/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Some Copt was posting recently but one of his posts got removed for saying that 1 Enoch is canonical and Ethiopian Catholics believe that as well, and so he might be banned now.

By the way, check the rules - non-Chalcedonians are not Christians.

>>793221

Eh, I think the spirit of that rule is to ward off Mormons, JWs, and Gnostics and such. Oriental Orthodox are most certainly Christians. They are steadfast Trinitarians and their rejection of Chalcedon is due to misunderstandings but they essentially accept the same doctrine as Chalcedonians do about the nature of Christ. It's just that Oriental Orthodox tend to follow St. Cyril's definitions and classify themselves as miaphysites rather than monophysites. Miaphysitism and the dyophysitism of Chalcedon are basically two different ways to express the same thing. The Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Church even had a joint statement not too long ago on the nature of Christ.

>>793236

Then let them actually accept Chalcedon and stop anathematizing dyophysitism. Until then, they are not Christian.

>>793250

So despite believing pretty much the same stuff Eastern Orthodox do, they are not Christian? So neither are Eastern Orthodox or Catholics Christians then in your logic? Oriental Orthodox also reject Chalcedon for certain canonical reasons and not doctrinal ones. We now know that everyone agrees doctrinally but there are certain canonical issues the OO have with Chalcedon.

>>793250

Yes they are Christian. If Copts can't even post on this board anymore, then it has truly sunk low. There was even a Copt flag for this board, unless you're too new to remember.

>>793296

Copts are more thsn welcome to post on this board.

>>793296

>>793221

>>793250

wow thats so sad, i hate the mods now

>>793250

I believe in the hypostatic union but what's the point of accepting the premise that everything we do is based on "Fathers" plural as the Chalcedon says. That's where both you AND copts are wrong, it's all based on scripture and the one true Father. Why did the mods add it to the rules anyway? What was the point in basically turning this into a cathodox-only board where they can use rule 2 to weasel their way into banning people they do not like?

That's what I've been wondering ever since they changed the rules.

>>793356

It doesn't help you have turboprots that spread lies and insult people to vainly convert people to their heretical religion.

>>793386

Heres the thing though. This is supposed to be the /christian/ board, and has been for some time. So why is it now run exclusively by cathodox? Isn't that against the name of this board?

>>793391

>run by cathodox

The amount of times I have been banned without any rule cited casts doubt on that. But I'm not crying about it.

>>793416

>It's always been a Catholic vs Baptist battleground

No it hasn't. The board owner used to do polls and he allowed us to use flags. The board owner kept the vol logs open.

Now someone stepped in and changed the rules to introduce all this new legalistic junk in a brand new rule set and added the extremely vague rule 2 that allows you to find any odd interpretation to delete posts you dislike. It is very different here. I'd know as I was never permanently banned nor were my posts ever deleted.

>The scriptures in Greek are much less clear about the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation

No they aren't. Pure and simple as that. And the "mess" you speak of only affected the state church, not the church. So that's not a presentable reason for saying they're supposedly unclear.

>>793416

>it should not be controvesial of me to say that non-Chalcedonians aren't Christians

You can call them what you want, but let's at least be honest here. The OO are much closer to us EO than either Catholics or Protestants are. It's disingenuous to lump them in with Mormons of all things. Whatever their heresies are, it's clear enough that their fruits haven't been as blatantly questionable as many other "denominations".

Furthermore, Ethiopia is a blessed country:

https://ethiopianhistory.com/Ethiopia_in_the_Bible/

And St. Mark had far more involvement in founding the Coptic church than St. Peter had in founding the Roman church. So I'm inclined to believe whatever their Churches are doing is probably at least somewhat ok. Not saying we should be in communion with them before straightening things out of course, but I'm not about to assume they're flat-out damned either.

>>793437

>You can call them what you want, but let's at least be honest here. The OO are much closer to us EO than either Catholics or Protestants are. It's disingenuous to lump them in with Mormons of all things. Whatever their heresies are, it's clear enough that their fruits haven't been as blatantly questionable as many other "denominations".

I disagree strongly. I would say that if anything, Eastern Catholics and some local flavors of Protestant are the closest to us. I cannot, personally, be honest with my faith yet also recognize Roman Catholics and Oriental Orthodox as being of the same religion as myself. I "lump them in" with Mormons, Jews, Muslims, pagans, and atheists, because whatever it is they worship, it is not Jesus Christ.

>Furthermore, Ethiopia is a blessed country

I'm not sure what Ethiopia being mentionned in the Bible has to do with anything. By the way, the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church did not exist until Monophysites from Egypt fled when they were being forced to accept Chalcedon, and they brought their heresy with them as well as strange books like 1 Enoch, so in fact Ethiopia has yet to be really evangelized.

>And St. Mark had far more involvement in founding the Coptic church than St. Peter had in founding the Roman church.

St Mark founded the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria. The Coptic Orthodox Church can only be called a "Church" in an institutional sense, not in a sacramental sense. Dioscorus would be a much better fit for "founder of the Coptic Church". And the Church of Rome founded by Peter is simply gone.

>Not saying we should be in communion with them before straightening things out of course, but I'm not about to assume they're flat-out damned either.

Until they convert to Christianity, that is, they accept the orthodox doctrines about the Incarnation, their damnation is assured, together with all those whose faith is not Orthodox. Obviously this is a dramatic situation, and that is why we should work to evangelize them, rather than pretend things will sort themselves out (after 16 centuries…). I'm all for ecumenism, but we should not be complacent as soon as there begins to be some positive dialogue.

>>793416

>I have my reasons to consider that Roman Catholics are not Christians

Why do you feel free to presume anyone isn't a Christian? I dislike the Andersonsite Baptists here, but I wouldn't accuse them of not being Christian.

>>793250

>rejection of chalcedon = eutychian monophysitism meme

>>793451

>Why do you feel free to presume anyone isn't a Christian?

Should I then recognize Muslims and Baha'i as Christians because a character named "Jesus" is in their religion? Should I recognize Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses as Christians? I don't recognize these as Christians for the same reason I don't recognize those as Christians - they may utter the name of Jesus, but their Jesus is not the Jesus of Christianity.

But, I'm not here to argue about it or die on a hill defending it. It's purely my opinion, and obviously many of our hierarchs are willing to call them Christians, and even brothers in Christ. I know my stance is unusual. My point is however that it shouldn't be shocking for me to say that non-Chalcedonians aren't Christians, because the rules themselves say so. And having some friendly dialogue in the 90s does not mean they now officially recognize Chalcedon as being doctrinally orthodox. Either change the rules so that the Chalcedonian definition is not considered a norm of what makes one a Christian, or permit people to say that OO aren't Christians.

>>793456

The Monophysitism of Dioscorus and Severus is not much better than that of Eutyches or even Appolinarius. They consider that Jesus has one nature which is human-divine. "Miaphysitism" is heretical because, if Jesus has one human-divine nature, He does not reconcile the human nature to the divine nature but has a third kind of nature (the alternative being that, when we are deified, we trade our human nature for a human-divine one and cease to be human).

That is why Miaphysites tend to reject theosis (because the idea that we trade our human nature for a human-divine one obviously reeks of apotheosis) and why they also tend toward social trinitarianism (because they are Monothelites as well, and so, when Jesus says "not My will, but Your will be done", they tend to interpret it as the will of God the Son being distinct from the will of God the Father, and so there are 3 wills in the Trinity).

>>793460

>Should I then recognize Muslims and Baha'i as Christians because a character named "Jesus" is in their religion?

Nope. However, the wide variety of Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox here are definitely Christians. I do apologize because I should have been more clear, but these are the majority of /christian/ posters.

>>793448

>Eastern Catholics

Ok, you have a point there, but they're still just a sect within the RCC, and are basically the exception that proves the rule. Catholicism is about as diverse as Protestantism now, so it's hard to pin either of them down to estimate how close they are to us. At least the OO are more consistent with their beliefs. That being said, I have no idea how Eastern Catholics justify following Eastern teachings while accepting the Papacy. Seems like a pretty untenable position taken for a misguided sense of compromise.

>I cannot, personally, be honest with my faith yet also recognize Roman Catholics and Oriental Orthodox as being of the same religion as myself.

to be clear, I wasnt arguing that they are, but rather that they seem to have more hopes of returning to orthodoxy than most of the Western Churches at the moment.

>so in fact Ethiopia has yet to be really evangelized.

well, even under that interpretation they're still better off, because it would mean they haven't explicitly rejected the proper faith either. It's only damnable if you reject it after you've been properly evangelized.

>And the Church of Rome founded by Peter is simply gone.

kek. all too true though.

>Until they convert to Christianity, that is, they accept the orthodox doctrines about the Incarnation, their damnation is assured, together with all those whose faith is not Orthodox.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure if this is actually the official stance of the church. AFAIK the stance is more that salvation outside the church is unlikely (due to not receiving correct teachings), but is otherwise not impossible, nor really knowable. As such, damnation can't really be assured for all those we've deemed as Heretics.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/status.aspx

>>793465

>Nope. However, the wide variety of Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox here are definitely Christians. I do apologize because I should have been more clear, but these are the majority of /christian/ posters.

Again, I'm not saying this to insult the faith of the Catholics who post here, or to say that they should leave. From my personal view however, what defines whether one is a Christian or not is the ecumenical councils, not a random forum board's rules.

I'm saying "I don't believe Catholics are Christians", not "Catholics are not Chistians and should be banned from here". But either way this is beside the point - which is that non-Chalcedonians are not Christians.

>>793467

>to be clear, I wasnt arguing that they are, but rather that they seem to have more hopes of returning to orthodoxy than most of the Western Churches at the moment.

Oh, then I definitely agree. Although this has been primarily driven by shared culture and geography than by real doctrinal argument. Even the talks in the 80s-90s where bishops on both sides agreed that we have the same Christology could not find an actual solution regarding acceptance or rejection of Chalcedon.

>well, even under that interpretation they're still better off, because it would mean they haven't explicitly rejected the proper faith either. It's only damnable if you reject it after you've been properly evangelized.

I don't know where you get this idea from. Not having the true doctrine is damnable whether you had it before or not. Apostasy and heresy are both of the same gravity.

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure if this is actually the official stance of the church. AFAIK the stance is more that salvation outside the church is unlikely (due to not receiving correct teachings), but is otherwise not impossible, nor really knowable. As such, damnation can't really be assured for all those we've deemed as Heretics.

>>>orthodoxinfo.com

I don't know what your catechesis taught you, but what I was taught and what I will continue to preserve is that there is no salvation outside the Church, full stop. Whoever dies without baptism goes to Hell, and whoever is baptized but does not have faith goes to Hell. While I've heard that a recent theologian has said that there is a difference between "faith" as in belief in Christ and "faith" as in the received doctrine, that sounds like mental gymnastics to me. You cannot have faith in Christ if you did not receive the correct teaching as to Who Christ is. Hence why the ecumenical councils were concerned with this teaching (the Trinity for the first 2, the Incarnation for the latter 5), and why I put Oriental Orthodox (who reject Chalcedon) and Roman Catholics (who reject Constantinople I by agreeing to Florence) in the same basket as Muslims. However I know Eastern Catholics and Protestants who hold the correct teaching regarding the Trinity and the Incarnation, so I'm ready to recognize them as siblings in Christ even if they are wrong about certain other important doctrines (most obviously, papal authority for ECs, and sacramental theology for Protestants).

But I really, really cannot agree to "Miaphysites" and "Filioquists" being Christians. It feels like I betray Christ and crucify Him again if I even entertain the thought. Although I will not insist upon questioning the Christianity of Catholics on this board (because they are Christians according to the rules), I will insist for the non-Chalcedonians.

But I will let our hierarchs figure something out.

>>793473

>I don't know where you get this idea from. Not having the true doctrine is damnable whether you had it before or not. Apostasy and heresy are both of the same gravity.

Just relaying what I was taught with regards to the non-orthodox. The idea was based on the general principle that if you happened to be born in the middle of nowhere with no access to, nor knowledge of any form of Orthodox Christianity, then you couldn't really be accused of rejecting the proper gospel, and that therefore the state of such people is undeterminable. Kinda like how you mentioned

>You cannot have faith in Christ if you did not receive the correct teaching as to Who Christ is.

Except as applied to rejection/damnation instead of acceptance/salvation. Because to say we can know for sure that they're damned/saved implies something a bit too close to predestination. Once somebody consciously chooses to reject clear Orthodox teachings however, then we can safely make the assumption they're screwed. But otherwise we're not really privy to know such things. Or so I've been told. But I'm Greek Orthodox in the US, so idk how "authentic" that is.

>I don't know what your catechesis taught you, but what I was taught and what I will continue to preserve is that there is no salvation outside the Church, full stop. Whoever dies without baptism goes to Hell, and whoever is baptized but does not have faith goes to Hell.

What I was taught wasn't nearly so cut and dry. The book I linked to was closer to what I was taught, and elaborates on all that. But fundamentally, the answer I was given to those sorts of questions was always "we don't know".

>While I've heard that a recent theologian has said that there is a difference between "faith" as in belief in Christ and "faith" as in the received doctrine, that sounds like mental gymnastics to me.

Yeah, I don't know about all that. Doesn't sound like anything I've heard.

>But I will let our hierarchs figure something out.

That is about the only thing we can do really, especially with the whole Russia/Ukraine ordeal recently. So we'll just have to wait and see how God's plan unfolds.

>>793494

>Except as applied to rejection/damnation instead of acceptance/salvation. Because to say we can know for sure that they're damned/saved implies something a bit too close to predestination.

Well, my catechism says that the Church is always available for those who are predestined to salvation, but those who never have an opportunity to become Orthodox are not predestined for salvation to begin with.

But predestination is based on our free choices. For those who never get a chance to join the Church, God foreknows that they would reject His grace anyway.

I'm Russian Orthodox in France, if that means anything.

>>793467

>Ok, you have a point there, but they're still just a sect within the RCC, and are basically the exception that proves the rule

Eastern Catholics are not "a sect within the RCC". They are autonomous churches having full authority and control over their canon, tradition, and liturgy. We accept the position of Pope and are in communion with the Holy See, which is what makes us *Catholics* in the first place. The RCC is not "the" Catholic Church, if that makes sense.

>That being said, I have no idea how Eastern Catholics justify following Eastern teachings while accepting the Papacy. Seems like a pretty untenable position taken for a misguided sense of compromise.

Eastern teachings are fully in line with the Papacy. Most of our Saints accept the Papacy, and they were Eastern.