(no subject)

[colliemommie]

Apparently there are a million versions of this "Who Started YOUR Church" info graphic going around where Roman Catholics draw a straight line from Jesus to the modern Roman Church, with all other sects being branches. Some even flat out say that all Christians were Catholic until Martin Luther.

No. Sit down and be quiet.

Aside from the fact that nobody's mentioning my main Protestant man Zwingli (fist bump to Huldrych), um, hellloooo, anyone heard of the Orthodox Churches? The filioque? The Great Schism of 1054?

I get it. The Romans are loud and proud because the current Pope comes across all likeable, but get the effing history right. From a theological standpoint, the Orthodox Churches have the most direct line from the Antiochene Christians described in Acts. The Catholics split in 1054 when they diverged from the neo-Platonic worldview by changing the Nicene Creed to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

I'm not touching the issue of legitimacy. But if one is going to make an historical argument, one should make sure it's not complete crap.

Comments

[noodledays.livejournal.com]

you tell 'em, girl!

[skittish-derby.livejournal.com]

indeed! You tell 'em!

It really grinds my gears when I know more about Christianity and the history of it than actual followers. Some people!

[ancarett]

Well, to be fair, the Catholic claim is based less on descent from the early church councils than from the Petrine succession. You know the whole "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." So, from that perspective, the addition of the Son only fixed a problem and didn't constitute an innovation.

Similarly, Protestant diagrams of descent posit a primitive church, again pre-conciliar, for their legitimacy. Everyone has their fiction to justify their primacy. And relatively few people outside of religious history scholars know of what happened between the Nicene Creed and Luther's theses.

I just taught the filioque controversy in my early medieval history survey. Students were amazed that this was what sparked so much crisis between Constantinople and Rome but I pointed out that when you add in other flashpoints such as the Bulgarian missions, there were a lot of reasons for each side to emphasize the illegitimacy of the others.

Isn't history fun?

[colliemommie.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, the "one pray-er" system. :-)

I do enjoy how absolutely every sect claims apostolic succession. Hands! Laying of hands everywhere!

The Eastern Catholics as a group tend to be better educated on the history, because of joining the Catholic Church after the Protestant Reformation. Add in the fact that the Ukrainian Catholics retain the Patriarchiate to this day, and you end up with a sect that is Catholic by name, and Orthodox in theology, ritual and hierarchy, just now with added Pope!!

[northernwalker]

I think people should be required to take a world religion class that explains stuff like this.

[moonflowers.livejournal.com]

That's interesting that someone would even try to make that statement of there being one church with separate branches. I feel like that's kind of common sense...

[moonshineray.livejournal.com]

Ah church pissing contests. Each one sizing up the other and trying to be declared the one and only best.