TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
No bio...
User ID: 616
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
9hr ago
The Orthodox still believe in the bodily ressurection. I think the standard claim would be that Christ's body and the physicality of it is a Holy Mystery, and that we don't necessarily need to know.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
9hr ago
I mean Rome as the patriarchal seat, compared to the rest of the pentarchy. (i.e. the Orthodox church.)
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
14hr ago
This is a great overview of Orthodox belief on heaven: https://www.saintjohnchurch.org/the-truth-about-heaven-and-hell/
In general, the Orthodox are much less focused on 'figuring things out' so to speak in a material way. We are more comfortable with divine mystery. It's hard to put into words exactly, but from what you describe of Mormon doctrine I think a lot of Orthodox would see these things almost as distractions, needless confusion arising from trying to be right in an intellectual sense.
That being said I'm new to Orthodoxy myself so please take all of this with a grain of salt!
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
14hr ago
Fair point! I do think that Mormons are relatively up front about things at least from my interactions. I disagree but haven't personally seen a lot of dishonesty, just focus on the more 'normal' parts. Which every religion does, hah.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
14hr ago
But more to the point, I'm not sure that the default mode of interpreting a confusing 1st century apocalyptic passage in Scripture should be modern literalism! I don't think that this is special pleading on the part of Christians, either, Jewish pre-Christian literature has a lot of similarly (and intentionally) vague passages – Christ is quoting Daniel in this one – and I think that reading them symbolically/non-literally predates Christ. So I'm cautious about reading the text and taking the most obvious and straightforward surface-level interpretation (particularly in a translation) as the correct one. (That's part of what's been very interesting and helpful to me about this discussion, is getting a feel for why people think it should be interpreted this way. As I think I mentioned, I do not have a settled opinion).
Thanks for this! Actually helped me settle some of my own doubts here. Well said.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
14hr ago
I would say desecrating the Eucharist in 1054 and killing/expelling/enslaving all Italian Catholics in 1182 are both examples of Constantinople being in the wrong politically first.
Both of the churches were wrong politically in many ways - I'll be honest I haven't done a full accounting of the details as I frankly don't have the time or inclination. Part of my decision is based on looking at the 'spirit' of both churches today, and since the schism. Another part is just the fact that Rome essentially took what was an overall democratic church, and demanded to have sole power over all of Christendom. Those two things together are strong evidence from my perspective that Rome was in the wrong.
Frankly I think even the 5 sees being somehow more "legitimate" than other churches is a bit suss, although I'll say that I'm definitely a Nicene Christian.
I don't think there's anything we'd require the other side to change, just reconfirmation of Rome's primacy.
See, this is the problem! Basically the entire schism comes down to Rome asserting primacy that is not apostolic! You can't just say "we want to end the argument, you just have to give in to all of my demands that actually matter to you" and expect it to work.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
14hr ago
OK. It sounds like when you say "it's a bit tough to actually find what the Mormons believe" what you mean is that it's a bit tough to track down the apologetics addressing contradictory evidence. For that I'd invite you to check out https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/. Or, again, just ask me. You're not going to see every piece of evidence for and against a claim addressed in a post called "Mormonism 101".
Yeah I think that for me, and many other Mormon-skeptical Christians, the truth claims of Joseph Smith and his status as a prophet are the big breaking points. It seems @Stellula is stuck on the same place.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
14hr ago
So all of this basically hinges on the argument that Joseph Smith was a legitimate prophet, and took the line of succession with him entirely, correct?
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
14hr ago
I get that it's seen as heretical to believe God has a physical body and that all things spiritual are physical too. But please don't boil it down to "God is an astronaut," which greatly demeans him in my eyes. I would never call your idea of God a Planeswalker just because you believe he travels between dimensions.
This is also a caricature of the Orthodox view on God. That being said, the Orthodox have little problem connecting the spiritual and the physical.
My admittedly limited understanding is that Mormonism literally believes in God the Father having a basically human physical body though...
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
14hr ago
How has the church hurt you? There seems to be a personal animus in what you're saying.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
20hr ago
Luckily the Eastern Orthodox, with a variety of Patriarchs, don't have this problem.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
20hr ago
I’m curious though how you perceive ecclesiastical authority to be distinct from ideological? To me obviously they feel to be fundamentally intertwined, as “personnel is policy” as they say in the secular political world, but is it typical in either East or West orthodoxy to consider them quite distinct?
Both East and West tend to cite apostolic succession as the bedrock of their authority. Obviously Protestants tend to disagree because, well... none of them have a true chain of apostolic succession.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
20hr ago
This is the version I have always heard. Specifically, the Patriarch excommunicates the legates, not the Patriarch of Rome. Which is a crucial distinction:
Relations between East and West had long been embittered by political and ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes.[1] Pope Leo IX and Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius heightened the conflict by suppressing Greek and Latin in their respective domains. In 1054, Roman legates traveled to Cerularius to deny him the title Ecumenical Patriarch and to insist that he recognize the Church of Rome's claim to be the head and mother of the churches.[1] Cerularius refused. The leader of the Latin contingent excommunicated Cerularius, while Cerularius in return excommunicated the legates.[1]
From https://orthodoxwiki.org/Great_Schism#cite_note-Cross-1.
Most of the Church didn't realize there's a permanent Schism, it slowly develops over time. The Massacre of the Latins in Constantinople in 1182 was a more significant event, with 60,000 Latins dead or sold into slavery, but the Schism probably really became permanent in the Fourth Crusade with the Sack of Constantinople.
This is another major issue which... is pretty unambiguously the fault of the See of Rome.
While I'm sure there are a ton of small historical details you can quibble about, to me the overall thrust makes it pretty obvious that Rome is in the wrong. That being said, I try to be ecumenical and I do hope that the Church can become whole again one day. We'll see!
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1d ago
It's quite obvious to me that the biggest problem is the Great Schism of 1054, where the patriarch of Rome decided he was better than the rest of the Church, based on specious reading of scripture.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1d ago
I believe the idea is that since Christ entrusted Peter with the power to bind and loose (which is to say to forbid or permit with indisputable authority) he and his successors ultimately are to make that decision.
Yes which is why all of the other apostles always deferred to Peter in everything, and treated him like a king...
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1d ago
Everyone always forgets the Orthodox, just because they are more spiritual/mystic and far far away …
We kind of like it that way, I think. A big issue with the Catholic church imo is that power has corrupted them over the centuries.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
2d ago
Hmm you make it sound so nice, but idk man. I still have a lot of trouble squaring the religious proscription toward monogamy with casual sex with an extramarital partner.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
2d ago
This says something important about communication of conservative ideologies, though I'm not entirely sure what, and perhaps says even more about the terribleness of ideologies that are able to win within the attention economy.
I think the problem is that the attention economies cater to what people want to hear, instead of what they need to hear.
Except we strongly disagree on what Biblical actually means.
More options
Context Copy link