Christian Discussion Thread III

[Distruzio]

In fact, ironically, it was under the Ottoman Empire that the Patriarch of Constantinople was given the greatest amount of power within the Orthodox Church.

During Byzantine times the Patriarch of Constantinople was certainly the de facto leader of the Church within the Empire, but remember that, after the Muslim conquests of the 7th century, the Byzantine Empire spent the next 800 years with its territory limited to the present-day countries of Turkey, Greece, and the Balkan states - lands that were supposed to be under the Patriarch of Constantinople anyway. The canonical territories of the patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria were outside the Byzantine Empire from the 7th century onward.

The dominant ecclesiastical role of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Byzantine Empire was not the result of elevating the status of this patriarch, but rather the result of the fact that the Empire lost the territories that were under the jurisdiction of the other patriarchs.

It was only with the Ottoman conquests that Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria were once again ruled by the same state as Constantinople, for the first time in 800 years.

I have a quick question. What are your thoughts on Marxism? I know that there are many religious communists, but Karl Marx seemed to propose an irreligious version of the same.

If I may interject with my own opinion...

That is to say that I don't see the two as inclusive - marxism and Christianity.

[Constantinopolis]

I have a quick question. What are your thoughts on Marxism? I know that there are many religious communists, but Karl Marx seemed to propose an irreligious version of the same.

If I may interject with my own opinion...

That is to say that I don't see the two as inclusive - marxism and Christianity.

Hahaha, oh man, that was a hilarious read - basically you count instances of Jesus being nice as "libertarian", because obviously the pro-state side is all about being cruel and mean, so anyone who isn't like that must be anti-state. You also try to draw earthly political conclusions from a parable that is about the kingdom of heaven.

Suffice it to say... no, that is not how this works. At all.

However - and this is also in response to Lalaki - I would love to share my opinions on Marxism and Christianity, but I'm not sure this is the right thread to do it. It seems like it would take us very much off-topic. Maybe I could start another thread about it...

For the moment, I will just say that although Karl Marx (the person) was certainly irreligious and proposed an irreligious version of communism, Marxism - which is a political worldview and approach to the study of human society - is very much compatible with religion. I am a Marxist myself, which is to say that I believe human history is driven by class struggle, property owners exploit the working classes, and so on. The most fundamental element of being a Marxist is deciding to take the side of the poor and the workers in every dispute or conflict. I see this as being completely in line with the teachings of Jesus and Christianity.

[Islamic republiq of Julundar]

.... ummm.... no one has argued that Vatican II applies to anyone but the Roman Catholics.

I'm not sure what you're ranting about.

He's saying since the church is divided. It can't be called ecumenical since it only applies only to Catholics and not Anglicans, Orthodox, Protestants, etc.

Yes, I was ranting that.

Does ninja'ed apply?

[Distruzio]

If I may interject with my own opinion...

That is to say that I don't see the two as inclusive - marxism and Christianity.

Hahaha, oh man, that was a hilarious read - basically you count instances of Jesus being nice as "libertarian", because obviously the pro-state side is all about being cruel and mean, so anyone who isn't like that must be anti-state. You also try to draw earthly political conclusions from a parable that is about the kingdom of heaven.

Suffice it to say... no, that is not how this works. At all.

Lol. Indeed. I was having a go at the bibliolators among us. It was quite fun to write.

[The Flood]

.... ummm.... no one has argued that Vatican II applies to anyone but the Roman Catholics.
I'm not sure what you're ranting about.

He's saying since the church is divided. It can't be called ecumenical since it only applies only to Catholics and not Anglicans, Orthodox, Protestants, etc.

I would argue an ecumenical council could be held without the Protestants.

[Distruzio]

He's saying since the church is divided. It can't be called ecumenical since it only applies only to Catholics and not Anglicans, Orthodox, Protestants, etc.

I would argue an ecumenical council could be held without the Protestants.

Same here. But we all know why.

[The Flood]

I would argue an ecumenical council could be held without the Protestants.

Same here. But we all know why.

Well, they aren't part of the Church. That's the whole reason they broke off, because they didn't want to be part of the Church.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You keep saying that, and under current culture yes. But the Orthodox was not always the same. It is impossible to deny that the Byzantine Empire influenced the Orthodox Church greatly,placing Constantinople as a defacto leader of the Orthodox Church.

And the Russian Orthodox Church? Did they not take up the role of "leader" when Constantinople fell to the muslims?

The Czar did indead. Guess that makes Putin head of the Orthodox Church.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You keep saying that, and under current culture yes. But the Orthodox was not always the same. It is impossible to deny that the Byzantine Empire influenced the Orthodox Church greatly,placing Constantinople as a defacto leader of the Orthodox Church.


I

Not even then. Now I'm not gonna deny that the Byzantine Empire influenced the Orthodox Church. That's like historical heresy. But after all, it was Rome that was the primus inter pares. At least when the west and east were united. But another thing that I didn't like about the article was that it claimed that Orthodoxy kept splintering into nationalistic churches. They're simply jurisdictional lines based on the culture of the people

A. You forget lines on a map get redrawn all the time. And B. You're missing the forest for the trees.

Also, yes even then. Historically after the offense of 1054, Cerularious broke with the Church and declared himself Ecumenical Patriarch. While doctrinally now it is a Primus inter Pares, back then the Patriarch weilded wide oversight supported by Emperor. It's history, not doctrine.

[Dangelia]

Not even then. Now I'm not gonna deny that the Byzantine Empire influenced the Orthodox Church. That's like historical heresy. But after all, it was Rome that was the primus inter pares. At least when the west and east were united. But another thing that I didn't like about the article was that it claimed that Orthodoxy kept splintering into nationalistic churches. They're simply jurisdictional lines based on the culture of the people

A. You forget lines on a map get redrawn all the time. And B. You're missing the forest for the trees.

Also, yes even then. Historically after the offense of 1054, Cerularious broke with the Church and declared himself Ecumenical Patriarch. While doctrinally now it is a Primus inter Pares, back then the Patriarch weilded wide oversight supported by Emperor. It's history, not doctrine.

What are you talking about, the Patriarch of Constantinople has been called Ecumenical Patriarch since the sixth century.

[Constantinopolis]

Historically after the offense of 1054, Cerularious broke with the Church and declared himself Ecumenical Patriarch.

Incorrect. The word "Ecumenical" was added to the title of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the 6th century, under Patriarch John IV. This caused a conflict with the Pope of Rome, in which the Pope rightfully argued that no bishop has universal authority and the Patriarch of Constantinople should not use a title that can be taken to imply he has such authority. The Orthodox believe that the Pope was largely correct and the Patriarch was largely wrong about this (and indeed, we love to use the writings of Pope Gregory I against the doctrine of papal supremacy itself), but we have come to accept the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" after it was clearly defined as NOT representing a claim to supremacy or universal jurisdiction.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The ability of you two to simply misunderstand what I'm saying is so frustratingly incredible. I never said Cerularius invented the fucking word.
Lord in heaven, it's almost as if you purposefully convolute a discussion to avoid being wrong.

[Constantinopolis]

The ability of you two to simply misunderstand what I'm saying is so frustratingly incredible. I never said Cerularius invented the fucking word.
Lord in heaven, it's almost as if you purposefully convolute a discussion to avoid being wrong.

Um... but you said he "declared himself Ecumenical Patriarch", which he didn't, because he and his predecessors had been using that title for over 400 years at that point.

Honestly, I'm not trying to do anything other than be precise about historical events. I apologize if it looks like misunderstanding your words or obfuscating things. Maybe I am misunderstanding your points.

[Dangelia]

The ability of you two to simply misunderstand what I'm saying is so frustratingly incredible. I never said Cerularius invented the fucking word.
Lord in heaven, it's almost as if you purposefully convolute a discussion to avoid being wrong.

Um... but you said he "declared himself Ecumenical Patriarch", which he didn't, because he and his predecessors had been using that title for over 400 years at that point.

Honestly, I'm not trying to do anything other than be precise about historical events. I apologize if it looks like misunderstanding your words or obfuscating things. Maybe I am misunderstanding your points.

^ abada bing.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The ability of you two to simply misunderstand what I'm saying is so frustratingly incredible. I never said Cerularius invented the fucking word.
Lord in heaven, it's almost as if you purposefully convolute a discussion to avoid being wrong.

Um... but you said he "declared himself Ecumenical Patriarch", which he didn't, because he and his predecessors had been using that title for over 400 years at that point.

Honestly, I'm not trying to do anything other than be precise about historical events. I apologize if it looks like misunderstanding your words or obfuscating things. Maybe I am misunderstanding your points.

It's not a hard concept. To declair oneself means the same as to appoint onesel. If I declair myself Pope, I'm not inventing a new position.

[Constantinopolis]

Um... but you said he "declared himself Ecumenical Patriarch", which he didn't, because he and his predecessors had been using that title for over 400 years at that point.

Honestly, I'm not trying to do anything other than be precise about historical events. I apologize if it looks like misunderstanding your words or obfuscating things. Maybe I am misunderstanding your points.

It's not a hard concept. To declair oneself means the same as to appoint onesel. If I declair myself Pope, I'm not inventing a new position.

Ok, so you were saying that Michael Cerularius appointed himself Patriarch of Constantinople after 1054? But... that's also not true. He had been Patriarch of Constantinople since 1043.

[Dangelia]

It's not a hard concept. To declair oneself means the same as to appoint onesel. If I declair myself Pope, I'm not inventing a new position.

Ok, so you were saying that Michael Cerularius appointed himself Patriarch of Constantinople after 1054? But... that's also not true. He had been Patriarch of Constantinople since 1043.

Constantinopolis, I'm thinking the exact same thing as you are. It's a bit frightening!

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It's not a hard concept. To declair oneself means the same as to appoint onesel. If I declair myself Pope, I'm not inventing a new position.

Ok, so you were saying that Michael Cerularius appointed himself Patriarch of Constantinople after 1054? But... that's also not true. He had been Patriarch of Constantinople since 1043.

No, the Romans of the time would consider the Pope to be the Ecumenical Patriarch,in function, rejecting Chalcedon's elevation of Constantinople. Rome in their eyes was the center and mother of Churches, and they Rejected Cerularian this tittle. He broke with them and gave it to himself, from the Roman perspective.

[The Flood]

The ability of you two to simply misunderstand what I'm saying is so frustratingly incredible. I never said Cerularius invented the fucking word.
Lord in heaven, it's almost as if you purposefully convolute a discussion to avoid being wrong.

Using the Lord's name in vain, tsk tsk.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The ability of you two to simply misunderstand what I'm saying is so frustratingly incredible. I never said Cerularius invented the fucking word.
Lord in heaven, it's almost as if you purposefully convolute a discussion to avoid being wrong.

Using the Lord's name in vain, tsk tsk.

[Constantinopolis]

Ok, so you were saying that Michael Cerularius appointed himself Patriarch of Constantinople after 1054? But... that's also not true. He had been Patriarch of Constantinople since 1043.

No, the Romans of the time would consider the Pope to be the Ecumenical Patriarch,in function, rejecting Chalcedon's elevation of Constantinople. Rome in their eyes was the center and mother of Churches, and they Rejected Cerularian this tittle. He broke with them and gave it to himself, from the Roman perspective.

Well, I guess I see what you mean now - you mean the fact that the Patriarch of Constantinople became the most-honoured patriarch in the Orthodox Church after the split with Rome (having previously been recognized as second after Rome), and, from the Roman perspective, this can be interpreted as Michael Cerularius breaking with Rome in order to elevate himself.

But what I am saying is that the title of "Ecumenical Patriarch", itself, has nothing to do with any of this. It was a title without any clear definition that the Patriarchs of Constantinople began using in the 6th century, it caused some controversy because it basically means "universal patriarch", and then - in the 7th century, long before the Great Schism - the dispute was resolved by allowing the Patriarchs of Constantinople to continue calling themselves "Ecumenical Patriarchs" while having it generally understood that it's just a fancy title which means nothing at all.

I mean, you know, the full title of the Patriarch/Pope of Alexandria includes the rather outrageous words "Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Prelate of Prelates, thirteenth of the Apostles, and Judge of the Œcumene". But that's just fluff - no one pays any attention to those titles and they basically mean nothing.

[Constantinopolis]

Constantinopolis, I'm thinking the exact same thing as you are. It's a bit frightening!

Be careful with that - keep thinking the same as me and you might wake up one day being a communist!

[The Flood]

Constantinopolis, I'm thinking the exact same thing as you are. It's a bit frightening!

Be careful with that - keep thinking the same as me and you might wake up one day being a communist!

But communism is anti religion!

[Constantinopolis]

Be careful with that - keep thinking the same as me and you might wake up one day being a communist!

But communism is anti religion!

No, it isn't. Individual communists may be (and, historically, it's probably a safe guess that a majority of them have been), but communism as a form of social and economic organization is neither pro- nor anti-religion. After all, the early Church in Jerusalem after Pentecost was organized along communist lines.

The hostility between communism and religion in modern times is basically due to hostility between 19th century European revolutionaries and the established state churches of the time, whose clergy often supported the governments those revolutionaries opposed. It is a historical accident and there is no reason for it to continue in the present day. At this point, the only reason communists and religious people have for opposing each other is "because that's what our ancestors did."

[The Flood]

But communism is anti religion!

No, it isn't. Individual communists may be (and, historically, it's probably a safe guess that a majority of them have been), but communism as a form of social and economic organization is neither pro- nor anti-religion. After all, the early Church in Jerusalem after Pentecost was organized along communist lines.

The hostility between communism and religion in modern times is basically due to hostility between 19th century European revolutionaries and the established state churches of the time, whose clergy often supported the governments those revolutionaries opposed. It is a historical accident and there is no reason for it to continue in the present day. At this point, the only reason communists and religious people have for opposing each other is "because that's what our ancestors did."

But Marx, the creator of communism, said that religion and communism could not exist together, didn't he? Or am I mistaken in saying that he created communism?

And I can't speak for the Orthodox Church, but I know the Catholic Church is firmly anti-communism, and if I had to guess, I would guess that the Orthodox Church felt the same way.