Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Australian rePublic]

Nah, just a bit of a brotherly disagreement. What's important is that when push to shove, we put our minor difference aside and band together against Protostants.

And then all of y’all unite against us Mormons. And then the alliance falls apart into the finer details of how we’re wrong exactly. And then the atheists butt in and everyone unites against them. Then everyone falls into disagreement on how they are wrong. And the cycle continues.

Mormons? Goodness gracious? You can't come to our doors because of lockdowns, so now you're hijacking the Christian thread with your apostate beliefs to try to recruit this way? Get outta here, we're discussing Christanity!

Nah, just a bit of a brotherly disagreement. What's important is that when push to shove, we put our minor difference aside and band together against Protostants.

And then all of y’all unite against us Mormons. And then the alliance falls apart into the finer details of how we’re wrong exactly. And then the atheists butt in and everyone unites against them. Then everyone falls into disagreement on how they are wrong. And the cycle continues.

Yep, pretty much

[The Archregimancy]

That's one way to put it. Or another way, you're willing to degrade the sacrament to the whims of the sins of others. This is along the same lines of reasoning that the Anglican and other churches use when declaring same sex marriage to be sacramental. They're more interested in catering to the people than upholding the integrity of the sacraments.

Except that I can't be bothered to get involved any further. I don't particularly care what Tarsonis thinks of Orthodox doctrine. A shrug of the shoulders, and I've already moved on.



On one historical point of fact, though:

Your "common sense approach to remarriage" would hold a lot more weight if it hadn't been mysteriously developed as soon as byzantine emperors started wanting to get divorced.

You obviously missed the earlier post about Leo VI. It has very little to do with divorce; the main controversy over Byzantine rulers remarrying was remarriage after they were widowed.

Constantine VI is the only Byzantine ruler that I can think of who divorced a wife. He divorced his first wife Maria after she failed to provide him with a son, and then immediately married his mistress Theodote. Far from the Orthodox Church acquiescing in the divorce, the Patriarch refused to officiate over the marriage, and Constantine's uncanonical actions directly led to the Moechian [Adultery] Controversy, and Constantine's subsequent removal, blinding, and deposition by his mother Irene.

I mean, if you really want to parade your ignorance of Byzantine history, feel free; I'm in no position to stop you.

[Neanderthaland]

Except that I can't be bothered to get involved any further. I don't particularly care what Tarsonis thinks of Orthodox doctrine. A shrug of the shoulders, and I've already moved on.



On one historical point of fact, though:

Your "common sense approach to remarriage" would hold a lot more weight if it hadn't been mysteriously developed as soon as byzantine emperors started wanting to get divorced.

You obviously missed the earlier post about Leo VI. It has very little to do with divorce; the main controversy over Byzantine rulers remarrying was remarriage after they were widowed.

Constantine VI is the only Byzantine ruler that I can think of who divorced a wife. He divorced his first wife Maria after she failed to provide him with a son, and then immediately married his mistress Theodote. Far from the Orthodox Church acquiescing in the divorce, the Patriarch refused to officiate over the marriage, and Constantine's uncanonical actions directly led to the Moechian [Adultery] Controversy, and Constantine's subsequent removal, blinding, and deposition by his mother Irene.

I mean, if you really want to parade your ignorance of Byzantine history, feel free; I'm in no position to stop you.

Not sure that this paints a better portrait of Byzantine history or Orthodoxy, but okay.

"No to divorce, yes to blinding."

[Aeritai]

Nah, just a bit of a brotherly disagreement. What's important is that when push to shove, we put our minor difference aside and band together against Protostants.

And then all of y’all unite against us Mormons. And then the alliance falls apart into the finer details of how we’re wrong exactly. And then the atheists butt in and everyone unites against them. Then everyone falls into disagreement on how they are wrong. And the cycle continues.

Pretty much.

[Australian rePublic]

Except that I can't be bothered to get involved any further. I don't particularly care what Tarsonis thinks of Orthodox doctrine. A shrug of the shoulders, and I've already moved on.



On one historical point of fact, though:

Your "common sense approach to remarriage" would hold a lot more weight if it hadn't been mysteriously developed as soon as byzantine emperors started wanting to get divorced.

You obviously missed the earlier post about Leo VI. It has very little to do with divorce; the main controversy over Byzantine rulers remarrying was remarriage after they were widowed.

Constantine VI is the only Byzantine ruler that I can think of who divorced a wife. He divorced his first wife Maria after she failed to provide him with a son, and then immediately married his mistress Theodote. Far from the Orthodox Church acquiescing in the divorce, the Patriarch refused to officiate over the marriage, and Constantine's uncanonical actions directly led to the Moechian [Adultery] Controversy, and Constantine's subsequent removal, blinding, and deposition by his mother Irene.

I mean, if you really want to parade your ignorance of Byzantine history, feel free; I'm in no position to stop you.

He was blinded over that? Blinded? Yea, I get that you're not supposed to dump your wife for your mistress, but whtever happened to he who is without sin shall cast the first stone? Also, why did they drag his poor mother into this? What did she do?

[Cekoviu]

That's one way to put it. Or another way, you're willing to degrade the sacrament to the whims of the sins of others. This is along the same lines of reasoning that the Anglican and other churches use when declaring same sex marriage to be sacramental. They're more interested in catering to the people than upholding the integrity of the sacraments.

Dear god, why does John Krasinski look so scary in black and white?

[Cekoviu]

Nah, just a bit of a brotherly disagreement. What's important is that when push to shove, we put our minor difference aside and band together against Protostants.

And then all of y’all unite against us Mormons. And then the alliance falls apart into the finer details of how we’re wrong exactly. And then the atheists butt in and everyone unites against them. Then everyone falls into disagreement on how they are wrong. And the cycle continues.

Mormonism is wrong in virtually every way, I don't really see why getting into the details would even be necessary

[Salus Maior]

Except that I can't be bothered to get involved any further. I don't particularly care what Tarsonis thinks of Orthodox doctrine. A shrug of the shoulders, and I've already moved on.

Daw :[

[The Archregimancy]

Not sure that this paints a better portrait of Byzantine history or Orthodoxy, but okay.

"No to divorce, yes to blinding."

Not really the point I was making. Blinding was never an ecclesiastical practice, only a secular one; and not one, I think, any of us would encourage today, any more than we'd enthusiastically encourage any number of colourful medieval methods of execution and/or torture.

The main point is that Diopolis' claim that divorce entered Orthodoxy as a response to Byzantine emperors' desire to get divorced was factually inaccurate. Indeed, anyone with even a passing familiarity with Justinian's Law Code would know that Byzantine emperors tried much harder to restrict divorce than they did to facilitate it.

[Neanderthaland]

Not sure that this paints a better portrait of Byzantine history or Orthodoxy, but okay.

"No to divorce, yes to blinding."

Not really the point I was making. Blinding was never an ecclesiastical practice, only a secular one; and not one, I think, any of us would encourage today, any more than we'd enthusiastically encourage any number of colourful medieval methods of execution and/or torture.

The main point is that Diopolis' claim that divorce entered Orthodoxy as a response to Byzantine emperors' desire to get divorced was factually inaccurate. Indeed, anyone with even a passing familiarity with Justinian's Law Code would know that Byzantine emperors tried much harder to restrict divorce than they did to facilitate it.

I was being somewhat flippant.

[Australian rePublic]

Not sure that this paints a better portrait of Byzantine history or Orthodoxy, but okay.

"No to divorce, yes to blinding."

Not really the point I was making. Blinding was never an ecclesiastical practice, only a secular one; and not one, I think, any of us would encourage today, any more than we'd enthusiastically encourage any number of colourful medieval methods of execution and/or torture.

The main point is that Diopolis' claim that divorce entered Orthodoxy as a response to Byzantine emperors' desire to get divorced was factually inaccurate. Indeed, anyone with even a passing familiarity with Justinian's Law Code would know that Byzantine emperors tried much harder to restrict divorce than they did to facilitate it.

Yea, but why did they drag his mother into it? What did she do?

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

Except that I can't be bothered to get involved any further. I don't particularly care what Tarsonis thinks of Orthodox doctrine. A shrug of the shoulders, and I've already moved on.



On one historical point of fact, though:



You obviously missed the earlier post about Leo VI. It has very little to do with divorce; the main controversy over Byzantine rulers remarrying was remarriage after they were widowed.

Constantine VI is the only Byzantine ruler that I can think of who divorced a wife. He divorced his first wife Maria after she failed to provide him with a son, and then immediately married his mistress Theodote. Far from the Orthodox Church acquiescing in the divorce, the Patriarch refused to officiate over the marriage, and Constantine's uncanonical actions directly led to the Moechian [Adultery] Controversy, and Constantine's subsequent removal, blinding, and deposition by his mother Irene.

I mean, if you really want to parade your ignorance of Byzantine history, feel free; I'm in no position to stop you.

He was blinded over that? Blinded? Yea, I get that you're not supposed to dump your wife for your mistress, but whtever happened to he who is without sin shall cast the first stone? Also, why did they drag his poor mother into this? What did she do?

His eyes were gouged out on his mother's orders.

The real reason for his blinding was that Irene had essentially been running the empire since her husband's death, and did not want to relinquish power to her son. In Byzantine Greek tradition, you're not allowed to hold any kind of administrative position if you're blind, so Irene opted to have her son's eye plucked out to secure her own throne. He didn't survive the operation.

She was eventually deposed and sent to exile on Lesbos, the isle of lesbians. Byzantine politics were... interesting, to say the least.

[Tarsonis]

Except that I can't be bothered to get involved any further. I don't particularly care what Tarsonis thinks of Orthodox doctrine. A shrug of the shoulders, and I've already moved on.

Daw :[

Dad has gotten over my antics and cut me out of the will.

[The Archregimancy]

He was blinded over that? Blinded? Yea, I get that you're not supposed to dump your wife for your mistress, but whtever happened to he who is without sin shall cast the first stone? Also, why did they drag his poor mother into this? What did she do?

Obviously it's not just the Catholics who need to brush up on their Byzantine history.

Nobody 'dragged' his 'poor mother' into anything. Irene was the prime mover in the plot, and after removing her son - for whom she'd already served as regent during his minority - became the first woman to rule the Roman Empire (of any period) in her own right. That Irene was a woman would later be used by supporters of Charlemagne to argue that the Roman imperial throne was empty by default, and that Charlemagne was free to be crowned as emperor given the vacancy.

Constantine was simply inept; the Moechian Controversy was one of several factors that led to his deposition, but alienating the church to marry his mistress was certainly one of the main contributing factors.

[Australian rePublic]

He was blinded over that? Blinded? Yea, I get that you're not supposed to dump your wife for your mistress, but whtever happened to he who is without sin shall cast the first stone? Also, why did they drag his poor mother into this? What did she do?

Obviously it's not just the Catholics who need to brush up on their Byzantine history.

Nobody 'dragged' his 'poor mother' into anything. Irene was the prime mover in the plot, and after removing her son - for whom she'd already served as regent during his minority - became the first woman to rule the Roman Empire (of any period) in her own right. That Irene was a woman would later be used by supporters of Charlemagne to argue that the Roman imperial throne was empty by default, and that Charlemagne was free to be crowned as emperor given the vacancy.

Constantine was simply inept; the Moechian Controversy was one of several factors that led to his deposition, but alienating the church to marry his mistress was certainly one of the main contributing factors.

To be fair, I'm not not an archaeologist. I don't study history for a living. Anyway, I looked him up. This happened in the 8th century? That doesn't count for differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, because this happened before the Great Schism, when we were One Church. Also, Constantine VI? In a little over 300 years, we had 6 Constantines? Don't you love how unoriginal Roman emporor names are? Replace Constantine with George, and pretty much have the entire history of the British throne

[Australian rePublic]

He was blinded over that? Blinded? Yea, I get that you're not supposed to dump your wife for your mistress, but whtever happened to he who is without sin shall cast the first stone? Also, why did they drag his poor mother into this? What did she do?

His eyes were gouged out on his mother's orders.

The real reason for his blinding was that Irene had essentially been running the empire since her husband's death, and did not want to relinquish power to her son. In Byzantine Greek tradition, you're not allowed to hold any kind of administrative position if you're blind, so Irene opted to have her son's eye plucked out to secure her own throne. He didn't survive the operation.

She was eventually deposed and sent to exile on Lesbos, the isle of lesbians. Byzantine politics were... interesting, to say the least.

Wait a minute, if he was king, how did she make such an order?

[Tarsonis]

Wow, everything you said was wrong

How so?

A. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility does not declare the Pope to be infallible. The Pope is a man and prone to all the problems included there in. Rather the doctrine declares that the Pope as head of the Earthly Church is preserved from error when speaking ex cathedra on matters of morals, faith, and doctrine. In layman's terms that means the Pope can formally invoke his office to make a declaration over a matter before Church, and historically been used to settle disputes which would have caused a schism if sent to and Ecumenical council formally. It's essentially the executive veto power, and has only been invoked twice in Church history on the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate conception.

So all your teeth grinding about "infalliblilty" is way off the mark.

B. The Celibate vs Married Priesthood, while a source of friction was hardly the cause of the schism. Of all the reasons we can list, that ranks pretty far down. Much more pertinent issues were/are the filioque, the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist, the iconoclast heresy in the east, and a pissing contest between Rome and Constantinople on who got to be the big cheese.


C. The Church has always allowed for married priests, albeit in a small regard. Our Eastern rite priests can be married, and married priests from other Churches who convert can be ordained while married. The issue is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. The call for allowing married priests is only tangentially related to the pedophilia debacle and is more to do with a vocational crisis. We're running out of priests as the old guard are dying off and the new generations are less inclined to seek holy orders in a large part due to the celibacy requirements. This further leads to a shortage of priests in developing countries. The suspension of the celibacy discipline for priests is hoped will alleviate such a shortage.

[Salus Maior]

Obviously it's not just the Catholics who need to brush up on their Byzantine history.

Nobody 'dragged' his 'poor mother' into anything. Irene was the prime mover in the plot, and after removing her son - for whom she'd already served as regent during his minority - became the first woman to rule the Roman Empire (of any period) in her own right. That Irene was a woman would later be used by supporters of Charlemagne to argue that the Roman imperial throne was empty by default, and that Charlemagne was free to be crowned as emperor given the vacancy.

Constantine was simply inept; the Moechian Controversy was one of several factors that led to his deposition, but alienating the church to marry his mistress was certainly one of the main contributing factors.

To be fair, I'm not not an archaeologist. I don't study history for a living. Anyway, I looked him up. This happened in the 8th century? That doesn't count for differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, because this happened before the Great Schism, when we were One Church. Also, Constantine VI? In a little over 300 years, we had 6 Constantines? Don't you love how unoriginal Roman emporor names are? Replace Constantine with George, and pretty much have the entire history of the British throne

It wasn't a theological difference, but it was one of the political factors for the schism.

[The Archregimancy]

His eyes were gouged out on his mother's orders.

The real reason for his blinding was that Irene had essentially been running the empire since her husband's death, and did not want to relinquish power to her son. In Byzantine Greek tradition, you're not allowed to hold any kind of administrative position if you're blind, so Irene opted to have her son's eye plucked out to secure her own throne. He didn't survive the operation.

She was eventually deposed and sent to exile on Lesbos, the isle of lesbians. Byzantine politics were... interesting, to say the least.

Wait a minute, if he was king, how did she make such an order?

Because her son was incompetent, she had previously ruled rather successfully as his regent (not least of her accomplishments - and particularly relevant to this thread - was ending the first period of iconoclasm and restoring the icons), and given the choice between the incompetent son who'd alienated both the secular and ecclesiastical authorities or the competent mother, the primary power structures in the Byzantine Empire were happy to support Irene over her son.

Imperium Romanum Sanctis implying that she was exiled to Lesbos because it was the 'isle of lesbians' is a bit off, though. Up until the mid 19th century, the term 'Lesbian' was only used as an adjective to describe a resident of Lesbos; the connection between the classical poet Sappho of Lesbos and the use of her island's adjective to describe female homosexuality only came about in English in the second half of the 19th century. The older use of the adjective is still current in some circumstances; Lesbian wine isn't a wine made primarily for the enjoyment of gay women.

In any case, Irene was exiled to Lesbos because it was out of the way, but not too out of the way; not because of any implication about her sexuality.

[The Archregimancy]

Obviously it's not just the Catholics who need to brush up on their Byzantine history.

Nobody 'dragged' his 'poor mother' into anything. Irene was the prime mover in the plot, and after removing her son - for whom she'd already served as regent during his minority - became the first woman to rule the Roman Empire (of any period) in her own right. That Irene was a woman would later be used by supporters of Charlemagne to argue that the Roman imperial throne was empty by default, and that Charlemagne was free to be crowned as emperor given the vacancy.

Constantine was simply inept; the Moechian Controversy was one of several factors that led to his deposition, but alienating the church to marry his mistress was certainly one of the main contributing factors.

To be fair, I'm not not an archaeologist. I don't study history for a living. Anyway, I looked him up. This happened in the 8th century? That doesn't count for differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, because this happened before the Great Schism, when we were One Church.

I wasn't stating that Constantine VI's divorce indicates a difference between Orthodox and Catholic approaches to divorce. It's not a theological point. It's a historical point used to counter, in part, Diopolis's mistaken statement that Orthodoxy only accepts divorce because Byzantine emperors wanted to get divorced. They didn't (Constantine VI aside - and that divorce was actively opposed by the Church); imperial controversies over remarriage were primarily over widowed emperors wanting to remarry.

[Lower Nubia]

On the contrary, it's profoundly important.

But we're also perhaps a little more prepared to judiciously apply the principle of economia to human frailties in a spirit of charity and forgiveness than you lot.

That's one way to put it. Or another way, you're willing to degrade the sacrament to the whims of the sins of others. This is along the same lines of reasoning that the Anglican and other churches use when declaring same sex marriage to be sacramental. They're more interested in catering to the people than upholding the integrity of the sacraments.

I’m pretty sure that is not the reasoning. Especially seeing as the Church of England does not have as doctrine same sex marriage, nor even support as an institution Same Sex Marriage.

[Hanafuridake]

His eyes were gouged out on his mother's orders.

She sounds absolutely horrifying but I can't get over how her name makes her sound like the kind of person who goes to bingo on Friday.

[The Archregimancy]

His eyes were gouged out on his mother's orders.

She sounds absolutely horrifying but I can't get over how her name makes her sound like the kind of person who goes to bingo on Friday.

In fairness to Irene, blinding was a common punishment for deposed Byzantine emperors. The last example of the blinding of a deposed emperor I can remember offhand (though I have the nagging feeling I'm forgetting a post-1261 case) was Isaac II in 1195.

It gained favour over other forms of mutilation after Justinian II demonstrated that having your nose cut off was no impediment to regaining the throne and engaging in a rampage of violence following your restoration.

Blinding didn't, however, typically entail gouging out someone's eyes; more usually (not that this was necessarily much more pleasant) it involved exposing the eyes to a red-hot metal plate. I'm not sure we know precisely how Constantine VI was blinded, though we do know that he most likely died shortly after his deposition as a consequence of the blinding - though even this isn't certain.

[Lost Memories]

We're the ones degrading our sacraments to the wims and sins of others? That's rich, coming from the people who have an unquestionable, infalible, all-mighty Pope, who, over the past millenium, have abused their power, ran dictatorships covering half of Europe, and had to have had their power declawed in order to brought back down to Earth. This is the denomination branch lecturing us about bending over backward for sinners, just because we have a common sense approach to remarriage?

Your "common sense approach to remarriage" would hold a lot more weight if it hadn't been mysteriously developed as soon as byzantine emperors started wanting to get divorced.

Cristendom intensifies.

In fact, independence from national/royal/territorial political influence is quite a good feature to have.


Also, please, catholicism is a "branch" of christianity, same as orthodoxy. "Denominations" are for protestants, and other sub groups inside catholicism and orthodoxy.

Today's reading reminded me of this.

(Image)

Just wait until he realizes Jesus is a Jew and omnipresent.

Checkmate Peter.

When you realize the apostles were a bunch of normal guys with a tendency to be goofy, reading the gospels also gains a shade of comedy.
Jesus is all the time making simplified examples, only for the apostles to miss the point. Jesus really had godly patience and was full of charity.

[Lost Memories]

Don't encourage them! XD

Nah, just a bit of a brotherly disagreement. What's important is that when push to shove, we put our minor difference aside and band together against Protostants. Especially those "hallelujah, praise Jesus" types all over the American Bible Belt. Double especially those who bring electric guitars to church

That typo could open way to a starcraft mod:
Protosstants
Cathorglings
Orthoterrans