NATION

PASSWORD

The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

What is your denomination?

Roman Catholic
204
34%
Eastern Orthodox
62
10%
Non-Chalcedonian (Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, etc.)
5
1%
Anglican/Episcopalian
40
7%
Lutheran or Reformed (including Calvinist, Presbyterian, etc.)
69
11%
Methodist
5
1%
Baptist
61
10%
Other Evangelical Protestant (Pentecostal, Charismatic, etc.)
48
8%
Restorationist (LDS Movement, Jehovah's Witness, etc.)
18
3%
Other Christian
96
16%
 
Total votes : 608

User avatar
Salus Maior
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14331
Founded: Jun 16, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Salus Maior » Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:48 pm

Stonok wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
It's politics.

Ukrainian Nationalists want an autocephalous church of their own, so they split from the Russian Patriarchate (illegally, honestly).

That sounds like quite literally letting the World control the Church. I do hope they know what they're doing.


No, they're the worst. Nationalist groups have been terrorizing churches that don't want to break from the Russian Patriarchate for a few years now, it's disgraceful.
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. John 1:5

"What is better? To be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?" -Paarthurnax

On Feminist interpretations of God and Christianity.

User avatar
Salus Maior
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14331
Founded: Jun 16, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Salus Maior » Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:16 am

So, RCIA class was a bit awkward today. We watched a video explaining the mass...With Donald Wuerl as the host.

Image
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. John 1:5

"What is better? To be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?" -Paarthurnax

On Feminist interpretations of God and Christianity.

User avatar
Tarsonis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7538
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:04 am

Salus Maior wrote:So, RCIA class was a bit awkward today. We watched a video explaining the mass...With Donald Wuerl as the host.



Yeah that could be awkward
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Diopolis
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11533
Founded: May 15, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Diopolis » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:16 am

Salus Maior wrote:So, RCIA class was a bit awkward today. We watched a video explaining the mass...With Donald Wuerl as the host.


Hey, at least it wasn't uncle Ted.
I'm your rad-trad uncle drunk at thanksgiving. Just to forewarn you.
Thoughts
Abortion is not healthcare.
Thank you St. Jude!

User avatar
Salus Maior
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14331
Founded: Jun 16, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Salus Maior » Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:39 pm

Tarsonis wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:So, RCIA class was a bit awkward today. We watched a video explaining the mass...With Donald Wuerl as the host.



Yeah that could be awkward


It was an old video, like from the 90's. And I get that it's a decent video that explains the mass and there wasn't really a lot of time to find a replacement, but boy it didn't age well.
Last edited by Salus Maior on Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. John 1:5

"What is better? To be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?" -Paarthurnax

On Feminist interpretations of God and Christianity.

User avatar
Pope Joan
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19495
Founded: Mar 11, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Pope Joan » Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:49 pm

Salus Maior wrote:
Stonok wrote:That sounds like quite literally letting the World control the Church. I do hope they know what they're doing.


No, they're the worst. Nationalist groups have been terrorizing churches that don't want to break from the Russian Patriarchate for a few years now, it's disgraceful.


It seems to be a common Christian failing. I myself distrust any large agglomeration of authority, secular or religious. Merger mania did a lot of harm to the Methodists, when I was one, and then to the Mennonites, now that I am one. The more congregational autonomy, the better. Use central authority for ordination and education, including seminaries. Let everything else be just as if it we a go-fund-me, including missions and disaster relief. We do just fine that way. E. Stanley Jones was denied the approval of the Methodist Board of Missions so he accepted the support of the Methodist Women and went to India where he had astounding success, establishing interfaith ashrams and roundtables, making peace between faiths including Hindu and Muslim, dialoging with Gandhi.

THEN the Methodists said they would support him and call him an official Methodist missionary. He said no thanks. he would happily continue as an unofficial missionary of the Methodist Women.
"Life is difficult".

-M. Scott Peck

User avatar
The Eternal Aulus
Diplomat
 
Posts: 778
Founded: Sep 10, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby The Eternal Aulus » Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:19 pm

Pope Joan wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
No, they're the worst. Nationalist groups have been terrorizing churches that don't want to break from the Russian Patriarchate for a few years now, it's disgraceful.


It seems to be a common Christian failing. I myself distrust any large agglomeration of authority, secular or religious. Merger mania did a lot of harm to the Methodists, when I was one, and then to the Mennonites, now that I am one. The more congregational autonomy, the better. Use central authority for ordination and education, including seminaries. Let everything else be just as if it we a go-fund-me, including missions and disaster relief. We do just fine that way. E. Stanley Jones was denied the approval of the Methodist Board of Missions so he accepted the support of the Methodist Women and went to India where he had astounding success, establishing interfaith ashrams and roundtables, making peace between faiths including Hindu and Muslim, dialoging with Gandhi.

THEN the Methodists said they would support him and call him an official Methodist missionary. He said no thanks. he would happily continue as an unofficial missionary of the Methodist Women.

Religious institutions are as only good as an institute which can bargain with the state for the rights and liberties for their followers. But deciding what to belief and what not to believe? I don't think it's a healthy recipe for a religious institution these days unless they have a historic tendency to do so.
Muslim
Islamist
And, behold, with every hardship comes ease: - Quran 94:5
RWDT's favorite Dutchman. A middle school teacher in philosophy and religion.
RIP Joch 12/11/2017 - DoS - 2young2bdeleted

User avatar
Salus Maior
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14331
Founded: Jun 16, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Salus Maior » Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:24 pm

The Eternal Aulus wrote:
Pope Joan wrote:
It seems to be a common Christian failing. I myself distrust any large agglomeration of authority, secular or religious. Merger mania did a lot of harm to the Methodists, when I was one, and then to the Mennonites, now that I am one. The more congregational autonomy, the better. Use central authority for ordination and education, including seminaries. Let everything else be just as if it we a go-fund-me, including missions and disaster relief. We do just fine that way. E. Stanley Jones was denied the approval of the Methodist Board of Missions so he accepted the support of the Methodist Women and went to India where he had astounding success, establishing interfaith ashrams and roundtables, making peace between faiths including Hindu and Muslim, dialoging with Gandhi.

THEN the Methodists said they would support him and call him an official Methodist missionary. He said no thanks. he would happily continue as an unofficial missionary of the Methodist Women.

Religious institutions are as only good as an institute which can bargain with the state for the rights and liberties for their followers. But deciding what to belief and what not to believe? I don't think it's a healthy recipe for a religious institution these days unless they have a historic tendency to do so.


The schism between Moscow and Ukraine isn't theological, it's organizational. and based in matters of church authority.

While that doesn't sound that bad, in practice it's very messy and Ukraine's pulling a lot of garbage in doing so.
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. John 1:5

"What is better? To be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?" -Paarthurnax

On Feminist interpretations of God and Christianity.

User avatar
The Eternal Aulus
Diplomat
 
Posts: 778
Founded: Sep 10, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby The Eternal Aulus » Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:26 pm

Salus Maior wrote:
The Eternal Aulus wrote:Religious institutions are as only good as an institute which can bargain with the state for the rights and liberties for their followers. But deciding what to belief and what not to believe? I don't think it's a healthy recipe for a religious institution these days unless they have a historic tendency to do so.


The schism between Moscow and Ukraine isn't theological, it's organizational. and based in matters of church authority.

While that doesn't sound that bad, in practice it's very messy and Ukraine's pulling a lot of garbage in doing so.

Well, I guess it's a logical consequence seeing the relationship between Russia and Ukraine decreasing. Honestly, I think it's a good thing on the long term.
Muslim
Islamist
And, behold, with every hardship comes ease: - Quran 94:5
RWDT's favorite Dutchman. A middle school teacher in philosophy and religion.
RIP Joch 12/11/2017 - DoS - 2young2bdeleted

User avatar
Tarsonis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7538
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:17 pm

Ukraine is pulling some shady stuff lately, but given Russia’s history with them I find it hard to blame them
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Salus Maior
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14331
Founded: Jun 16, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Salus Maior » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:35 pm

The Eternal Aulus wrote: Honestly, I think it's a good thing on the long term.


Not when it comes to the Orthodox Church and how it structures itself.

In the past, autocephaly was something that a mother church would give to its offspring church (such as when Constantinople gave autocephaly to the Russian Church) of its own goodwill. If this schism is widely accepted it'll set a very bad precedent that could potentially destroy the unity of the Orthodox Church. After all, if backstabbing and bullying another Orthodox church gets you what you want, and people recognize that as valid, that's going to become a setup for anarchy and disunity.
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. John 1:5

"What is better? To be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?" -Paarthurnax

On Feminist interpretations of God and Christianity.

User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 23058
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Archregimancy » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:43 pm

Tarsonis wrote:Ukraine is pulling some shady stuff lately, but given Russia’s history with them I find it hard to blame them


Both sides are behaving absolutely abysmally; both sides are manipulating the Church for political purposes; neither side is morally in the clear.

But as I've written elsewhere, an autocephalous Ukrainian church was inevitable at some point (whether or not it's desirable is a separate issue). In an ideal world, Constantinople and Moscow would have worked together to facilitate that so as to make it as painless as possible. Instead we have some chest-thumping bluster from Moscow that will likely have little practical impact; outside of the Donbass and Crimea, there's almost nothing they can do. But, like it or not, Moscow will have to accept that autocephaly eventually.

There's precedent; it took Constantinople some 70 years to recognise the autocephaly of the Bulgarian Church for very similar reasons. We can be patient.

And I still go to a Church under Constantinople's remit (not that I have much choice where I live), and nobody refuses my wife and I communion just because my wife is Russian and I was received into the Church in a Russian parish.

User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 23058
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Archregimancy » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:51 pm

Salus Maior wrote:
The Eternal Aulus wrote: Honestly, I think it's a good thing on the long term.


Not when it comes to the Orthodox Church and how it structures itself.

In the past, autocephaly was something that a mother church would give to its offspring church (such as when Constantinople gave autocephaly to the Russian Church) of its own goodwill.


That's not really correct.

Up until the 19th century, there was almost no precedent for nationalist autocephaly. With the exceptions of tGeorgia and Russia, both of which had a more historical basis, modern national autocephaly was far more often extracted unwillingly from Constantinople by the newly founded nations that rose in the wake of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. As I wrote in my last post, it sometimes took decades for Constantinople to recognise these new churches; it certainly wasn't something that was willingly granted to an offspring church - though that did occasionally happen.

What's happening in Ukraine now is a 21st-century repetition of what happened to Constantinople in the Balkans; though with a dash of modern power politics over whether functional leadership of Orthodoxy should be exercised by the traditional primus inter pares or the Patriarch who leads the demographically largest constituent church.

User avatar
Luminesa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 51676
Founded: Dec 09, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Luminesa » Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:32 pm

The Archregimancy wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
Not when it comes to the Orthodox Church and how it structures itself.

In the past, autocephaly was something that a mother church would give to its offspring church (such as when Constantinople gave autocephaly to the Russian Church) of its own goodwill.


That's not really correct.

Up until the 19th century, there was almost no precedent for nationalist autocephaly. With the exceptions of tGeorgia and Russia, both of which had a more historical basis, modern national autocephaly was far more often extracted unwillingly from Constantinople by the newly founded nations that rose in the wake of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. As I wrote in my last post, it sometimes took decades for Constantinople to recognise these new churches; it certainly wasn't something that was willingly granted to an offspring church - though that did occasionally happen.

What's happening in Ukraine now is a 21st-century repetition of what happened to Constantinople in the Balkans; though with a dash of modern power politics over whether functional leadership of Orthodoxy should be exercised by the traditional primus inter pares or the Patriarch who leads the demographically largest constituent church.

It makes sense that we don't have a precedent for it since modern nationalism didn't really start forming until like the...18th century?
Catholic, pro-life, and proud of it. I prefer my debates on religion, politics, and sports with some coffee and a little Aquinas and G.K. CHESTERTON here and there. Not that I need the coffee, but you know... :3

So apparently I am an ENFP!

Unofficial #1 fan of the Who Dat Nation.
"I'm just a singer of simple songs, I'm not a real political man. I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran. But I know Jesus, and I talk to God, and I remember this from when I was young:
faith, hope and love are some good things He gave us...
and the greatest is love."
-Alan Jackson

User avatar
Bienenhalde
Minister
 
Posts: 3015
Founded: Mar 11, 2017
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Bienenhalde » Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:39 pm

Salus Maior wrote:
Stonok wrote:Can someone explain the Ukrainian Orthodox Church's schism to me? Is it purely rooted in Ukrainian-Russian politics or is there really a Christian justification for it?


It's politics.

Ukrainian Nationalists want an autocephalous church of their own, so they split from the Russian Patriarchate (illegally, honestly).


To me it seems unfair that canon law would allow the Russian Patriarch to unilaterally block Ukraine from gaining autocephaly. Besides, now that it is formally recognized by Constantinople, I would say that the new Orthodox Church in Ukraine is at least partially legitimate.
Bienenhalde (mostly) represents my real political views.
https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=75.6&d=68.6&g=38.8&s=45.2
OOC:
[*]Age: 24 [*]Pennsylvania Dutch [*]ELCA Lutheran [*]Male [*]Bisexual - leaning towards gay [*]Independent [*]Sinophile-Japanophile [*]Monarchist [*]Has Asperger's

User avatar
Bienenhalde
Minister
 
Posts: 3015
Founded: Mar 11, 2017
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Bienenhalde » Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:48 pm

Salus Maior wrote:
The Eternal Aulus wrote: Honestly, I think it's a good thing on the long term.


Not when it comes to the Orthodox Church and how it structures itself.

In the past, autocephaly was something that a mother church would give to its offspring church (such as when Constantinople gave autocephaly to the Russian Church) of its own goodwill. If this schism is widely accepted it'll set a very bad precedent that could potentially destroy the unity of the Orthodox Church. After all, if backstabbing and bullying another Orthodox church gets you what you want, and people recognize that as valid, that's going to become a setup for anarchy and disunity.


Russia created anarchy and disunity by launching an armed invasion against their fellow Orthodox neighbors in Ukraine. Patriarch Kirill could have condemned Putin's decision but he did not, in fact, from what I have read, many regard him as acting like a puppet of Putin.
Bienenhalde (mostly) represents my real political views.
https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=75.6&d=68.6&g=38.8&s=45.2
OOC:
[*]Age: 24 [*]Pennsylvania Dutch [*]ELCA Lutheran [*]Male [*]Bisexual - leaning towards gay [*]Independent [*]Sinophile-Japanophile [*]Monarchist [*]Has Asperger's

User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 23058
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Archregimancy » Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:21 am

Bienenhalde wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
It's politics.

Ukrainian Nationalists want an autocephalous church of their own, so they split from the Russian Patriarchate (illegally, honestly).


To me it seems unfair that canon law would allow the Russian Patriarch to unilaterally block Ukraine from gaining autocephaly. Besides, now that it is formally recognized by Constantinople, I would say that the new Orthodox Church in Ukraine is at least partially legitimate.


The precise mechanism for granting autocephalyto the Orthodox Church or Ukraine was for the Ecumenical Patriarch to announce that it was withdrawing the 1686 ruling conditionally granting Moscow canonical jurisdiction over Ukraine. This had the impact of de jure transferring responsibility for Ukraine to Constantinople, which then immediately declared Ukraine autocephalous, while lifting the excommunication on the hierarchs of the other two schismatic churches that claimed to be the national Ukrainian church in order to allow the latter two bodies to merge with the newly established autocephalous church.

Technically, Constantinople was within its rights. However, whether it was sensible to do this unilaterally, and over the vociferous objections of Moscow is a separate issue. For all I think autocephaly for Ukraine was inevitable at some point, I think Patriarch Bartholomew's actions were impolitic, and have helped to stoke division within the Orthodox Church. I stand by my earlier position that the best outcome would have been negotiated autocephaly agreed to by Kiev, Constantinople, and Moscow, with full recognition of the new national church, but with individual parishes being able to choose whether to associate themselves with Kiev or Moscow. The Moscow parishes could have had stavropegic status under the day to day administration of a designated hierarch, or some similar status. Unfortunately, common sense hasn't prevailed.

But don't believe anyone who tries to oppose autocephaly for Ukraine on the basis of 'keeping politics out of religion'. Clearly the Moscow Patriarchate is functionally (alas) a branch of the Russian state, and was/is being used as a means of maintaining a Russian presence in Ukraine. Anyone who tries to pretend otherwise is lying. But equally, the Ukrainian authorities have likely misjudged the strength of feeling within some ethnic Russian communities, and any attempt to merge parishes that want to maintain links to Moscow into the new Ukrainian church is doomed to fail.


Luminesa wrote:It makes sense that we don't have a precedent for it since modern nationalism didn't really start forming until like the...18th century?


While there are demonstrable cases of an awareness of national identity existing in Europe prior to the post-medieval period (see, inter alia, the Declaration of Arbroath, or John of Gaunt's soliloquy in Shakespeare's Richard II), modern ideologies of nationalism are largely an outgrowth of a combination of post-French revolution politics and the Romantic Period; so the 18th through mid-19th centuries.

Perhaps I can recommend my published papers on the subject, including my 2017 book?

User avatar
Tarsonis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7538
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Mon Jan 14, 2019 5:16 am

The Archregimancy wrote:
Bienenhalde wrote:
To me it seems unfair that canon law would allow the Russian Patriarch to unilaterally block Ukraine from gaining autocephaly. Besides, now that it is formally recognized by Constantinople, I would say that the new Orthodox Church in Ukraine is at least partially legitimate.


The precise mechanism for granting autocephalyto the Orthodox Church or Ukraine was for the Ecumenical Patriarch to announce that it was withdrawing the 1686 ruling conditionally granting Moscow canonical jurisdiction over Ukraine. This had the impact of de jure transferring responsibility for Ukraine to Constantinople, which then immediately declared Ukraine autocephalous, while lifting the excommunication on the hierarchs of the other two schismatic churches that claimed to be the national Ukrainian church in order to allow the latter two bodies to merge with the newly established autocephalous church.

Technically, Constantinople was within its rights. However, whether it was sensible to do this unilaterally, and over the vociferous objections of Moscow is a separate issue. For all I think autocephaly for Ukraine was inevitable at some point, I think Patriarch Bartholomew's actions were impolitic, and have helped to stoke division within the Orthodox Church. I stand by my earlier position that the best outcome would have been negotiated autocephaly agreed to by Kiev, Constantinople, and Moscow, with full recognition of the new national church, but with individual parishes being able to choose whether to associate themselves with Kiev or Moscow. The Moscow parishes could have had stavropegic status under the day to day administration of a designated hierarch, or some similar status. Unfortunately, common sense hasn't prevailed.

But don't believe anyone who tries to oppose autocephaly for Ukraine on the basis of 'keeping politics out of religion'. Clearly the Moscow Patriarchate is functionally (alas) a branch of the Russian state, and was/is being used as a means of maintaining a Russian presence in Ukraine. Anyone who tries to pretend otherwise is lying. But equally, the Ukrainian authorities have likely misjudged the strength of feeling within some ethnic Russian communities, and any attempt to merge parishes that want to maintain links to Moscow into the new Ukrainian church is doomed to fail.


Luminesa wrote:It makes sense that we don't have a precedent for it since modern nationalism didn't really start forming until like the...18th century?


While there are demonstrable cases of an awareness of national identity existing in Europe prior to the post-medieval period (see, inter alia, the Declaration of Arbroath, or John of Gaunt's soliloquy in Shakespeare's Richard II), modern ideologies of nationalism are largely an outgrowth of a combination of post-French revolution politics and the Romantic Period; so the 18th through mid-19th centuries.

Perhaps I can recommend my published papers on the subject, including my 2017 book?


I wouldn't mind taking a read
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Stonok
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1008
Founded: Nov 27, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Stonok » Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:15 am

All this talk of autocephaly made me wonder if there was an Orthodox Church of America or if it was all Russian/Greek churches. Apparently there is one which is recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church and several others, but not the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Anyone know what the reasons for that are?

User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 23058
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Archregimancy » Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:47 am

Stonok wrote:All this talk of autocephaly made me wonder if there was an Orthodox Church of America or if it was all Russian/Greek churches. Apparently there is one which is recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church and several others, but not the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Anyone know what the reasons for that are?


As with so many points relating to Orthodox jurisdictional issues, it's complex.

The Orthodox Church in America (OCA) used to be part of the Moscow Patriarchate, but was given its autocephaly in the 1970s, at the height of the Cold War. It's a combination of traditional Moscow parishes in former Russian America (ie, Alaska) and those Western Hemisphere Moscow parishes that didn't break with Moscow following the Revolution; the largest component of the latter are a group of former American Greek Catholic parishes that broke with Rome and reverted to Orthodoxy earlier in the 20th century (or perhaps late 19th? I can't quite remember the specific dates).

The Russian Orthodox Church was the first Orthodox jurisdiction to establish a formal diocesean structure in North America, via its presence in Alaska. Alaska (where there are still all-Aleut parishes) is still a relative stronghold of the OCA, which inherited the full Alaskan structure, including the historic church buildings.

However, in the later 19th century and early 20th centuries, increased immigration from traditionally Orthodox countries led to immigrant communities starting their own ethnic parishes, leading to the alphabet soup of ethnically based jurisdictions we have today in the United States and Canada (something replicated in Australia).

The OCA tries to place itself as the autocephalous church for the entire Western Hemisphere, but Moscow didn't consult the rest of the Church when granting autocephaly; and technically it acted outside of the provisions of the Council of Chalcedon, which hypothetically hands responsibility for granting autocephaly outside the bounds of the Pentarchy to Constantinople (points which give Moscow's current complaints over Ukraine just the mildest tinge of hypocrisy). Only six Orthodox jurisdictions recognise the OCA's autocephaly, of which Georgia is the only non-Slavic jurisdiction. Crucially, however, every Orthodox jurisdiction recognises the OCA's bishops as canonical; so non-recognition of autocephaly doesn't preclude recognising the validity of the OCA's holy orders.

The ambiguity of the OCA's status - fully canonical, but only partially autocephalous - is a classic Orthodox compromise of the sort that utterly baffles outsiders.

User avatar
Camelone
Minister
 
Posts: 3261
Founded: Feb 20, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Camelone » Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:31 am

So I was in a good natured argument with one of my good friends about Catholicism and Anglicanism and something got brought up about the validity of the Holy Orders, and by extension the Sacraments. He said that there is no Apostolic Succession within the Anglican Communion or their daughter churches so none of the Sacraments that require a priest are valid. Something about one of the Pope’s in the 1800’s declaring them invalid, I’m not sure and I’m not sure if I have already asked about this or not so I do apologize if my memory is in fact lacking. Even so if the situation he described did in fact historically happen was the Pope speaking infallibly or not? Rather curious about this and hope to get some answers from you all, I’ve looked it up online a bit but I have not found anything concrete about he infallibility of the ruling.
Dissenting High Church Episcopalian, American High Tory with a flair of Bonapartism for extra spice
I am... the lurker!
Ave Rex Christus!

Pro: The Social Kingship of Christ, Corporatism, Distributism, Tradition based Christianity, High Tory, Hierarchy, vanguard republicanism
Neutral: Constitutions, Guild Socialism, Libertarianism, Constitution Party, monarchism
Against: Communism, socialism, SJWs, materialism, Democratic Party, Republican Party, Egalitarianism
Family, Fatherland, Work
Results

User avatar
Tarsonis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7538
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:37 pm

Camelone wrote:So I was in a good natured argument with one of my good friends about Catholicism and Anglicanism and something got brought up about the validity of the Holy Orders, and by extension the Sacraments. He said that there is no Apostolic Succession within the Anglican Communion or their daughter churches so none of the Sacraments that require a priest are valid. Something about one of the Pope’s in the 1800’s declaring them invalid, I’m not sure and I’m not sure if I have already asked about this or not so I do apologize if my memory is in fact lacking. Even so if the situation he described did in fact historically happen was the Pope speaking infallibly or not? Rather curious about this and hope to get some answers from you all, I’ve looked it up online a bit but I have not found anything concrete about he infallibility of the ruling.


From my understanding, post VII it’s not really cut and dry. It would depend on the sacrament and the conditions of each instance. First we must remember that sacraments are “an outward sign instituted by Christ to give sanctifying grace” and that under the precepts of Unitatis Redintegratio, the Anglican Church is considered a legitimate Christian entity, though not part of the Church Catholic.
With that in mind:

Baptism would be Sacramentally valid.
Confirmation would be ecclesially invalid (as it’s not confirmation into the Catholic Church) and they’d have to undergo RCIA if they converted, but sacramentally would be.
Confession would be a ecclesially invalid, but not necessarily sacramentlaly invalid.
Communion would be valid, so long as the priest performing the liturgy is sacramentally valid and the real presence is believed by both priest and laity (AFAIK)
Holy Orders, especially those granted to Women would not be considered ecclesially valid but Sacramentally would be valid so long as they conform to Catholic practices. The same way we would acknowledge Orthodox priesthood as Sacramentally Valid but not Ecclesially valid. (Women ordained are neither sacramentally or ecclesially valid)

Marriage, would be considered sacramentally valid, so long as they conform to Catholic Doctrine. I.e no same sex marriage, no prior divorce etc.

Last Rights I’d say again probably not ecclesially valid, but I’d say are probably sacramentally valid.

As for Apostolic Succession it’s debatable. Any Bishop in the Catholic Church possesses valid apostolic succession, and if any joined the anglicans it’s possible that they do.
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Diopolis
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11533
Founded: May 15, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Diopolis » Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:11 pm

Camelone wrote:So I was in a good natured argument with one of my good friends about Catholicism and Anglicanism and something got brought up about the validity of the Holy Orders, and by extension the Sacraments. He said that there is no Apostolic Succession within the Anglican Communion or their daughter churches so none of the Sacraments that require a priest are valid. Something about one of the Pope’s in the 1800’s declaring them invalid, I’m not sure and I’m not sure if I have already asked about this or not so I do apologize if my memory is in fact lacking. Even so if the situation he described did in fact historically happen was the Pope speaking infallibly or not? Rather curious about this and hope to get some answers from you all, I’ve looked it up online a bit but I have not found anything concrete about he infallibility of the ruling.

Here's a complicated topic.
So, Anglican holy orders were declared absolutely null and utterly void by pope Leo XIII. Whether that proclamation fell under the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium is a complex question to which the answer is "probably not, but it could be, and regardless it reflects the almost unanimous view of theologians and it's difficult to argue with from the POV of Catholic sacramental theology anyways". The reasoning is kind of complicated, but long story short, the dropping of references to sacrifice from the Anglican rite of ordination for a time renders the orders in use in the COE invalid.
But wait, there's more! A large number of Anglican holy orders don't descend directly from COE orders. Many come from liberal Catholic splinter groups- assuming there aren't any women in the line of apostolic succession or something like that, these tend to be mostly valid. Some don't have any sort of basis at all, and these are even less valid. And of course, your local lesbian bishop's orders are completely invalid.
So with that being said, whether sacraments requiring holy orders other than marriage are recognized in the Anglican church is a "generally no, but exceptions exist". Marriages in the Anglican church are recognized if it was the first marriage between both parties, they're not close relatives, and constitute a man and a woman. Baptism is always recognized.
I'm your rad-trad uncle drunk at thanksgiving. Just to forewarn you.
Thoughts
Abortion is not healthcare.
Thank you St. Jude!

User avatar
Salus Maior
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14331
Founded: Jun 16, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Salus Maior » Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:33 pm

Diopolis wrote:
Camelone wrote:So I was in a good natured argument with one of my good friends about Catholicism and Anglicanism and something got brought up about the validity of the Holy Orders, and by extension the Sacraments. He said that there is no Apostolic Succession within the Anglican Communion or their daughter churches so none of the Sacraments that require a priest are valid. Something about one of the Pope’s in the 1800’s declaring them invalid, I’m not sure and I’m not sure if I have already asked about this or not so I do apologize if my memory is in fact lacking. Even so if the situation he described did in fact historically happen was the Pope speaking infallibly or not? Rather curious about this and hope to get some answers from you all, I’ve looked it up online a bit but I have not found anything concrete about he infallibility of the ruling.

Here's a complicated topic.
So, Anglican holy orders were declared absolutely null and utterly void by pope Leo XIII. Whether that proclamation fell under the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium is a complex question to which the answer is "probably not, but it could be, and regardless it reflects the almost unanimous view of theologians and it's difficult to argue with from the POV of Catholic sacramental theology anyways". The reasoning is kind of complicated, but long story short, the dropping of references to sacrifice from the Anglican rite of ordination for a time renders the orders in use in the COE invalid.
But wait, there's more! A large number of Anglican holy orders don't descend directly from COE orders. Many come from liberal Catholic splinter groups- assuming there aren't any women in the line of apostolic succession or something like that, these tend to be mostly valid. Some don't have any sort of basis at all, and these are even less valid. And of course, your local lesbian bishop's orders are completely invalid.
So with that being said, whether sacraments requiring holy orders other than marriage are recognized in the Anglican church is a "generally no, but exceptions exist". Marriages in the Anglican church are recognized if it was the first marriage between both parties, they're not close relatives, and constitute a man and a woman. Baptism is always recognized.


As an aside, I've been told that the Anglican Ordinariate (Anglicans that have converted to Catholicism for those who don't know) is pretty trad. I've been told that their masses are basically the traditional mass, but just in English.
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. John 1:5

"What is better? To be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?" -Paarthurnax

On Feminist interpretations of God and Christianity.

User avatar
Tarsonis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7538
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:13 pm

As our various responses have illuminated: it’s complicated.
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aclion, Cybus1, Gormwood, Great Mojave, Infected Mushroom, Savresia, The Two Jerseys, Trollgaard, True Refuge

Advertisement

Remove ads