NationStates

Tarsonis wrote:

The blAAtschApen wrote:
Are you trollnaming?

Is he allowed to do that?

I mean he got banned for trolling before he did it, but...ummm...

Luminesa wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Is he allowed to do that?

I mean he got banned for trolling before he did it, but...ummm...

If he was banned before doing the thing he was banned for then he gets one free go doing that thing.

For clarity, I was simply characterising the actionable nature of GnosticChristian's posts, and stating that it wasn't typical for this thread. The ban is officially for flaming, but it could also be functionally characterised as trollspamming given his behaviour over the last few pages. I doubt either point is particularly controversial.

As per my usual policy regarding this thread, I took no action against GnosticChristian, wasn't involved in the decision to ban GnosticChristian, nor did I report GnosticChristian. However, it looks like I should expand that policy to also not even commenting on action taken by my colleagues given the potential for misunderstanding.

I believe Blaat was only gently teasing me; but given subsequent reaction, clearly I need to tread even more carefully.

The Archregimancy wrote:I believe Blaat was only gently teasing me

Your belief here is correct.

The Archregimancy wrote:For clarity, I was simply characterising the actionable nature of GnosticChristian's posts, and stating that it wasn't typical for this thread. The ban is officially for flaming, but it could also be functionally characterised as trollspamming given his behaviour over the last few pages. I doubt either point is particularly controversial.

As per my usual policy regarding this thread, I took no action against GnosticChristian, wasn't involved in the decision to ban GnosticChristian, nor did I report GnosticChristian. However, it looks like I should expand that policy to also not even commenting on action taken by my colleagues given the potential for misunderstanding.

I believe Blaat was only gently teasing me; but given subsequent reaction, clearly I need to tread even more carefully.

I should have been more clear. I was only attempting to get in on the teasing, I wasn't serious.

In fact I had this scene from Mulan in mind when I asked:

Minzerland II wrote:Doesn’t the Catholic Church affirm a literal Adam, Eve and Fall, Tarsonis? Correct me if I am wrong.

The Catholic Church affirms a literal Adam and Eve from whom all of humanity is descended and a literal fall. She does not require anything else in the creation story taken literally.

The Archregimancy wrote:For clarity, I was simply characterising the actionable nature of GnosticChristian's posts, and stating that it wasn't typical for this thread. The ban is officially for flaming, but it could also be functionally characterised as trollspamming given his behaviour over the last few pages. I doubt either point is particularly controversial.

As per my usual policy regarding this thread, I took no action against GnosticChristian, wasn't involved in the decision to ban GnosticChristian, nor did I report GnosticChristian. However, it looks like I should expand that policy to also not even commenting on action taken by my colleagues given the potential for misunderstanding.

I believe Blaat was only gently teasing me; but given subsequent reaction, clearly I need to tread even more carefully.

My bad, lol.

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?

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).

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).

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

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.

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

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

(Image)

Yeah that could be awkward

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

(Image)

Hey, at least it wasn't uncle Ted.

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.

(Image)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.