What's your favorite Christian heresy? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 18, 2024, 05:39:35 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  What's your favorite Christian heresy? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What's your favorite Christian heresy?  (Read 4127 times)
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,375


« on: September 08, 2020, 08:18:46 AM »

Collyridianism if it actually existed, Patripassianism if it didn't. I also have a favorable view of most of the movements PSOL mentions, with the exception of Gnosticism, a school of thought of which people have a ludicrously high opinion considering its unabashed secrecy and elitism--probably since, unlike with a lot of other heresies, enough Gnostic texts survive that they're more or less able to speak for themselves.


John Wycliffe was with the Lollards, not the Diggers, whose most familiar individual figure is Gerrard Winstanley.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,375


« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2020, 08:08:52 AM »

     I like the Old Believers and use several of their cosmetic practices (e.g. using two fingers to make the sign of the cross), though the anathema on them was lifted many years ago. Some of the sub-sects of the Old Believers had very unusual doctrines that I find fascinating.

     It is hard to pick just one group to call out, but I would like to mention the Holy Thursday Gapers, who would keep their mouths open during liturgy on Great and Holy Thursday in anticipation of receiving the Eucharist from angelic ministers. Their reasoning for this was that they did not believe any valid human priests still existed on Earth, so Holy Communion could only be given to them by angelic hands.

Were the Nikonian Reforms really successfully enforced on every Russian Orthodox priest, or did the rationale for this have to do with something else, like a lack of "faithful" bishops to perform new ordinations?
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,375


« Reply #2 on: September 10, 2020, 09:42:50 AM »

     I like the Old Believers and use several of their cosmetic practices (e.g. using two fingers to make the sign of the cross), though the anathema on them was lifted many years ago. Some of the sub-sects of the Old Believers had very unusual doctrines that I find fascinating.

     It is hard to pick just one group to call out, but I would like to mention the Holy Thursday Gapers, who would keep their mouths open during liturgy on Great and Holy Thursday in anticipation of receiving the Eucharist from angelic ministers. Their reasoning for this was that they did not believe any valid human priests still existed on Earth, so Holy Communion could only be given to them by angelic hands.

Were the Nikonian Reforms really successfully enforced on every Russian Orthodox priest, or did the rationale for this have to do with something else, like a lack of "faithful" bishops to perform new ordinations?

     Indeed it was a matter of bishops. They had priests initially, but no bishops of the Russian Church were with the Old Believers to ordain new ones and so their priesthood rapidly died out. Their most prominent members were able to convince a deposed bishop from another country to come and ordain new ones, but these ordinations were not universally recognized among Old Believers. This led to a division between the "popovtzy" who had priests and the "bezpopovtzy" who did not have priests. Most of the truly bizarre sects of the Old Believers were bezpopovtzy.

On the merits, I'm actually sympathetic to the contemporary arguments against the Nikonian Reforms. Everything I've read about them indicates that they were imposed in an incredibly heavy-handed way, and the rationale for them reeks of cultural cringe. I probably would have grudgingly accepted them once they were in place, though.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,375


« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2020, 08:52:50 AM »

Sedevacantism does have legitimate grievances with Rome.

I don't mean this question as an attack or even a criticism really, but why exactly would a staunch Reformed Protestant like yourself understand internal Catholic Church issues well enough to hold this position, especially since a huge sede issue is perceived "Protestantization" of things like the liturgy and Biblical theology? There's way more to the rationale behind sedevacantism and the Traditionalist Catholic movement/subculture in general than just "Left-Leaning Pope Bad", even if "Left-Leaning Pope Bad" currently eats up a lot of many trads' intellectual and emotional energy.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 12 queries.