|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:In my experience Orthodox sermons try to link the Gospel reading to explaining an element of doctrine. John Chrysostom's Pascal address is the apex of this of course, and imo the only sermon you ever need. literally that should be the only thing any minister reads on Easter ever
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
https://www.facebook.com/OtkroiGruziu/videos/1770517589866681/ I posted this in two threads already - I forgot this one would be the most appropriate. Georgian monks and a child sing to the Pope in Aramaic. Beautiful. The girl's singing sounds like Russian to me at moments but I guess it isn't because nobody mentioned it. The text is Psalm 50 or 51. Does anyone have that in Aramaic perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Welp, Archbishop Welby of Canterbury just made my day: Archbishop Welby: ‘Pope Francis would beat me in a fight’ quote:f you could ask Archbishop Justin Welby any question, whether or not he could win a fight against Pope Francis would probably not be top of your list. and: Archbishop of Banterbury Justin Welby has the Pope rolling in the aisle of St Peters with a series of quips quote:According to the Times, he asked: 'What's the difference between a terrorist and a liturgist? You can negotiate with a terrorist'. (I think Welby would love this thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:https://www.facebook.com/OtkroiGruziu/videos/1770517589866681/ This is incredible, thank you for posting it e: same song on Youtube for the lazy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=locW-9S00VU HopperUK fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Welp, Archbishop Welby of Canterbury just made my day:
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:https://www.facebook.com/OtkroiGruziu/videos/1770517589866681/ It's Psalm 53 in Aramaic. The Orthodox Church of Georgia had a bunch of Syrian immigrants (way back in the past) who brought the Syriac liturgy and Aramaic with them. Here's some Orthodox Church of Georgia churchporn Also here's a traditional Latin Mass in Japan And here's a Pentecostal praise break in Japan Transmission of religious ideas is, actually kinda cool. When you're not killing people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
my dad served a church for a little while that had a lot of native american parishioners and he would call me on the phone nerding out because he did a service or a wedding with some native stuff mixed in with the more traditional european bits 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:my dad served a church for a little while that had a lot of native american parishioners and he would call me on the phone nerding out because he did a service or a wedding with some native stuff mixed in with the more traditional european bits Tell us about it! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:my dad served a church for a little while that had a lot of native american parishioners and he would call me on the phone nerding out because he did a service or a wedding with some native stuff mixed in with the more traditional european bits Tias posted:Tell us about it! The church I was baptized in (and spent most of my youth attending) was an Episcopal church with mostly Lakota parishioners. It wasn't really that different, there were a few Native American cultural influences but there's a high degree of syncretism with traditional beliefs. There are a ton of very traditional Lakota who participate in literal blood sacrifice (Sun Dance) that are also Catholic. Handshakes are a super important gesture of greeting, friendship, and peace in Lakota culture so Passing of the Peace was a big deal. Loose handshakes, you won't offend by being firm but it's a symbol of friendship and not a contest of strength or whatever. After church potlucks were maybe even more important since communal meals and taking home leftovers (wateca) is hugely important for the Lakota. Everyone went down to the basement for coffee and donuts and then in an hour or so, chipped in a dollar per person for lunch. Fairly often we'd have traditional frybread and wojape which is sort of a berry pudding. e: wateca is one of the few Lakota words my parents will regularly use. It's a central part of Lakota culture, when you hold an event (dance, powwow, graduation, celebration, whatever) there is always way more food than necessary with the intention everyone takes home leftovers. The strongest gesture of prestige and influence for a tribal leader is to hold generous feasts and events and give a shitload of food to the community in wateca. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:The church I was baptized in (and spent most of my youth attending) was an Episcopal church with mostly Lakota parishioners. It wasn't really that different, there were a few Native American cultural influences but there's a high degree of syncretism with traditional beliefs. There are a ton of very traditional Lakota who participate in literal blood sacrifice (Sun Dance) that are also Catholic. This owns, never stop nativepostin' <3
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 11:01
|
|
|
Tias posted:This owns, never stop nativepostin' <3 When you next hang with your shaman dude, shake his hand loosely but enthusiastically and if there's food make sure there's extra for him to take home, tell him it's wateca (wah-TEH-chah, ch as in church). Giving gifts is the highest honor in Lakota culture, giving people food and other gifts makes you a radder dude. It's a very cool and imo pretty Christian outlook on charity (not to appropriate native culture, just pointing out similarities). I'm really not any sort of expert on Native American culture, I can only comment as an outsider who attended tribal schools through middle school and have some connections on the rez. If people are seriously interested I can get you in touch with tribal academics and artists but I'd rather do that via PM because it's gonna be very easy to doxx me from that. (HEY GAL can probably expect a small bit of Lakota artwork for Christmas because I know her irl)
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:When you next hang with your shaman dude, shake his hand loosely but enthusiastically and if there's food make sure there's extra for him to take home, tell him it's wateca (wah-TEH-chah, ch as in church). Giving gifts is the highest honor in Lakota culture, giving people food and other gifts makes you a radder dude. It's a very cool and imo pretty Christian outlook on charity (not to appropriate native culture, just pointing out similarities). He's only had Lakota training IIRC, he's half blackfoot apache and half mexican, but thanks! - which leads to some pretty eclectic teachings, he both does chalupa, sweats, flower ceremonies and peyote healing. Cool! I'd love to learn more, though I'm not an academic and only learning for myself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 11:57
|
|
|
Got a message this morning, my grandma said she is ready to go to heaven. Make sure she has enough tokens for the toll booths and some power armor for the final boss of purgatory. That's how it works, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Reaching peace with your own mortality and submission to God's will is an important step in any faith journey so that's positive. You might want to hang out with her and ask her why she sent that message to you in particular since it seems like she's trying to connect with you on a different level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Nah she told everybody that. She's in the hospital. It might be time soon. I'll miss her but she knows better than me and I will support her if that's what she wants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
i wanna make peace with my mortality through superior firepower
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
As an ELCA, what do I need to know about Missouri and Wisconsin synods of the Lutheran church? A guy was talking at length to me about being Missouri Synod and it seemed almost foreign to me
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:As an ELCA, what do I need to know about Missouri and Wisconsin synods of the Lutheran church? A guy was talking at length to me about being Missouri Synod and it seemed almost foreign to me My dad is an ELCA pastor I grew up in it  One of the basic differences is that the Missouri and Wisconsin Synod denominations are much more conservative/reactionary. They follow a lot more the modern "literal" interpretations of the Bible. They deny women full equal membership and authority within the church. They base a lot of their exclusionary practices upon the "fact" that, for example, the Book of Concord doesn't say anything about gays, ergo, we can demonize gays all we want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Got a message this morning, my grandma said she is ready to go to heaven. Make sure she has enough tokens for the toll booths and some power armor for the final boss of purgatory. That's how it works, right? Protestant: If she had faith she's okay. Liturgigoon: Link me her talent build we got this fam
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
Question to the Catholics (or any Christianity historian): How did the Catholic Church get so powerful during the Middle Ages? (by which I mean, say, 800's to the end of the 4th Crusade)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Question to the Catholics (or any Christianity historian): How did the Catholic Church get so powerful during the Middle Ages? (by which I mean, say, 800's to the end of the 4th Crusade) Short answer: power vacuum in Western Europe after the Edit: Actually, its not as simple as that. Let me crack open some of my notes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Question to the Catholics (or any Christianity historian): How did the Catholic Church get so powerful during the Middle Ages? (by which I mean, say, 800's to the end of the 4th Crusade) Largely because priests were the only literate people around in most places and thus many of the functions of government devolved to them by default. The Church was also a visible vestige of the Roman Empire and thus commanded more authority than it would have otherwise. As everything else fell apart, it was the one institution that stayed together and people clung to it for security.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
There are others who are way better qualified to talk about this than I am (I'm thinking of Disinterested mostly who is effortposting right now in the Middle Ages thread about the intellectual underpinnings of the Church's claim to be a "universal power"), but I'm thining that the 9th century is way too late a timeframe to give a proper answer to your question. The Church was in a position of power already by the late 4th century when it had become the official state religion of the Roman Empire, and after the end of the Empire in the West it became of the main representatives of the "Romanitas" quality which many of the new powers sought to emulate. There were loads of conversions to Christianity during Late Antiquity/the Early Middle Ages, though not all of them to a strand of Christianity accepted by the Ecumenical Councils - for a while Arianism was pretty popular amongst the Goths, for example. These conversions were politically beneficial not only because they would put you on good footing with the Emperor in Constantinople, who was still the preeminent power of Europe, but also because of the aforementioned "Romanitas". It's hard to really speak of a "Catholic Church" in the modern sense for that time period though, seeing as the Great Schism between East and West was still many centuries away - if anything, people had to decide between two different liturgies and theological schools as; the political dichotomy between Constantinople and Rome was already there, but would grow in importance later on. When the Muslimic conquest of much of the Levant and Africa greatly disturbed Mediterranean trade and communication, the political, economical and cultural centres of Western Europe gradually moved northwards, putting peoples and kingdoms like the Franks in the limelight, who for various reasons had chosen to side with the Roman strand of Christianity. As the differences/animosities to the East grew, Constantinople diminished as a theological influence, while the Roman Curia became (more or less) the sole arbiter of Christian thought in the West. The coronation of Charlemagne in 800 kinda sealed the deal there for the connection of the Papacy to Western politics, but it definitely had a looong backstory. e: keep in mind that this is super cliffnotes-y, and that I'm not a medieval historian at all, so hopefully others here will be able to correct me where needed/elaborate more
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
I saw a thing saying that lurkers should just post, and whilst I'm not much of a lurker here I haven't seen this broached in my skim-reads of this thread. I have always wondered how people know they've picked the right religion/the right version of a religion and I'm interested to hear some thoughts on that, if anyone's happy to tell me any. Whilst I appreciate that not all religious institutions/individuals have the same "If you don't believe exactly what I do then you're going to Hell!" thing, as I understand it there is usually some degree of feeling that your version is the 'correct' one to some degree or another and I find that interesting because it's something I just don't have context to understand. So... How do you know you picked correctly?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Bollock Monkey posted:I saw a thing saying that lurkers should just post, and whilst I'm not much of a lurker here I haven't seen this broached in my skim-reads of this thread. I have always wondered how people know they've picked the right religion/the right version of a religion and I'm interested to hear some thoughts on that, if anyone's happy to tell me any. Whilst I appreciate that not all religious institutions/individuals have the same "If you don't believe exactly what I do then you're going to Hell!" thing, as I understand it there is usually some degree of feeling that your version is the 'correct' one to some degree or another and I find that interesting because it's something I just don't have context to understand. So... How do you know you picked correctly? They're all wrong, to one degree or another. The true nature of God is incomprehensible, and all religions are an approximation to the experience of the infinite. I picked the one that best fits my culture, upbringing, and personality. It's about all any of us can do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
pick the one that lets you drink beer and eat ham, imo. YOLO
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:pick the one that lets you drink beer and eat ham, imo. YOLO 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Bollock Monkey posted:I saw a thing saying that lurkers should just post, and whilst I'm not much of a lurker here I haven't seen this broached in my skim-reads of this thread. I have always wondered how people know they've picked the right religion/the right version of a religion and I'm interested to hear some thoughts on that, if anyone's happy to tell me any. Whilst I appreciate that not all religious institutions/individuals have the same "If you don't believe exactly what I do then you're going to Hell!" thing, as I understand it there is usually some degree of feeling that your version is the 'correct' one to some degree or another and I find that interesting because it's something I just don't have context to understand. So... How do you know you picked correctly? I like my religion. It's got the right mix of social activism (I mean, hypothetically anyway; enough for me to do religious work about it) with the right mix of accepting me for who I am. It's also got a cool spiritual and theological tradition. As for how I know it's true, well, it makes sense to me. Any proof more than that is beyond my capacity to know one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
I know a bit about the Council of Nicea (thank you, Cartoon History of the Universe), but would like to know more details. Who attended the Council? How were doctrinal matters decided on? What happened to the books that weren't included in the New Testament? Why was the exact nature of Jesus' relation to God (the same or similar thing- I don't know the official name) so contentious?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
On a related note there was a poll done recently where 71% of evangelicals said Jesus was the first and greatest being created by God. Arius won.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
So that's why Saint Nicholas could be seen crying and drinking whisky at my local bar. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:On a related note there was a poll done recently where 71% of evangelicals said Jesus was the first and greatest being created by God. every so often I do feel bad about my latent Catholic dislike of evangelicals
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Who attended the Council? The Emperor invited a great many bishops from both east and west, though only a fraction actually could come. The actual number is unclear, as contemporary historians speak of different numbers. Traditionally (and in the liturgiy of the Eastern Orthodox Church) it's given as 318, most of which naturally hailed from the Eastern Church. We know of only five bishops from the west who attended the Council, although one of them, Hosius of Cordoba, was given the honour of presiding over its deliberations (he may have been a papal legate too, although that's a matter of debate; Pope Silvester couldn't attend due to his advanced age, but we know of two priests who were sent in his charge) Bishops from as far as India came too. Oh, and Santa Claus (i.e. St Nicholas of Myra) probably participated as well. Every bishop had the right to an entourage consisting of two priests and three deacons, so that up to ~2,000 persons may have participated altogether. Lastly, the Emperor also personally oversaw the whole affair, although he didn't cast any vote. quote:How were doctrinal matters decided on? The Council Fathers already had an agenda when they arrived in Nicea, i.e. a set of matters they were supposed to decide on drafted by the Imperial Court. Rufinus of Aquileia (who was not a contemporary) speaks of daily sessions, but we don't know much more about the details of how the proceedings went, or at least I don't  There was a great deal of debate, discussion and arguing/shouting matches, and at the end doctrinal matters were decided by the vote of the majority amongst the bishops. All in all the Council was in session for about a month.quote:What happened to the books that weren't included in the New Testament? Nothing, because the story that the Council decided on what books to included in the Bible isn't true (and was made popular by Voltaire of all people). The biblical canon developed organically, with the four Gospels we have today being the most popular by far already by the second century. All others didn't fall to the wayside because they were heretical or because of ~~hidden truths~~ or whatever Dan Brown's about, but instead because they didn't prove popular enough. Various strands and sects of Christianity placed different emphases on different books, but what we have today is basically what had become "mainstream" biblical canon by the 5th century. In fact the RCC didn't bother with formalising the biblical structure and content until the Council of Trent in the 16th century, over a millenium later. quote:Why was the exact nature of Jesus' relation to God (the same or similar thing- I don't know the official name) so contentious? There were various subgroups within Arianism, but they were all united in the claim that only the Father is God. Or, as Arius himself states: "For he [Jesus] was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning." Those who would later on define what today is Christian small-o orthodoxy opposed this on theological grounds (when Jesus wasn't fully identical to God, but instead only partaking his His godhood or being subordinate to Him, what meaning does that leave to His death on the Cross?) as well as political ones. The exact nature of Christ was so contentious because depending on how you see it it casts His death and resurrection in a completely different light. When - one extreme - Jesus was only mortal, then why should his death have this deep metaphysical importance for the entire world? And on the other end of the spectrum we have movements like Docetism who claimed that Jesus' mortal body was merely an illusion and that he was in fact entirely divine, which again deprives his death and especially his resurrection of meaning. The theological consensus of Christ being both fully human and fully divine was developed to show that the Christian God so loves the world that He Himself became mortal and subjected Himself to a painful and humiliating death by execution, only to show that death is not the ultimate end even for mortal men by rising from the dead three days afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Bollock Monkey posted:I saw a thing saying that lurkers should just post, and whilst I'm not much of a lurker here I haven't seen this broached in my skim-reads of this thread. I have always wondered how people know they've picked the right religion/the right version of a religion and I'm interested to hear some thoughts on that, if anyone's happy to tell me any. Whilst I appreciate that not all religious institutions/individuals have the same "If you don't believe exactly what I do then you're going to Hell!" thing, as I understand it there is usually some degree of feeling that your version is the 'correct' one to some degree or another and I find that interesting because it's something I just don't have context to understand. So... How do you know you picked correctly? I notice in your post here that you seem to be talking about what I would say are several separate issues, and it's not clear to me if you realize that many people consider them separate. One is the issue of how people approach religious, cosmological, and philosophical ideas in terms of truth and authority. Another is the issue of how someone believes their chosen understanding of truth and authority relates to other people who do not have the same beliefs or life experiences that they do. These aren't the only ideas in your post, but these two are very large ideas on their own so let's just stick with them for now. When considering the ideas of truth, authority, and/or correctness, I have to start by saying that I'm a little skeptical of your statement that you "don't have the context to understand" how people accept ideas about the world, their experiences, reality, etc., because everyone does this. Regardless of whether someone considers themselves religious, not religious, whatever, everyone has ideas and reasoning about their experience and how/whether this experience exists within a broader reality, as well as about the nature of that broader reality. So if you are indeed basing your reasoning about this issue upon the logical assumption that there are several ways of looking at the world, one being your own way and another being the "religious" way, and that these two ways are mutually exclusive and possibly incomprehensible to each other, I would then have to put on my smug postmodernist hat and say that this assumption is (1) in some ways Othering religious people in comparison to you and your own school of thought, and (2) not a whole lot different from, for example, a religious person who cannot conceive of how an atheist could possibly live by a code of morals. Please note that I am not saying that you are indeed doing this or that you're bad or mean or anything negative: I'm just trying to give you some ideas to think on, because clearly you are someone who has thoughts about stuff and is curious to learn, which is cool and good. And actually, I lied that I was going to cover the two topics I listed in my first paragraph. I will try to write more eventually but time is short at the moment, so I'll just post this part for now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:My dad is an ELCA pastor I grew up in it This is good stuff! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Jedi Knight Luigi posted:This is good stuff! On the other hand, I maintain that the best drat church after-service food and coffee I've ever had was at a Wisconsin Synod church I visited.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Question for the Catholics: Can a member of the laity give someone a Trinitarian baptism and have it be valid even if it's illicit?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Question for the Catholics: iana judicial vicar, but I'll take a swing. By my reading, Baptism in a non-emergency situation would be considered valid but illicit, as baptism is technically the role of the parish priest. The baptized would be Christian but not Catholic. CCC posted:V. Who can Baptize? But my understanding is that a lay performed baptism that follows the Trinitarian formula would be considered valid in any case but not canonical. The Catholic Church would see no difference between a baptism performed by, say, a evangelical reverend, and a lay Catholic performing a baptism, except inasmuch as the Catholic performing the baptism would be doing so illicitly if it is not an emergency (this would effect the baptist but not the baptized). The evangelical baptism is considered valid, but not licit or canonical, because it baptizes one but does not grant the same standing with the Catholic Church and so they would later need it legitimized to proceed with other sacraments (hence RCIA etc.). When a Catholic does so in an emergency, it's understood to be canonical, as in the Church recognizes it as a Catholic baptism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Question for the Catholics: ah, even i know the answer to this one! *pulls back curtain revealing ten Encyclopedia Britannicas' worth of church law and errata* now do you want to go chronologically, or hierarchically?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Question for the Catholics: 99% sure yes, check the most recent errata tho
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 01:35
|
|