Theology IV

[inked]

GW,

Five Centuries because of the uncontested (by Rome claimants to special official status within the Church?) theology, liturgy and polity of these times (years one through 499 or so). The developments agreed upon by all during those times were:
Sunday as the Lord's Day, the day of worship;
Church year structure for cyclic worship (Advent-Christmas-Lent-Easter-Pentecost-Trinity);
Lectionary reading structure established for worship and seasons;
liturgical worship forms rather than free worship forms;
Holy Communion on Sundays and holy days;
daily prayer in the churches; and
development of the three-fold ministry of deacon, priest, and bishop.

Also there were the considerations of liturgy matters regarding the fixed forms prior to later accretions in the East and West, the apostolic evidences from the major patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople and Rome, and their regard for the Patristic period before the sundering of the Church along political lines (the politics of Old Rome versus New Rome and the problems engendered by both). The great liturgies of St. James, St. Basil, St Chrysostom, St. Mark, and St. Clement come from this time and have remarkable coherence between them in regard to liturgy and theology. It was regarded as the purest time in the Church before the implications of state-approval and state-establishment had time to work their vitiating force.

There were many who spoke on behalf of the Scripture and a return to it other than Martin Luther, GW. He's the poster child, so to speak. And a look at the flares and speed of the Reformation in its many outposts will demonstrate the large discontent of the priest & laity with the problems of the west. In fact the Church of Rome was slow to respond to the issues at hand! There was Trent and .................................................. .................................................. ....
Vatican II.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

What exactly marks the end of this era of orthodoxy? Or, as one might put it, when precisely did the gates of Hell prevail over the Church of Christ?

Also there were the considerations of liturgy matters regarding the fixed forms prior to later accretions in the East and West,

As a general rule, it seems that later changes to the liturgy were rather abbreviations than accretions.

and their regard for the Patristic period before the sundering of the Church along political lines (the politics of Old Rome versus New Rome and the problems engendered by both

The Church was sundered along political lines both before and after the fifth century. What was so special about this particular sundering.

The great liturgies of St. James, St. Basil, St Chrysostom, St. Mark, and St. Clement come from this time and have remarkable coherence between them in regard to liturgy and theology. It was regarded as the purest time in the Church before the implications of state-approval and state-establishment had time to work their vitiating force.

The liturgies of the Church were in place well before the fifth century. Why then?

I begin to suspect that it's Five Centuries so that it fits after the Four Councils.

There were many who spoke on behalf of the Scripture and a return to it other than Martin Luther, GW.

The term "Protestant" refers to a protestation of a condemnation of Luther and his followers at the Diet of Speyer, so the term originally refers to protesting on behalf specifically of Luther, not of "Scripture".

a lot of the protestations over sin and excesses within the Catholic Church that led to the Reformation were either monetary (so, yes, indulgences was a big part of that) or corrupt Catholic Church officials... namely ones that weren't following the whole chastity thing. Bishops, Cardinals, and even Popes were having illegitimate kids left and right (and typically seeing to their futures through good old nespotism)

I believe he is referring to doctrinal excesses, the excesses whose negation formed the basis of Protestantism.

And, jusy FYI, very, very few popes sired illegitimate children, at least during their papacy. They seemed to have had this strange idea that cardinals are allowed to flout the vow of chastity, but popes are not. I think there were only two or so who actually had bastard children while they were Pope. Not terribly relevant, but an interesting historical fact.

[Empress_Flynn]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I believe he is referring to doctrinal excesses, the excesses whose negation formed the basis of Protestantism.

And, jusy FYI, very, very few popes sired illegitimate children, at least during their papacy. They seemed to have had this strange idea that cardinals are allowed to flout the vow of chastity, but popes are not. I think there were only two or so who actually had bastard children while they were Pope. Not terribly relevant, but an interesting historical fact.

But it wasn't just a matter of doctrinal excesses that led to the creation of Protestantism... it was also a general disgust over other excesses (in terms of sins) that were taking place among the clergy... it wasn't just any one reason at all... it was both... I never meant to imply that it was solely sinful excesses.

So, my discussion of the vices of the clergy were still on topic because they were also a factor in the creation of the reformation.

I could have sworn it was more popes than that who had children, but maybe I'm getting the timing mixed up... still, even if they had them when they were not popes, I can't see that as being good

Plus, I doubt very much whether those calling for a reformation would have cared whether or not it was "okay" for Cardinals to have illegitimate children or not

[inked]

Well, GW, one could do the Gates business when the western church arrogated to itself the addition of the filoque on its own authority and altered the received catholic faith, I suppose.

Interesting definition of protest-ant; possible, do you think, that protesting on behalf of Luther might have had something to do with those 95 Theses thingies?

[katya]

Does anyone actually want to continue discussion of God's sex/gender here? I only brought it up myself because I was giving EAR a hard time, but I suppose it could be.... more or less interesting.

In my world religions class we've been studying Christianity now. God the Father is called the father, I think, partly because of his father-like qualities. I think he's been called motherly too, though. I don't think of it as "God is everything so by definition he's both male and female" but because he actually shows both of those sides in action.

My professor tended to think He went more toward female (in being nurturing and loving) but I think there's a pretty good balance going on. There's something akin to that balance to be found in the sephiroth of the Kabbalah.

[Empress_Flynn]

I suppose it would just have to depend on what religious beliefs you have.... is there one god? Are there many gods? Should we worship Mother Nature? Is there no real god figure but some sort of mystic force to the universe?

Those foundational beliefs would be the first step in defining how you think of god's sex/gender, I suppose

Oh yeah, I went all Jedi on you

[katya]

Yeah, I don't think of God as the Christian God myself, but that's just the one I happened to be discussing. I tend toward a "force" myself. It seems like kind of an arbitrary discussion because I don't think most people picture God as having genitalia, and whether he/she shows masculine or feminine characteristics seems kind of irrelevant at times too but if you think about it the right way it seems kind of important at the same time too. In terms of morality and other various things.

[Empress_Flynn]

Yeah, that makes sense...

I'm more of a "force" person lol... but I suppose if we go for the Christian god as the one under debate of sexuality/gender... dunno, it's difficult. Maybe first we'd have to determine what traits are typically "feminine" and which are "masculine"

Can't we just peek under the robe and figure it out?

[katya]

LOL. Ok but I volunteer you for that job.

I think masculine/feminine characteristics are more or less straightforward. Yin/yang type things. Feminine is passive, motherly, nurturing, merciful, while masculine is active and powerful and wields authority and justice.

We don't have to talk about just the Christian God though. I just started there because there's a lot of Christians around and because that's what I happen to be studying right now.

[Empress_Flynn]

Oh yeah... cause that would be a really comfortable moment in heaven "Um... scuse me... god? Mind if I just... have a peek?" *pause* "Well, that's that then..."

So if we go by those characteristics, Old Testament god is more masculine and New Testament god is more feminine.

Did god have a sex change?

I think we also need to take into account the feminine traits of protectiveness for their own children.... that can lead to wielding of power and authority...

Yeah, maybe we can open it up to other deities later lol...

[katya]

Yeah, I thought the same thing about the old/new testament. Actually... there are some sects that believe it's a different God altogether, namely the Gnostics. They tend to think that the material world is "bad" and the spiritual world is "good", and the creator of the material world (old testament God) is a bad God, even saying that the serpent in the garden of eden was a good guy trying to help us out (because of they hold knowledge in such high esteem). Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. right or wrong though, it's a neat idea. There does seem to be quite a reversal. Old testament God was kind of a jerk.

I didn't think about the protectiveness. I think that's a really important aspect of mothers (mother bear syndrome...) too. I think even really authoritative mothers are mostly just acting in a masculine, fatherly way though. In the traditional sense.

[Empress_Flynn]

Hmmm... that's quite interesting about the Gnostics... I'll have to do some research into that because I don't know much about their beliefs.

Yeah, Old Testament God was kind of a jerk lol...

Maybe I'm going too in depth about the masculine and feminine trait things but I've just taken way too many gender courses....

[katya]

Really? I haven't taken any courses like that (only talked about it a little in sociology courses). Did you take any courses where you talked about how gender roles varied from place to place that might affect the discussion?

[Empress_Flynn]

Yeah... I took one called "Gender, Culture, and Communication," and that's pretty much all we did lol...

Plus we touched on the issue in almost all of my comm courses..

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Oh, mercy me.

Did one of you young people really just assert that persons of the female gender share certain identifiable personality characteristics, such as nurturance?

I hope not.

Because Sane and I will have to open another can of whup-ass around here, and I hate to interupt my nurturing activities to do that.

The Empresses new avatar.

[Empress_Flynn]

No... we asserted nothing...

Made mention of the common acceptance of such a belief but acknowledged that these were not wholly truthful to all beings

That's all

Hehe... nice av

[katya]

Yeah Sis, we were talking about the traditionally accepted masculine/feminine. Not saying all females/males are one way or the other. I think my brother and I have switched gender roles sometimes. He's a girly-man.

[Empress_Flynn]

And you're a manny-girl?



*is kind of afraid of Sis's implied brand of "nurturing"*

[katya]

I think it's "manly", lol. Though I always called Adel from FF8 "manly manly beast woman Adel".

[Empress_Flynn]

But "manny" sounds nicer!

Manly sounds... well... manly...

Like God may or may not be.

Which is what this thread is about.

And what we are really focusing on.

*finishes attempting to appease any wandering admins*