The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Benuty]

So I have been looking into the Altar Guild at Grace Cathedral, and there is something joyful about such a ritual, and I might join it.

What does the Alter Guild do?

So the guild (one of many guilds) is personally responsible for setting up the altar so when Eucharist is commenced everything will be prepared for those commencing it. Afterward communion is done, and the service is let go, and in short, its job is to make sure the "third act" is done smoothly since often the biggest service is at 11:00, and the Cathedral will have 500 people in it. I mean sure every service has the Eucharist, and then Communion enacted, but the most noticeable impact is always felt in the 11:00 am one since that is when the largest crowd comes.

[Mardla]

What does the Alter Guild do?

So the guild (one of many guilds) is personally responsible for setting up the altar so when Eucharist is commenced everything will be prepared for those commencing it. Afterward communion is done, and the service is let go, and in short, its job is to make sure the "third act" is done smoothly since often the biggest service is at 11:00, and the Cathedral will have 500 people in it. I mean sure every service has the Eucharist, and then Communion enacted, but the most noticeable impact is always felt in the 11:00 am one since that is when the largest crowd comes.

You converted to Christianity? Oh, wow. Damn, I didn't get the memo.

[Salus Maior]

What does the Alter Guild do?

So the guild (one of many guilds) is personally responsible for setting up the altar so when Eucharist is commenced everything will be prepared for those commencing it. Afterward communion is done, and the service is let go, and in short, its job is to make sure the "third act" is done smoothly since often the biggest service is at 11:00, and the Cathedral will have 500 people in it. I mean sure every service has the Eucharist, and then Communion enacted, but the most noticeable impact is always felt in the 11:00 am one since that is when the largest crowd comes.

As an aside, wouldn't your flag make more sense if it were "half of everything"?

[Benuty]

So the guild (one of many guilds) is personally responsible for setting up the altar so when Eucharist is commenced everything will be prepared for those commencing it. Afterward communion is done, and the service is let go, and in short, its job is to make sure the "third act" is done smoothly since often the biggest service is at 11:00, and the Cathedral will have 500 people in it. I mean sure every service has the Eucharist, and then Communion enacted, but the most noticeable impact is always felt in the 11:00 am one since that is when the largest crowd comes.

As an aside, wouldn't your flag make more sense if it were "half of everything"?

I mean technically true, but given Thanos himself sacrificed everything from his armies, his supporters, and ships down to the child, he "loved" i.e. Gamora it fits.

[Benuty]

So the guild (one of many guilds) is personally responsible for setting up the altar so when Eucharist is commenced everything will be prepared for those commencing it. Afterward communion is done, and the service is let go, and in short, its job is to make sure the "third act" is done smoothly since often the biggest service is at 11:00, and the Cathedral will have 500 people in it. I mean sure every service has the Eucharist, and then Communion enacted, but the most noticeable impact is always felt in the 11:00 am one since that is when the largest crowd comes.

You converted to Christianity? Oh, wow. Damn, I didn't get the memo.

Yes, I have for some time now been going to service at an Episcopalian Church, and have begun the process of attempting to get confirmed, and ultimately baptized.

[Mardla]

You converted to Christianity? Oh, wow. Damn, I didn't get the memo.

Yes, I have for some time now been going to service at an Episcopalian Church, and have begun the process of attempting to get confirmed, and ultimately baptized.

They're too unorthodox for my liking, although I did sympathize with their politics at one time.

[Cill Airne]

You converted to Christianity? Oh, wow. Damn, I didn't get the memo.

Yes, I have for some time now been going to service at an Episcopalian Church, and have begun the process of attempting to get confirmed, and ultimately baptized.

Ah, that's awesome! I really don't know where I'd be now if it wasn't for Anglicanism, genuinely. Even if I am no longer Anglican myself. I was part of my Church's Altar Guild and I was an usher. It's great to be able to participate with the Church like that.

[Lord Dominator]

I am being a good steward of the Earth by making sure I'm one of the only stewards remaining, since I know all those other people would be bad at it
#JustificationsForN-Day

[Luminesa]

Yes, I have for some time now been going to service at an Episcopalian Church, and have begun the process of attempting to get confirmed, and ultimately baptized.

Ah, that's awesome! I really don't know where I'd be now if it wasn't for Anglicanism, genuinely. Even if I am no longer Anglican myself. I was part of my Church's Altar Guild and I was an usher. It's great to be able to participate with the Church like that.

Wait, you’re not Anglican? What are you now?

[Lower Nubia]

Almost every ancient historical record, contradicts other ancient historical record for the same event. To emphasise the Biblical 'contradiction' while not noting the contradictions in secular notes of history is biased and negligent. The Bible is unique, not because it contains "valid contradiction" (the same allowable difference in like secular documents, thus the same as other secular ancient documents in this matter), but that the Gospel accounts, for example, are far more consistent than most ancient documents which seek to explain a singular event.

The problem isn't with difference, but the depth of the difference, which for the Gospels are minor, all are consistent on the important, even trivial, details; miracle ministry, capture, judgement before court, crucifixion, burial and then Resurrection, sending forth the apostles (to pick some major events). In addition, whereas many biographies were written for the great Kings, emperors and conquerors, and the title "son of God" was a common quip of the absolutely powerful, the same cannot be said, at any level, for Jewish carpenters from, quite literally, the middle of nowhere.

I emphasized the biblical contradictions because this is the CDT. A whataboutism does not exactly bolster your argument.
Also...ignoring the outright lies and fabrications within the Bible for now, because that’s a very different argument, let’s take a look at all the things you just listed.

No you emphasise the Biblical contradictions as if they refuted the Bible narrative, seeing as this is a discussion on the bibles trustworthy qualities, which is the tu quoque fallacy because what you emphasise in the Biblical narrative would be hypocrisy when the same issue exists for secular ancient documents, of which you do not question.

I’ll just assume that minor word choice is between translation details and different authors, so, let’s see.
And....what’s this? Matthew 27:3-66, compared to Acts 1:18.
Of course, Jesus’ parentage and the way it was determined...probably should have made sure of Jesus’ lineage, huh? Plus, stretching that far to get Jesus to Bethlehem in time to be born. Except we couldn’t even agree on the time, with Matthew and Luke disagreeing.

"Alright let's take a look at all the things you just listed,
I’ll just assume that minor word choice is between translation details and different authors, so, let’s see.
And....what’s this? Polybius of Megalopolis in World History compared to Livius of Padua in his History of Rome from it's Foundation.
Of course, Hannibal sending a bunch of elephants through the Alps should have been quite a obvious to the locals, huh? I mean, going too north or too south, I mean how could we even agree on the route? especially seeing as Polybius and Livius disagree."

Oh my, sorry, got a secular document mixed in with your rant, but, eh, problem is that the situation you described fits perfectly with the account of Hannibal with his frozen elephants. This historical aspect and the (!)harmonisation(!) (which I thought only "bible apologists did to save face on their religion) between them is a debate within history, but that doesn't mean that I can state that Hannibal didn't event exist(!), or that the accounts are a priori false. Which, again, puts them well within the bounds of secular documentation of the period and thus "contradition", or better yet, difference, is not enough to dismiss these documents. As Chesterton noted, history is not simple and is, most of the time, more complex than we tend to acknowledge or think.

The “adulterous woman” story seems to have been added after the fact, as does pretty much anything after Mark 8, Jesus either spent 40 days in wilderness or 3, and circling back around to the crucifixion, we have the Centurion either going up to Jesus or sending elders. I’m sure there’s more, but I don’t feel like going through the whole Bible right now.

The adulterous woman story is likely a faithful addition following within the Oral Tradition, I mean John notes:

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

Indeed with its addition the Church did not enter in a furor on this "False addition to the text" but rather paid no attention to the matter, and instead loved the story of the adulterous woman, it is for you to demonstrate, how a Church that deemed anything beyond the Tradition to be against the apostles, could suddenly accept the story without prior acknowledgement in oral succession. It probably had been handed down to them from the disciples as John notes, and finally made an addition because Jesus did perform that miracle and everyone had been told that he did, thus would be faithful addition and valid addition.

All the rest are simply harmonisations, and with the social aspects in the first century being of 'high context', the necessity for detailed explanation for each and every duress is neither necessary nor required for the reader. As they would understand the social context behind these statements more capably than we will.

I'd like to point out that even all of those things that you mentioned, are, in fact, minor details and hardly dislodging of the important narrative. But, again, there are plenty of trivial details that are identical within each of the gospel texts and those of 'appearing' discrepancy can be down to a multitude of factors before it is even reasonable for outright dismissal of the texts.

Also, many people have claimed to be the children of gods. A King’s claim is no less credible than that of a carpenter.

To you the claim might not be credible but not to people of the first century, a king's claim is credible simply because he is the king, there is no greater source of power or authority in a region. Not all people occupy that favoured (by the gods?) authority, indeed there were plenty of prophets of "god", but "son's of God"? That is not a title that is synonymous with all men but only of those of immense power. Which, again, is not a trait of Nazareth carpenters, unless he could capably back it up. Now there is good reason that even you debate that ancient woodworker today.

[Salus Maior]

Ah, that's awesome! I really don't know where I'd be now if it wasn't for Anglicanism, genuinely. Even if I am no longer Anglican myself. I was part of my Church's Altar Guild and I was an usher. It's great to be able to participate with the Church like that.

Wait, you’re not Anglican? What are you now?

Orthodox.

[Cill Airne]

Ah, that's awesome! I really don't know where I'd be now if it wasn't for Anglicanism, genuinely. Even if I am no longer Anglican myself. I was part of my Church's Altar Guild and I was an usher. It's great to be able to participate with the Church like that.

Wait, you’re not Anglican? What are you now?

I went East, to Orthodoxy

[Dogmeat]

Wait, you’re not Anglican? What are you now?

I went East, to Orthodoxy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NZ04BG7TfA

[Shofercia]

https://www.unian.info/society/amp-10171514-ecumenical-patriarch-constantinople-never-recognized-moscow-s-church-authority-over-ukraine.html

Good news

No comments on the news I've posted last page? You're one of the few here who can shine a light on the consequences of it.

I wouldn't place too much credence in this Ukrainian interpretation of Patriarch Bartholomew's remarks. Moscow's interpretation is quite different.

What isn't under dispute is that Constantinople has previously made some noises about helping to seek Orthodox unity in Ukraine, and that the Ukrainian parliament has sent an appeal to Bartholomew asking for a tomos (formal patriarchal ruling) on the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

But Bartholomew knows very well that backing an autocephalous Ukrainian church would be an astonishingly provocative move that would likely end all cooperation with Moscow - which is the largest Orthodox church in terms of numbers. Furthermore, there are three different competing jurisdictions in Ukraine, none of which represent a majority of Orthodox Ukrainians.

So there's a lot of sound and fury, but I think the chances of Bartholomew actually declaring backing for a government backed autocephalous church based in Kiev are next to zero. Agreeing to hear an appeal is one thing; it fits in with Constantinople's own view of its role within Orthodoxy. Granting it would lead to all-out war between the two most politically significant patriarchates in the Orthodox Church; and I don't think either side really wants that.

But that seems to be the goal of Ukraine. After seeing the positive role that the Church played in ending animosity after the Ossetian War between the Russians and the Georgians, which benefited all sides, Ukraine seems to want to destroy Church Unity to continue to paint Russia as the villain. Ukrainians are traveling to Crimea, and bringing back stories of prosperity, while their own politicians are failing to provide its citizens with cures for basic diseases, and has been rated the most corrupt in Europe. Much like the Russian Mafia of the 1990s, their days are numbered, so like a butthurt loser, they're trying to ruin it for everyone else.

[Shofercia]

https://www.dw.com/en/russian-orthodox-church-cuts-ties-with-constantinople-leader-over-ukraine/a-45495761

So aparently the Patriarch of Constantinople tries to recognise an independent Ukrainian Church. The ROC is against this and even treatens with a schism.

Unsurprisingly, you're misrepresenting what's happening.

It's a tragedy - and neither side is covering itself with glory - but it's not a schism.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople hasn't recognised an autocephalous Ukrainian Church. It's been asked by the Ukrainian government to send a couple of bishops to 'study the issue', and the Ukrainians are pushing hard for autocephaly; but that's not in Constantinople's gift to grant unilaterally anyway. But the Russians are so incensed at the thought that Constantinople might even try that it's throwing its considerable weight around. As I wrote in a previous version of this thread, the likely outcome is that Constantinople will agree to study the issue, but then stop short of granting full recognition to the Ukrainians. In the end, Bartholomew needs all the friends he can get; and for better or for worse, Russia has far more influence in Turkey than Ukraine does.

The problem is exacerbated by the political situation in eastern Ukraine; the Russian government's actions there are undermining the previously strong support enjoyed by the Moscow Patriarchate in the rest of Ukraine, and increasing support for the parishes that want an autocephalous Ukrainian church. The Ukrainian government has its own reasons for seeking autocephaly.

The reason it won't be a schism is that even if Moscow and Constantinople stop talking to each other, they'll still be in full communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church. For example, the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem have currently struck each other off each other's diptychs (ie, aren't talking) over an obscure dispute tied to Qatar and the Syrian Civil War; but they still recognise all of the other autocephalous Orthodox churches. And then there's the situation with the Orthodox Church in America, whose autocephaly is only recognised by Moscow, but whose bishops are recognised as canonical by everyone. This isn't even the first time in the last 20 years that Moscow and Constantinople have temporarily broken off contact with each other over jurisdictional issues; they had a nasty dispute over Estonia in the '90s and '00s.

Summed up, this is deeply regrettable, and all Orthodox Christians will be praying for the unity of the Church; but it isn't a schism, either.

Our highly decentralised institutions may look baffling to the non-Orthodox, but they do have the benefit of making it all but impossible for us to have a full-blown schism within the Orthodox Church.

Thank you for the detailed explanation, and you're right, our decentralized institutions are awesome

[Luminesa]

Wait, you’re not Anglican? What are you now?

I went East, to Orthodoxy

Ohhhhhh! Cool! What inspired the switch? :3

[United Muscovite Nations]

Wait, you’re not Anglican? What are you now?

I went East, to Orthodoxy

Congratulations!

[Benuty]

I went East, to Orthodoxy

Congratulations!

Now I did humor the idea of orthodoxy given Charleston's abundances of Church (hence the name holy port city), but something just drew me to Episcopalianism instead.

[Vsyerossiya]

I wouldn't place too much credence in this Ukrainian interpretation of Patriarch Bartholomew's remarks. Moscow's interpretation is quite different.

What isn't under dispute is that Constantinople has previously made some noises about helping to seek Orthodox unity in Ukraine, and that the Ukrainian parliament has sent an appeal to Bartholomew asking for a tomos (formal patriarchal ruling) on the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

But Bartholomew knows very well that backing an autocephalous Ukrainian church would be an astonishingly provocative move that would likely end all cooperation with Moscow - which is the largest Orthodox church in terms of numbers. Furthermore, there are three different competing jurisdictions in Ukraine, none of which represent a majority of Orthodox Ukrainians.

So there's a lot of sound and fury, but I think the chances of Bartholomew actually declaring backing for a government backed autocephalous church based in Kiev are next to zero. Agreeing to hear an appeal is one thing; it fits in with Constantinople's own view of its role within Orthodoxy. Granting it would lead to all-out war between the two most politically significant patriarchates in the Orthodox Church; and I don't think either side really wants that.

But that seems to be the goal of Ukraine. After seeing the positive role that the Church played in ending animosity after the Ossetian War between the Russians and the Georgians, which benefited all sides, Ukraine seems to want to destroy Church Unity to continue to paint Russia as the villain. Ukrainians are traveling to Crimea, and bringing back stories of prosperity, while their own politicians are failing to provide its citizens with cures for basic diseases, and has been rated the most corrupt in Europe. Much like the Russian Mafia of the 1990s, their days are numbered, so like a butthurt loser, they're trying to ruin it for everyone else.

And the Malorossy try to do this by shameless assassinating one of the heroes of the Donetsk People’s Republic.

I only hope that the efforts of the Constantinople Patriarch fail. Constantinople made similar arguments against heretical Rome, when it was suitable. But now, when events benefit their heterodox behavior, Constantinople acts like Rome. What irony! The other Churches, especially the Moscow Patriarchate, must defend Orthodoxy!

[Nioya]

Wait, you’re not Anglican? What are you now?

I went East, to Orthodoxy

Awww, one less great mind for the cause.

[The Eternal Aulus]

Looks like Orthodox stability and fraternity is as close as a Byzantine prince with five brotherly pretenders!

[Stonok]

In approximately one hour I am to be baptized by immersion. Allow me to say now that if I have offended anyone here or conducted myself poorly in their sight, please forgive me and I ask for your prayers to help me grow in the faith after this sacrament.

[Marginal Territory]

In approximately one hour I am to be baptized by immersion. Allow me to say now that if I have offended anyone here or conducted myself poorly in their sight, please forgive me and I ask for your prayers to help me grow in the faith after this sacrament.

Yay you're doing it right!

[Shofercia]

Looks like Orthodox stability and fraternity is as close as a Byzantine prince with five brotherly pretenders!

Orthodox stability and fraternity are doing just fine. As Archie brilliantly summarized:

The reason it won't be a schism is that even if Moscow and Constantinople stop talking to each other, they'll still be in full communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church. For example, the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem have currently struck each other off each other's diptychs (ie, aren't talking) over an obscure dispute tied to Qatar and the Syrian Civil War; but they still recognise all of the other autocephalous Orthodox churches. And then there's the situation with the Orthodox Church in America, whose autocephaly is only recognised by Moscow, but whose bishops are recognised as canonical by everyone. This isn't even the first time in the last 20 years that Moscow and Constantinople have temporarily broken off contact with each other over jurisdictional issues; they had a nasty dispute over Estonia in the '90s and '00s.

Summed up, this is deeply regrettable, and all Orthodox Christians will be praying for the unity of the Church; but it isn't a schism, either. Our highly decentralised institutions may look baffling to the non-Orthodox, but they do have the benefit of making it all but impossible for us to have a full-blown schism within the Orthodox Church.

We're the cool established Church. When I felt that Nicolas Dos was wrongly canonized, I made my opinion known. That didn't stop me from continuing to worship, going to Church, or chilling with Orthodox Christians. And everyone was super nice to me about it. In this case, I'll acknowledge that a single person is acting like an idiot, but that doesn't mean that I should stop worshiping with my brothers and sisters from the Middle East. By admitting that our leaders are fallible, we thrive. By allowing decentralization, we prevent escalation. It's a truly well thought out system, that's here to stay. Forever!

[Salus Maior]

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/ ... sainthood/ An interesting article about potential Saints in the RCC(and apparently American support for them but that's aside the point), Emperor Karl of Austria, Chesterton, and Tolkien are interesting candidates.