Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Luminesa]

Better not catch you two at the next Angel UFO conference crying about homosexuality or I'm taking pictures.

.... wait.... is there actually an Angel UFO conference?

Get in the robot, Tars.

[Northern Davincia]

Romans 8:29-30 is enough to justify Calvinism.

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

Predestination as the Calvinists understand it is unjust and eliminates human free will. It is a dark heresy that denies the love of God for all mankind.

[The Archregimancy]

How very true; what a pleasing statement.

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen. Your Catholic skills are no match for the power of the Orthodox side.

I want you to know that there is always a place for you with me. Once your training is complete, of course.




I think you'll also find that the deflector shield is still operational.

Where is my purple light-saber when I need it.

[Kowani]

Where is my purple light-saber when I need it.

No general grievous priests! Sad!

[Neanderthaland]

Where is my purple light-saber when I need it.

It's hard to take them seriously when their evil fortress looks like something out of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.

[The Archregimancy]

(Image)

It's hard to take them seriously when their evil fortress looks like something out of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.

[Lost Memories]

Moving away from the mindset of the protestant reformers, the take i have on why the protestant reformation happened at all, or why it picked up, what was the popular appeal, is:

-the protestant reformation happened because some german princes didn't like the idea of having a spanish king as emperor (Charles V, and later the whole lineage of the Habsburg)
Creating their own feudal church would have meant to be more politically independent, from the catholoc church, which in turn means to be independent from the emperor too
That deside of independence did lead to the thirty years war.

-having a local church where the local feudal lord is the head of the church, also meant that no religious figure could tell to the local lord they were acting immorally, since the local lord could just remove and replace any religious figure with people who wouldn't oppose them
See how the government of current time mainland China was very interested in being able to nominate bishops in China, to pick people who were aligned with the so called "chinese communist party"
Secular powers trying to become also moral authorities is something old as time, from the ancient egyptians, to the romans, to the holy roman empire

-the protestant reformation happened because some germans(and other northerners), the populance, didn't like having mass in latin, since latin isn't related to germanic languages, it may have felt to some of them as a foreign religion
The language also played into the idea of foreign political interference
Some germans wanted to have a germanic church, with rites in german, which would have felt less foreign
The appeal of a rite in their own language was maybe for some greater than doctrinal integrity (not like Luther himself said later, "the populance understands nothing of doctrine")

Though, it isn't very clear which rite was actually being used in the Holy Roman Empire, in which language. So the language as motivation could depend if they actually had rites in non-germanic languages or not.

Unrelatedly, there seems to have existed a celtic rite in the past, among others now defunct. The celtic rite seems to have existed in germany only inside few monasteries.

The term "Celtic Rite" is applied to the various liturgical rites used in Celtic Christianity in Britain, Ireland and Brittany and the monasteries founded by St. Columbanus and Saint Catald in France, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy during the early middle ages. The term does not imply homogeneity; the evidence, scanty and fragmentary as it is, is in favour of considerable diversity.

Before the 8th century AD there were several Christian rites in Western Europe. Such diversity of practice was often considered unimportant so long as Rome's primacy was accepted. Gradually the diversity tended to lessen so that by the time of the final fusion in the Carolingian period, the Roman Rite, its Ambrosian variant, and the Hispano-Gallican Mozarabic Rite were practically all that were left.

Without the feudal princes support, and (maybe) the language issue (or nationalism, which manifested over the language), maybe the protestant reformation wouldn't have received as much support as it did. And the protestant reformers would have gone out of history like other heretics before them.
But instead, we got a repeat of Nestorius.

[State of Turelisa]

I just loved when someone would say God damn out of habit and Luke would run down on them and begin brutalizing them while their friends watched and screamed in terror. That shit was hilarious.

Till he runs up on the wrong person. That's a good way to get killed here. That type of Zealotry is toxic.

Zeal without doctrine is like a sword in the hand of a lunatic
John Calvin

[Salus Maior]

Yes, that's true that everyone has the legal right to believe whatever.

We still believe that there are correct and incorrect things to believe while being a Christian, based on scripture, tradition, and precedent.

You don't have to like it, but we're not really going to care either way.

Better not catch you two at the next Angel UFO conference crying about homosexuality or I'm taking pictures.

I’m far more likely to be crying about my college debt and over abundance of projects thank you very much.

[Tarsonis]

Till he runs up on the wrong person. That's a good way to get killed here. That type of Zealotry is toxic.

Zeal without doctrine is like a sword in the hand of a lunatic
John Calvin

even a broken clock is right twice a day

[State of Turelisa]

Zeal without doctrine is like a sword in the hand of a lunatic
John Calvin

even a broken clock is right twice a day

I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels. John Calvin

[Tarsonis]

even a broken clock is right twice a day

I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels. John Calvin

Damn he was both addled minded and had dysentery? Poor guy.

[Lower Nubia]

Moving away from the mindset of the protestant reformers, the take i have on why the protestant reformation happened at all, or why it picked up, what was the popular appeal, is:

-the protestant reformation happened because some german princes didn't like the idea of having a spanish king as emperor (Charles V, and later the whole lineage of the Habsburg)
Creating their own feudal church would have meant to be more politically independent, from the catholoc church, which in turn means to be independent from the emperor too
That deside of independence did lead to the thirty years war.

-having a local church where the local feudal lord is the head of the church, also meant that no religious figure could tell to the local lord they were acting immorally, since the local lord could just remove and replace any religious figure with people who wouldn't oppose them
See how the government of current time mainland China was very interested in being able to nominate bishops in China, to pick people who were aligned with the so called "chinese communist party"
Secular powers trying to become also moral authorities is something old as time, from the ancient egyptians, to the romans, to the holy roman empire

-the protestant reformation happened because some germans(and other northerners), the populance, didn't like having mass in latin, since latin isn't related to germanic languages, it may have felt to some of them as a foreign religion
The language also played into the idea of foreign political interference
Some germans wanted to have a germanic church, with rites in german, which would have felt less foreign
The appeal of a rite in their own language was maybe for some greater than doctrinal integrity (not like Luther himself said later, "the populance understands nothing of doctrine")

Though, it isn't very clear which rite was actually being used in the Holy Roman Empire, in which language. So the language as motivation could depend if they actually had rites in non-germanic languages or not.

Unrelatedly, there seems to have existed a celtic rite in the past, among others now defunct. The celtic rite seems to have existed in germany only inside few monasteries.

The term "Celtic Rite" is applied to the various liturgical rites used in Celtic Christianity in Britain, Ireland and Brittany and the monasteries founded by St. Columbanus and Saint Catald in France, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy during the early middle ages. The term does not imply homogeneity; the evidence, scanty and fragmentary as it is, is in favour of considerable diversity.

Before the 8th century AD there were several Christian rites in Western Europe. Such diversity of practice was often considered unimportant so long as Rome's primacy was accepted. Gradually the diversity tended to lessen so that by the time of the final fusion in the Carolingian period, the Roman Rite, its Ambrosian variant, and the Hispano-Gallican Mozarabic Rite were practically all that were left.

Without the feudal princes support, and (maybe) the language issue (or nationalism, which manifested over the language), maybe the protestant reformation wouldn't have received as much support as it did. And the protestant reformers would have gone out of history like other heretics before them.
But instead, we got a repeat of Nestorius.

I think it’s disingenuous to believe Latin amongst the population was a primary motivating factor, when, for nearly a thousand years, it was the Church’s mother tongue in those regions. Additionally, sermons were still in the local tongues of those regions, so it’s hardly like the Church was utterly foreign. I also find it disingenuous that political expediency is the main reason for princely conversion. When we look at the past, people converted out of genuine Christian and heartfelt faith. Now, nobody denies political motivation as a factor, but as the main factor? No, It ignores the serious nature of this topic during this time period; religion was as integral to society as the harvest, it was not a matter one treated as flippant - to be changed at any opportune moment.

Why must we conclude this? There have been many periods in time when leaving the Church would of been politically tactful, the investiture crises’ is an example, the anti-pope controversies as another. Yet, of course, they didn’t split from the Church at that time permanently, it’s far more likely that corruption in the Catholic Church made the position of Luther resonate with the people and nobility at the time and aligned with what they saw as corruption at the very center of Christ’s bride as a testament to the Catholic Church’s failure as the source of infallibility and dogma. Thus the need for a new authority and an unchanging one.

In John Jewel’s book, an Apology of the Church of England, it’s clear he outlines one defence from the Catholic Church’s corruption compared to the new Church of England as an example of how this alleged heresy (the Church of England) was somehow less corrupt than Rome - which should not be possible if the claims of heresy were true. As, at the time, Rome’s position was that without the Pope, or without the Church, these new Church’s would descend into Anarchy - their Church’s becoming flippant on doctrine, becoming corrupt (ironic), and diseased, which did not occur at the time. (Ironically, the Church of England did become flippant on doctrine, 150-200 years after the Apology, the book has now aged like milk to a modern reader for that fact.)

The rest of the defence is on dismantling Roman infallibility, and procuring a new Church Authority based on something more solid; the two things I list as primary for the reformation; the vast corruption being incompatable, both to Christian attitudes, and the notion of doctrinal authority; if the Pope banged whores and rinsed the poor for gold; why wouldn't he use his authority to accrue more power? Contrary to supremacy being a position of the ancient Church, it was argued, that it was just another step in Roman corruption. The second being the outlook on a new dogmatic authority in and for the Church.

That's all the thinking that's necessary to make this permanent schism and heresy.

[Lost Memories]

Not sure why we need an argument about Luther (and other Protestants) were heretics by the standards of the Catholic Church - they rather obviously were, and I'm saying that as a Lutheran.

I mean there's a reason they were not accepted into Catholic canon, and then a reason why even other Protestants disagreed with Luther as well. Some of what he taught (such as consubstantiation) was liked neither by the Catholic Church nor by other Protestants.

It may look self-evident and plain with an outlook where "truth" is just an "opinion". Basically relativism.

What? I'm saying that people that if people don't agree on major theological points, it should be fairly self-evident they would split from each other. Not sure where relativism comes in that at all.

But where "truth" isn't an opinion, if many didn't agree over a proposition, maybe that proposition did hold little actual truth into it.

Clearly then Christianity (or if you prefer, religion in general) by that same logic itself doesn't hold truth, since many propositions in it can't be agreed /s

You didn't understand any of the two statements.
I mean, it gives the impression that you don't understand how absolute truth is related to observation.

Relativism, is believing that there is no objective truth, and relativism distorts the word "truth" to mean "individual point of view"
The same as you said "by the standards of the Catholic Church" as if it was just an opinion, when as Luminesia pointed out, it wasn't just a matter of opinion, but a matter of truth.
Or that it's possible to have separation over truth, while both parts somehow retain truth, to each their own; while instead if there is separation over Truth, at least one side must have got away from Truth.
I'm saying, the mindset which appears to be expressed in your previous posts, does resemble relativism. (or a lack of conception of absolute truth)

Clearly then Christianity (or if you prefer, religion in general) by that same logic itself doesn't hold truth, since many propositions in it can't be agreed

As much as this reply missed the point, it does apply well to protestantism as a whole.

Over all protestantism worldwide (900 million people, Historical Protestantism with 300–400 million adherents, Modern Protestantism with 400–500 million adherents), the biggest coherent group is Anglicanism with 110 million adherents, which is about the same as the Russian Orthodox Church with 100 million.
But the russian orthodox church supposedly is in communion with the other orthodox churches(total 220 million adherents), Anglicanism is in communion and total agreement with how many other protestant churches(or churches at all) ?
Lutheranism with 70–90 million adherents worldwide, the same, after 500 years it has converted about as many people as they live today in Germany. (Lutherans in Germany are about 20 million as last census, 24.9% of the German population)

But where "truth" isn't an opinion, if many didn't agree over a proposition, maybe that proposition did hold little actual truth into it.

This was about the relation of truth with observation.

I'll make an example to explain:
If a tree is being looked at.
The tree doesn't change, when the angle at which it is being looked at, changes.
The image of the tree in your eyes, isn't equal to the tree itself.

"Truth" isn't the same as the "Image of Truth", image seen from a specific "Point of View".

If multiple people look at the same tree. They will see different things, different images of the tree, because they have different points of view (both different angles of observation, but also different personal perceptions, and different personal focus).
Yet, the tree being looked at is still all the same. There aren't multiple trees, as there are multiple persons looking at it.
Person1: "I see a trunk"
Person2: "I see foliage"
Person3: "I see a leaf"
Person4: "I see roots"
It's all the same tree. By putting together all the individual images of the tree, by taking into consideration from which point of view those images come from, it's possible to define in a more complete way what that tree is, to get closer to the "truth" of that tree.

Person5: "I see lava"
Person6: "I see a boulder"
What are they even looking at? They aren't looking at the tree the others are looking at.
Their observations don't contribute to the Truth of the tree.


to reach truth from observation
the "image of truth" must be filtered by the understanding of one own "point of view"
to be understood, the used "point of view" must be contextualized with many other "point of views" as reference points, to understand where the used point of view is actually located, in which direction is looking at, what it is looking at, how it is looking at it.

All different images and point of views must be coherent and compatible, to allow to improve the understanding of "truth", and they are compatible only when, while different, they all point at the same thing.
As much as the individual images are different, because their points of view are different, they must be about the same thing, their points of view pointing at the same thing, othewise the new unrelated image doesn't add anything valuable to the understanding the truth.

An image and point of view are incompatible, when they don't fit in any way with all the other images and point of views already consolidated.
Or when the new image and point of view, is in direct conflict with other images and points which already found their place in the big picture.
Which makes it clear the new point of view isn't even looking at the same thing, but at something else.

Ultimately "truth" can't be looked at directly, but only by going through each different points of view.
And yet, the image one has of truth will never be complete, there is always much more than what is seen individually.

Relativism discarts "Truth", and once left with only images and points of view, gives to them the ultimate importance, for lack of better.
But it's just anti-intellectualism.


---
Going back to christianity.
Having unity.
Isn't just a matter of "let's all be friends", while that's still very important.
Unity is also about not accepting just an individual opinion of God, but wanting the Truth of God, where the Truth of God is the Message of God
Unity is about having an unified and coherent doctrine, where a coherent doctrine is the necessary tool, to put order to all the images and points of view, which allows to get closer to the Truth of God

---
The protestant reformers really understood very little or nothing at all about absolute truth, and why a coherent doctrine is important to get closer to it.
They just equated their individual images and point of views to the whole truth.
Most of current protestants still continue to do exactly the same, otherwise there wouldn't be hundreds of protestant churches without any coherence between them.

Lutheranism, and later other forms of protestantism, what did they contribute to the understanding of God? What they contributed to the understanding of the Message of God?
What new image or point of view did they bring, which added up, in coherence, to the previous images and points of view, to enrich the human understanding of the Truth of God?
is there anything?

The impression, is that the protestant reformation scrapped everything and tried to re-invent the wheel, while tossing away the cart, the horse, and the car. They lost 1500 years of previous progress, which means they hardly contributed anything, because they have been too busy to catch up. There was more regression than any progress.

I mean there's a reason they were not accepted into Catholic canon, and then a reason why even other Protestants disagreed with Luther as well. Some of what he taught (such as consubstantiation) was liked neither by the Catholic Church nor by other Protestants.

But where "truth" isn't an opinion, if many didn't agree over a proposition, maybe that proposition did hold little actual truth into it.

Meaning, maybe(almost sarcastic, when said from a catholic) some of the ideas of Luther didn't come from looking at God. But from looking at something else.

(same applies to Calvin, and other protestant reformers btw; what were they looking at?)

[Christian Dominions of Theopolis]

I think organised Christianity has come full circle now there are independent churches whose pastors and deacons preach, teach and tend to the welfare of the sick and infirm of the congregation, not for money but for the love of Christ, based on Scripture alone.

[Lower Nubia]

I think organised Christianity has come full circle now there are independent churches whose pastors and deacons preach, teach and tend to the welfare of the sick and infirm of the congregation, not for money but for the love of Christ, based on Scripture alone.

Is this the same independence that produced the prosperity gospel?

[Salus Maior]

I think organised Christianity has come full circle now there are independent churches whose pastors and deacons preach, teach and tend to the welfare of the sick and infirm of the congregation, not for money but for the love of Christ, based on Scripture alone.

There are independent churches who are literally based on the premise of gathering wealth. In fact, these sorts are some of the largest congregations.

See: Prosperity Gospel.

I'm not going to say that the Apostolic Church is perfect, but really, decentralized, sola scriptura churches still run into the same problems.

[Northern Davincia]

I think organised Christianity has come full circle now there are independent churches whose pastors and deacons preach, teach and tend to the welfare of the sick and infirm of the congregation, not for money but for the love of Christ, based on Scripture alone.

Scripture alone is still heresy. Ask yourself: who compiled scripture?

[Lower Nubia]

I think organised Christianity has come full circle now there are independent churches whose pastors and deacons preach, teach and tend to the welfare of the sick and infirm of the congregation, not for money but for the love of Christ, based on Scripture alone.

Scripture alone is still heresy. Ask yourself: who compiled scripture?

Let's not totally swamp the new guy.

[Punished UMN]

It's hard to take them seriously when their evil fortress looks like something out of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.

[Kowani]

Did you ever hear the Tale of Darth Arius the wise?

[Camelone]

Salutations everyone. I was wondering if anyone had any easy to digest resources on the classical Thomistic teaching on predestination? I've been watching some of the Thomistic Institute videos online an been trying to work my way through my Aquinas Reader but I'm thoroughly confused.

[Lower Nubia]

Did you ever hear the Tale of Darth Arius the wise?

Father Christmas Intensifies

[Lost Memories]

@Lower Nubia
Yeah, the "linguistic motivation" is only an impression, something less of an hypothesis.
If i had seen some direct reference of it, i would have reported them.

I also find it disingenuous that political expediency is the main reason for princely conversion. When we look at the past, people converted out of genuine Christian and heartfelt faith.

Like the Hussites in Bohemia? Yeah, i don't buy it. There was a political drive. (the focus on "main" is misplaced, it isn't about main or lesser, but what supported the movement past the obvious normal outcome of separatist movements)
No different from how Nestorious was welcomed by the Church of the East in the neo-Persian empire, which was in rivality with the Roman empire, from which Nestorious had been banned.

Why must we conclude this? There have been many periods in time when leaving the Church would of been politicaly tactful, the investiture crises’ is an example, the anti-pope controversies.

It's a matter of occasion.
Luther and others, before and after, starting their own movement isn't something new either, nor unique, all previous movements eventually labelled as heretical did the same. They started from some founder, they found their niche of first supporters, then grew wider.
That is a separate matter from what supported those movements past the critical point where: either they lose steam into irrelevancy, or get crushed by other forces. (not only the catholic church on heretics, the muslims and the Ming dynasty did a number on the Church of the East)

Luther created the occasion, to be acted on. In a time where the desire to act on any opportunity was getting higher.

the Church of England was somehow less corrupt than Rome

That's laughable. Did that book also mention how the "Supreme Head of the Church of England", King Henry VIII introduced the witch hunts with the Witchcraft Act 1542?
(Church of England, Separated from: Roman Catholic Church (1534) )
(Jewel's Apologia ecclesiae Anglicanae (the Apology of the Anglican Church), published in 1562; as references)

Rome’s position that without the Pope, these Church’s would descend into Anarchy
Ironically, the Church of England did become flippant on doctrine, 150-200 years after the Apology, the book has now aged like milk to a modern reader for that fact.

Have you looked at how many different protestant "brands" exist, lately?
If it isn't clear, that division is the anarchy which was talked about, no one said it'll happen the next day. But if you are a church with the mandate to be eternal until the end of the world, disintegrating after some decades or even some centuries, still counts as a failure.

The Anglican church maintained the most integrity among all protestantism, which isn't surprising when you consider the genesis of it, compared to other protestant churches. They are nothing alike. The Church of England didn't rewrite itself, nor did it trash all of its structure, right from the start.

To make a metaphor:
Whereas the protestant churches, like the ones of Luther, did move out of the catholic house and built a dirt house with sticks in the courtyard. A fuckton of little shacks in the courtyard.
The Church of England instead did isolate itself in their own room, and locked the door.
The quality of life of the buildings they reside in, is quite different between the two.

Man, i'm liking a lot that allegory, i'll call it the christian village.

[Luminesa]

It's hard to take them seriously when their evil fortress looks like something out of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.

St. Basil’s is powerful, don’t underestimate it. (Unless you were talking about another church, most Orthodox churches are very colorful and pretty.)