The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[Salus Maior]

Best Pope

No, that would be the pope who blew the Vatican treasury on a party to watch a bunch of naked women crawling around on the floor scrabbling after chestnuts. Or possibly the one who tried his predecessor's corpse.

Ah, the good ol' Middle Ages.

[Tarsonis]

No, that would be the pope who blew the Vatican treasury on a party to watch a bunch of naked women crawling around on the floor scrabbling after chestnuts. Or possibly the one who tried his predecessor's corpse.

Ah, the good ol' Middle Ages.

Even Caligula was impressed

[Diopolis]

No, that would be the pope who blew the Vatican treasury on a party to watch a bunch of naked women crawling around on the floor scrabbling after chestnuts. Or possibly the one who tried his predecessor's corpse.

Ah, the good ol' Middle Ages.

When I took church history, I remember telling those around me before we started talking about the iron popes that this stuff was gold and you didn't want to miss it.
Afterwards, they told me I was right.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Are you implying Pope Francis didn't really behead Neil deGrasse Tyson???

No I'm implying that Clickhole's quality is low so even parodies can be disregarded as trash.

Um, excuse me, if it weren't for clickhole, we wouldn't be able to protect our children from pedophiles by disguising them as senior citizens, I think you owe them an apology.

[Luminesa]

I feel like I'm surrounded by people who secretly wish to burn me at the stake.

Do you need a hug?

[Sovaal]

I feel like I'm surrounded by people who secretly wish to burn me at the stake.

Do you need a hug? :hug;

"Is that smoke?"

[Tarsonis]

I feel like I'm surrounded by people who secretly wish to burn me at the stake.

The Catholic Church doesn't burn anybody at the stake anymore. We just send you a letter informing you that we're not mad, we're just disappointed.

[Albrenia]

I feel like I'm surrounded by people who secretly wish to burn me at the stake.

The Catholic Church doesn't burn anybody at the stake anymore. We just send you a letter informing you that we're not mad, we're just disappointed.

Do I have to go to my room and think about what I've done again?

[Constantinopolis]

The Immaculate Conception and the the Assumption of Mary are concepts that have been more or less totally accepted since the days of the early Church.

No. The Immaculate Conception is not an ancient dogma. It is a later innovation based on the Latin understanding of Original Sin. Only the Catholic Church believes in the Immaculate Conception. None of the other ancient Churches do, and they never have. And it's not so much that they opposed the idea, but more that it simply never came up until they heard it from the Latins.

The Assumption of Mary, on the other hand - with slight variations - is indeed affirmed by all of the ancient Churches.

[Constantinopolis]

Not at all. Dogma does not change . We may not have fully recognized it and defined it, but it doesn't change. It was always true, whether we were aware of it or not.

...what? If Catholic dogma doesn't change, and if Orthodox dogma doesn't change, then how come we ended up with different dogmas?

Or is this the reason why you guys insist - despite a thousand years of theological arguments - that somehow your dogma and our dogma aren't actually different after all? Like how you claim that the Creed with the Filioque and the Creed without the Filioque somehow mean the same thing and are both equally true? Because you don't want to admit that our dogmas are indeed different, since that would imply that someone changed theirs?

[Stonok]

Or is this the reason why you guys insist - despite a thousand years of theological arguments - that somehow your dogma and our dogma aren't actually different after all? Like how you claim that the Creed with the Filioque and the Creed without the Filioque somehow mean the same thing and are both equally true? Because you don't want to admit that our dogmas are indeed different, since that would imply that someone changed theirs?

Would you say, that maybe, the Catholics are....Heretics?

*wrings hands*

[Luminesa]

The Immaculate Conception and the the Assumption of Mary are concepts that have been more or less totally accepted since the days of the early Church.

No. The Immaculate Conception is not an ancient dogma. It is a later innovation based on the Latin understanding of Original Sin. Only the Catholic Church believes in the Immaculate Conception. None of the other ancient Churches do, and they never have. And it's not so much that they opposed the idea, but more that it simply never came up until they heard it from the Latins.

The Assumption of Mary, on the other hand - with slight variations - is indeed affirmed by all of the ancient Churches.

https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3a.htm

Found this link from EWTN (it looks rather old, perhaps I can find a better one) that somewhat sums it up. It was certainly celebrated by the Early Church Fathers, and Mary was even explicitly said to be immaculate and whatnot by Augustine. It was more or less universally celebrated in the Renaissance, however.

[Salus Maior]

Or is this the reason why you guys insist - despite a thousand years of theological arguments - that somehow your dogma and our dogma aren't actually different after all? Like how you claim that the Creed with the Filioque and the Creed without the Filioque somehow mean the same thing and are both equally true? Because you don't want to admit that our dogmas are indeed different, since that would imply that someone changed theirs?

Would you say, that maybe, the Catholics are....Heretics?

*wrings hands*

You'd still be heretics to him as well Cause he's Orthodox.

[Stonok]

Would you say, that maybe, the Catholics are....Heretics?

*wrings hands*

You'd still be heretics to him as well Cause he's Orthodox.

I know but I just feel better knowing that you guys share in our heresy

[United Muscovite Nations]

No. The Immaculate Conception is not an ancient dogma. It is a later innovation based on the Latin understanding of Original Sin. Only the Catholic Church believes in the Immaculate Conception. None of the other ancient Churches do, and they never have. And it's not so much that they opposed the idea, but more that it simply never came up until they heard it from the Latins.

The Assumption of Mary, on the other hand - with slight variations - is indeed affirmed by all of the ancient Churches.

https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3a.htm

Found this link from EWTN (it looks rather old, perhaps I can find a better one) that somewhat sums it up. It was certainly celebrated by the Early Church Fathers, and Mary was even explicitly said to be immaculate and whatnot by Augustine. It was more or less universally celebrated in the Renaissance, however.

There are two of three examples without context; I would need to see the specific excerpts. That said, Augustine is considered problematic in the Orthodox Church.

[Salus Maior]

You'd still be heretics to him as well Cause he's Orthodox.

I know but I just feel better knowing that you guys share in our heresy

But the Catholic Church and the Protestants think Orthodox are heretics

It's the circle of heressyyyyyyyyyyy....

[Stonok]

I know but I just feel better knowing that you guys share in our heresy

But the Catholic Church and the Protestants think Orthodox are heretics

It's the circle of heressyyyyyyyyyyy....

Yup. Orthodox think Catholics and Protestants are Heretics, Catholics think Protestants are Heretics, Protestants think the Catholics are Heretics, And then you have the new Restorationists who think everyone is a Heretic, and so on and so forth...

It's a dance party and everyone's doing The Heresy

[Constantinopolis]

No. The Immaculate Conception is not an ancient dogma. It is a later innovation based on the Latin understanding of Original Sin. Only the Catholic Church believes in the Immaculate Conception. None of the other ancient Churches do, and they never have. And it's not so much that they opposed the idea, but more that it simply never came up until they heard it from the Latins.

The Assumption of Mary, on the other hand - with slight variations - is indeed affirmed by all of the ancient Churches.

https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3a.htm

Found this link from EWTN (it looks rather old, perhaps I can find a better one) that somewhat sums it up. It was certainly celebrated by the Early Church Fathers, and Mary was even explicitly said to be immaculate and whatnot by Augustine. It was more or less universally celebrated in the Renaissance, however.

From your link:

Church Fathers:

* Implicitly found in the Fathers of the Church in the parallelism between Eve and Mary (Irenaeus, Lyons, 140? - 202?);
* Found in the more general terms about Mary: "holy", "innocent", "most pure", "intact", "immaculate" (Irenaeus, Lyons, 140?-202?; Ephraem, Syria, 306-373; Ambrose, Milan, 373-397);
* Explicit language: Mary - free from original sin (Augustine, Hippo, 395-430 to Anselm, Normandy, 1033-1109);

Eastern Church:

* celebrated a Feast of the Conception of Mary in the 8th to the 9th Century;

Western Church:

* celebrated a Feast of the Conception of Mary in the 12th Century;
* A record of the feast in the 11th Century in Great Britain; in the 12th Century in Normandy;
* Record in many churches of a Feast of the Conception of Mary in France, Germany, Italy and Spain in the 12th Century (Bernard, Clairvaux, 1090-1153)

In other words, the only one who actually believed in the Immaculate Conception was St. Augustine, and the rest of the "evidence" is ridiculously flimsy. Calling Mary "holy", "innocent", or "most pure" doesn't mean subscribing to a specific belief that she was free from Original Sin in a specific sense (indeed, we call her the "Most Holy Theotokos" today, and we don't believe in the Immaculate Conception). And celebrating a feast of the conception of Mary isn't evidence of anything at all. We also have a feast of the conception of St. John the Baptist on our calendar (it's a very minor feast).

[Constantinopolis]

I notice a general trend in Catholicism to cling to very vague phrases used by the Fathers as if they represent explicit endorsements of very specific Catholic teachings. Calling Mary "innocent" and "most pure" supposedly means believing in the Immaculate Conception, calling the Bishop of Rome the successor of St. Peter supposedly means believing in Papal Supremacy, and so on.

Look, you can't deduce a highly specific belief from a very general statement made by the Fathers. We have no problem using the exact same language that the Fathers used with respect to Mary the Theotokos. We do have a problem with going far beyond that language in defining very specific and technical dogmas.

Orthodoxy, in other words, is usually opposed to taking something that was said in a very general and vague sense by the Fathers and trying to make it more specific. We think that amounts to inventing new dogmas.

[Stonok]

I'm not at all trying to argue with Catholicism, but since St. Augustine is involved in the discussion, I think it's interesting that Augustine also endorsed the idea that the verse in which Christ makes the Rock statement about St. Peter could be interpreted as referring to Peter's profession of Faith, rather than Peter himself, though Augustine subscribed to the "Duel interpretation" idea, which proposes both are true.

Protestants regard Augustine highly as well, we just don't regard him officially as a Saint, though most of us still call him "St. Augustine" out of habit.

[Constantinopolis]

But the Catholic Church and the Protestants think Orthodox are heretics

It's the circle of heressyyyyyyyyyyy....

Yup. Orthodox think Catholics and Protestants are Heretics, Catholics think Protestants are Heretics, Protestants think the Catholics are Heretics, And then you have the new Restorationists who think everyone is a Heretic, and so on and so forth...

It's a dance party and everyone's doing The Heresy

"Heresy" simply means "a teaching that we declare to be definitely false and that we consider to be dangerous for the salvation of people who believe in it."

In other words, "this is wrong and you really shouldn't believe it." As opposed to "this may or may not be wrong", or "this is probably wrong but it's okay to believe it".

And a heretic is - technically - a Christian who believes in at least one heresy. Although more commonly, the word "heretic" is reserved for people who should really know better but still believe in heresy. We don't call people heretics when they're simply uneducated about the faith, for example.

[Salus Maior]

I notice a general trend in Catholicism to cling to very vague phrases used by the Fathers as if they represent explicit endorsements of very specific Catholic teachings. Calling Mary "innocent" and "most pure" supposedly means believing in the Immaculate Conception, calling the Bishop of Rome the successor of St. Peter supposedly means believing in Papal Supremacy, and so on.

Look, you can't deduce a highly specific belief from a very general statement made by the Fathers. We have no problem using the exact same language that the Fathers used with respect to Mary the Theotokos. We do have a problem with going far beyond that language in defining very specific and technical dogmas.

Orthodoxy, in other words, is usually opposed to taking something that was said in a very general and vague sense by the Fathers and trying to make it more specific. We think that amounts to inventing new dogmas.

From what I remember Orthodox here saying before, the Immaculate Conception isn't heresy. It's not doctrine either, but rather a theological opinion (that word I can't spell ).

[Constantinopolis]

I'm not at all trying to argue with Catholicism, but since St. Augustine is involved in the discussion, I think it's interesting that Augustine also endorsed the idea that the verse in which Christ makes the Rock statement about St. Peter could be interpreted as referring to Peter's profession of Faith, rather than Peter himself, though Augustine subscribed to the "Duel interpretation" idea, which proposes both are true.

Protestants regard Augustine highly as well, we just don't regard him officially as a Saint, though most of us still call him "St. Augustine" out of habit.

Orthodox Christians regard St. Augustine as a saint, who made important contributions to theology, but who also got some things wrong and who can be easily misinterpreted to support false teachings. Therefore we consider him "problematic". His writings are not nearly as highly regarded as in Western Christianity. In particular, we believe his idea of Original Sin was just flat-out wrong.

[Constantinopolis]

I notice a general trend in Catholicism to cling to very vague phrases used by the Fathers as if they represent explicit endorsements of very specific Catholic teachings. Calling Mary "innocent" and "most pure" supposedly means believing in the Immaculate Conception, calling the Bishop of Rome the successor of St. Peter supposedly means believing in Papal Supremacy, and so on.

Look, you can't deduce a highly specific belief from a very general statement made by the Fathers. We have no problem using the exact same language that the Fathers used with respect to Mary the Theotokos. We do have a problem with going far beyond that language in defining very specific and technical dogmas.

Orthodoxy, in other words, is usually opposed to taking something that was said in a very general and vague sense by the Fathers and trying to make it more specific. We think that amounts to inventing new dogmas.

From what I remember Orthodox here saying before, the Immaculate Conception isn't heresy. It's not doctrine either, but rather a theological opinion (that word I can't spell ).

Yes. It's not a heresy, because it's one possible interpretation of what the Fathers were talking about. So it's a theological opinion - a theologoumenon.

We don't object to Catholics believing in it; we object to them considering it to be dogma. We can never accept it as dogma.

IMO, the Catholic approach to theology is too black and white, too binary. Everything has to be defined to the minute detail, every statement has to be either definitely true or definitely false. It seems like almost everything is either doctrine or heresy in Catholicism. We leave more middle ground for these theological opinions - the theologoumena - which are beliefs that may be true or may be false, and the Church says it's okay to take either stance about them. And we're also highly resistant to anyone trying to "upgrade" them to doctrine or "downgrade" them to heresy. They are theologoumena for a reason.

[War Gears]

Didn't one of your guys' popes end up getting killed by an angry husband who found him sleeping with his wife?

Yes. And? We don't believe in papal impeccability.

Yeah, I know. I just wanted an excuse to bring that up, because it's extremely amusing.

Best Pope

No, that would be the pope who blew the Vatican treasury on a party to watch a bunch of naked women crawling around on the floor scrabbling after chestnuts. Or possibly the one who tried his predecessor's corpse.

No one show this to HBO, they'd have a field day.

Game of Popes.