Most annoying misbeliefs about Christianity?

[BNR32FAN]

By the way just for clarification, for people who might be reading this thread, St. Theodosius was not the immediate successor of St. Constantine but rather came only after a long line of Arian and Pagan emperors such as Constantius, Julian the Apostate and Valens (who was less of a jerk than the other Arians but still not a true Christian).

Huh, I didn’t know that :/

 

[The Liturgist]

Huh, I didn’t know that :/

If you read a biography of St. Athanasius, or a history of the Orthodox Church between the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Constantinople (the first and second ecumenical synods) they chronicle very well the Arian period of the Roman Empire, during which the active persecution of Christians resumed, but this time, the focus of the persecution was on Christians who believed in the Nicene, Orthodox faith, and was conducted mostly by heretics rather than Pagans.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If you read a biography of St. Athanasius, or a history of the Orthodox Church between the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Constantinople (the first and second ecumenical synods) they chronicle very well the Arian period of the Roman Empire, during which the active persecution of Christians resumed, but this time, the focus of the persecution was on Christians who believed in the Nicene, Orthodox faith, and was conducted mostly by heretics rather than Pagans.

I did read about that but it was a brief article and I guess I didn’t pay close attention to the time frame. I thought it was a very short period.

 

[FireDragon76]

Oh boy. Fun thread. Time to maybe ruffle a few feathers (I trust the OP can take it, both because he's an adult and because he made the thread here and not on TAW). With the advance knowledge that I'm alone in a lot of this (I'm fine with that), and that this is not directed towards any person or any type of Christian who may feel like they need to defend or 'correct' these things (it's an opinion, and neither of us are important):

1. The "Oriental Orthodox" 'broke away from the Church' at Chalcedon. No. I could go into a lot of reasons why, but this is not the place for it, and besides, nobody cares, including me. It matters not one fig that any Chalcedonian or any other type of person would bestow upon my communion or tradition the label of "Orthodox", or even "Christian". That is just a word-game and a kind of weird politicized tribalism I don't care about in the slightest (and I don't think I'm alone in that). I don't care that the Chalcedonians have their own versions of history that they tell to anyone who will listen. So do the Mormons, and the Muslims, and everybody else, and I place the Chalcedonian histories of Christian history alongside these, as containing some truth and some falsehood. They are nothing that I feel particularly bound by or inclined to accept or uphold, let alone take as the linchpin of how to view all of Christianity and Christian history (e.g., even calling my communion "Oriental Orthodox", or, even worse, "non-Chalcedonian", is a concession to outsiders; among ourselves and in our liturgical texts and prayers it's just "Orthodox", as you'd expect; I would hazard a guess that most of the people [except for the priests and maybe a few of the deacons] in the parish in which I was baptized wouldn't know what "Oriental Orthodox" means, as I remember one of them once asked me "Chalcedonian" meant...it's really not at the center of our ecclesiological universe as some people apparently really imagine). That anyone else does, be they the Pope of Rome or the Greek Orthodox Pope of Alexandria or any of their followers, does not really mean anything, in the same way that (e.g.) an Eastern Orthodox person is not just going to take whatever is written in RC-authored or Protestant-authored histories as true and accurate, even though their versions of history are believed by many more people than Eastern Orthodox versions of history, and they swear up and down that they're what really happened, rather than being the points of view of the imperial 'victors' in this or that conflict with an errant faction of their former brothers and sisters in Christ. There's a reason why the Syrians labeled those who accepted Chalcedon as "Melkites" (from Syriac ܡܠܟܝܐ malkoyo 'imperial; royal').

2. Christianity is a Western religion, and so to learn about it in the best way, we should look to/listen to/pay attention to westerners whose forms of Christianity only began about 500 years ago (or in many cases, much later), maybe with the occasional pitstop at St. Augustine or St. Iraneaus, to show that we recognize that Christianity was not in fact founded whenever Joel Olsteen or Emmanuel Swedenborg or whoever was born. This one should be self-explanatory.

3. Christianity is only present outside of the West due to western imperialism. Apparently no native African, Asian, or Middle Eastern person ever converted to Christianity until a white person came to their country and shoved a gun in their face and told them they had to believe in Jesus. Nevermind where the holy land is, or where many of the places mentioned in the Bible are (Tarsus? What's that? Some kind of car?). Don't bother thinking about where early centers of Christianity like Egypt, Ethiopia, Sudan, etc. are. Christianity is always the foreign, white person's religion in every non-white place...except, y'know, places like Australia and the USA, somehow (???).

4. There is a singular book called "The (Holy) Bible", and everyone agrees on its history, contents, meaning, and everything else related to it, and finds it very important and illuminating to agree on how many books it is composed of. And clearly the ______ (pick your version) is the only 'real' one; all others are counterfeit.

I was going to shoot for five, but really this is more than enough. Basically, beliefs that stem from the bizarre eggshell worldview in which people cannot imagine that anyone would not agree with what they've uncritically and unquestioningly received as Christianity itself, or beliefs that result in patently ridiculous but socio-politically useful fantasies of Christianity being cooked up by some sort of proto-Nazi European pirate guild in the late middle ages as an excuse to enslave all the black and brown people they could find, and extract from them all their resources and labor. And Bible thing is just...ughhh...to sort-of-quote the comedian Lewis Black (himself an atheistic Jew, which is important for the setup of this bit in its original form, but not really for the point he's making, which I'm merely adapting to the present conversation, rather than wholly agreeing with), "Every Sunday, I turn on the TV and see [modern sects] reading from [our] book, and interpreting it, and their interpretations, I have to tell you, are usually wrong; it's not their fault, because it's not their book."

Christianity outside the Roman empire never became much of an imperial project, and still retains alot of the features of actual religion. That's one thing I appreciate about Oriental and Syriac Christianity.

 

[Shane R]

In the American context, I find it highly annoying that many of the Johnny-come-lately churches believe they are the largest churches (as if that matters). It might be true in a regional context; for example, the area I live in will have four things in even the smallest communities: a Methodist church, a Church of Christ or Baptist church, a drive-thru beer store, and a pizza place (sometimes the last two are the same location). But even the UMC never managed to eclipse the total membership of the RCC. And on a global scale, most of the American sects barely register a presence.

Related, the notion that Catholics are not Christian. This is implied in many sects and stated outright in some. The Lutherans are even prone to this at times. In my anecdotal experience, the average Lutheran church member is more likely to claim a Baptist as an "erring brother" than a Roman Catholic.

 

[The Liturgist]

In the American context, I find it highly annoying that many of the Johnny-come-lately churches believe they are the largest churches (as if that matters). It might be true in a regional context; for example, the area I live in will have four things in even the smallest communities: a Methodist church, a Church of Christ or Baptist church, a drive-thru beer store, and a pizza place (sometimes the last two are the same location). But even the UMC never managed to eclipse the total membership of the RCC. And on a global scale, most of the American sects barely register a presence.

Related, the notion that Catholics are not Christian. This is implied in many sects and stated outright in some. The Lutherans are even prone to this at times. In my anecdotal experience, the average Lutheran church member is more likely to claim a Baptist as an "erring brother" than a Roman Catholic.

On a global scale Methodism is quite small; the largest denominations, communions and denominational families are Roman Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox, the Anglican Communion, the Lutherans and the Reformed. And the Oriental Orthodox are in the no. 7 or 8 spot.

It is my hope that the Evangelical Catholic movement among Lutherans will cause Lutherans to regard themselves as closer to the Roman church than to Zwinglian and Memorialist Baptists. This is clearly the case among the majority of Anglicans; I think even low church Evangelical Anglicans such as the Holy Trinity Brompton crowd would for the most part be able to recognize that they are closer to the Roman church than to Baptism. I do know that many Lutheran friends of mine on the forum regard themselves as quite close to Orthodoxy, and historically some Anglicans have even sought communion with the Eastern Orthodox, and I would propose it might be easier to get members of traditional liturgical Protestant churches to state a closeness to the Orthodox than to the Roman Catholics due to both their origin and the increasingly controversial actions of Pope Francis, whereas the reverse might increasingly be the case among mainline Protestants.

 

[RileyG]

1. Heaven gained a new Angel….drives me nuts

 

[The Liturgist]

1. Heaven gained a new Angel….drives me nuts

Oh yes, that one is profoundly frustrating, although the problem is of course it is typically said in the context of bereavement, and so it cannot be easily corrected.

 

[RileyG]

Oh yes, that one is profoundly frustrating, although the problem is of course it is typically said in the context of bereavement, and so it cannot be easily corrected.

Or “they’re dead, they don’t need prayers.”

 

[Valletta]

On a global scale Methodism is quite small; the largest denominations, communions and denominational families are Roman Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox, the Anglican Communion, the Lutherans and the Reformed. And the Oriental Orthodox are in the no. 7 or 8 spot.

It is my hope that the Evangelical Catholic movement among Lutherans will cause Lutherans to regard themselves as closer to the Roman church than to Zwinglian and Memorialist Baptists. This is clearly the case among the majority of Anglicans; I think even low church Evangelical Anglicans such as the Holy Trinity Brompton crowd would for the most part be able to recognize that they are closer to the Roman church than to Baptism. I do know that many Lutheran friends of mine on the forum regard themselves as quite close to Orthodoxy, and historically some Anglicans have even sought communion with the Eastern Orthodox, and I would propose it might be easier to get members of traditional liturgical Protestant churches to state a closeness to the Orthodox than to the Roman Catholics due to both their origin and the increasingly controversial actions of Pope Francis, whereas the reverse might increasingly be the case among mainline Protestants.

Given his health and age and words I don't expect Pope Francis to be around that much longer. I hope all can come together in prayer.

 

[FireDragon76]

Related, the notion that Catholics are not Christian. This is implied in many sects and stated outright in some. The Lutherans are even prone to this at times. In my anecdotal experience, the average Lutheran church member is more likely to claim a Baptist as an "erring brother" than a Roman Catholic.

I was in the ELCA and it was never quite that extreme, however, there's a tendency for Lutherans of all kinds to view their religion and theology as very much insular and self-contained. If Lutherans in the US do break at all in any particular direction, it's usually towards American Evangelicalism, not Catholicism.

 

[The Liturgist]

Given his health and age and words I don't expect Pope Francis to be around that much longer. I hope all can come together in prayer.

I am not aware of any immediate concern regarding his health. And his recent move to the right, with the ban on cosmetic mutilation of the reproductive anatomy in the controversially titled Dignitas Infinita, and his increasing praise for Pope Benedict XVI despite his dismantling of Pope Benedict’s liturgical legacy with Traditiones Custodes, suggests shrewd intellectual calculation, given the massive opposition to his continued service that very properly appeared after Fiducia Supplicans, which resulted in a number of traditional Catholics including Dr. Peter Kwasniewski to begin studying the question of how one might canonically remove a Pope from office (which is in principle possible, considering that it happened to other autocephalous bishops, it happened in cases where the identity of the legitimate Pope was less than entirely obvious during the Great Western Schism, and would have happened to Honorius I had he still been alive at the time of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod).

 

[Valletta]

I am not aware of any immediate concern regarding his health. And his recent move to the right, with the ban on cosmetic mutilation of the reproductive anatomy in the controversially titled Dignitas Infinita, and his increasing praise for Pope Benedict XVI despite his dismantling of Pope Benedict’s liturgical legacy with Traditiones Custodes, suggests shrewd intellectual calculation, given the massive opposition to his continued service that very properly appeared after Fiducia Supplicans, which resulted in a number of traditional Catholics including Dr. Peter Kwasniewski to begin studying the question of how one might canonically remove a Pope from office (which is in principle possible, considering that it happened to other autocephalous bishops, it happened in cases where the identity of the legitimate Pope was less than entirely obvious during the Great Western Schism, and would have happened to Honorius I had he still been alive at the time of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod).

I understand your concerns. It appears he has chosen poorly for his advisors, and a lot of his pronouncements sow confusion.