at St. Mary's here nearly blew a gasket.


As for the cardinals issue, none of them to my knowledge none of them were actually stripped of their titles and the hype was overblown from miffed lawyers pissed off that they pretty much publically called the Pope a heretic.

Those are issues of heresy. There are certainly issues of non-heretical nature in which there is reasonable opposition to hierarchs, including by other hierarchs. The question of ecumenism, and, indeed, pretty much all the inter-hierarchical disputes within Orthodoxy existing today, are non-doctrinal.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You mean how the Church has done to Heretics since it's inception? Or should have Arius been allowed to stay and teach since his faction had considerable size.

When Benedict and the College autoexcomunnicated any woman who seeks ordination and any bishop who ordinates a woman, what was wrong about that exactly?

I mean, the today TIL that orthodox are against authoritarianism and protection of unified doctrine.

All jest aside, the central authority of the Church is not nearly as powerful as you think it is. Traditionalists cannot be excommunicated unless they commit heresy, which requires much more effort an authority than you think it does. The pope would have a hard time simply excommunicating a significant portion of the Church. For Pete's sake, the outcry I heard from liberal Catholics over Francis's mere consideration of prohibiting the Tridentine Mass was immense, let alone the trads. The priests at St. Mary's here nearly blew a gasket.


As for the cardinals issue, none of them to my knowledge none of them were actually stripped of their titles and the hype was overblown from miffed lawyers pissed off that they pretty much publically called the Pope a heretic.

Those are issues of heresy. There are certainly issues of non-heretical nature in which there is reasonable opposition to hierarchs, including by other hierarchs. The question of ecumenism, and, indeed, pretty much all the inter-hierarchical disputes within Orthodoxy existing today, are non-doctrinal.

Then don't bring up doctrinal disputes to support your position.

Look, we understand that the Orthodox are going to want certain assurances from the Pope and the Latins, in the event that unification were to occur. We've already said we're willing to negotiate on the subject.