Kevin's Watch

Really just a question for rusmeister. I'm not much versed in ancient history, I've focused on American military history really. So recently I've expanded, and I'm reading 'Augustine and the Jews', and this paragraph made me think of rus' recent posts in Atheist Bus and Hell.

Third, throughout the present study I have tried to compensate for one of the abiding problems in the field of ancient Christian studies: the language of the winners. Surveys of pre-Constantinian Christianity often identify various Christian communities, marginalized only during the power struggles of the fourth century and later, as already "heretical" in the late first century, or in the second, or in the third. Such an approach seems to grant to the "orthodox" their own claim, namely, that their version of Christianity was the defining one, always the same from the beginning and therefore authentic and in some special sense "true." It thereby invites and promotes anachronism. Before Constantine, each of the various Christian communities thought that its own views were correct and that the views of others, if different, were false. Before 312, what we have is variety. After 312, we still have variety. By that point, however, events had led to a clear, functional definition of orthodoxy: the views that enjoyed the support of the emperor. After 312, in brief, what primarily distinguished orthodox Christians from their rivals was power. To think otherwise is simply to recapitualte in modern academic language the ancient rhetoric of the orthodox bishops. (To see some version of rabbinic Judaism as "orthodox" Judaism projects the same error onto ancient Jewish communities.)

I'm sure rus, you would disagree that the power of the emperor defined orthodox Christianity?

Interesting. I'd like to hear a response to that, too.

I've been saying all along that it's hard for me to accept that only Orthodoxy was immune to the societal influences that allegedly corrupted the understanding of the other belief systems that have existed...so I'd like to see an answer too.

Cybrweez wrote:Really just a question for rusmeister. I'm not much versed in ancient history, I've focused on American military history really. So recently I've expanded, and I'm reading 'Augustine and the Jews', and this paragraph made me think of rus' recent posts in Atheist Bus and Hell.

Third, throughout the present study I have tried to compensate for one of the abiding problems in the field of ancient Christian studies: the language of the winners. Surveys of pre-Constantinian Christianity often identify various Christian communities, marginalized only during the power struggles of the fourth century and later, as already "heretical" in the late first century, or in the second, or in the third. Such an approach seems to grant to the "orthodox" their own claim, namely, that their version of Christianity was the defining one, always the same from the beginning and therefore authentic and in some special sense "true." It thereby invites and promotes anachronism. Before Constantine, each of the various Christian communities thought that its own views were correct and that the views of others, if different, were false. Before 312, what we have is variety. After 312, we still have variety. By that point, however, events had led to a clear, functional definition of orthodoxy: the views that enjoyed the support of the emperor. After 312, in brief, what primarily distinguished orthodox Christians from their rivals was power. To think otherwise is simply to recapitualte in modern academic language the ancient rhetoric of the orthodox bishops. (To see some version of rabbinic Judaism as "orthodox" Judaism projects the same error onto ancient Jewish communities.)

I'm sure rus, you would disagree that the power of the emperor defined orthodox Christianity?

Of course I do. It speaks as if there were no Patriarchs* or presiding bishops and as if only the emperor had real power over the Church. This actually happened with the Anglican Church under Henry VIII, and the Roman Church where the Pope gradually took the position of secular ruler by default, but this never happened in the Eastern Church - Byzantium plus Jerusalem plus Antioch plus Alexandria - where patriarchs and councils of bishops co-existed beside the rulers. It is a necessary thesis for certain Christian faiths that have no history to reference, but a faith which hangs its historical claims on speculation is a doubtful one indeed. Taken to its logical conclusion, it means that we can know nothing about any history whatsoever. I find it more rational to accept that historical scholarship can identify valid primary sources that we can take as representations of genuine history. The alternative is to say, "Oh you are just saying that because you are Orthodox" - a rather baseless charge. It reminds me of CS Lewis's wonderful book (that I disliked at first reading, not understanding it): "The Pilgrim's Regress"), where he expresses a great argument for reductio ad absurdum:

"Now tell me, someone, what is argument?"
There was a confused murmur.
"Come, come," said the jailor, "You must know your catechisms by now. You there, what is argument?"
"Argument is the attempted rationalization of the arguer's desires."
"Very good," replied the jailor, "but you should turn out your toes and put your hands behind your back. That is better. Now: what is the proper answer to an argument proving the existence of the Landlord? The proper answer is, 'You say that because you are a Steward'."
...
"Good. Now, just one more. What is the answer to an argument turning on the belief that two and two make four?"
"The answer is, 'You say that because you are a mathematician."
"You are a very good boy," said the jailor, "And when I come back I shall bring you something nice."

I can equally say that BEFORE 312, what distinguished orthodox Christians from their rivals was power - namely, that they didn't have any. Thus, the flat statement "To think otherwise", which uses the word rhetoric as an insinuation of falsehood rather than in its traditional meaning of debate/defense involving reason, can be turned on its head to mean that "the bishops used reason and rhetoric, but I have an opinion (based on unnamed sources)..." ("Ancient" is also evidently a word meant to mean "untrue") From there, the "error" is taken as a first assumption.

The issue of who is heretical and who is not is indeed a complex one - certainly heresies appeared early on which pulled the Church in different directions. The nature of heresy is that it invalidates, in one way or other, the core teachings. So the Aryan heresies, in denying the Godhood of Christ, made of no effect the teaching that Christ could save us - that he is not God (taking something complex and boiling it down to its essence); the nature of the Trinity. these questions are called "Christological" and so dogma is built specifically around them, the word being understood as final conclusions regarding which there is no doubt - something to be taken as a base given, rather than in the modern understanding of "unreason". Thus, the "variety" you speak of - a purely modern virtue projected onto those ancient communities - was something that could create enormous divisions and completely separate Christian people - hardly the act of a Holy Spirit leading us into all truth - and which did happen, first in the Great Schism, and then again at the Reformation. Christian divisions today look like the thousands of copies of Agent Smith from the matrix. No reasonable Christian could agree that these divisions is of God, and thus, our projected diversity, far from being a virtue, is actually a horrible vice. (We do see there being purpose and value in diversity - but not in teachings of what the Truth is.) It is a misapplication of the concept. Therefore, one version of Christianity MUST be orthodox, that is to say, correct, true, and right faith, and the others must part from that orthodoxy, to whatever degree, at certain points. The question then becomes, "Where is that ancient Church, that must have survived these 2,000 years, if the Holy Spirit is really guiding it?" And that makes sense of the divisions we see today.

* It should be stressed that Patriarchs are NOT rulers of the Church in the sense that the Pope is of the Catholic Church. They do not have any such absolute power or "magisterium". The big decisions are always made in councils - in a collegial manner. Thus, no one man can bring down the entire Church - a major, and valid complaint against Catholicism.

Just want to note that I'm not well studied in this area, and I may quote, in this case from 'Augustine and the Jews', but it doesn't mean I agree w/the quote.

rus, not sure if I really read a 'why' you disagree that the power of Constantine didn't determine orthodoxy, but that it existed previous. Who were the church fathers previous that were consider orthodox? Who considered them orthodox? Was it due to there being more who agreed w/those particular fathers?

I know its not a plain path, as even in the New Testament, their are letters that talk about false teachers, so heretics existed from the start.

But, where I may stumble is this idea of orthodoxy. Because, when these heretics popped up, what made them heretics? Could one point them to a particular writing, or did they point them to a particular person? A particular church? (and how is that defined?) I really don't have much of an idea, so I'm asking w/o much of any preconceived ideas.

Of course, a RC answer may differ, and a protestant may still differ, but at least I can get the Orthodox side.

Cybrweez wrote:Just want to note that I'm not well studied in this area, and I may quote, in this case from 'Augustine and the Jews', but it doesn't mean I agree w/the quote.

rus, not sure if I really read a 'why' you disagree that the power of Constantine didn't determine orthodoxy, but that it existed previous. Who were the church fathers previous that were consider orthodox? Who considered them orthodox? Was it due to there being more who agreed w/those particular fathers?

I know its not a plain path, as even in the New Testament, their are letters that talk about false teachers, so heretics existed from the start.

But, where I may stumble is this idea of orthodoxy. Because, when these heretics popped up, what made them heretics? Could one point them to a particular writing, or did they point them to a particular person? A particular church? (and how is that defined?) I really don't have much of an idea, so I'm asking w/o much of any preconceived ideas.

Of course, a RC answer may differ, and a protestant may still differ, but at least I can get the Orthodox side.

Thanks, Andy!
I think you'll find, especially on that early history, little disagreement between Orthodox and Catholic sources. What disagreement that developed over the first millennium centered mostly around the nature of episcopal (Papal) authority.
It's fine for everyone to have opinions and even speculate - as long as they are clear that that is what they are doing. The question is, who is right? Who has the best scholarship and research on the history of the early Church? The best thinking, common sense and reason? Obviously not everyone can be right, so some MUST be wrong. When you throw in our short life spans, it's obvious that the limitations to what we can know on our own are huge.

On your first questions, this can answer a lot of them:
www.ccel.org/fathers.html

For a general view of history:
www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/englis ... ware_1.htm

For the origin and reason behind faith and worship:
www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/englis ... ware_2.htm
It's definitely outside of the paradigms you're probably familiar with. (For me, and people of my Baptist-type background, the shocker is that it all really IS scriptural!)

I guess I would ask, "On what basis do we consider the words of Paul or Peter to be authoritative? Who did they later transfer the authority given them to? What did bishops, presbyters (priests) and deacons have to do with the price of tea in China?"
A reasonable mind must see that without authority, people will come up with millions of contradictory opinions and ideas. Unless there is authority, there can be no unity. Especially over thousands of years. A faith, without authority, would become completely unrecognizable to its original adherents if everyone becomes their own authority for understanding what Christianity is. And this IS what has happened in the West.

Your emphasis on number

being more who agreed

seems to imply a democratic approach - that there are different paths, with a majority rule. That does apply, to an extent, to the Councils - the ultimate instruments of the definition of what the faith is that all refer to, to one degree or another. But the basis of such a democratic treatment of views is combined with a submission to an authority greater than the self. (How could people discuss questions of what was "scriptural", when there WAS no unified Scripture to reference, for example?) Thus, the question became "What is true?" and "What does not contradict our faith?" Heresy, in the sense it should be understood, is not mere disagreement about any teaching at all. Properly understood, it is a teaching that makes the Faith itself of no effect, and as I said above, things like Aryanism, Montanism, etc, added up to either: "Christ is God, but not Man" which contradicts the core idea that he really became human and shared in our life and sufferings (making Him able to say, for our purposes, that he really does understand us), or "Christ was man, but not God", which makes Him unable to save us, again, a fatal contradiction. (I'm simplifying, but just so you get the general idea). So ideas are really dangerous, and an idea could tear the Church apart - and in some cases, did just that.

Usually, the heresy, when it IS heresy, is one that takes something, most often in Scripture, out of the entire context of the Tradition (big 't' - the Tradition of God, if you will) of the Church. Thus, Tolstoy, for example, actually committed heresy in teaching that Jesus was not the Son of God, thereby voluntarily cutting himself off from the Church. Thus, his excommunication was not something "done to him" but something he did to himself. All he had to do was repent and acknowledge Christ's Godhood to be received as a member of the Church in good standing. But he originally arrived at heresy through placing himself as an authority that knew better than the Church. And the first place he went wrong was in taking Christ's principle of turning the other cheek out of the context of Scripture as a whole, and making THAT the basis of his philosophy of non-resistance to evil. And that's how pretty much all heresy works. people read one thing taken out of its context of all Scripture and other Tradition, and make it a central base for their views. Lewis put it in his "Space trilogy":

"I see now how the lord of the silent world has bent you. There are laws that all hnau know, of pity and straight dealing and shame and the like, and one of these is the love of kindred. He has taught you to break all of them except this one, which is not one of the greatest laws; this one he has bent till it becomes folly and has set it up, thus bent, to be a little, blind Oyarsa in your brain. And now you can do nothing but obey it, though if we ask you why it is a law you can give no other reason for it than for all the other and greater laws which it drives you to disobey. Do you know why he has done this?"
"Me think no such person - me wise, new man - no believe all that old talk."
"I will tell you. He has left you this one because a bent hnau can do more evil than a broken one.

So to avoid heresy the final answer is turning to an authority greater than self to interpret Scripture or understand what the faith is. Thus, the eunuch turned to Philip, who in turn turned to Scripture and taught, not his own opinion, but what had been passed down to him. The authority with which he spoke came from the fact that it was precisely not his opinion, but the Truth.

Again, your questions are good ones, and they are big, so this post cannot exhaustively answer them. But if you read what I have linked to above, you may begin to understand how it could really be possible to seek for and find that faith which was passed down from the beginning (and not be merely the opinions and schemes of a bunch of men in robes).

rus, I most likely will look into those links, so may not have much to add to this discussion at the moment.

But I was just thinking, I wonder if this reminds me of the idea of what this country's (USA) founding was all about. I hear about the 'original ideals' of this country, or similarly, 'that's Unconstitutional', quite frequently, started a topic about it, which didn't seem to lead anywhere. But I wonder if there's a similarity, the question would be, what is "Orthodox America"? I would say you can find that out, by researching those who founded it and their writings. It may not mean they all agreed, but there was a consensus right? The consensus is what came to be.

Cybrweez wrote:rus, I most likely will look into those links, so may not have much to add to this discussion at the moment.

But I was just thinking, I wonder if this reminds me of the idea of what this country's (USA) founding was all about. I hear about the 'original ideals' of this country, or similarly, 'that's Unconstitutional', quite frequently, started a topic about it, which didn't seem to lead anywhere. But I wonder if there's a similarity, the question would be, what is "Orthodox America"? I would say you can find that out, by researching those who founded it and their writings. It may not mean they all agreed, but there was a consensus right? The consensus is what came to be.

Basically, yes - except for your last sentence. The consensus is what always was, not what they developed or invented. It was what they came with, rather than what they came up with. One cannot dissent with Church dogma and remain Orthodox. Either you accept the Church's teaching, based on Tradition, above all, Scripture, or you break with the Church and become schismatic. So Orthodox Christians can disagree about whether smoking is kosher or not, but not whether abortion is a sin or not or whether Mary remained a virgin all her life (the latter, and everything about Mary, is Christological - important because of the fact that Christ is God - not because we seek to worship anyone but God).

Basically, you'll find Orthodox disagreement only in the things of lesser import. That or a schismatic person or church.

And yes, there is a history of Orthodox America. Just look up St Herman of Alaska. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_herman_of_alaska

The whole concept of the freedom of the individual to believe whatever he wants (regarding doctrine) is completely absent in Orthodoxy, so comparisons to American political history are moot.

Hmm, amazingly, I think I've stumbled on your consistent them[e] of misunderstanding.

By the comparison to American history, that whole paragraph was specific to that history. So in that case, I think it was developed and invented, and not always was. They certainly instituted a new form of government.

As for the comparison itself, the idea was, that both have some "orthodoxy". I didn't mean Orthodox America in regards to any religion. I scare quoted it to mean, the idea of what this country was about, is itself "orthodox". There are "heretics" from that original ideal, for instance, if I thought the founders really wanted a communist government.

So the question of what is orthodox Christianity can be compared (possibly) to the question of what is orthodox America (government, economics, "country"). IOW, how can one find out what the "original" was. (I'm not asking in this particular case, but I'm saying the act of finding out is comparable).

A lot of quotes, I know.

Cybrweez wrote:Hmm, amazingly, I think I've stumbled on your consistent them[e] of misunderstanding.

By the comparison to American history, that whole paragraph was specific to that history. So in that case, I think it was developed and invented, and not always was. They certainly instituted a new form of government.

As for the comparison itself, the idea was, that both have some "orthodoxy". I didn't mean Orthodox America in regards to any religion. I scare quoted it to mean, the idea of what this country was about, is itself "orthodox". There are "heretics" from that original ideal, for instance, if I thought the founders really wanted a communist government.

So the question of what is orthodox Christianity can be compared (possibly) to the question of what is orthodox America (government, economics, "country"). IOW, how can one find out what the "original" was. (I'm not asking in this particular case, but I'm saying the act of finding out is comparable).

A lot of quotes, I know.

First, a distinction is generally made between small 'o' and big 'O' Orthodox; the latter referring specifically to the Church that remained in the East, the (Eastern) Orthodox Church, and the former being something that many lay claim to, as meaning the maintainance of right, true and original faith. I usually use it in the big 'O' sense, seeing them to be one and the same, and try to make sure I capitalize it.
That's probably why I misunderstood you.

In a broad sense, if I understand you correctly, you can make the comparison, although it is mostly apples and elephants. The main difference is that there were actually very very few things the founders agreed on, there were a lot of them pulling things different ways from the get-go. (I've come around to having the greatest respect for Washington's position, but that's really OT.) You could try to compare Church hierarchy to a government - there are occasional parallels there (but more often false assumption of parallel where there is none), but certainly not the beliefs of the FF's and those of the original apostles, bishops, priests and deacons (who all accepted them on the authority of the apostles and their guidance in matters of church organization and faith, unlike the American founding fathers, who were operating purely on their own authority and therefore disagreed like cats and dogs, making most of their "faith" boil down to "agree to disagree").

As to the act of finding out, while founding documents can be paralleled to for written Tradition (big 'T'/small 't' distinctions!), ie, Scripture and the writings of the fathers, and practice can be roughly paralleled to precedent, the oral Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15) cannot be, although it generally got referenced in the writings of the fathers anyway. Your problem, in finding out, is going to be in the interpretation of what is written. For the non-Orthodox, that authority is self (I read and understand Scripture on my own, just as I read Jefferson and understand on my own). For the Orthodox believer, that authority is the Church, which consists of both living faces - the hierarchy and other believers, but the former having more authority and responsibility - and Tradition (or the Tradition of God, as opposed to traditions of men, if you like), which is both written and oral, and has varying degrees of authority - above all, Scripture. So I don't decide on my own - I ASK what the teachings are. That's why most people go through a period of learning what the faith is before baptism, which could last mere hours or days, or months on end, depending on the situation (although I was accepted into the Church via chrismation, my previous baptism having fulfilled the canonical requirements). The teachings have to be consistent with that Tradition, so nobody can go around making things up - the great fear of non-Orthodox.

In the end, you accept (mostly on faith and whatever historical scholarship you command) or do not accept the value of historical documents in such questions (although for the Christian non-acceptance begs the question of what you accept that is MORE authoritative on the rationality side). But for the rational Christian, it ought to be clear that the self CANNOT be the authority that reliably interprets Scripture or other written Tradition. Who on earth could know all that one must understand to do that and be sure that you are right? And who could accept such a faith, where only the most learned could be saved, and everyone else wind up divided from the fullness of the Truth that the Holy Spirit is to lead us in to?

But the key point there is that it (America) really WAS men making it up and trying to find things in common; Christianity was revelation from God that includes much that we could not possibly know or discover on our own (everything that is mystical and different about Christianity). Thus, I don't see much value in attempting the comparison.

Andy, I think I know what you're looking for. If the Constitution is roughly analogous to the Bible (leaving aside the question of divine inspiration), then the US Supreme Court is probably the closest analogy you'll find to those folks who created the Orthodox Canon that Rus keeps talking about.

A lot of what the Supreme Court does (or anyway, is supposed to do) is to go back to the source, as it were -- the Congressional Record, among other things -- and try to get inside the heads of those who wrote the laws to figure out what they actually meant to accomplish.

In that sense, then, lawyers and priests have roughly analogous jobs -- they're both in the business of going back to the source, and the mutually-agreed-upon interpreters of the source, in order to advise their clients/parishoners.

Is that sort of what you were after?

Yes ali. I'm putting aside where that source came from, but that there is some source.

So, on that premise, we can say there is an orthodox Christianity, and you probably can find it. It just takes work, or, trusting someone that they've done the work.

So, one can trust rusmeister that the Orthodox Church is that orthodox Christianity, or take the time to figure out what is themselves.

Cybrweez wrote:Yes ali. I'm putting aside where that source came from, but that there is some source.

So, on that premise, we can say there is an orthodox Christianity, and you probably can find it. It just takes work, or, trusting someone that they've done the work.

So, one can trust rusmeister that the Orthodox Church is that orthodox Christianity, or take the time to figure out what is themselves.

I cheerfully encourage the latter. "Trust me" is a lousy way to really come to faith!
Trouble is, when I've suggested that, people have taken umbrage at the idea that what they know at the moment is not sufficient to correctly judge and have said time and again that they don't want to take time or effort to learn anything if I don't personally post it here in my own words.

rusmeister wrote:

Cybrweez wrote:Yes ali. I'm putting aside where that source came from, but that there is some source.

So, on that premise, we can say there is an orthodox Christianity, and you probably can find it. It just takes work, or, trusting someone that they've done the work.

So, one can trust rusmeister that the Orthodox Church is that orthodox Christianity, or take the time to figure out what is themselves.

I cheerfully encourage the latter. "Trust me" is a lousy way to really come to faith!
Trouble is, when I've suggested that, people have taken umbrage at the idea that what they know at the moment is not sufficient to correctly judge and have said time and again that they don't want to take time or effort to learn anything if I don't personally post it here in my own words.

Here's the deal, Rus. When I want to learn about cooking, I'll grab a cookbook. That doesn't mean I can't tell what kind of chicken I'll like to eat, though, does it?

So when I decide I want to wallow through the pure (allegedly) writings of Orthodox Christians, I will do so. Doesn't mean that my worldview is any more or less wrong than yours. I haven't taken umbrage at the idea that what I know is not sufficient, because I know that it is. I have taken umbrage that you will require me to do all this research to engage you intellectually, when you will not do the same for other worldviews. When you can shoot down Native American legends and back it up with years of research, then you can get on my case for debating your (allegedly) pure view of faith and history without years of research.

Otherwise, it's just pontificating. I'll stand by my original point. Your view of your faith's historical purity is only proof of the fervor of your Church's editorial staff, not proof of it's One Truth.

rdhopeca wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

Cybrweez wrote:Yes ali. I'm putting aside where that source came from, but that there is some source.

So, on that premise, we can say there is an orthodox Christianity, and you probably can find it. It just takes work, or, trusting someone that they've done the work.

So, one can trust rusmeister that the Orthodox Church is that orthodox Christianity, or take the time to figure out what is themselves.

I cheerfully encourage the latter. "Trust me" is a lousy way to really come to faith!
Trouble is, when I've suggested that, people have taken umbrage at the idea that what they know at the moment is not sufficient to correctly judge and have said time and again that they don't want to take time or effort to learn anything if I don't personally post it here in my own words.

Here's the deal, Rus. When I want to learn about cooking, I'll grab a cookbook. That doesn't mean I can't tell what kind of chicken I'll like to eat, though, does it?

So when I decide I want to wallow through the pure (allegedly) writings of Orthodox Christians, I will do so. Doesn't mean that my worldview is any more or less wrong than yours. I haven't taken umbrage at the idea that what I know is not sufficient, because I know that it is. I have taken umbrage that you will require me to do all this research to engage you intellectually, when you will not do the same for other worldviews. When you can shoot down Native American legends and back it up with years of research, then you can get on my case for debating your (allegedly) pure view of faith and history without years of research.

Otherwise, it's just pontificating. I'll stand by my original point. Your view of your faith's historical purity is only proof of the fervor of your Church's editorial staff, not proof of it's One Truth.

Honestly, Rob, since I don't see any engagement at all, only hostility, I don't see any recourse but to not respond at all.
As an example, even if, say, Ali and I will hotly disagree, at least I'll give her that she DOES offer defense of Pagan views. You insist that I may not defend my own faith until I have, in detail and without any offers of apologetics from any quarter, completed examined in full detail all religions that have ever existed. No one in the world is ever going to do that. Offer reasoned defense of Indian religions and I'll consider them on their merits. if you really believe that a source really offers reasoned argument that is superior to mine, I'll examine it to the extent that I can. But to offer no arguments at all and simply write off all of my arguments to "the fervor of my Church's editorial staff", then I just give up. You have certainly proved your case via reason and I must crawl back into my shell.
That said, unless you offer serious evidence that this will not simply go in circles, I won't respond further. You can make whatever allegations you like.
May God bless you regardless!

rusmeister wrote:

Cybrweez wrote:Really just a question for rusmeister. I'm not much versed in ancient history, I've focused on American military history really. So recently I've expanded, and I'm reading 'Augustine and the Jews', and this paragraph made me think of rus' recent posts in Atheist Bus and Hell.

Third, throughout the present study I have tried to compensate for one of the abiding problems in the field of ancient Christian studies: the language of the winners. Surveys of pre-Constantinian Christianity often identify various Christian communities, marginalized only during the power struggles of the fourth century and later, as already "heretical" in the late first century, or in the second, or in the third. Such an approach seems to grant to the "orthodox" their own claim, namely, that their version of Christianity was the defining one, always the same from the beginning and therefore authentic and in some special sense "true." It thereby invites and promotes anachronism. Before Constantine, each of the various Christian communities thought that its own views were correct and that the views of others, if different, were false. Before 312, what we have is variety. After 312, we still have variety. By that point, however, events had led to a clear, functional definition of orthodoxy: the views that enjoyed the support of the emperor. After 312, in brief, what primarily distinguished orthodox Christians from their rivals was power. To think otherwise is simply to recapitualte in modern academic language the ancient rhetoric of the orthodox bishops. (To see some version of rabbinic Judaism as "orthodox" Judaism projects the same error onto ancient Jewish communities.)

I'm sure rus, you would disagree that the power of the emperor defined orthodox Christianity?

Of course I do. It speaks as if there were no Patriarchs* or presiding bishops and as if only the emperor had real power over the Church. This actually happened with the Anglican Church under Henry VIII, and the Roman Church where the Pope gradually took the position of secular ruler by default, but this never happened in the Eastern Church - Byzantium plus Jerusalem plus Antioch plus Alexandria - where patriarchs and councils of bishops co-existed beside the rulers.

I don't quite agree. Constantine, as a convert and as Emperor, would have realized that several of his predecessors would have held the title of Pontifex Maximus, High Priest of the state religion. He would, from his point of view if not the bishops, have seen no reason to raise any single bishop up above the others. He was the head of the church.

What Constantine was mainly interested was doctrinal unity - so the followers of the various Christian groups wouldn't riot against each other in the streets of the empire as they had, at times, done in the past. The Council of Nicaea, which produced the definition of what was a Christian was, was convened by the Emperor Constantine.

While the Orthodox Churches do not recognize the Bishop of Rome as being more than a "first among equals", the order of precedence of the bishops in the church councils (who if present would preside) underlies the imperial influence. First was the Bishop of Rome, second the Patriarch of Constantinople. Both seats of imperial power in the late Roman empire. The Orthodox Church, is I wouldn't argue, closest in form to the church of Constantine's time in organization. So if that's a definition of pure, perhaps it is. However the state, in the form of the Roman/Byzantine emperors and later the Tsars of Russia wielded considerable influence in church affairs and they had no problem in interfering them.

This was also true, somewhat, in the west; but the Popes managed to turn the tables on the Kings there. In 800 the Pope crowned Charlemagne Emperor. He was looking to Charlemagne for protection from the Lombards, a late arriving German tribe. The Pope got it but he used the occasion, and a loophole, to proclaim him emperor. The loophole being that the Byzantines at the time didn't have an emperor but rather an empress. Now the Pope wouldn't have dared say so to Charlemagne, but they would use this event later to underline their supremacy over the secular state. Rather than Constantine summoning the bishops to council, the Pope's authority created the Emperor Charlemagne. I also think that the last council recognized by both what is today the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches happened a decade or two before that event.

Anyway, an interesting topic.

rusmeister wrote:

rdhopeca wrote:

rusmeister wrote: I cheerfully encourage the latter. "Trust me" is a lousy way to really come to faith!
Trouble is, when I've suggested that, people have taken umbrage at the idea that what they know at the moment is not sufficient to correctly judge and have said time and again that they don't want to take time or effort to learn anything if I don't personally post it here in my own words.

Here's the deal, Rus. When I want to learn about cooking, I'll grab a cookbook. That doesn't mean I can't tell what kind of chicken I'll like to eat, though, does it?

So when I decide I want to wallow through the pure (allegedly) writings of Orthodox Christians, I will do so. Doesn't mean that my worldview is any more or less wrong than yours. I haven't taken umbrage at the idea that what I know is not sufficient, because I know that it is. I have taken umbrage that you will require me to do all this research to engage you intellectually, when you will not do the same for other worldviews. When you can shoot down Native American legends and back it up with years of research, then you can get on my case for debating your (allegedly) pure view of faith and history without years of research.

Otherwise, it's just pontificating. I'll stand by my original point. Your view of your faith's historical purity is only proof of the fervor of your Church's editorial staff, not proof of it's One Truth.

Honestly, Rob, since I don't see any engagement at all, only hostility, I don't see any recourse but to not respond at all.
As an example, even if, say, Ali and I will hotly disagree, at least I'll give her that she DOES offer defense of Pagan views. You insist that I may not defend my own faith until I have, in detail and without any offers of apologetics from any quarter, completed examined in full detail all religions that have ever existed. No one in the world is ever going to do that. Offer reasoned defense of Indian religions and I'll consider them on their merits. if you really believe that a source really offers reasoned argument that is superior to mine, I'll examine it to the extent that I can. But to offer no arguments at all and simply write off all of my arguments to "the fervor of my Church's editorial staff", then I just give up. You have certainly proved your case via reason and I must crawl back into my shell.
That said, unless you offer serious evidence that this will not simply go in circles, I won't respond further. You can make whatever allegations you like.
May God bless you regardless!

My point was not hostility. My point was that the expectation of us "that they don't want to take time or effort to learn anything" is the same as what you are saying now to me. It's pointless for me to go research stuff or read stuff or learn stuff to satisfy your intellectual demands.

And I am not writing off your arguments to the "Church's editorial staff", I am more acknowledging your claim that the historians in Orthodoxy have done their homework better than everybody else in regards to their faith. Still doesn't make it truth.

In any event, I'm all for dropping this as well, until I feel that someone is making a comment disparaging my intellectual efforts.

Hi Damelon!

Damelon wrote:

rusmeister wrote: Of course I do. It speaks as if there were no Patriarchs* or presiding bishops and as if only the emperor had real power over the Church. This actually happened with the Anglican Church under Henry VIII, and the Roman Church where the Pope gradually took the position of secular ruler by default, but this never happened in the Eastern Church - Byzantium plus Jerusalem plus Antioch plus Alexandria - where patriarchs and councils of bishops co-existed beside the rulers.

I don't quite agree. Constantine, as a convert and as Emperor, would have realized that several of his predecessors would have held the title of Pontifex Maximus, High Priest of the state religion. He would, from his point of view if not the bishops, have seen no reason to raise any single bishop up above the others. He was the head of the church.

What Constantine was mainly interested was doctrinal unity - so the followers of the various Christian groups wouldn't riot against each other in the streets of the empire as they had, at times, done in the past. The Council of Nicaea, which produced the definition of what was a Christian was, was convened by the Emperor Constantine.

This is my only bone of contention, I think, as most of it is supposition, except for the fact that he did convene the Council. The assumption that he appointed himself head of the Church seems plausible, but has no support. He would have had to get himself consecrated a bishop first - something that cannot be done by simple whim. You can't become a bishop just because you have power. You have to be consecrated. You are suggesting that the existing bishops made a single one-time exception for him, as if there were such a thing as "honorary bishop".

EVERYONE was interested in doctrinal unity. You seem to present it as a power play - as if it were done for purposes of control (speculation) rather than as a rational and clear outlay of what the Faith is - something every reasonable believer would be interested in.

On the Pontifex maximus, it looks like you are coming heavily from a Catholic POV here, which would give more credence to your arguments. It was in the West that the identification of ruling Bishop (Patriarch) with power gradually developed, but that didn't really get off the ground until after the fall of Rome. Such claims later became necessary to justify what the eastern Churches always denied - the supremacy (ie, power), rather than primacy ('mere' honor') of the Pope.

Finally, the logical conclusion that the Roman Emperor, however Christian (something that some of his own acts put to the question) would be accepted by the existing Church leaders as THEIR leader runs completely against a 300-year tradition of refusing to bow to the emperor, and being martyred in various nasty, torturous ways because he was not God. The Christian people accepted the authority of the bishops - but it is just plain illogical to propose that those coming out of the catacombs would bow to Constantine as spiritual leader. He could do no more than ask the bishops to come, and he certainly couldn't dictate their decisions.

Damelon wrote: While the Orthodox Churches do not recognize the Bishop of Rome as being more than a "first among equals", the order of precedence of the bishops in the church councils (who if present would preside) underlies the imperial influence. First was the Bishop of Rome, second the Patriarch of Constantinople. Both seats of imperial power in the late Roman empire. The Orthodox Church, is I wouldn't argue, closest in form to the church of Constantine's time in organization. So if that's a definition of pure, perhaps it is. However the state, in the form of the Roman/Byzantine emperors and later the Tsars of Russia wielded considerable influence in church affairs and they had no problem in interfering them.

No argument here. They called it "symphonia", which, while shocking to Jeffersonians (who hold their own dogmas as articles of faith), must be admitted that if you hold the proposition of faith as true, then it would be logical to apply the philosophy of that faith to government. (As an aside) The one thing I see as a great evil there was Peter the 1st's removal of the Russian patriarch and imposition of the synod, which I believe led to corruption in the Russian Church which fueled the Revolution, so the 20th century bloodbath was a kind of "El Nino" restoring things to their former state.

Damelon wrote: This was also true, somewhat, in the west; but the Popes managed to turn the tables on the Kings there. In 800 the Pope crowned Charlemagne Emperor. He was looking to Charlemagne for protection from the Lombards, a late arriving German tribe. The Pope got it but he used the occasion, and a loophole, to proclaim him emperor. The loophole being that the Byzantines at the time didn't have an emperor but rather an empress. Now the Pope wouldn't have dared say so to Charlemagne, but they would use this event later to underline their supremacy over the secular state. Rather than Constantine summoning the bishops to council, the Pope's authority created the Emperor Charlemagne. I also think that the last council recognized by both what is today the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches happened a decade or two before that event.

Anyway, an interesting topic.

Again, no argument. I think the central problem of the Catholic Church is how it developed papal authority in contradiction to the collegial nature of the earlier Church. That, together with the Filioque (something that had a mega-impact on doctrine), is what led to the Great Schism.

rdhopeca wrote: My point was not hostility. My point was that the expectation of us "that they don't want to take time or effort to learn anything" is the same as what you are saying now to me. It's pointless for me to go research stuff or read stuff or learn stuff to satisfy your intellectual demands.

I'm afraid that it is not at all the same thing. I point to specific sources, name them, link to them and post soundbites here, and challenge your views on one particular religion.
You offer nothing of the sort, and then tell me that I must in detail refute ALL other religions before you will take what I say seriously.
Again, if you really thing that a particular religion or belief system really does refute what I defend, then say so - I'll even attempt to read links if they do reasonably challenge my faith.
So it is not pointless to read or learn things - although not to satisfy MY intellectual demands, but your own. If I point out that there is something you don't know and that you are not judging fairly, and your intellectual demands remain satisfied by the level of knowledge you hold now, then there is nothing to say, that's all.

rdhopeca wrote:And I am not writing off your arguments to the "Church's editorial staff", I am more acknowledging your claim that the historians in Orthodoxy have done their homework better than everybody else in regards to their faith. Still doesn't make it truth.

Thank you!
I would agree that I cannot prove my faith - that is the nature of faith - it regards what CANNOT be proven. At some point, reason ends and you have to make a choice - and very often continue to make that choice every day. But the facts and reasoning I have presented are true, unless you can show them to be false. The question is, whose basis in reason goes deeper and where are the logical flaws. I think I do make errors in expression, and sometimes in thought, and welcome the chance to "sharpen my blade".

rusmeister wrote:This is my only bone of contention, I think, as most of it is supposition, except for the fact that he did convene the Council. The assumption that he appointed himself head of the Church seems plausible, but has no support. He would have had to get himself consecrated a bishop first - something that cannot be done by simple whim. You can't become a bishop just because you have power. You have to be consecrated. You are suggesting that the existing bishops made a single one-time exception for him, as if there were such a thing as "honorary bishop".

EVERYONE was interested in doctrinal unity. You seem to present it as a power play - as if it were done for purposes of control (speculation) rather than as a rational and clear outlay of what the Faith is - something every reasonable believer would be interested in.

On the Pontifex maximus, it looks like you are coming heavily from a Catholic POV here, which would give more credence to your arguments. It was in the West that the identification of ruling Bishop (Patriarch) with power gradually developed, but that didn't really get off the ground until after the fall of Rome. Such claims later became necessary to justify what the eastern Churches always denied - the supremacy (ie, power), rather than primacy ('mere' honor') of the Pope.

Finally, the logical conclusion that the Roman Emperor, however Christian (something that some of his own acts put to the question) would be accepted by the existing Church leaders as THEIR leader runs completely against a 300-year tradition of refusing to bow to the emperor, and being martyred in various nasty, torturous ways because he was not God. The Christian people accepted the authority of the bishops - but it is just plain illogical to propose that those coming out of the catacombs would bow to Constantine as spiritual leader. He could do no more than ask the bishops to come, and he certainly couldn't dictate their decisions.

I didn't say that Constantine saw himself as a bishop, he was when it came down to it a soldier. It was when Licenius, the last of Constantine's opponents, was defeated, that Constantine turned to matters of the church. For with Licenius' defeat Christanity became the state religion. It is a supposition that Constantine thought of himself as pontifex maximus, but it would be an easy one to make given Roman history. The bishops were more than happy to answer Constantine's summons to a council. The bishops now became defenders of the empire, and imperial power. During the rest of Roman history, only one emperor would be openly pagan and he is known to us by the pejorative title of Julian The Apostate.

Doctrinal unity was in the interests of all, but only the emperor had the power to enforce it. When the emperors became christian, the state machinery swerved to the support of the church, and to the supression of both other christian sects and the other religions then found in the late empire.

rusmeister wrote:

Damelon wrote: While the Orthodox Churches do not recognize the Bishop of Rome as being more than a "first among equals", the order of precedence of the bishops in the church councils (who if present would preside) underlies the imperial influence. First was the Bishop of Rome, second the Patriarch of Constantinople. Both seats of imperial power in the late Roman empire. The Orthodox Church, is I wouldn't argue, closest in form to the church of Constantine's time in organization. So if that's a definition of pure, perhaps it is. However the state, in the form of the Roman/Byzantine emperors and later the Tsars of Russia wielded considerable influence in church affairs and they had no problem in interfering them.

No argument here. They called it "symphonia", which, while shocking to Jeffersonians (who hold their own dogmas as articles of faith), must be admitted that if you hold the proposition of faith as true, then it would be logical to apply the philosophy of that faith to government. (As an aside) The one thing I see as a great evil there was Peter the 1st's removal of the Russian patriarch and imposition of the synod, which I believe led to corruption in the Russian Church which fueled the Revolution, so the 20th century bloodbath was a kind of "El Nino" restoring things to their former state.

Damelon wrote: This was also true, somewhat, in the west; but the Popes managed to turn the tables on the Kings there. In 800 the Pope crowned Charlemagne Emperor. He was looking to Charlemagne for protection from the Lombards, a late arriving German tribe. The Pope got it but he used the occasion, and a loophole, to proclaim him emperor. The loophole being that the Byzantines at the time didn't have an emperor but rather an empress. Now the Pope wouldn't have dared say so to Charlemagne, but they would use this event later to underline their supremacy over the secular state. Rather than Constantine summoning the bishops to council, the Pope's authority created the Emperor Charlemagne. I also think that the last council recognized by both what is today the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches happened a decade or two before that event.

Anyway, an interesting topic.

Again, no argument. I think the central problem of the Catholic Church is how it developed papal authority in contradiction to the collegial nature of the earlier Church. That, together with the Filioque (something that had a mega-impact on doctrine), is what led to the Great Schism.

I'm not particularly defending the Catholic church, but I was pointing out that what today are the Orthodox churches developed in the lands of the late Roman and Byzantine emperors and later the Russian tsars. It was a church/state relationship that began with Constantine where the emperors were important for an enforcement of church doctrine that was not possible before and unenforceable in areas where the authority of the emperors didn't exist.