Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[Salus Maior]

For what it's worth, I think that the current Bishop of Rome is a decent man, and he seems to be doing his best in what's undoubtedly a difficult role. He seems to be doing more to effectively address some of the historical institutional wrongs that plagued the Catholic Church in the latter part of the 20th century than either of his predecessors (and I appreciate our Catholics won't agree with me, but I think the unseemly rush to canonise John Paul II was a terrible mistake), and his willingness to confront institutional conservatives in his organisation is a positive.

But at the end of the day, from the Orthodox perspective he's just another bishop; a hierarchically important one with administrative oversight over half of the world's Christians, and one we would be willing to honour as primus inter pares were the Great Schism to come to an end, but doctrinally no more important than any other bishop.

So I'm happy to offer him the civility and respect due to a senior church hierarch, but I see no need to offer him special respect above and beyond the respect that I'd hope that Catholics would demonstrate towards, say, Patriarch Bartholomew or Patriarch Kyrill.

I actually agree with you.

Honestly, I think we should have stuck with the old method of canonization. I think a lot of canonizations are rushed these days.

I don't really have many complaints about Patriarch Kirill or Bartholomew, although Bartholomew has said some very...Uh...un-Orthodox thing about the position of the Patriarch of Constantinople (IIRC, he said that without the Patriarch of Constantinople there would be no Orthodoxy).

[Lower Nubia]

Even worse....

*sigh*

I wished more Protestants respected the Pope.

Why should we respect him? What has he done to deserve it?

He’s the head bishop of a sister Church, while Christ called us to unity. I suspect that demands ecumenical respect.

[North Washington Republic]

Would I be wrong in thinking that if C.S Lewis was alive today, we would convert to Catholicism. The Church of England is just so theologically liberal now.

[Salus Maior]

Would I be wrong in thinking that if C.S Lewis was alive today, we would convert to Catholicism. The Church of England is just so theologically liberal now.

I don't know, it'd be pure speculation.

[Old Tyrannia]

Would I be wrong in thinking that if C.S Lewis was alive today, we would convert to Catholicism. The Church of England is just so theologically liberal now.

Even if Lewis was dissatisfied with the current state of the Church of England, that doesn't mean that his objections to Catholicism would magically disappear. Plenty of theologically conservative people remain within the Church of England, and even if he converted, there's no reason to assume it would be to Catholicism. I could potentially see Lewis as being interested in Eastern Orthodoxy given that it wasn't really an option at the time he became a Christian, unlike Catholicism which was and which he did actually reject, and since Orthodox theology would probably be fairly compatible with the views he expressed in many of his writings- for example, the view of the afterlife depicted in The Great Divorce.

There is a small cottage industry of Catholic writers concerned with coming up with reasons as to why prominent historical Anglo-Catholics, such as Lewis and T.S. Eliot, never made it all the way to Rome. I think it's born of a certain chauvinism amongst a subset of Catholics who assume Roman Catholicism is the logical destination for such people, and have to find some excuse as to why an intelligent and well-informed person would opt to remain an Anglican rather than take the "obvious" next step of swimming the Tiber. In reality both Lewis and Eliot were fairly clear on their reasons for not converting to Catholicism. In Lewis' case, it was the excessive (as he saw it) dogmatism of the Roman Catholic Church that put him off; he expressed concern that becoming a Catholic would not only require him to accept all of the existing dogmas of the church, but any future positions dogmatised by the church (as papal infallibility and the immaculate conception were in the 19th century). Eliot on the other hand saw Roman Catholicism in England at the time as fundamentally sectarian in nature, which he disliked. I think of the two Eliot would be the more likely one to convert should he have witnessed the current state of play in both churches, but who knows? Certainly in some of his works he expressed support for the "broad church" nature of the Church of England.

[Salus Maior]

Would I be wrong in thinking that if C.S Lewis was alive today, we would convert to Catholicism. The Church of England is just so theologically liberal now.

Even if Lewis was dissatisfied with the current state of the Church of England, that doesn't mean that his objections to Catholicism would magically disappear. Plenty of theologically conservative people remain within the Church of England, and even if he converted, there's no reason to assume it would be to Catholicism. I could potentially see Lewis as being interested in Eastern Orthodoxy given that it wasn't really an option at the time he became a Christian, unlike Catholicism which was and which he did actually reject, and since Orthodox theology would probably be fairly compatible with the views he expressed in many of his writings- for example, the view of the afterlife depicted in The Great Divorce.

There is a small cottage industry of Catholic writers concerned with coming up with reasons as to why prominent historical Anglo-Catholics, such as Lewis and T.S. Eliot, never made it all the way to Rome. I think it's born of a certain chauvinism amongst a subset of Catholics who assume Roman Catholicism is the logical destination for such people, and have to find some excuse as to why an intelligent and well-informed person would opt to remain an Anglican rather than take the "obvious" next step of swimming the Tiber. In reality both Lewis and Eliot were fairly clear on their reasons for not converting to Catholicism. In Lewis' case, it was the excessive (as he saw it) dogmatism of the Roman Catholic Church that put him off; he expressed concern that becoming a Catholic would not only require him to accept all of the existing dogmas of the church, but any future positions dogmatised by the church (as papal infallibility and the immaculate conception were in the 19th century). Eliot on the other hand saw Roman Catholicism in England at the time as fundamentally sectarian in nature, which he disliked. I think of the two Eliot would be the more likely one to convert should he have witnessed the current state of play in both churches, but who knows? Certainly in some of his works he expressed support for the "broad church" nature of the Church of England.

Well, one thing's certain;

Tolkien would have been pretty happy if Lewis became Catholic. As I understand it, Tolkien was a key figure in Lewis's return to Christianity, but when Lewis became Anglican rather than Tolkien's Catholicism they seemed to have fallen out as friends.

[Salus Maior]

This was an interesting video I watched recently.

As an aside, it's a good example of healthy communication between two different Christians, ahem ahem ;P

[Saiwania]

Is the consensus that the original Christian Church was the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox if both used to be of one entity but split at around the same time in 1054 or earlier? Which has the stronger claim to representing the original institution?

The Roman Catholics claim that they have a nearly unbroken line of Popes more or less, originating from Saint Peter (one of Jesus' desciples) in 64 AD up until the present day. While on the other hand, the Eastern Orthodox had the benefit of an original language Bible that didn't require any translation because some of the new testament was written in Greek which was the prevalent language where Antioch was. Whilst the Roman Catholics had to translate from Greek to Latin and got the risk of translation errors.

[Tarsonis]

Is the consensus that the original Christian Church was the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox if both used to be of one entity but split at around the same time in 1054 or earlier? Which has the stronger claim to representing the original institution?

The Roman Catholics claim that they have a nearly unbroken line of Popes more or less, originating from Saint Peter (one of Jesus' desciples) in 64 AD up until the present day. While on the other hand, the Eastern Orthodox had the benefit of an original language Bible that didn't require any translation because some of the new testament was written in Greek which was the prevalent language where Antioch was. Whilst the Roman Catholics had to translate from Greek to Latin and got the risk of translation errors.

nope. Not pulling the pin in that grenade

[Salus Maior]

Is the consensus that the original Christian Church was the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox if both used to be of one entity but split at around the same time in 1054 or earlier? Which has the stronger claim to representing the original institution?

The Roman Catholics claim that they have a nearly unbroken line of Popes more or less, originating from Saint Peter (one of Jesus' desciples) in 64 AD up until the present day. While on the other hand, the Eastern Orthodox had the benefit of an original language Bible that didn't require any translation because some of the new testament was written in Greek which was the prevalent language where Antioch was. Whilst the Roman Catholics had to translate from Greek to Latin and got the risk of translation errors.

nope. Not pulling the pin in that grenade

Besides, we all know that the Mormons are the True ChurchTM.

Anyway, in serious, it's a contentious topic and there isn't a consensus. That being said, both the RCC, EO, OO, and Anglican communion are founded in the same original Christian institution. Whoever has the true claim of being the One, True Church depends on who you ask.

[Sundiata]

Is the consensus that the original Christian Church was the Roman Catholic.

Yeah, the Catholics were here first with our popes and all then the schism happened. So yes, the Catholic Church is the original.

[Sundiata]

Now that's based....

Too bad some of the more right-wingish Protestant groups will see Francis as a "communist" because he advocated for free healthcare.

Would it help them if I pointed out that it's probably not a good idea to place Pope Francis on the liberal-conservative scale?

From Pope Francis I think this speech about healthcare was particularly targeted at the United States. This isn't really a problem elsewhere.

His speech in film.

[Salus Maior]

Well, shit.

Looks like Pope Francis is going to crack down on celebrations of the TLM. I guess so much for my respect for him. How incredibly out of touch these clerics are with the people.

https://press.vatican.va/content/salast ... .html#ingL Francis's accompanying letter.

[Lower Nubia]

Is the consensus that the original Christian Church was the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox if both used to be of one entity but split at around the same time in 1054 or earlier? Which has the stronger claim to representing the original institution?

The Roman Catholics claim that they have a nearly unbroken line of Popes more or less, originating from Saint Peter (one of Jesus' desciples) in 64 AD up until the present day. While on the other hand, the Eastern Orthodox had the benefit of an original language Bible that didn't require any translation because some of the new testament was written in Greek which was the prevalent language where Antioch was. Whilst the Roman Catholics had to translate from Greek to Latin and got the risk of translation errors.

Hello, we’re forgetting a true candidate. High Tory Anglicanism!

[Immortan Khan]

Even if Lewis was dissatisfied with the current state of the Church of England, that doesn't mean that his objections to Catholicism would magically disappear. Plenty of theologically conservative people remain within the Church of England, and even if he converted, there's no reason to assume it would be to Catholicism. I could potentially see Lewis as being interested in Eastern Orthodoxy given that it wasn't really an option at the time he became a Christian, unlike Catholicism which was and which he did actually reject, and since Orthodox theology would probably be fairly compatible with the views he expressed in many of his writings- for example, the view of the afterlife depicted in The Great Divorce.

There is a small cottage industry of Catholic writers concerned with coming up with reasons as to why prominent historical Anglo-Catholics, such as Lewis and T.S. Eliot, never made it all the way to Rome. I think it's born of a certain chauvinism amongst a subset of Catholics who assume Roman Catholicism is the logical destination for such people, and have to find some excuse as to why an intelligent and well-informed person would opt to remain an Anglican rather than take the "obvious" next step of swimming the Tiber. In reality both Lewis and Eliot were fairly clear on their reasons for not converting to Catholicism. In Lewis' case, it was the excessive (as he saw it) dogmatism of the Roman Catholic Church that put him off; he expressed concern that becoming a Catholic would not only require him to accept all of the existing dogmas of the church, but any future positions dogmatised by the church (as papal infallibility and the immaculate conception were in the 19th century). Eliot on the other hand saw Roman Catholicism in England at the time as fundamentally sectarian in nature, which he disliked. I think of the two Eliot would be the more likely one to convert should he have witnessed the current state of play in both churches, but who knows? Certainly in some of his works he expressed support for the "broad church" nature of the Church of England.

Well, one thing's certain;

Tolkien would have been pretty happy if Lewis became Catholic. As I understand it, Tolkien was a key figure in Lewis's return to Christianity, but when Lewis became Anglican rather than Tolkien's Catholicism they seemed to have fallen out as friends.

While Tolkien was dismayed that Lewis didn't become a Catholic, it didn't play a role in their falling out. They remained close friends for about a decade after Lewis' conversion. IIRC it had more to do with Lewis personality changes after becoming famous and his marriage to his wife whom Tolkien abhorred because she was divorced and an American.

[Elpis and Eris]

Does anyone have experience with LGBTQ-friendly denominations? I'm looking for ones that walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

[Lower Nubia]

Does anyone have experience with LGBTQ-friendly denominations? I'm looking for ones that walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

Episcopalians. United States Anglicans.

[Loeje]

Does anyone have experience with LGBTQ-friendly denominations? I'm looking for ones that walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

I don't have experience, but I heard that ELCA is open to that sort of thing.

[Catarapania]

Pope Francis voices support for free universal healthcare for all.

Now that's based....

Too bad some of the more right-wingish Protestant groups will see Francis as a "communist" because he advocated for free healthcare.

Right-wing-ish Protestant here. My only problem with Communism is that it's inherently anti-religious and destroys fundamental social structures such as the family. Free universal healthcare, while not necessarily something I would support, is not inherently anti-religious, nor is it obvious how it would cause (further) damage to the family if implemented. So Francis can say what he wants to on this subject, though I'm not sure he can make it official social teaching. It's certainly prima facie in tension with Pope Pius XI's teaching on Subsidiarity, and that tension would probably need to be resolved before it could become binding on Catholics. Probably. Like I said, I'm a Protestant, so I'm hardly an expert on the subject. Perhaps one of the local Catholics could help clarify things?

[Catarapania]

Now that's based....

Too bad some of the more right-wingish Protestant groups will see Francis as a "communist" because he advocated for free healthcare.

They already see him as the antichrist, or a potential one anyway.

Not all of us. I'd agree with certain of the more conservative Catholics that his teaching can be a bit confusing/in tension with received tradition, but that's as far as I'd go.

[Lower Nubia]

They already see him as the antichrist, or a potential one anyway.

Not all of us. I'd agree with certain of the more conservative Catholics that his teaching can be a bit confusing/in tension with received tradition, but that's as far as I'd go.

Right-wingish refers to US evangelicals, more so than just a socially conservative Christian.

[Catarapania]

Not all of us. I'd agree with certain of the more conservative Catholics that his teaching can be a bit confusing/in tension with received tradition, but that's as far as I'd go.

Right-wingish refers to US evangelicals, more so than just a socially conservative Christian.

If I had to pick a "denomination" with which I identify, it'd probably be evangelicalism. I attend a Baptist church, largely for its (what I perceive to be) valid moral teaching.

[Lady Victory]

Is the consensus that the original Christian Church was the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox if both used to be of one entity but split at around the same time in 1054 or earlier? Which has the stronger claim to representing the original institution?

The Roman Catholics claim that they have a nearly unbroken line of Popes more or less, originating from Saint Peter (one of Jesus' desciples) in 64 AD up until the present day. While on the other hand, the Eastern Orthodox had the benefit of an original language Bible that didn't require any translation because some of the new testament was written in Greek which was the prevalent language where Antioch was. Whilst the Roman Catholics had to translate from Greek to Latin and got the risk of translation errors.

It's a matter for debate. Catholics obviously believe the RCC is the True Church and Orthodox obviously believe the OCC is the True Church. I believe the OCC has the better claim, myself.

Some other groups claim to be the "original church" as well but almost all of those are either heretics or apostates so their claims have as much weight behind them as claiming to be a Navy SEAL skilled in gorilla warfare with 300 confirmed kills who can kill you in 700 different ways just with your bare hands.

Well, one thing's certain;

Tolkien would have been pretty happy if Lewis became Catholic. As I understand it, Tolkien was a key figure in Lewis's return to Christianity, but when Lewis became Anglican rather than Tolkien's Catholicism they seemed to have fallen out as friends.

While Tolkien was dismayed that Lewis didn't become a Catholic, it didn't play a role in their falling out. They remained close friends for about a decade after Lewis' conversion. IIRC it had more to do with Lewis personality changes after becoming famous and his marriage to his wife whom Tolkien abhorred because she was divorced and an American.

Wow. What's Tolkien got against Americans?

Does anyone have experience with LGBTQ-friendly denominations? I'm looking for ones that walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

Episcopals/Anglicans and I believe Lutherans are the most prominent.

Now that's based....

Too bad some of the more right-wingish Protestant groups will see Francis as a "communist" because he advocated for free healthcare.

Right-wing-ish Protestant here. My only problem with Communism is that it's inherently anti-religious and destroys fundamental social structures such as the family. Free universal healthcare, while not necessarily something I would support, is not inherently anti-religious, nor is it obvious how it would cause (further) damage to the family if implemented. So Francis can say what he wants to on this subject, though I'm not sure he can make it official social teaching. It's certainly prima facie in tension with Pope Pius XI's teaching on Subsidiarity, and that tension would probably need to be resolved before it could become binding on Catholics. Probably. Like I said, I'm a Protestant, so I'm hardly an expert on the subject. Perhaps one of the local Catholics could help clarify things?

I don't recall Communism being anti-family.

[Catarapania]

Right-wing-ish Protestant here. My only problem with Communism is that it's inherently anti-religious and destroys fundamental social structures such as the family. Free universal healthcare, while not necessarily something I would support, is not inherently anti-religious, nor is it obvious how it would cause (further) damage to the family if implemented. So Francis can say what he wants to on this subject, though I'm not sure he can make it official social teaching. It's certainly prima facie in tension with Pope Pius XI's teaching on Subsidiarity, and that tension would probably need to be resolved before it could become binding on Catholics. Probably. Like I said, I'm a Protestant, so I'm hardly an expert on the subject. Perhaps one of the local Catholics could help clarify things?

I don't recall Communism being anti-family.

IIRC, Marxists argue that the family forms the basic unit of consumption in capitalism, and teaches children to accept hierarchy. I could be misremembering/misunderstanding, though.

[Lower Nubia]

Right-wingish refers to US evangelicals, more so than just a socially conservative Christian.

If I had to pick a "denomination" with which I identify, it'd probably be evangelicalism. I attend a Baptist church, largely for its (what I perceive to be) valid moral teaching.

European evangelicalism, or American. One of those is of no credit.