I wish to apologize

[Thatgirloncfforums]

I have decided to stay but I will keep my theology questions here on the Traditional Theology forum. [Edit] I am trying to discern between Lutheranism, Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Sometimes that requires good natured investigation and push back on my part. [Edit]

It's not that I am in limbo about my faith. It's more that the issues which divide Orthodoxy, Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism are not mine. They fight over things I consider unnecessary. I believe Lutheranism to be a legitimate development of medieval Catholic theology, if only Lutheranism didn't dispense with some key Catholic points like intercession of the saints in total, although I understand the contextual reasons. Regarding the disagreements between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I don't understand why a synthesis can't be formed on most things, since for example, Palamas and Aquinas are both saints in the Roman Catholic Church. Regarding the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, I don't have an opinion.

[Edit]

 

[All4Christ]

I have decided to stay but I will keep my theology questions here on the Traditional Theology forum. I wish to apologize to the mods and everyone for any trouble I caused. It was not my intention to break any of the rules. I am trying to discern between Lutheranism, Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Sometimes that requires good natured investigation and push back on my part. I realize now, that it's inappropriate for me to do such in the congregational forums.

It's not that I am in limbo about my faith. It's more that the issues which divide Orthodoxy, Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism are not mine. They fight over things I consider unnecessary. I believe Lutheranism to be a legitimate development of medieval Catholic theology, if only Lutheranism didn't dispense with some key Catholic points like intercession of the saints in total, although I understand the contextual reasons. Regarding the disagreements between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I don't understand why a synthesis can't be formed on most things, since for example, Palamas and Aquinas are both saints in the Roman Catholic Church. Regarding the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, I don't have an opinion.

Again, I am sorry for breaking the rules.

If you are referencing conversations on TAW, you aren’t breaking the rules, and you are more than welcome to keep discussing things with us. I was on TAW for years while I was not Orthodox, and I had many questions and concerns / confusion throughout the entire time.

Also, for awareness, many TAW members are not here on TT, so they may not be able to answer questions about that.

All that said, I am happy to have discussions with you both here and in the congregational forums.

 

[TheWhat?]

If you don't mind my asking what rules did you violate?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have decided to stay but I will keep my theology questions here on the Traditional Theology forum. I wish to apologize to the mods and everyone for any trouble I caused. It was not my intention to break any of the rules. I am trying to discern between Lutheranism, Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Sometimes that requires good natured investigation and push back on my part. I realize now, that it's inappropriate for me to do such in the congregational forums.

It's not that I am in limbo about my faith. It's more that the issues which divide Orthodoxy, Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism are not mine. They fight over things I consider unnecessary. I believe Lutheranism to be a legitimate development of medieval Catholic theology, if only Lutheranism didn't dispense with some key Catholic points like intercession of the saints in total, although I understand the contextual reasons. Regarding the disagreements between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I don't understand why a synthesis can't be formed on most things, since for example, Palamas and Aquinas are both saints in the Roman Catholic Church. Regarding the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, I don't have an opinion.

Again, I am sorry for breaking the rules.

Personally, I think it'd be more productive to search for a conceptually simpler, more primitive "Christianity" rather than seek to find a synthesis between Lutheranism, Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicsim.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

If you don't mind my asking what rules did you violate?

Edit.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Personally, I think it'd be more productive to search for a conceptually simpler, more primitive "Christianity" rather than seek to find a synthesis between Lutheranism, Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicsim.

Like what if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

If you are referencing conversations on TAW, you aren’t breaking the rules, and you are more than welcome to keep discussing things with us. I was on TAW for years while I was not Orthodox, and I had many questions and concerns / confusion throughout the entire time.

Also, for awareness, many TAW members are not here on TT, so they may not be able to answer questions about that.

All that said, I am happy to have discussions with you both here and in the congregational forums.

Thank you. Edit.

 

[TheWhat?]

Personally, I think it'd be more productive to search for a conceptually simpler, more primitive "Christianity" rather than seek to find a synthesis between Lutheranism, Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicsim.

But doesn't this kind of imply that all these branches have in common is a primitive form of religion worthy of scare quotes?

I personally wish we could learn from Wittgenstein on the subject and learn to straighten out language barriers. Granted, religion is not philosophy, though I'd expect much of the division to be similar.

 

[BobRyan]

Regarding the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, I don't have an opinion.
.

So then do you reject Luther's decision to reject the universal jurisdiction of the Pope -- though you are still a Lutheran?? Or are you thinking he might have been right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Like what if you don't mind me asking?

A more primitive Christianity would be one that more or less doesn't require novel theological derivatives of thought beyond what our fellow Christians who lived during the first century would have felt theyneeded to commit to.

This isn't to say that other discernements in Christian thought can't be had or kept as secondary, auxilary notions or that we can't choose to join one of the specific denominational expressions of the Christian faith that are currently out there, but I think there's a limit to the success any of us will have if we try to choose between one of several denominations or movements, such as we find them presently today.

 

[sandman]

I have decided to stay but I will keep my theology questions here on the Traditional Theology forum. I wish to apologize to the mods and everyone for any trouble I caused. It was not my intention to break any of the rules. I am trying to discern between Lutheranism, Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Sometimes that requires good natured investigation and push back on my part. I realize now, that it's inappropriate for me to do such in the congregational forums.

It's not that I am in limbo about my faith. It's more that the issues which divide Orthodoxy, Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism are not mine. They fight over things I consider unnecessary. I believe Lutheranism to be a legitimate development of medieval Catholic theology, if only Lutheranism didn't dispense with some key Catholic points like intercession of the saints in total, although I understand the contextual reasons. Regarding the disagreements between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I don't understand why a synthesis can't be formed on most things, since for example, Palamas and Aquinas are both saints in the Roman Catholic Church. Regarding the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, I don't have an opinion.

Again, I am sorry for breaking the rules.

Many of us at times have inadvertently broken the rules…., I don’t think anyone does it intentionally…..maybe a few, but those are generally the hit and run posters.

I understand your research quest between doctoral religions…I went through that years ago, which is why I decided to make the Word of God my only source of faith and practice.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But doesn't this kind of imply that all these branches have in common is a primitive form of religion worthy of scare quotes?

Yes, it does. And that's what I'm implying here.

I personally wish we could learn from Wittgenstein on the subject and learn to straighten out language barriers. Granted, religion is not philosophy, though I'd expect much of the division to be similar.

Yes, you and me both. Wittegenstein is one of my influences, in fact, and I'd like to see some terms disambiguated from both their historical conflations and their cultural trappings. However, Wittgenstein aside, I realize too that taming the language game isn't the easiest thing to do and we can't expect to be successful with all of the interplay and talking past each other that can take place between Christians who think and work within different denominations.

 

[All4Christ]

Thank you. That's my concern too, hopefully enough people will come here. [Edit]

If you want specific input, and you aren’t in the TAW forum, feel free to tag us as well. What I said stands though - you are always welcome!

 

[TheWhat?]

Yes, it does. And that's what I'm implying here.

Wait a sec...

If we don't have the original orthodox understanding, then we don't have it, be it simple or not. I understand that language complicates matters and false theology comes out of the woodwork leading to 2000 years of complications which require changes in creeds and terminology, but if we don't have the original orthodox understanding then we're simply getting lost in the details, which does happen.

In other words, the original orthodox understanding is the one and only correct understanding, and it could not be otherwise, else everything is wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wait a sec...

If we don't have the original orthodox understanding, then we don't have it, be it simple or not. I understand that language complicates matters and false theology comes out of the woodwork leading to 2000 years of complications which require changes in creeds and terminology, but if we don't have the original orthodox understanding then we're simply getting lost in the details, which does happen.

You're right, of course. We don't have the 'original' understanding of 'The Way,' BUT we still have history we can refer to rather than nothing at all and, by which, we can at the least make some conceptual comparisons.

For instance, with a little study, or better yet, with a lot, we can definitely say that the traditions and conceptual vehicles of the Gospel in A.D. 43 weren't---couldn't have been---identical to what they were in A.D. 343 or even A.D. 1543.

 

[TheWhat?]

The fellowship rules.
I was also cited once for using a slur that I didn't know was a slur.
And I was cited in the beginning for getting into a fight with someone on general forums

 

[TheWhat?]

You're right, of course. We don't have the 'original' understanding of 'The Way,' BUT we still have history we can refer to rather than nothing at all and, by which, we can at the least make some conceptual comparisons.

For instance, with a little study, or better yet, with a lot, we can definitely say that the traditions and conceptual vehicles of the Gospel in A.D. 43 weren't---couldn't have been---identical to what they were in A.D. 343 or even A.D. 1543.

Well, ok. I have theories about that that would be better received in an academic setting than traditional, but what I specifically had in mind was trinitarianism. I'm willing to concede you have a valid point on praxis. I don't think it applies as well to theology.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I don't understand why a synthesis can't be formed on most things, since for example, Palamas and Aquinas are both saints in the Roman Catholic Church. Regarding the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, I don't have an opinion.

Again, I am sorry for breaking the rules.

A lot of the disputes between the EO and RC are centuries old. The Filioque, Palamas, and various attempts to bring about a reunion of East and West such as the Council of Ferrara all develop over 1000 years. Figures such as St. Mark of Ephesus refused to sign Ferrara and while he is recognized as a saint in the East, he is rejected as a heretic by Rome. While some of these disputes seem pretty esoteric, they influence entire categories of theology. After 1000 years of being apart, trying to put the pieces back together will take another 1000 years, if that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, ok. I have theories about that that would be better received in an academic setting than traditional, but what I specifically had in mind was trinitarianism. I'm willing to concede you have a valid point on praxis. I don't think it applies as well to theology.

Do you mean that the concept of the Trinity can't be 'had' through study within the bounds of Church History and the History of Church Doctrine? Or do you mean to imply something else about the Trinity?

 

[TheWhat?]

Do you mean that the concept of the Trinity can't be 'had' through study within the bounds of Church History and the History of Church Doctrine? Or do you mean to imply something else about the Trinity?

Originally I was talking about trinitarianism. I took issue with the idea that all these branches have in common is a primitive faith worthy of scare quotes. I then assumed, based on your later post, you were talking about praxis, not theology, and I conceded you have a point w.r.t. that subject, rather than theology.