Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Salus Maior]

No you didn't.

Nice spelling btw.

I got to take my chance when it presents itself. Jewish humor and all that, also I'm an ass.

You're serious?

No, I'm being sarcastic.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I've heard this argument. I can assure you, many reasonable Protestants do not believe that, and I am sorry you've had to deal with those sorts of people.

Even though I'm not Christian I can back this up. The majority of of Protestants that I've come in contact with, and I've come in contact with a lot, do not believe that Catholics are anti-Christian.

The whole anti-Christian thing comes from the more radical sects like restorationists and such who tend to believe in a Judeo-Christian religion that was lost during Constantine's mainstreaming of Christianity.

As such they don't view Constantine with kind eyes, nor the Ecumenical Council at Nicaea.

[Salus Maior]

When Catholics/Orthodox say "The Church" they don't just mean attending any kind of church. They mean THE Church, as in Churches with Apostolic Succession and traditions stemming from the original institution. Basically, Catholicism and Orthodoxy (as well as Oriental Orthodox).

Protestantism rejects the idea of the institutional Church, which is seen as gravely incorrect (aka, heretical) to the Apostolic Churches.

How are we to distinguish "THE" Church after the schism? I still listen to my pastor, I still try my best to follow Christ's teachings given to us from the Apostles, and I still follow the Nicene Creed.

It's debatable. But it can be narrowed down to who has legitimate Apostolic Succession.

Who are: Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Anglicanism.

It can be further narrowed down by seeing whose practice and doctrine is closest to ancient Christianity as seen through history. Which (as far as I can tell) would be all of the above except Anglicanism, which has become increasingly political and liberal in its doctrine.

[Hakons]

How are we to distinguish "THE" Church after the schism? I still listen to my pastor, I still try my best to follow Christ's teachings given to us from the Apostles, and I still follow the Nicene Creed.

It's debatable. But it can be narrowed down to who has legitimate Apostolic Succession.

Who are: Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Anglicanism.

It can be further narrowed down by seeing whose practice and doctrine is closest to ancient Christianity as seen through history. Which (as far as I can tell) would be all of the above except Anglicanism, which has become increasingly political and liberal in its doctrine.

Why is Apostolic Succession necessary? I would argue that Methodism is very close to early Christians in terms of theology.

[Luminesa]

I'm Protestant and I feel welcome in this thread.

I like hearing Catholic and Orthodox views because I rarely ever here them in my area.

In general, Protestants are much less combative. We don't immediately resort to claiming other people are heretics. I don't really care if someone would call me a heretic. Unless they show me how I'm actually a heretic, I'll just shrug it off.

Which leads to....

If you're Catholic or Orthodox, why am I a heretic?

My time is now!! Technically all of you Christians are one giant Jewish hersey. Repent and join us for Passover and Chinese on Christmas Eve!!


I had too.

Can I at least join you for Chinese?

[Salus Maior]

Even though I'm not Christian I can back this up. The majority of of Protestants that I've come in contact with, and I've come in contact with a lot, do not believe that Catholics are anti-Christian.

The whole anti-Christian thing comes from the more radical sects like restorationists and such who tend to believe in a Judeo-Christian religion that was lost during Constantine's mainstreaming of Christianity.

As such they don't view Constantine with kind eyes, nor the Ecumenical Council at Nicaea.

As someone who was raised low-church Protestant and gone to Protestant churches my whole life, the idea that Catholicism "isn't Christian" isn't uncommon.

In my experience it tends to range from "In some ways they're Christian but in a lot of ways they're not" to "the Pope is probably the Anti-Christ". And this is something I've heard from Protestants of multiple backgrounds, most of them one wouldn't call "fundamentalist" or "radical" if you knew them.

"Not Christian" is basically the Protestant equivalent of saying "Heretical".

[Venerable Bede]

this is the Christian stance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Sustainer

It was for the first thousand years, through the Reformation as well. Any other position, is not Christian, it is non Christian speculation. It doesn't have any witness in Scripture or Patrististics, it is based on personal fancy.

That doesn't exactly tell me much. And, if one reads it, it doesn't support what you're talking about.

If you have no idea how to explain your point, is best if you don't push it along in the first place. Because what you're basically telling me is "read this text that I understand the way I am telling you even though I cannot tell you how the concept works".

Either you explain your point in a way we can all understand your nuanced thought, or this conversation is over. When I told you earlier that I wasn't going to waste my time, I wasn't joking. If you're not up for a conversation or for an objection to your point then there's no point in wasting my energy following a discussion in which I gain nothing of value from you other than derision and teen-like condescension.

I come here to learn, not to be talked down to. I hope you can understand that.

I'm sorry, forgive me for talking down to you.

As for further words on this disagreement, I have none. My heart is broken.

[Salus Maior]

It's debatable. But it can be narrowed down to who has legitimate Apostolic Succession.

Who are: Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Anglicanism.

It can be further narrowed down by seeing whose practice and doctrine is closest to ancient Christianity as seen through history. Which (as far as I can tell) would be all of the above except Anglicanism, which has become increasingly political and liberal in its doctrine.

Why is Apostolic Succession necessary? I would argue that Methodism is very close to early Christians in terms of theology.

Apostolics believe Apostolic Succession is necessary in order to show a physical link of leadership from the Apostles to the modern Priests, Bishops, Patriarchs, and Popes.

In the same way that, say, the Monarch of England requires blood descent from the first English Royals to be seen as the legitimate leader. Except of course in the Church's it's just the passing of authority from one to the other through the laying of hands.

[Hakons]

Why is Apostolic Succession necessary? I would argue that Methodism is very close to early Christians in terms of theology.

Apostolics believe Apostolic Succession is necessary in order to show a physical link of leadership from the Apostles to the modern Priests, Bishops, Patriarchs, and Popes.

In the same way that, say, the Monarch of England requires blood descent from the first English Royals to be seen as the legitimate leader. Except of course in the Church's it's just the passing of authority from one to the other through the laying of hands.

In some form or another, all Christian Priests, Bishops, Pastors, ect... can be traced to the Apostles. Martin Luther was formally a Catholic Priest and John Wesley was an Anglican cleric (which used to be part of Catholicism). How is the link for my pastor different from the link for you priest? Both were taught by a Christian, who was taught by a Christian, who was taught by a Christian, and all the way back to the Apostles.

[Pasong Tirad]

I hate going to confession to a priest that doesn't say anything, though. They're like therapists without a time limit that you don't have to pay.

Have had some pretty harsh priests that rubbed me the wrong way. Honestly I prefer priests who just listen and perhaps offer some insight. Never confess to a Dominican.

I know the feeling. It sucks since my favorite theologian is a Dominican.

[Salus Maior]

Apostolics believe Apostolic Succession is necessary in order to show a physical link of leadership from the Apostles to the modern Priests, Bishops, Patriarchs, and Popes.

In the same way that, say, the Monarch of England requires blood descent from the first English Royals to be seen as the legitimate leader. Except of course in the Church's it's just the passing of authority from one to the other through the laying of hands.

In some form or another, all Christian Priests, Bishops, Pastors, ect... can be traced to the Apostles. Martin Luther was formally a Catholic Priest and John Wesley was an Anglican cleric (which used to be part of Catholicism). How is the link for my pastor different from the link for you priest? Both were taught by a Christian, who was taught by a Christian, who was taught by a Christian, and all the way back to the Apostles.

Just to note, I'm not formally a part of any church I'm more in-between denominations right now. Though I lean more towards the traditional Church.

As far as I'm aware, Methodism and Lutheranism don't have what's seen as legitimate Apostolic Succession (Anglicans do though, I'm not entirely sure on the process). I think that's mostly because they don't necessarily believe in Apostolic Succession as Catholics and Orthodox do (although I think there are branches of Lutheranism that are at least trying to get back into that).

[Salus Maior]

I hate going to confession to a priest that doesn't say anything, though. They're like therapists without a time limit that you don't have to pay.

Have had some pretty harsh priests that rubbed me the wrong way. Honestly I prefer priests who just listen and perhaps offer some insight. Never confess to a Dominican.

Dominicans are particularly harsh, eh?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Have had some pretty harsh priests that rubbed me the wrong way. Honestly I prefer priests who just listen and perhaps offer some insight. Never confess to a Dominican.

Dominicans are particularly harsh, eh?

If you wanna feel like a piece a shit, Dominicans are where to go

[Salus Maior]

Dominicans are particularly harsh, eh?

If you wanna feel like a piece a shit, Dominicans are where to go

Why's that?

[Hakons]

In some form or another, all Christian Priests, Bishops, Pastors, ect... can be traced to the Apostles. Martin Luther was formally a Catholic Priest and John Wesley was an Anglican cleric (which used to be part of Catholicism). How is the link for my pastor different from the link for you priest? Both were taught by a Christian, who was taught by a Christian, who was taught by a Christian, and all the way back to the Apostles.

Just to note, I'm not formally a part of any church I'm more in-between denominations right now. Though I lean more towards the traditional Church.

As far as I'm aware, Methodism and Lutheranism don't have what's seen as legitimate Apostolic Succession (Anglicans do though, I'm not entirely sure on the process). I think that's mostly because they don't necessarily believe in Apostolic Succession as Catholics and Orthodox do (although I think there are branches of Lutheranism that are at least trying to get back into that).

What makes a legitimate Apostolic Succession? Who decides this?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That doesn't exactly tell me much. And, if one reads it, it doesn't support what you're talking about.

If you have no idea how to explain your point, is best if you don't push it along in the first place. Because what you're basically telling me is "read this text that I understand the way I am telling you even though I cannot tell you how the concept works".

Either you explain your point in a way we can all understand your nuanced thought, or this conversation is over. When I told you earlier that I wasn't going to waste my time, I wasn't joking. If you're not up for a conversation or for an objection to your point then there's no point in wasting my energy following a discussion in which I gain nothing of value from you other than derision and teen-like condescension.

I come here to learn, not to be talked down to. I hope you can understand that.

I'm sorry, forgive me for talking down to you.

As for further words on this disagreement, I have none. My heart is broken.

I didn't mean to make you stop arguing. Or to break your heart. I am sorry for making you think that.

But honestly, you need to stop relying on definition without analysis. I honestly want you to make an effort at explaining things beyond the definitional meaning of it. Because I know you're smarter than that. Me, Tarsonis, Luminesa, and Constantinopolis converse and exchange blows, but our blows are nuanced and I particularly don't feel bad when we four spar together.

With you on the other hand, I have to, because I want you to be more nuanced than you have been showing. So please, do make an effort at explaining, I would appreciate it. I know I am brash at conveying my point (even what I wrote to Tarsonis this morning I worry it wasn't all that tactful, or nice) but I don't mean to shut you up. I want you to think.

[Luminesa]

Dominicans are particularly harsh, eh?

If you wanna feel like a piece a shit, Dominicans are where to go

*Wants to be a Dominican nun.*



I AM FEROCIOUS!!!!

[Venerable Bede]

I'm sorry, forgive me for talking down to you.

As for further words on this disagreement, I have none. My heart is broken.

I didn't mean to make you stop arguing. Or to break your heart. I am sorry for making you think that.

But honestly, you need to stop relying on definition without analysis. I honestly want you to make an effort at explaining things beyond the definitional meaning of it. Because I know you're smarter than that. Me, Tarsonis, Luminesa, and Constantinopolis converse and exchange blows, but our blows are nuanced and I particularly don't feel bad when we four spar together.

With you on the other hand, I have to, because I want you to be more nuanced than you have been showing. So please, do make an effort at explaining, I would appreciate it. I know I am brash at conveying my point (even what I wrote to Tarsonis this morning I worry it wasn't all that tactful, or nice) but I don't mean to shut you up.

No, I'm not nuanced, and certainly not intelligent in any sense. I'm ignorant and I only can dream of having perfect obedience.

My heart is broken because of your doctrine, not how you talk to me.

[Constantinopolis]

So, did the Church cease to exist after Chalcedon? After Ephesus?

Cease to be? No. Fracture? Yes.

UMN brought up a very important point, though: It's not like our Orthodox-Catholic Schism was the only time that the Church fractured into large pieces (or the only time that large parts of the Church fell away from the body of Christ, in the Orthodox view). Major parts of the Church broke away long before that, as early as the mid-400s AD. I mean the Nestorians and the Monophysites/Miaphysites. The latter of these two, the Miaphysites, have some 84 million adherents today. This is not a tiny splinter group that can be ignored. It's a major part of ancient Christianity. And it has been institutionally separate from the Orthodox/Catholic Church for over 1500 years now.

So if you really believe that the Church is divided, then the Church has been divided for over three quarters of Christian history, and counting. The Church had barely finished composing the Creed and closing the New Testament canon when the first major schisms happened. How, then, can you hope to fix something that is, for all intents and purposes, the natural state of Christianity?

If the Church is fractured, as you say, then the Church has almost never been not fractured (there were other major schisms before the 5th century too). And if you accept this view - that the times when the Church was institutionally united were the exception, and that most of the time "the Church" has been a group of separate organizations rather than a single organization - then you are only one step away from Protestant ecclesiology (i.e. saying that Earthly institutions don't really matter).

[Salus Maior]

Just to note, I'm not formally a part of any church I'm more in-between denominations right now. Though I lean more towards the traditional Church.

As far as I'm aware, Methodism and Lutheranism don't have what's seen as legitimate Apostolic Succession (Anglicans do though, I'm not entirely sure on the process). I think that's mostly because they don't necessarily believe in Apostolic Succession as Catholics and Orthodox do (although I think there are branches of Lutheranism that are at least trying to get back into that).

What makes a legitimate Apostolic Succession? Who decides this?

I believe it depends on whether the links can be traced to the institution of the original Church. I.E, Churches that already maintain legitimate Apostolic Succession. Which would be the previous mentioned bunch (Anglicanism gets its legit Succession from Catholicism I believe).

Now, I'm not entirely sure how legitimate Apostolic Succession is maintained. I haven't really educated myself on that particular subject, so it might be better if you ask someone else about that.

But just to note: I imagine that, on basis of doctrine, you would find a lot of common ground with Catholics and Orthodox. Seeing how you're anti-liberal and maintain from what I can tell a traditional Christian morality. As far as Methodism promotes that, it's good with the Traditional Church (what I tend to call Catholics/Orthodox).

While I don't really know the details of Methodist beliefs, I imagine that what the traditional Church finds issue with have more to do with structure and history of the Church. Not necessarily the teachings (although I imagine they would still object to some).

I'm just saying that because in this thread what we disagree on tends to overshadow what we do agree upon (as it goes in debate threads). Which tends to sow some bitterness in people around here. But I doubt any here would truly doubt your faith and convictions or consider that invalid because of Church squabbles. I certainly don't. From what I can tell I think we'd get on well.

[Jamzmania]

Just to note, I'm not formally a part of any church I'm more in-between denominations right now. Though I lean more towards the traditional Church.

As far as I'm aware, Methodism and Lutheranism don't have what's seen as legitimate Apostolic Succession (Anglicans do though, I'm not entirely sure on the process). I think that's mostly because they don't necessarily believe in Apostolic Succession as Catholics and Orthodox do (although I think there are branches of Lutheranism that are at least trying to get back into that).

What makes a legitimate Apostolic Succession? Who decides this?

The people that say they have legitimate apostolic succession, I imagine.

[Constantinopolis]

But the point is, we (that is, the Orthodox who are against ecumenism) don't see it as a problem and aren't looking for a solution.

And there in lies the problem. Like a dinner plate that's broken into pieces, you hold on to the coaster sized disc that remains and pretend there is no breaks.

Specifically because the Church is fractured. We have many (broken) parts, but we are all one Body, and we can come together first by seeking common ground.

The dinner plate metaphor doesn't make sense. Neither does the idea that the Church is one Body and yet also broken into pieces. Think of what you are saying. The Church is one Body. Yes. A living Body. So, for example, if you cut away someone's right arm, is that man "divided" now? Does he need to be "put back together" in order to be a full person again? No. The man without his right arm is still a full person. He is the same person he used to be. The person was not "divided", it was not separated in two pieces, we don't have two persons now instead of one. We still have one person, the same one as before, although injured. And next to him we have a cut-off arm, which is not a person, and cannot possibly be called a continuation of the full person from before the cut.

That is how the Orthodox Church views schism. There is one true Church. There can only be one true Church. When division occurs, that means a piece of the true Church was cut away. But we don't get two true Churches instead of one. We still have one true Church, although injured. The piece that was cut away is not a true Church, in the same way that an arm is not a person.

It is possible to perform surgery and re-attach the arm that was cut off. Various schismatic groups have returned to the Church many times before. At one point, the Patriarchate of Bulgaria was in schism for 60 years, before re-uniting with the Orthodox Church. But this can only work if the arm is treated as an arm, one that needs to be re-attached to the body. It's not going to work if you say that the arm and the rest of the body need to "resolve their differences" and that the resulting "united person" should look part-human and part-giant-arm (you know, as a compromise).

[Salus Maior]

No, I'm not nuanced, and certainly not intelligent in any sense. I'm ignorant and I only can dream of having perfect obedience.

My heart is broken because of your doctrine, not how you talk to me.

What!? You, unintelligent Bede?

You're literally one of the most well-learned and witty people I've seen on this site. If maybe on the blunt side.

Don't say things like that about yourself, it's not true.

[Constantinopolis]

What makes a legitimate Apostolic Succession? Who decides this?

The people that say they have legitimate apostolic succession, I imagine.

No. It's really quite simple: if you have bishops who were ordained by bishops who were ordained by bishops who were ordained... [repeat for many iterations] ...who were ordained by the Apostles, then you have apostolic succession.

Correct doctrine is a separate matter from apostolic succession. You've seen the recent Orthodox-Catholic arguments in this thread, but we both agree that the other has valid apostolic succession.

The only thing that is controversial is the question, "can your Church have apostolic succession even if it doesn't believe in apostolic succession?" In other words, if a Church continues to perform those ordinations I described above just out of a sense of habit or tradition, without believing that they matter, does this Church still count as having apostolic succession? That's the gray area.

[Hakons]

What makes a legitimate Apostolic Succession? Who decides this?

I believe it depends on whether the links can be traced to the institution of the original Church. I.E, Churches that already maintain legitimate Apostolic Succession. Which would be the previous mentioned bunch (Anglicanism gets its legit Succession from Catholicism I believe).

Now, I'm not entirely sure how legitimate Apostolic Succession is maintained. I haven't really educated myself on that particular subject, so it might be better if you ask someone else about that.

But just to note: I imagine that, on basis of doctrine, you would find a lot of common ground with Catholics and Orthodox. Seeing how you're anti-liberal and maintain from what I can tell a traditional Christian morality. As far as Methodism promotes that, it's good with the Traditional Church (what I tend to call Catholics/Orthodox).

While I don't really know the details of Methodist beliefs, I imagine that what the traditional Church finds issue with have more to do with structure and history of the Church. Not necessarily the teachings (although I imagine they would still object to some).

I'm just saying that because in this thread what we disagree on tends to overshadow what we do agree upon (as it goes in debate threads). Which tends to sow some bitterness in people around here. But I doubt any here would truly doubt your faith and convictions or consider that invalid because of Church squabbles. I certainly don't. From what I can tell I think we'd get on well.

Methodism came from Anglicanism, so why would legitimate succession stop?

Most Christians are vastly similar in theology, which is why I tend to see the entire Christian body as having the same chance at salvation. There is no Church with "better odds" for salvation, for we all must do our best to follow Christ's teachings.

The major breaks from Catholicism that Methodism takes is not praying to Saints. We pray directly to God (though I imagine Catholics do that sometimes as well?). Communion is open to all that accept Christ as their savior, instead of just Church members, and it is given monthly. This probably a few others, but I don't know enough about Catholicism to identify them, which is why I love this thread that gives a lot of Catholic views.

Us Christians can quite easily get along.

Good night!