|
I don't know what the enneagram is, but that description sounds like the neurotic pleaser archetype common to survivors of childhood trauma or neglect. Not talking poo poo about you, mind you, I know because it was what happened to me. If any of that seems relevant, consider some counceling 
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:27 |
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:And so I come to the heart of the matter and my question. Where do I really start? Do I go to my local church? Should I start with reading The Bible? I've never done that. I highly recommend RCIA, even if you're not technically a convert.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:No, I can see enough to read stuff as long as I have the font increased on Firefox. I also have to lean in pretty close to my monitor. But as you can imagine, there is a world of difference between reading posts and reading a long book. I don't even want to begin to think of how long it would take me to read the Old Testament on my own. To save your eyes and nerves, skip the third and fourth books, Leviticus and Numeri. They are a tad... heavy and less relevant to Christianity in practice. In fact I'd start with one or two of the gospels, personally partial to Luke and John, and Romans. If you're somewhat familiar with the creation and fall of mankind and Exodus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
I'm not going to go into my disagreement with the very notion of hierarchy unless you want me to, since that's not where your head's at right now, but my recommendation is to find a friendly priest or nun and talk to them. If they're a good person, you won't get made fun of or an angry reaction or anything. My priest keeps "office hours" where he hangs around in the church and anyone can come chat with him, you might find something like that in whatever Catholic church you go to. The Douay is available online, for your eyesight's sake. http://www.drbo.org/
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:And so I come to the heart of the matter and my question. Where do I really start? Do I go to my local church? Should I start with reading The Bible? I've never done that. I suppose I should add that I am legally blind. As such "reading" The Bible is impractical. Luckily there are many audio Bibles out there. I actually ordered an audio Old Testament already. It wasn't cheap but it comes with commentary. For the OT, Valiantman is right - the latter books of the Torah might well put you to sleep and aren't that directly relevant to Christianity besides. Genesis and Exodus are great, and I would also recommend 1 and 2 Samuel, Job, the Psalms, and Ecclesiastes. All of them are good reading, even if you're not approaching them as sacred texts. For the NT, I concur that starting with the gospels is the way to go. John, Luke or Matthew. For the rest of it 1st Corinthians is important, maybe Romans and the Epistle of James as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I'm not going to go into my disagreement with the very notion of hierarchy unless you want me to, since that's not where your head's at right now, but my recommendation is to find a friendly priest or nun and talk to them. If they're a good person, you won't get made fun of or an angry reaction or anything. My priest keeps "office hours" where he hangs around in the church and anyone can come chat with him, you might find something like that in whatever Catholic church you go to. I'd be interested in hearing what your disagreement with "hierarchy" is as I'm not sure what you meant there. I've thought about going to my local church to consult a priest but one problem is transportation since I can't drive. It's not too far though and there are buses but I generally don't like public transportation. Still, I can do it or maybe even see if I can get a friend to take me before work/school. Thus we come to the other problem. I'm painfully shy. I read Sankta's post and I'm glad all went well there. But things don't always go well. As you say, I have to hope I find a good priest. I suppose I could try calling. I have the phone number for the local church.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
In the city where i grew up, a system was in place where disabled people could ride taxis for a very low cost, something like $1 a trip. Is this available where you are? Not just for the church thing but to make it easier for you to get around in general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
If you are in college or live in a college town, the university will have a newman center where anyone can show up and ask questions So try that maybe
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
I don't think any of you are going to come find and kill or stalk me so I might as well say I live in Fort Worth, Texas. I do not attend college. There is a church very close by but I have yet to find any transportation for disabled people to stuff like that. It's mostly for medical care or food shopping. I'm new to FW though and I have a friend who's lived here all his life and is acquainted with handicapped services because of his brother. I'll ask him if he has any advice. Also I left a message with the parish and maybe they'll have some advice if they call me back since I explained my situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I don't think any of you are going to come find and kill or stalk me so I might as well say I live in Fort Worth, Texas. I do not attend college. There is a church very close by but I have yet to find any transportation for disabled people to stuff like that. It's mostly for medical care or food shopping. There is a great youth group centered around the University of Dallas. Several of my friends converted through them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:And so I come to the heart of the matter and my question. Where do I really start? Do I go to my local church? Should I start with reading The Bible? I've never done that. I suppose I should add that I am legally blind. As such "reading" The Bible is impractical. Luckily there are many audio Bibles out there. I actually ordered an audio Old Testament already. It wasn't cheap but it comes with commentary. Edit: If the local priest can't help you, try dropping a note to the Bishop of Fort Worth and asking which parishes offer transportation services. quote:How to Contact Bishop Michael F. Olson Arsenic Lupin fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Echoing the recommendations for starting with some of the New Testament gospels. The Bible is a collection of many books by different authors with very different purposes and perspectives. It's also going to be a lot easier to make sense of with a priest or friend providing some guidance, so I'd say start listening to some of the gospels and find a way to meet up with a priest or two. It would also be good to attend a service or two I'd think, especially since you're new in town. It might be a little intimidating but it's important to get involved with the community and the service itself may be very powerful for you. You mentioned checking out Catholicism, I would throw out Episcopalians/Anglicans as another good option. They're pretty much the most high-church, hierarchical, and ritualized of the Protestant groups so will be similar in that way but the theology is a bit different and doctrine quite a lot. I also wouldn't throw out Orthodoxy, especially since you say you're interested in the history of Christianity. Even if you don't think they would appeal to you for joining up, maybe after you've done some studying and attended some other services, check out an Orthodox Divine Liturgy just for the experience.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Speaking as an Episcopalian, somebody who likes hierarchy and authority is not going to be happy in any but the most traditionalist of parishes -- the ones that haven't already gone over to Catholicism! We are in practice and in principle a broad church, and any given parish and diocese can be pretty drat loosey-goosey. Our line of theoretical authority goes to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but we're busy causing a schism within the Episcopal church because we ordain and marry the gays and the global conservatives don't like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Question: do you not like Orthodoxy, or do you not like Russian Orthodoxy? The Russians tend to be more extreme in opinions and ritual and that leaves a bad taste in some people's mouth. tbh, if there was an antiochian church near me i would go to that instead of the oca one i go to
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:If you think you want to consider returning to Catholicism, the local priest (you may have a choice, if you live in a big enough city) will be more than happy to talk to you about theology and the daily practice of being a Catholic. Catholicism bases its theology both on the traditions of the Faith and on the Bible, so starting with the Bible is misleading at best. You need to know how the Church interprets the Bible, not just what the words say. It takes training to be able to read the Bible and figure out which bits are and aren't relevant to Christians today, and that training varies from denomination depending on that denomination's traditions and politics. Hi Nikkolas! I'm also in the process of re-converting to Catholicism (maybe), so I'm in a similar situation. Here's what I would recommend: Start by going to mass. They read out a bible part each time, and more often than not the sermon will have some commentary on it. So you'll get digestible bits of Bible and of Catholic interpretation without having to read a word. Also, mass is awesome. There may be a bible reading / prayer / discussion group you can join, or at least some adult baptism preparation course. Your priest will probably be able to help you out. As for reading the bible, I'd recommend starting with the gospel of Mark, because it's short and has a lot of cool stuff in it. From the Christian perspective, the Old Testament is not that important, and it's LONG, so I wouldn't start from that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:If you think you want to consider returning to Catholicism, the local priest (you may have a choice, if you live in a big enough city) will be more than happy to talk to you about theology and the daily practice of being a Catholic. Catholicism bases its theology both on the traditions of the Faith and on the Bible, so starting with the Bible is misleading at best. You need to know how the Church interprets the Bible, not just what the words say. It takes training to be able to read the Bible and figure out which bits are and aren't relevant to Christians today, and that training varies from denomination depending on that denomination's traditions and politics. Oh I understand all of this. I planned to buy an audio telling of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in addition to the Bible. Also I did mention I bought a OT with commentary specifically for this reason. And thank you for the Bishop's info! Pellisworth posted:You mentioned checking out Catholicism, I would throw out Episcopalians/Anglicans as another good option. They're pretty much the most high-church, hierarchical, and ritualized of the Protestant groups so will be similar in that way but the theology is a bit different and doctrine quite a lot. To put it bluntly, the founding of the Church of England puts me off. It was the act of a power-mad rear end in a top hat so he could marry a girl who he would then murder. I try not to be judgmental but Henry VIII does not sit well with me. Yes, that was a long time ago, but you can't just forget how your faith came into existence. Arsenic Lupin posted:Speaking as an Episcopalian, somebody who likes hierarchy and authority is not going to be happy in any but the most traditionalist of parishes -- the ones that haven't already gone over to Catholicism! We are in practice and in principle a broad church, and any given parish and diocese can be pretty drat loosey-goosey. Our line of theoretical authority goes to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but we're busy causing a schism within the Episcopal church because we ordain and marry the gays and the global conservatives don't like that. I post on another forum with several Christians and one of them observes that Anglicanism is kind of screwed because it is a religion of compromise. It isn't as traditional as Catholicism, nor as "fiery" as Protestantism. It is a religion of giving ground and making way for new trends, to try and stay relevant. There was apparently a relatively recent meeting of Catholic officials, including the Pope I think. It was about marriage and divorce. Some people on that forum were saying 'the Church has t reform or die." But some responded with - and I agree with this position - that the Church's traditional aspects are its greatest strength. It is a living, breathing piece of history that has stood nearly two millennia. It can grow or adapt but if it just keeps bending over backwards to suit the times, what makes it special? What differentiates it from any other organization? Saying "marry whoever you want and divorce them whenever you want" might produce some short term gains but what about long-term? Why even be a Catholic when a ton of other groups already say the same thing? Pellisworth posted:I also wouldn't throw out Orthodoxy, especially since you say you're interested in the history of Christianity. Even if you don't think they would appeal to you for joining up, maybe after you've done some studying and attended some other services, check out an Orthodox Divine Liturgy just for the experience. Smoking Crow posted:Question: do you not like Orthodoxy, or do you not like Russian Orthodoxy? The Russians tend to be more extreme in opinions and ritual and that leaves a bad taste in some people's mouth. tbh, if there was an antiochian church near me i would go to that instead of the oca one i go to I haven't completely rejected the idea of Orthodoxy. My problems with them are mainly these: 1. They adamantly believe in Faith and faith alone. My study of Christian history recently has introduced me to a fascinating school of thought called Scholasticism. I never expected anything like that to exist in the medieval Europe. A thousand years ago people like Aquinas preached that reason, understanding and intelligence were almost as good as faith in helping us believe in God. The Orthodox reject this, quite strongly. I found this video that more or less sums their views up., At least as I understand it. "We just understand everything better because we just know in our hearts or something." That was just a video I found when looking for crash courses in the faith. I don't want to offend anyone here - I'm not an expert on either the Church of England or Eastern Orthodoxy. I'm just saying what "turned me away at the door' so to speak. Oh and 2. A Orthodox priest had an article I read online that said, if I have sex with my girlfriend pre-marriage, it means I don't love her. Call me a sinner if you want but my tolerance dies when someone who doesn't know me insinuate that me and the woman I've been with nine years and I aren't in love. pidan posted:Hi Nikkolas! I'm also in the process of re-converting to Catholicism (maybe), so I'm in a similar situation. Here's what I would recommend: Start by going to mass. They read out a bible part each time, and more often than not the sermon will have some commentary on it. So you'll get digestible bits of Bible and of Catholic interpretation without having to read a word. Also, mass is awesome. Thank you, I'm happy to meet someone in the same boat as me. Thank you for your advice NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Oh and my dad posted:If you learn about Orthodoxy from blogs, you're going to end up really confused. You'll discover out that Orthodoxy is also incompatible with:
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Speaking as an Episcopalian, somebody who likes hierarchy and authority is not going to be happy in any but the most traditionalist of parishes -- the ones that haven't already gone over to Catholicism! We are in practice and in principle a broad church, and any given parish and diocese can be pretty drat loosey-goosey. Our line of theoretical authority goes to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but we're busy causing a schism within the Episcopal church because we ordain and marry the gays and the global conservatives don't like that. Wasn't there a change recently with how the Anglican communion views the authority of Canterbury? I feel like I remember hearing something about that but I can't for the life of me remember what it was other than a transparent attempt to reconcile having a church that has members who elect gay bishops and other members who thinks homosexuality is sinful without causing either side to schism. That's more an illustrative example, but also probably a primary reason for the change since it's always been a hot topic issue in the Anglican communion. Am I even using communion right here? Also NikolasKing, you should know that Henry VIII was entitled to an annulment since infertility is a valid cause for it, but the pope didn't allow it because his then wife's family was extremely influential and pleasing them would allow him better political ties than if he allowed it. It's a case where no one comes out ahead, except Anne Boleyn and Thomas More I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
I understand a lot of it , or maybe even all of it, was politics and that our Holy Fathers weren't so holy a lot of the time. However, my sympathy for Henry's plight is limited by everything he does after founding his church. Luther was at least a theologian and I can respect that he was trying to find God and save people he thought were being deceived and damned by the Church .Henry broke away from Rome so he could marry a woman whom he would kill and then would follow it up with how many more marriages? I'm far from a prude but there is a line and I don't think it's unfair to say he crossed it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Oh I understand all of this. I planned to buy an audio telling of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in addition to the Bible. Also I did mention I bought a OT with commentary specifically for this reason. The Catechism is going to be the best place to start, since the entire purpose of the document is to explain Catholic teachings to the laity. The OT is a tough nut to crack. A lot of it is allegorical, and some of it is a complete mess (the relationship between King Saul and David is pretty much considered by biblical scholars to be two disparate stories squashed into one) so you'll likely need the guidance of your priest if you want to understand the meaning (as interpreted by the Catholic church) of many parts of the OT. He should be more than willing to help you, though. I wouldn't write off any denomination because of crazy adherents though. We've got some hard-line theonomists in mine (i.e. Mosaic civil law should be the law of the United States) and that's not really a part of any official teachings. It's just crazies being crazy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I understand a lot of it , or maybe even all of it, was politics and that our Holy Fathers weren't so holy a lot of the time. Counterpoint: Martin Luther was a loud and proud anti-Semite whose publications against the Jews significantly impacted German anti-Semitism. I respect your feelings on Henry's actions but he's not uniquely horrible among historical religious figures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I haven't completely rejected the idea of Orthodoxy. My problems with them are mainly these: Ah, ok. First off, that video is trying to get at is that Orthodoxy presents itself as the direct continuation of the Early Church. What this means is that Orthodoxy doesn't like change at all. Both Catholics and (Eastern) Orthodox take the 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Early Church as literal truth and completely binding. So, Orthodox try not to change anything about the faith from that time period. If we use the same religious practices and thought as we did in the time of the literal truth, we cannot possibly gently caress up. Orthodox "'turn away reason" because we don't believe that it is possible for human reason to accurately describe God. This comes from a guy called Pseudo-Dionysius, who wrote about apophatic theology, describing God by saying what he is not. Aquinas cites Pseudo-Dionysius a whole lot in the Summa Theologica and you probably know this as via negativa theology. The lady speaking in that video is very pro-East and anti-West, so take what she has to say with a grain of salt. Orthodox online are crazy, crazier than the craziest of people. I would recommend talking to a priest, someone who has actually studied Orthodox thought for an extended period of time instead of relying on blogs and posts (unless you're reading my posts then take them as truth) If you want, I can write a bit about why scholasticism never really caught on in the East (hint: the east wasn't as big on aristotle as the west was)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Counterpoint: Martin Luther was a loud and proud anti-Semite whose publications against the Jews significantly impacted German anti-Semitism. Oh I'm no fan of Luther, either. Bit of an arrogant jerk I think. Plus, as you say, Antisemite. I just have more respect for where he came from than Henry VIII. Smoking Crow posted:Ah, ok. First off, that video is trying to get at is that Orthodoxy presents itself as the direct continuation of the Early Church. What this means is that Orthodoxy doesn't like change at all. Both Catholics and (Eastern) Orthodox take the 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Early Church as literal truth and completely binding. So, Orthodox try not to change anything about the faith from that time period. If we use the same religious practices and thought as we did in the time of the literal truth, we cannot possibly gently caress up. I'd interested in hearing your explanation, as I'm eager to learn. Although I myself am no fan of Aristotle. I'm more partial to Plato. I just found it kind of ironic it seems the Greek East was less fond of Greek Philosophy than the Latin West. At least that is what my bits of research over the last few weeks has taught me. After all, isn't St. Augustine the most important theologian in Roman Catholicism? And he was influenced by Neoplatonism. Orthodox Christians meanwhile are much less fond of him it seems. Also I know it's weird but the OT I ordered is an Orthodox one. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:1. They adamantly believe in Faith and faith alone. My study of Christian history recently has introduced me to a fascinating school of thought called Scholasticism. I never expected anything like that to exist in the medieval Europe. A thousand years ago people like Aquinas preached that reason, understanding and intelligence were almost as good as faith in helping us believe in God. not to mention that we believe in what might be crudely called salvation by works
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:(hint: the east wasn't as big on aristotle as the west was)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Although I myself am no fan of Aristotle. I'm more partial to Plato. I just found it kind of ironic it seems the Greek East was less fond of Greek Philosophy than the Latin West. At least that is what my bits of research over the last few weeks has taught me. After all, isn't St. Augustine the most important theologian in Roman Catholicism? And he was influenced by Neoplatonism. Orthodox Christians meanwhile are much less fond of him it seems. St. Augustine is important, but I wouldn't say he's the most important to Roman Catholics - that's going to have to be St. Thomas Aquinas. A lot of Catholic doctrine relies on him, and on Aristotle through him. And it's not just "oh wow there was someone smart in the Dark Ages" - he was part of an entire theological movement, at the time, to basically say "okay, if we know x and y from divine revelation, and we know z and zz and zzz from observing the world, what does that imply?" (As far as I understand it, the Orthodox's objection to Scholasticism generally is: why are we so confidently declaring that such-and-such is true of God, when it's not our job to do that but instead God's place to reveal himself to us? So it's not that they're rejecting him, or Aristotle, but the "let's take one known thing and write five thousand words on it!" mindset.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:It's a case where no one comes out ahead, except Anne Boleyn and Thomas More I guess. Just letting you know I appreciate this joke. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:Wasn't there a change recently with how the Anglican communion views the authority of Canterbury? I feel like I remember hearing something about that but I can't for the life of me remember what it was other than a transparent attempt to reconcile having a church that has members who elect gay bishops and other members who thinks homosexuality is sinful without causing either side to schism. That's more an illustrative example, but also probably a primary reason for the change since it's always been a hot topic issue in the Anglican communion. quote:Also NikolasKing, you should know that Henry VIII was entitled to an annulment since infertility is a valid cause for it, but the pope didn't allow it Nikkolas King, you'd be hard-pressed to find an Anglican who doesn't think Henry VIII is an rear end in a top hat. That said, there was already a long-standing proto-Protestant theology, and Henry just jumped onto the existing bandwagon when it became convenient to him. Ironically, the Pope had given him the title "Defender of the Faith", a title all English rulers have used since, for an essay that boiled down to "Martin Luther is poo." You can be an Episcopalian not based on Henry's theology, but on the theology developed by people like Archbishop Cranmer, who were building on existing scholarship. tl;dr: Church history is complex as hell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Are you sure about that? Consanguinity is a valid cause, but sterility is not, especially when Catherine bore a lot of children who died. Impotency is, but sterility is not, last time I checked. I can dredge out the canon laws if you like!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
No, I think we agree. And you can't annul if impotency occurs during the marriage, only if it was present at the start.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Impotency is, but sterility is not, last time I checked. I can dredge out the canon laws if you like! Really? I could have sworn infertility was. I don't know where I read it but I easily could be mistaken. Powered Descent posted:Just letting you know I appreciate this joke. Thank you, that was a great joke, if I do say so myself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
I'm in the same city as you, NikkolasKing. If you ever want to visit an Orthodox service, let me know. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Responding to an earlier post: don't confuse "the Church says I don't love my girlfriend" with "being in love with my girlfriend." "Love" as a concept is not merely a feeling of affection, but one's actions towards another. The idea with premarital chastity is that if you love your future spouse, you should respect the temple of their body such that you consummate your love only when you are spiritually joined in sacred marriage. The Goon Greek speakers can do a better job describing this, but consider that our modern word "love" encompasses three concepts in Greek: eros, amos, and philos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Responding to an earlier post: don't confuse "the Church says I don't love my girlfriend" with "being in love with my girlfriend." "Love" as a concept is not merely a feeling of affection, but one's actions towards another. The idea with premarital chastity is that if you love your future spouse, you should respect the temple of their body such that you consummate your love only when you are spiritually joined in sacred marriage. The Goon Greek speakers can do a better job describing this, but consider that our modern word "love" encompasses three concepts in Greek: eros, amos, and philos. amos is latin, it's eros, agape, philia and storge
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Responding to an earlier post: don't confuse "the Church says I don't love my girlfriend" with "being in love with my girlfriend." "Love" as a concept is not merely a feeling of affection, but one's actions towards another. The idea with premarital chastity is that if you love your future spouse, you should respect the temple of their body such that you consummate your love only when you are spiritually joined in sacred marriage. The Goon Greek speakers can do a better job describing this, but consider that our modern word "love" encompasses three concepts in Greek: eros, amos, and philos. Four: Eros, "erotic" Philos, "Friendship" Storge, "Familial Love" and Agape, "Self-giving/Self-Sacrficing love." efb
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Anglican Effortpost: re Henry VIII situation, there are more details. First off, Henry's motivation for the remainder of his life was rooted in a desire to obtain an heir. Beyond removing the authority of the Bishop of Rome over the Catholic Church in the realm of England (and thus over England itself), he maintained Roman Catholic teaching (which I believe allowed him to buy indulgences for all the nasty things he did). His desire was not for divorce as is commonly stated, but as was mentioned in this thread previously he wanted an annulment. It normally would have been given on the basis of the original marriage having been invalid (Lev 20. 21 bars the marriage of one's brother's wife; Catherine had briefly been married to Henry's brother Arthur before his death). So all well and dandy and under normal circumstances, the annulment would have been granted. Heck, annulment were granted for lesser pretexts in the case of royalty seeking to create an heir (due to the need to maintain stability and avoid Catholic kingdoms going to war against one another). The Bishop of Rome at the time, Pope Clement VII, was tied up in a lot of continental politics, particularly between the Italians, French and Germans. In fact, by the time Henry VIII petitioned him for the annulment, Rome happened to be besieged by the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, who was the nephew of Catherine of Aragon. Clement wasn't going to risk Rome being sacked if Charles decided to intercede further in support of his aunt, so the annulment was denied. Henry had no issues with Roman Catholic dogmas, so ultimately all that happened under his reign, with respect to the Church, was to remove the authority of the Bishop of Rome over the Catholic Church in the realm of England. He ultimately did all the rest of his nonsense, but if you look at the doctrines and theologies of the English Church at this time, there is no significant change. The continental reformation never extended directly to England, beyond later influence on the English Reformers once the English Reformation itself was truly underway in the following decades. Henry did not found the English Church, nor is it intellectually honest to suggest that his personal misdeeds tarnish all subsequent developments of the Catholic Church in England. If that mentality is maintained, then there are a long line of Roman bishops whose actions have surely tarnished the Roman Catholic Church farm more than anything Henry himself did. re Via Media (the middle way) is a particularly frustrating concept in that its popular application, particularly in the Episcopal Church of the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada is 100% divorced from its historical origins and applications elsewhere in the Anglican Communion. Historically it was a concept that came to define the results, rather than the intentions or in any sense of compromise, of the English Reformation and the development of Anglicanism in the 17th century. The goal of the reformers wasn't to compromise. They didn't look to the continental reformers on the one hand and Rome on the other (and some say the East, Hooker supposedly was in touch with the Greeks) and then kinda just pick a little bit of this and a little bit of that and hope it would make everyone happy. When people look to the modern policies of TEC (The Episcopal Church of the United States) it's very easy to see that because TEC doctrinally tends to play fast and loose with the authority of Scripture and the creeds. Historically (and again for the vast majority of Anglicans worldwide) this wasn't the case. When the English Reformation was underway, the goal was not compromise but to restore the the Catholic Church in the Realm of England to the faith, order and tradition of the the Early Church under the authority of Holy Scripture, avoiding the excessive deletions of the continental reformers and the superstitions and innovations of medieval Roman Catholicism. TEC trying to be all things to all people is an abberation. Their latest figures say it has about 1,800,000 members out of a global Anglican Communion of about 75,000,000 and a few million more Anglicans who are not a part of the Anglican Communion. TEC's numbers continue to drop. Demographics wise it is one of the oldest and whitest denominations in the US and rather than saying, "well, we elected a presiding bishop who was afraid of the name of Jesus," they think the church is dieing because they haven't done a good enough job telling everyone they're perfect and have no reason to come to church because how can God sanctify them by his grace when they're already okay. They very much believe in compromise and it has led, for instance, to impairment of communion with the majority of worldwide Anglicans. That leads into the next topic, that of the Anglican Communion itself. The Anglican Communion is a body that contains the majority of worldwide Anglicans in communion with eachother and with England itself. Its history relates to the development of Anglicanism abroad and how it would maintain communion with Canterbury. For example, in Canada, the Solemn Declaration of 1893 was proclaimed by the first General Synod in Canada when the Church of England in Canada became independent of the Church of England itself (the name was not changed to Anglican Church of Canada until the 1950s). As more of these independent churches (called national provinces) developed, a new mechanism was needed to govern in some manner how they would relate to one another and not just the Church of England itself. So the Anglican Communion was formed. It is not authoritative. It can issue statements, but the Archbishop of Canterbury is not its head and doesn't, for instance, promulgate doctrines through it. Each bishop remains sovereign in his own diocese within certain locally imposed and accepted limits. As folks have noted, issues of sexuality have been problematic for Anglicans in the past few decades. In the 1970s the United States, and shortly thereafter Canada, decided to allow the ordination of women without the support of any other Anglican provinces. The initial US decision was somewhat of a shock, and as I've mentioned the decision in Canada used some rules-lawyering and subterfuge to pass it through the synod that left a bad taste in the mouths of many, even some who supported the ordination of women, which is still having repercussions today as there is a huge emphasis being placed on the need for General Synod to have transparent and clear rules and processes for the debate on same-sex marriage in order to make it clear the same shenanigans wont be allowed. Broadening the scope, though, those decisions eventually led to splits into what is now broadly called the Continuing Movement. These are Anglicans who are "continuing" in the traditions of the Church. These churches largely exist in the Anglican West only because Anglicans in the global south haven't made any of these kinds of changes. Skip forward to the 2000s when the issue of homosexuality becomes big news. 2003 Gene Robinson, an openly gay man living with a partner, was consecrated as a bishop in TEC. For some traditionalists in the continuing movement this was a vindication of their view and warnings that the ordination of women was the thin edge of the wedge that would lead to the authority of the Bible being brought into question as secular values would more and more overtake the decision-making organs of TEC. TEC itself just said it was a victory for diversity and inclusion. The Anglican Communion itself responded by saying HOLD UP! Let's not be so hasty. 2M American Anglicans allow this (not that all members of TEC supported it) while 78M Anglicans outside wouldn't. We've got a problem here! The vast majority of provinces in the Anglican Communion are now in impaired communion with TEC. The ACC followed suit with things like the Diocese of New Westminster blessing same-sex marriages in 2006 in an effort to encourage the church to follow the secular government's legislative legalization of same-sex marriage. Again the Communion said hold up, let's stop that for now and put a moratorium on this so we can all take a breath and figure out the doctrines and theologies, etc. Canada and the US sorta said no, pretty much ignoring the Windsor Report which called for the moratorium. Over this period a lot of traditionalist Anglicans (including a few entire diocese in TEC) left TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. The ultimately formed a new province, the Anglican Church of North America in 2009. Between the period when they left and when they formed TEC, many of them put themselves under the authority of African and South American bishops. There remain to this day strong ties between the global south and the traditionalist Anglicans in North America. So going back to the Anglican Communion, as a result of the impaired communion and as a means of protesting the errors of the North American Churches, the primates of the global south have said they would no longer attend AC primatial gatherings if ACC/TEC were invited and attended. They also tried to get ACNA into the Anglican Communion, but there was a rule in place that only one province can be represented in the communion per state. Since ACC/TEC already represent Canada and the US, ACNA can't be a part of the AC. This has led to a lot of the global south boycotting AC meetings, to the point where Justin Welbey, the Archbishop of Canterbury since 2012, hasn't called a primates meeting. The global south initiated something called GAFCON back in 2008 (ACNA was actually born partly out of connections hammered out at the original GAFCON meeting) and has held many more since. More bishops and provinces were represented at GAFCON than in the last two primate's meetings in 2009 and 2011. A lot of speculation had been suggesting that because GAFCON represents the majority of Anglicans worldwide, it might ultimately replace the Anglican Communion as an instrument of unity between the majority of worldwide Anglican provinces. So, in response, Justin Welbey tried a compromise approach in which he's suggested that AC members will no longer need to entirely be in communion with one another, but if you're in communion with Canterbury that's enough and he's also extended an invitation to Archbishop Foley Beach, primate of ACNA, to attend their next meeting. The ACC and TEC are still invited, but GAFCON has responded pretty much saying they think that it's at least worth them coming and consider it a positive sign. So it looks like the Anglican Communion will continue to exist, though in what form no one can exactly say. Realistically it's more just changing the organization to better reflect its existing realities. I'm not 100% well and currently on some pretty powerful prescription meds, so I apologize if there are any factual errors or unclear jargon in that. I might try and clean this up a bit the next time I look at it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
That's a wonderful post. Even though I'm not an Anglican or even high church, thank you for writing it. I definitely learned something today. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
I agree, that was indeed a very interesting post and thank you for putting in all that thought and time. I'm in no position to argue theology or history here. My preliminary researches definitely don't stand up to a person who knows their faith. I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else here. Moscow Mule posted:I'm in the same city as you, NikkolasKing. If you ever want to visit an Orthodox service, let me know. I might take you up on that offer. It would not hurt to maybe attend both a Catholic and Orthodox Church, talk with thei respective priest, and so-on. There's a world of difference between me reading stuff in my apartment and actually going out there and immersing myself in the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I agree, that was indeed a very interesting post and thank you for putting in all that thought and time. NikkolasKing posted:I might take you up on that offer. It would not hurt to maybe attend both a Catholic and Orthodox Church, talk with thei respective priest, and so-on. There's a world of difference between me reading stuff in my apartment and actually going out there and immersing myself in the whole thing. Yep absolutely. Especially since you're interested in the history of Christianity, it would be a great learning experience to attend an Orthodox service especially with a guide who can help you feel more comfortable. Even if it's not your cup of tea, useful perspective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:27 |
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I'm in no position to argue theology or history here. My preliminary researches definitely don't stand up to a person who knows their faith. I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else here. i don't think anyone is offended by anything you wrote. but yes, actually go out and explore things, maybe even churches you don't think you're interested in. there is a lot out there and you might be surprised how engaging with different religious ideas can change your perspectives about your own beliefs and grow them
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 08:53
|
|
