/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>3329

>answers you may

May offer.

>>3329

>From the book, it seemed that Catholics just made it up

The Church can declare something dogma at any time.

>Why is the filioque important at all?

Because it is dogma. One cannot cherrypick which are true and which not.

>mainly that Rome's bishop was also a military commander while all other bishops were just bishops, and thus, the future Pope was more akin to a political leader than a religious one

Many bishops were worldly lords and military commanders and soldiers themselve. This was a common practice until the crime of the French revolution happened.

>What are those parameters?

I'm not well read on this one and prefer not to say something before I say something wrong.

>>3331

>The Church can declare something dogma at any time.

>The Church

Which one, though. The Church was all the bishops at the time, before schism.

>Because it is dogma. One cannot cherrypick which are true and which not.

That doesn't answer my question. My question is what difference does it make for a Christian whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or from the Father and the Son. That's the question.

>One cannot cherrypick which are true and which not.

Same with questions: you can't cherrypick what it asks for. If you don't actually know why it matters, say so.

>Many bishops were worldly lords and military commanders and soldiers themselve.

I'm talking about the pre-schism Church. Which bishops were military commanders beside the bishop of Rome?

>>3333

>Which one, though

There is only one.

>That doesn't answer my question. My question is what difference does it make for a Christian whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or from the Father and the Son. That's the question.

>>3331

>I'm not well read on this one and prefer not to say something before I say something wrong.

Being dogma should be enough.

>If you don't actually know why it matters, say so.

>>3331

>I'm not well read on this one and prefer not to say something before I say something wrong.

>I'm talking about the pre-schism Church. Which bishops were military commanders beside the bishop of Rome?

Local bishops were usually Vassals of their feudal overlord and had to support him in war and provide soldiers and goods.

The first one that came to my mind:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancelier_%28Empire_carolingien%29

It was the Franks who started this in general

>>3334

>The first one that came to my mind:

inb4 archchencellor is no military leader

>>3334

>There is only one.

Before the schism between what would become the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, there was only one, now there are two, and more.

I understand that in your opinion and belief, the Catholic Church is the only legitimate Church. Trust me, I understand that. You can stop hammering on that one as it is very clear to me that this is what you think is true.

The part you don't seem to understand is that every Church has people who speak the same way you do, to whom only their Church is the Church.

I'm not here to decide which Church is the true Church, as I hope you have noticed. I'm here to understand why you think what you think, and why they think what they think.

If you insist on steering this conversation to why the Catholic Church is the only true Church, sure, but that's not my chosen topic here.

The Orthodox Church also has dogmas and thinks the same about dogmas, just they're different dogmas. I understand that this is a no-brainer to you: "The Catholic Church is always right about dogmas" and anything that varies from it is by definition wrong. I understand, but that's not my question. I'm not asking what your personal beliefs are.

To get back to the actual question of "which one", I mean which bishop was allowed to state new dogmas. You answer that the bishop of Rome is the one, but you don't explain why. Back then, all bishops were political equal; the bishop of Rome being merely the first and most important, but not above any of the other bishops in Christianity. If you mean to tell me he was somehow above everyone else, you need to explain how and why, not just tell me what your personal preference is.

>>3334

>Being dogma should be enough.

Considering not all dogmas are valid today, you might want to reconsider taking them at face value without reason. God doesn't work foolishly and all He does has a reason.

>>3334

>Local bishops were usually Vassals of their feudal overlord and had to support him in war and provide soldiers and goods.

Again, this does not answer my question. I asked you which bishops were military commanders, apart from the bishop of Rome. I'm talking, of course, about bishops that were thenceforth considered "Orthodox". Being a vassal to an overlord is radically different from being a military commander such as the Pope was. Vassals don't get to choose much.

If you can't answer, that's fine, but say so, don't give me an answer to something I've never asked.

Your link is about someone under the bishop of Rome. I don't think you understand what I'm asking you at all. This person is also from several centuries before the schism.

For clarity, I'm asking you about a military commander from after the Great Schism, a bishop, from any of the Orthodox cities, since my point was that the bishop of Rome was a military leader while none of the other bishops (Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc) were and none had anything comparable in terms of military force, if any at all.

>The church can decide on something that must be taken as truth no matter what. Believe without question.

I warned you guys about dogma, I warned you.

>>3339

Dogmas, to sophisticated minds, are an admission of weakness. They are because they admit ignorance, basically. Most dogmas are about things we can't prove either way, which is why they're safe to state.

Dogmas which no longer fit to this are never mentioned. The Catholic Church has a long list of them but I would be surprised if even the most rigid Catholic here believed in all of them.

Either way, things that are obviously true to all don't need to be stated as dogmas.

There is also a huge, and interesting, difference, between the parables of Christ, which press you to look further, deeper, and understand spiritually, and the lists of to-do's and not-to-do's that subsequent Christians came up with. Very reminiscent of Old Testament practices.

>>3336

>Before the schism between what would become the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, there was only one, now there are two, and more.

Implying the great schism was the first schism.

>If you insist on steering this conversation to why the Catholic Church is the only true Church, sure, but that's not my chosen topic here.

I am steering? You asked which one and I answered. Simple as that.

>The Orthodox Church also has dogmas and thinks the same about dogmas, just they're different dogmas.

In fact the Orthodox have a very special relation to dogma in general and reject any new ones.

> I'm not asking what your personal beliefs are.

Then I might as well leave.

>You answer that the bishop of Rome is the one, but you don't explain why.

The Church as a whole can declare dogma and the bishop of Rome is her representative.

>Back then, all bishops were political equal;

>the bishop of Rome being merely the first and most important

Nice equality.

> you need to explain how and why

But if I did I would "steer"this conversation somewhere where it is not meant to go.

>>3337

I do not have the capacity to inspect all dogmas.

>>3338

>Being a vassal to an overlord is radically different from being a military commander such as the Pope was. Vassals don't get to choose much.

>not understanding feudalism

>If you can't answer, that's fine, but say so, don't give me an answer to something I've never asked.

I give you an answer to something you asked.

>Your link is about someone under the bishop of Rome

It's hard to find bishops not under him after all ;^)

> This person is also from several centuries before the schism.

Yes? You claimed that only the bishop of rome was involved in military leadership. Which is not true.

> I don't think you understand what I'm asking you at all.

True. I have no idea what you want but I have the feeling that you also have no idea what you want

>For clarity, I'm asking you about a military commander from after the Great Schism, a bishop, from any of the Orthodox cities

There will obviously be none because they were servants of the Greek Emperor either, or subjugated by Saracens. There was just no possiblity for an independent apostolic there to even exist because they were not free.

>>3339

This is not how dogma works.

>no matter what

Only in matters of faith and morals and only under specific circumstances.

>>3339

I had to open this in a new tab to see what it even was (the fedora). Using the night layout here.

If you're really an atheist, I welcome you to this board and hope you enjoy yourself.

>>3341

>Implying the great schism was the first schism.

It is the schism I am talking about, though. I don't see what difference it makes if there have been others before.

>I am steering? You asked which one and I answered. Simple as that.

I'm asking, for instance, what difference it makes for the common Christian whether the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father alone or from both the Father and the Son, and you never answered that. Saying that the Catholic Church is the only one which can state new dogmas does not answer my question either, as you haven't explained why it's the only one.

>In fact the Orthodox have a very special relation to dogma in general and reject any new ones.

Such as the filioque. When was the last time the Catholic Church accepted a new dogma, out of curiosity?

>Then I might as well leave.

I'm sorry if you thought this thread was about you.

>The Church as a whole can declare dogma and the bishop of Rome is her representative.

Fine, but you still haven't explained why the bishop of Rome gets this privilege when other bishops don't (apart from having military power and being more akin to a state than all other Churches).

>Nice equality.

I am only giving you the definition the bishops themselves had prior to the schism, in case you missed that. All bishops functioned the way they currently do in Orthodoxy: all bishops are equal, none has more weight than any others. The bishop of Rome was merely the bishop of Rome the same way the bishop of Antioch was just the bishop of Antioch. All dogmas were to be agreed on by all bishops equally, and not one of them could override any of the others; this is why they stated what I restated: the bishop of Rome was considered the first and most important, but having no especial powers over the other bishops. Then the bishop of Rome decided otherwise and I am not currently aware of the reasons for this change.

This is why Ortodox view Catholics as heretics (and Protestants along with them, which are seen as crypto-papists now, or Catholics 2.0).

>But if I did I would "steer"this conversation somewhere where it is not meant to go.

If I asked you about it, I guess that's where the conversation is meant to go. It is only when you answer something I haven't asked you that the conversation goes somewhere where it isn't meant to go.

I'm not against digressions in general, I just have little interest in being told, without any reason or argument, why you are correct and beyond error. It does nothing for me or anybody else. If you tell me the Catholic Church is correct because A and B and C, then there's something to think about, but if you tell me the CC is correct just because it's the CC, I learn nothing new.

>not understanding feudalism

A vassal does not have the military power that many Popes had back then. If you have the name of an Orthodox bishop who had military power, I'm all ears.

>I give you an answer to something you asked.

I have shown that you frequently did not.

>It's hard to find bishops not under him after all ;^)

If you mean by that that no Orthodox bishop counts as one, sure. I'll assume you don't actually know of one that fits my description.

>Yes? You claimed that only the bishop of rome was involved in military leadership. Which is not true.

With regards to Orthodox bishops, yes. At this point I'm thinking you don't have a clear image of the Church before the schism and don't understand what I'm asking or why.

I'll simplify: before the schism, each important city in Christianity is a "church" and is led by one bishop. A bishop is then the leader of all the Christians in a city. Those cities weren't many: Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Cyprus, etc. Each has a bishop, and bishops together decide of dogmatic issues and such. They're all equal in religious matters and the bishop of Rome is an equal to all other bishops, at this point.

I have said before that the filioque wasn't the reason for the schism, but a symptom of it, and that, likely, actual reasons for the schism have to do with the fact that the bishop of Rome was more of a military leader and state ruler than any of the other bishops, who lived under the rule of someone else. The mix of religion and politics happened in Rome but not necessarily and not to that degree in the other cities. None of the other bishops, if I am not mistaken, had armies at his dispositions, nor did any have much to say about the laws of the land where they lived, unlike the bishop of Rome.

This difference, in my opinion, is part of why the schism happened.

>>3341

>True. I have no idea what you want but I have the feeling that you also have no idea what you want

Wrong feeling. What I want is specifically what I asked in my opening post. I have also reitirated what my questions were actually about several times in the course of this thread.

>an orthodox bishop who had military power, to see whether my assumption was wrong

>assumption being that the bishop of Rome's military power had much to do with the schism happening

It's clear to me.

>I do not have the capacity to inspect all dogmas.

You do, they're online. I can post them here if you want.

>There will obviously be none because they were servants of the Greek Emperor either, or subjugated by Saracens.

Then I was correct. I don't understand why we couldn't get to that earlier.

>Only in matters of faith and morals and only under specific circumstances.

Plenty of dogmas have nothing to do with faith or morals.

>>3343

>I'm sorry if you thought this thread was about you.

I am sorry if you thought that I cannot choose with whom I am willing to lead a conversation under which circumstances.

>>3346

>I am sorry if you thought that I cannot choose with whom I am willing to lead a conversation under which circumstances.

I never thought that, nor do I see why such a thought should ever occur to me. The thread is about the filioque and why the Great Schism happened. This is a topic that can be discussed by two atheist historians and personal faith need not be resorted to, though it isn't unwelcome either.

All I'm saying is that telling me you're personally persuaded that your choice is the only true choice does not help me or anyone else in understand the schism or even why you think your Church is the only legitimate Church.

You can take the conversation to other places if you want - I don't mind - but if you choose to do that, do it in a way that is productive and teaches us something. Short of that, you're just stating things that are true for you but not necessarily for anyone else.

If I told you I really liked cheeseburgers, it wouldn't do much for you at all. If I explained why, you might learn something (and even then it may not be very interesting to you). Same thing here.

That said, to suggest I am not aware of your ability to leave or stop talking at any point is out of nowhere. I didn't even hint at it.

>>3348

>All I'm saying is that telling me you're personally persuaded that your choice is the only true choice does not help me or anyone else in understand the schism or even why you think your Church is the only legitimate Church.

You ask questions - I may answer them. If I do not provide a reasoning which is not necessary for an answer to be an answer you may ask me for one and I will usually deliver it.

>That said, to suggest I am not aware of your ability to leave or stop talking at any point is out of nowhere. I didn't even hint at it.

One can easily get the idea that you expect me to answer to you regardless of the way you are talking to me from above

>>3352

>the way you are talking to me

I am talking to you politely and with respect and patience. I have re-asked my questions several times to ease your understanding of them and I have even provided lengthy context to help you understand where my questions came from.

I expect you to do whatever you see fit, but I don't think I've done you any wrong. If you think otherwise, feel free to point out where I have been disrespectful and I'll see what I can do.

>>3331

>The Church can declare something dogma at any time.

I wasn't sure about that one, and Catholic sources indicate it's not actually possible:

"In answering these questions, the Church facilitates the development or maturing of doctrines. The Blessed Virgin Mary models this process of coming to an ever deeper understanding of God’s revelation: "But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart" (Luke 2:19). It’s important to understand that the Church does not, indeed cannot, change the doctrines God has given it, nor can it "invent" new ones and add them to the deposit of faith that has been "once for all delivered to the saints." New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up. "

From www.catholic.com

I guess it's a question of what's a "new" dogma and what counts as "clearing up". I guess that's exactly the problem with the filioque: Catholics see it as a clearing up and Orthodox see it as a new dogma. I guess, also, that "new dogma" is an oxymoron.

Just curious about your opinion on this.

>>3355

>New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up. "

From this, my next question is how is the filioque a clearing up of dogma?

Is it based on the scripture that says the Son pre-existed creation? I'm only guessing here, but that'd be a very valid argument for it, as it would make it a clearing up of doctrine and not a new dogma such as the Orthodox would reject.

If this is it, my next question would be this: why wasn't it possible for the Orthodox to understand this enhanced understand of dogma? Was it explained to them? Did they participate to the discussion on that topic?

I don't possess the knowledge to say why this didn't happen.

And that's where my question about the importance of the filioque to the common Christian matters, because it if holds no great importance for the daily life of a Christian, then how come it mattered so much and how come Orthodox can't get over it?

I guess I answered myself previously with the state/army leadership of the bishop of Rome which other bishops didn't have. The filioque being simply a symptom of them.

If any Orthodox happens to read this, your input is most welcome, like anyone's.

>>3353

>>3331

>me answering to my best ability

>>3333

>rude

>>3336

> You can stop hammering on that one

Answer to me answering one of your questions.

> I'm not asking what your personal beliefs are.

Rude

>>3337

>essentially calling me a fool

>>3340

>calling me weak and ignorant

>>3343

>I'm sorry if you thought this thread was about you.

rude^2

>>3345

>Then I was correct. I don't understand why we couldn't get to that earlier.

arrogantly belecturing me from above

No thanks.

>>3355

Of course she cannot change dogma or change the god-given law. Dogma also does not evolve.

>>3356

> then how come it mattered so much and how come Orthodox can't get over it?

Because you cannot just ignore hierarchies not even on "unimportant" matters. That'd make them obsolete.

>I guess I answered myself previously with the state/army leadership of the bishop of Rome which other bishops didn't have. The filioque being simply a symptom of them.

Yes it was better for the Greek emperor and other local lords when their Church was 100% under their controll and had no influence from Rome. Same was true for protestantism and princes converting. Orthodox Churches have been devalued to a tool of state politics back then and still are.

>>3357

>You can stop hammering on that one

In my impression, you were needlessly insisting on something that was not relevant to the question, hence the term "hammering."

Whether you personally believe one thing or another is not relevant to the question I had asked; after you mentioned your personal faith as a reason a few times, I considered it "insisting needlessly", which I termed as "hammering".

>essentially calling me a fool

I did not call you a fool. I said not all dogmas are valid today which is why one cannot just take them at face value.

>calling me weak and ignorant

That post was addressed to the atheist, not you. It's my opinion and analysis of dogma in general. It's not targeted at you. It's not about you at all, in fact.

>>I'm sorry if you thought this thread was about you.

>rude^2

It's not rude, but it is true you have a tendency to think everything I say is personal and about you personally, see your previous complaint. If I say your personal faith is irrelevant for the topic at hand, it's not a personal attack and it's not about you either. It's just true, since two atheist historians could have this conversation too.

That's all I meant. I didn't mean to offend you personally. For the record, my personal faith is irrelevant to this conversation as well.

>Then I was correct. I don't understand why we couldn't get to that earlier.

>arrogantly belecturing me from above

I don't see how that's arrogant. You said it was obvious that no bishop would have military power given the circumstances. I simply didn't understand why, if it was this obvious, we couldn't have reached this conclusion before. It's basically what I stated first, which you seemed to disagree with, but it turned out you understood something else, and we cleared up it for the better part of this thread. Pardon me if I am surprised when I am told that the very thing I have been arguing for many posts is an evidence to you now but wasn't then.

>Of course she cannot change dogma or change the god-given law. Dogma also does not evolve.

But you said at the beginning of this thread that the Church could make new ones. If something is added to a dogma, is that not evolving, though? If you have any examples I'd love to hear them.

>>3358

I have to go buy bread and stuff. I'll pick it up from there when I come back. Feel free to continue the thread without me, I'll read diligently.

>>3341

What is your definition of dogma then? As far as I can tell dogma is the insistence that something is true despite contrasting evidence and isn't open for debate. An example might be the Catholic dogma that a literal Adam and Eve existed as the precursor to modern humanity and that we didn't just evolve from animals. Despite the fact that such a position isn't supported by evidence and in fact runs counter to it.

>>3342

Thanks, I post on this board a fair bit. I don't normally engage in drive by shitposting but I didn't feel like expending the effort. I'll try not to derail the thread too much from your original question, which I don't have too much knowledge of.

>>3362

>What is your definition of dogma then? As far as I can tell dogma is the insistence that something is true despite contrasting evidence and isn't open for debate.

I'm not him but I'll answer that in the meantime.

Dogmas typically have to do with things you can't really verify. The Catholic Church embraces science more than any other mainstream religion and actively participates to scientific research and always has, so the Church would not go against scientific evidence, which is why the Church's official position about evolution is the same as that of scientists.

>An example might be the Catholic dogma that a literal Adam and Eve existed as the precursor to modern humanity and that we didn't just evolve from animals.

Except that's not a Catholic dogma at all. Catholics typically see Adam and Eve as symbols, any priest will tell you as much. Besides, it's not in the list of Catholic dogmas. There are 255 and this isn't one of them. I don't know where you got your info on this.

Need I remind you that the Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest? Not surprised you don't know as his name is less known than that of Stephen Hawking, even though one came up with the theory and the other did not, but Hawking's name will always be more connected to the BBT than its very author. Not a coincidence.

>>3362

>Thanks, I post on this board a fair bit. I don't normally engage in drive by shitposting but I didn't feel like expending the effort. I'll try not to derail the thread too much from your original question, which I don't have too much knowledge of.

No problem. You can ask or discuss anything else. Digression is all right with me as long as it's interesting.

I specialise in talking with atheists, something not everyone on this board is efficient at doing, mostly because many here have never been atheists and don't thoroughly understand an atheist's questions and concerns, and patience isn't always a well-respected virtue amongst arguing Christians, self-included.

Hit me up about anything whenever you want, it's why I use a name (though arguably not the most self-confident name there is, but at least it's honest).

>>3358

>Because you cannot just ignore hierarchies not even on "unimportant" matters. That'd make them obsolete.

Do you mean that the Orthodox couldn't just ignore their hierarchies? Or do you mean the Orthodox authorities shouldn't have ignored the bishop of Rome? I'm not sure which you mean here. If the latter, then I must remind you that in people's mind back then, the bishop of Rome was just the bishop of Rome, responsible for Rome, not for them.

> Orthodox Churches have been devalued to a tool of state politics back then and still are.

This is confirmed by the book I read on Orthodoxy. The author also says that Orthodoxy is somehow very much tied to patriotism and defending Orthodoxy is/was defending Mother Russia, for instance.

I'm not well-informed on the state of Christianity in Russia nowadays.

>>3364

It seems you're right. I was a raised a Catholic and actually went to catholic school for a bit. It was my priest who told me and everyone else in my grade that while man might have early hominid ancestors adam and eve were specially created by God and we all descend from them. That doesn't seem to be the official position though so my mistake.

>>3367

No prob, not all Catholics actually follow what the Church officially says. I know plenty of young Catholics who were raised on Creationism in the 90's, even though that makes absolutely no sense and goes against official Church doctrine.

The Church does, however, hold some dogmas that I consider dangerous for the faith because rather unlikely, such as the idea that humans were immortal before the Fall. I'm not one to go confidently that way, as I don't think it's any humans' place to tell God how He made it happen.

Most Catholics, in my impression, don't have a problem with evolution. It remains God's doing since He created the universe and everything else flows from that simple premise. It's not intended to be a proof of anything, but it's a premise, dogma, that any believer has: God is the creator of the universe, one of the few definitions that most of us agree on.

>>3386

>How would you justify going against your Church if you believe it to be founded by Jesus Christ and inspired by God?

You mean, how would they justify it? I don't think they try hard to understand what their Church actually says. These Catholics are rooted in tradition more than Church doctrine, and by tradition, I mean social traditions, not Church traditions necessarily.

If you ask me how I'd justify going against my Church, that's a whole different question, but I don't suppose that was what you meant.

My post was about Catholics who teach creationism, unaware that the Catholic Church disavows Creationism.

>>3389

>You mean Young Earth Creationism, right?

And Old Earth as well. The Vatican does not think God just suddenly showed up and performed a miracle, as far as I can tell. The idea that God set up the universe in such a way as to have life happen is more likely the official idea. The difference is a subtlety and something the Church leaves up to individual believers, so far as I understand. God creating the universe is creation enough for most Catholics; what comes afterwards doesn't need to be a miracle but can happen "naturally" and it'd make no difference.

When I use the word "Creationism", I specifically mean either Young or Old Earth Creationism, as in God moved in to create our planet after the creation of the universe.

As to sources, Catholics themselves, specifically Anne Rice in her autobiography, in the part about her Catholic education in Louisiana; the CCC certainly mentions that. I can look it up if you want.

>I'd be interested to know if and how you do this.

Oh boy, that would take a while and rustle a lot of jimmies.

Let's say I'm the most Protestant of Catholics but won't call myself a Protestant. Basically, whenever humans who were born centuries after Christ show up and suggest they know better than Christ, I don't readily believe them over Christ.

Most of the Catholics here don't consider me one of them because of this.

>>3343

>before the schism, each important city in Christianity is a "church" and is led by one bishop. A bishop is then the leader of all the Christians in a city. Those cities weren't many: Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Cyprus, etc. Each has a bishop, and bishops together decide of dogmatic issues and such. They're all equal in religious matters and the bishop of Rome is an equal to all other bishops, at this point.

"Rome has spoken, the matter is finished"-St Augustine, 500 years before the great schism

If that's not far enough back,

The Corinthian Church appealed to Rome to solve a dispute even when there was still a living apostle they could have consulted.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html

john 14:26

john 15:26

>>3329

>implying your denomination is "orthodox" for more than greeks and slavs