|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The world, absent the RCC
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
On a recent Hell thread one of our more exceptionally brilliant posters* wondered what this world would be like if the RCC had never existed.
Your thoughts on the topic appreciated - TIA.
*I won't link to it as he's a humble guy and might be embarrassed by public approbation.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
What do you mean by No Roman Catholic church?
Options:
- No East/West split over the filioque and everyone is in a single communion where the Arch-bishop of Rome is the primate for Italy?
- No Council of Trent, in which case the moderate Reformers succeed and get to hold a balance of power and Luther does not get excommunicated.
- The Reformation happens but for some reason unspecified the Roman Catholic Church post Council of Trent fails and we are left with the diverse Protestant and Orthodox groupings
This is important because each of these I think would lead to different situations today.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I don't know when the Roman Catholic Church started.
Is it the vestigial 'redundant church' that was left behind when the Church was reformed and carried on as Lutheranism/Anglicanism and its descendants?
Is it, as Rome would claim, the church that has existed since Apostolic times from which many other independent and inferior ecclesiastical communities sprang after 1517?
Is it itself a reformed version of what existed in Luther's day and which he wouldn't recognise if he saw it?
I don't think the question can be answered because it seems to me that that would be like asking what would the world be like if one of my parents never existed?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
... I meant to say that as a genealogist I would say that the RCC exists in every denomination that we see today. Not one church on this earth was 'invented from scratch' from the Bible blueprint.
We are all inextricably linked to Rome - even The Salvation Army, that unique, heretical, non-sacramental organisation with made-up military titles, is the great-grandaughter of the RCC church and is an inheritor of catholic piety and holiness teaching, structure and ethical positions.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
I don't know when the Roman Catholic Church started.
I'm just gonna throw out Constantine as a possible starting point here. Not going on much besides a bit of vaguely understood history. Others may have a different opinion.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
I don't know when the Roman Catholic Church started.
I'm just gonna throw out Constantine as a possible starting point here. Not going on much besides a bit of vaguely absorbed history. Others may have a different opinion.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I agree with Mudfrog. No RCC no Protestants, no Protestants no Salvationists, no ... [delete any other Protestant denomination of choice].
I don't think we can say that the RC Church 'started' with Constantine as clearly the Papacy - admittedly in embryonic form - existed before that. The Bishops of Rome were regarded as the Western Patriarch - a title that they have only eschewed comparatively recently if my Orthodox informants are to be believed.
I think Jengie's three scenarios are interesting, but there are other possible scenarios too.
As a pedantic point, though, Luther was excommunicated in 1521. Trent didn't sit until 1545 - 1563. Arguably, by that time all the horses had bolted so what Trent was doing was applying its judgements retrospectively.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
A more interesting question would be, what would have happened if Pope Leo X had read Luther's statements and said, "Oh, OK then, I'll buy all that - let's go for it!"
Had Luther stayed in Rome and the Pope had reformed the church, what would it all look like now?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I can't deal with an alternative history in which Jesus never existed.
But if Christianity had never attained political power in either the soft sense (in parts of USA you have to be thought a Christian to get elected) or in the objective hard sense of ability to discipline kings, raise armies (crusades), persecute non-believers (inquisition telling kings who to kill for non-belief), no Holy Roman Empire, if kings had never assumed their subjects must adopt the king's version of Christianity (Henry 8, Germanic states), etc - that could be interesting to ponder how would history and life today be different. -
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Married clergy would presumably more common, but didn't the RCC ultimately end up discarding the most egregious of the practices highlighted by Luther anyway?
My suspicion is that if the RCC accepted Luther's criticisms, it would start to look like open season on the policies of the church, and the church would have to be very quick to redraw the red lines around that which was inviolable. The use of Latin in worship would swiftly come under attack, for example.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I think that we already have an exploration of one possibility. Several of the things for which the RCC is blamed (state churches and mass conversions) existed in the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox world.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
If the Catholic Church never existed it would be because God never became incarnate.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
If the Catholic Church never existed it would be because God never became incarnate.
But he would still have had his covenant people.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As a pedantic point, though, Luther was excommunicated in 1521. Trent didn't sit until 1545 - 1563. Arguably, by that time all the horses had bolted so what Trent was doing was applying its judgements retrospectively.
I know that, I am not making guesses at what will happen, but stating conditions that would prevail for there to be no Council of Trent.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
I agree with Mudfrog and Gamaliel, it can't be imagined; it would be like trying to imagine your own life if one of your parents had died before you were conceived!
(Hope it's clear this is a general "you" meaning "one".)
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
What would the RC Church of the 16th century have looked like if it had embraced Luther's reforms?
The Church of England?
![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Then the CoE would be an Orthodox schism! Or more likely we would all be Muslims. It would have meant initially that Papal Supremacy failed in the West, which is impossible, not because it's true, which is meaningless, but because it is so convenient, so corrupting. How could it have failed? It is one of the most toxic memes of all time. Rome would have had to have been destroyed by a comet strike not to have won.
How could the theology and eccelesiology of Constantinople ever have prevailed in Rome? And if it impossibly had, Rome would still have had pre-eminence. There would still have had to have been schism.
A plague of raging haemorrhagic fever in Rome in 1054 at the latest would have done it, would have shifted the balance of power. Left a vacuum at least. Unless we want to go back to Constantine and annihilate Rome then.
What would have filled the vacuum? Not Constantinople. Darkness and Islam. And the Roman Catholic Church from the provinces.
Rome would have had to have been totally destroyed between the third and sixth centuries.
Even though it was! I mean totally. Comet strike. And Charles Martel would have had to lose the Battle of Tours. And ... no, you can't keep a bad meme down.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Then the CoE would be an Orthodox schism!
No, it would be "autocephalous", like Russia and Bulgaria and the rest of them... :-)
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Then the CoE would be an Orthodox schism!
No, it would be "autocephalous", like Russia and Bulgaria and the rest of them... :-)
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nice pererin. But would a Roman Orthodox France and a Roman Orthodox Spain have driven out Islam? Would a Roman Orthodox Augustine have come to Britain? Possibly. Is Orthodox culture as martial as Catholic? Would Orthodoxy have undermined the military capabilities of Western Europeans, Rome's heirs? I doubt it. Orthodox Rome would have won. There would have been Roman Orthodox crusades, by the Roman Orthodox Supreme Pontiff.
We'd be Roman Orthodox heretics.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
I think you'd have to go a long way back.
Ever played the children's game of Opposites ? If I say "black" you say "white" and so on ? If I say "Protestant", you say "Catholic".
A world without the RCC is a world where there was no Reformation because Christianity never developed any of the characteristics that the Reformers were protesting at.
No indulgences, then, for starters. But that doesn't seem much of a basis for an alternate history.
How about no professional clergy ? A collection plate that goes entirely to the sick and the poor. A Pauline model of amateur preachers in each community who make their living by their secular day job. Wandering apostles and prophets who move from place to place, never allowing themselves to be set up as having any authority other than personal moral authority which dies with them.
You can have the conversion of Constantine, you can have great cathedrals. But no papal court. No anathemas. No Bible as such - individual gospels and letters and testaments but no canon.
A grass-roots religion that stays as a grass-roots religion. Where the Christian Emperor comes with everyone else to hear the tent-maker (or the candlestick-maker, whatever) preach the Word and consecrate the Body and Blood.
A very different path.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I like your 'Imagine' Russ, but why wouldn't it have become Roman Orthodox? Christianity wins by losing and loses by winning.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Martin,
Orthodox Rome is a perfectly good alternate history, and a valid answer to the original question.
I just don't know enough about the differences between Orthodox and Catholic culture to know where it would go. Sometimes those differences don't seem large.
No crusades ? No Renaissance ? - no idea.
I was suggesting something more radical - a Christianity that remained as Protestants envisage early Christianity to be. That could absorb becoming the State religion of the Roman Empire without losing its apolitical character, that could resist the temptation to set up a religious central authority alongside the Imperial central authority.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I saw that Russ and cry 'If only!'. Can we go forward to that?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I was suggesting something more radical - a Christianity that remained as Protestants envisage early Christianity to be.
I suspect the problem is that the protestant conception of what early Christianity was like is as much a fantasy as the Roman attempt to project backwards the monarchical papacy.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I was suggesting something more radical - a Christianity that remained as Protestants envisage early Christianity to be.
I suspect the problem is that the protestant conception of what early Christianity was like is as much a fantasy as the Roman attempt to project backwards the monarchical papacy.
Indeed. Comment of the day.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ahleal V
Shipmate
# 8404
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Then the CoE would be an Orthodox schism!
No, it would be "autocephalous", like Russia and Bulgaria and the rest of them... :-)
I thought that's what we were/are anyway... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Would I be wrong in speculating that without 'Western' monasticism, we wouldn't have the ancient universities across Britain and the continent?
x
AV
[ 28. August 2013, 09:35: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]
Posts: 499 | From: English Spires | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I'm with Martin. The likeliest reason for there being no RCC, as we know it, is that Rome never split from the rest of the Orthodox Church. Had the Bishop of Rome (Hmmm - why not Archbishop, I suddenly wonder?) remained as one among equals, then much could have remained the same. However, I think there would have been less absolutism, because the Pope would no longer be THE living authority, but one among many.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Ahleal V is likely right. Most European universities come from the mediaeval ferment which produced the Franciscans and Dominicans. There's lots of debate on whether or not the universities of Cordova, Toledo, Seville, and Granada originate in the madrasahs there but I think that the argument is strongly in their favour.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Nice pererin. But would a Roman Orthodox France and a Roman Orthodox Spain have driven out Islam?
The point I'd make is that they would not be Roman. The Archbishops of Rheims and Toledo would be top dogs on their respective patches. I'd see the whole Islamic business taking a similar course, but there would be a distinct risk of ending up with several people who thought they were Archbishop of Toledo at the same time, much as happened with Alexandria and Antioch.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I was suggesting something more radical - a Christianity that remained as Protestants envisage early Christianity to be.
I suspect the problem is that the protestant conception of what early Christianity was like is as much a fantasy as the Roman attempt to project backwards the monarchical papacy.
As indeed was the Victorian Oxford Movement imagining of the Medieval English church.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I'm with Martin. The likeliest reason for there being no RCC, as we know it, is that Rome never split from the rest of the Orthodox Church. Had the Bishop of Rome (Hmmm - why not Archbishop, I suddenly wonder?) remained as one among equals, then much could have remained the same. However, I think there would have been less absolutism, because the Pope would no longer be THE living authority, but one among many.
Pseudo-historical bollocks.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The world without the RCC?
A less populous place, perhaps...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I'm with Martin. The likeliest reason for there being no RCC, as we know it, is that Rome never split from the rest of the Orthodox Church. Had the Bishop of Rome (Hmmm - why not Archbishop, I suddenly wonder?) remained as one among equals, then much could have remained the same. However, I think there would have been less absolutism, because the Pope would no longer be THE living authority, but one among many.
There's two kinds of authority -- as Newman and a slew of historians have pointed out, Rome from very early on had prevailing doctrinal authority, perhaps owing to its distance from the more febrile controversies of the early church. I don't think that this would have changed at all and in theological matters, the Pope would still do his thing, although likely without claims of infallibility.
Administrative and judicial authority is something else, and the post-Reformation Vaticanocentric administrative centralism might easily have developed into something much less intense, with (perhaps) increased primatial authority in Canterbury or Trondheim or Toledo or Krakow or Québec or Rheims/Paris. Much of what we think of as RC practice is actually fairly recent-- 150 years ago, a large number of bishops were named by royal appointment or capitular election.
An earlier poster wondered if they would have had an Archbishop of Rome. Some patriarchs are bishops of their sees, such as Antioch, others are archbishops, such as Alexandria, and a few are neither (Moscow). The exact title is local custom. As the very tattooed young woman who sells me organic calaloo says, "Whatever."
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Nice pererin. But would a Roman Orthodox France and a Roman Orthodox Spain have driven out Islam? Would a Roman Orthodox Augustine have come to Britain? Possibly. Is Orthodox culture as martial as Catholic?
Constantinople was quite good at beating up Muslims until the Venetians did them over in the Fourth Crusade.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yeah but Jean Parisot de Valette HAD to be RC surely?
And Russ' vision isn't a Protestant one, as Protestant is Catholic. Western.
And AND, if there had been no RCC how would Islam have evolved differently? If at all?
If the church had remained powerless except in numbers, holding all things in common, would it have resisted the twin evils of Hellenization and Romanization? And thus avoided mutually ruinous conflict with Persia. Into the vacuum of which stormed Islam?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And Russ' vision isn't a Protestant one, as Protestant is Catholic. Western.
What's the Mar Thoma Church then?
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Fascinating!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Rome from very early on had prevailing doctrinal authority, perhaps owing to its distance from the more febrile controversies of the early church. I don't think that this would have changed at all and in theological matters, the Pope would still do his thing, although likely without claims of infallibility.
Rome was very much in the middle of the febrile controversies of the early church. It's position was as an arbiter of 'lesser' churches, owing to its preeminent honour and the respect accorded it as the Old Capital. Controversies that local bishops couldn't handle, or that were between local bishops were put before Rome as a (supposedly) neutral, wise, and elder peer. Similar arbitration duties were accorded to other 'elder' churches such as Constantinople.
In terms of doctrinal authority, Rome considered itself, from the 3rd/4th century to have more and more authority to influence and eventually to dictate doctrine, and many in the Western churches seemed to be happy to follow along with such claims. But the practice of the universal church was from the beginning that doctrine could only be considered orthodox when decided by the will of the church in council, not by the will of one bishop, however eminent.
If Rome had not insisted on what it considered to be its sole authority over its co-bishops, then it would have likely continued as a centre of theological study and learning, being considered a wise arbiter of dissent and controversy, along with other similar centres. But no more than that.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You can have the conversion of Constantine, you can have great cathedrals. But no papal court. No anathemas. No Bible as such - individual gospels and letters and testaments but no canon.
A grass-roots religion that stays as a grass-roots religion.
Impossible. When the Emperor of the greatest Power the world had ever seen co-opted Christianity as his State Religion the grass-roots religion was already long-changed, and that was the final nail. You'd have to remove Constantine's conversion to have any chance of the anti-history you propose.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I was suggesting something more radical - a Christianity that remained as Protestants envisage early Christianity to be.
I suspect the problem is that the protestant conception of what early Christianity was like is as much a fantasy as the Roman attempt to project backwards the monarchical papacy.
As indeed was the Victorian Oxford Movement imagining of the Medieval English church.
very interesting, Jade.
And Russ, why would it have to be a Christianity that is the way
Protestants envisage early Christianity? Why not the way Catholics do? Or why not something else altogether, that none of us has correctly envisaged....?
Of course this is alternate history, so I guess we can envisage what we like!
Interestingly, re the Oxford Movement, there was a resurgence of interest in very early Christianity then too, as well as in medieval, and there were several Early Christian novels--Cardinal Manning's "Fabiola", Newman wrote one too I think, as did other non-Oxford Movement people including "muscular Christianity" 's Charles Kingsley. Other Shippies will know more..
an interesting study could be done (probably has) on the way certain eras look back on the past, inevitably coloured with their own Zeitgeist....and probably drastically different from the reality.
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And Russ' vision isn't a Protestant one, as Protestant is Catholic. Western.
What's the Mar Thoma Church then?
In India - claims to have been founded by St. Thomas.
There's a branch in this city because of a high concentration of computer workers who have settled here from India.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
moron: On a recent Hell thread one of our more exceptionally brilliant posters* wondered what this world would be like if the RCC had never existed.
All Christians would be Copts?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
The Mar Thoma church, in South India, is a protestant type break-off. The Syro-Malabar church, ( also in Kerala), venerates S. Thomas, as well. His major shrine (and hermitage) is about 40 miles from where I stay every winter. The dear man died, unfortunately, when he was visiting Chennai, where his remains are (at least most of them).
[ 30. August 2013, 14:40: Message edited by: PeteC ]
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye, Hawk, as I said, I said, Christianity wins by losing and loses by winning.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I wish Christianity hadn't been stripped of its Jewish roots and heritage by anti-Semitic Popes in the early centuries. Easter would be at Passover for a start, and the Eucharist wouldn't have had the 'magical mystery' stuff that was given to it in the couple of centuries after the Apostles.
We have lost so much deep meaning to the Gospel because we lost the Jewish foundations.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wish Christianity hadn't been stripped of its Jewish roots and heritage by anti-Semitic Popes in the early centuries. Easter would be at Passover for a start, and the Eucharist wouldn't have had the 'magical mystery' stuff that was given to it in the couple of centuries after the Apostles.
Easter Day is at Passover (or to be pedantic, on the Sunday falling between the 15th and 21st of Nisan). That's what all the stuff about moons and solstices is there to determine. The only slight snag is that the calendar currently used by Jews has become slightly detached from the seasons, so that in three years in nineteen, they observe Passover a month off. Unfortunately, no-one in modern Judaism seems to have the authority to reform the calendar.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wish Christianity hadn't been stripped of its Jewish roots and heritage by anti-Semitic Popes in the early centuries. Easter would be at Passover for a start, and the Eucharist wouldn't have had the 'magical mystery' stuff that was given to it in the couple of centuries after the Apostles.
We have lost so much deep meaning to the Gospel because we lost the Jewish foundations.
I love it when I read stuff like this. It's complete nonsense, of course, not because the Church didn't disassociate itself from Judaism but rather because of the suggestion that by doing so some kind of authenticity, or whatever you want to call it, was lost. By the time of Jesus' ministry Jusaism was far from the faith of Abraham and by putting our Lord to death it became positively apostate. This is the main reason, as well as the fact that Christianity is universal, not Jewish.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
