Why do Protestants believe in the Bible (not a troll)

[Alexander's Horse]

Yes John Paul II is a big obstacle to just about everything.

[Straybow]

Again, not quite true; definite majority of Christians of Syria, Armenia and Egypt were monophysite, and of Mesopotamia and further east - nestorian. There were some 5 bishoprics (later even less) of greek rite in Egypt, compared to dozens of Coptic ones.

Only five Orthodox bishoprics in Egypt, yet Alexandria alone had nearly a million in population. Constantinople was 1.4 million, larger than whole countries in Europe! Average cities in Asia Minor and the Levant were ~250k, with huge walls encompassing enough acreage of wheat fields to be nearly immune to starvation seige tactics. No wonder crusaders returned to Europe with a new perspective!

In terms of population the great centers of the West no longer existed. After the third sack of Rome in 491 IIRC the size of Rome never rose much above 50k (down from 800k at its peak in the 3rd-4th cen). Aachen and a few other trade centers in northern Europe had at most 100k people but typically closer to 70k.

When Toledo was captured from the Moors in 1085 it instantly became the greatest center of population, trade, and learning in the West even though half the population and almost all the scholars and merchants had fled south to Andalusia!

As an aside, in Civ2 those European capitals would be size 4, while the average Asian cites size 8, larger cities 10-12, and capitals 14-16. It's like comparing the puny AI civs to the perfectionist player's civ in late mid-game.

---

In the end, every division among Christians is political. Politics is the process of deciding who makes the decisions, whether in secular law or in religious organizations.

To fall back upon claims of authority is a dilution of the genuine authority of Christ. Christ didn't die on the cross and rise from the dead to establish an earthly bureaucracy in Rome or anywhere else. Organization is a means to an end, and when it becomes an end to itself it is by definition corrupt and dead.

Bury the corpse and start a new institution to carry the practical burdens of organization. That's what happened in the Reformation, and in a couple mini-Reformations since.

RC is highly centralized, while EO is decentralized. The Papacy has evolved from "first among equals" to "more equal than others" to use the Orwellianism. RC has added a huge volume of dogma, codified and defined to the nth degree. EO has added little to the teachings of the medieval church and (as Elok mentioned) discarded some of the hair-splitting that flourished in Rome.

[Straybow]

DP

[Alexander's Horse]

These theological debates between orthodox and catholic are really quite sterile and meaningless.

The real source of divisions are historical and political. Such very earthly disagreements between rulers were then dressed up as theological differences and used in b*tchy t*t for tat arguments.

[Jon Miller]

I don't think my church's division is politics

Jon Mille

[Elok]

The reason for the split between east and west was originally just that they grew apart in traditions due to the gap in distance, yes. The final, formalized breakup, on the other hand, came from the Pope, or rather an uppity cardinal, demanding an unreasonable amount of control over the other bishoprics. We won't agree with that, nor to scholasticism, nor ex cathedra, nor a whole slew of other things, and at any rate it's downright unchristian to sacrifice the truth in the interests of everybody getting along with a smile on their face. So far as we're concerned the current Pope is doing an excellent job of trying to reform the church from within, he just happens to be stuck on ideas we regard as heresy while fighting against other heresies.
And "ecumenism," as it's called, is a slap in the face to the ecumenical councils and everything else that ever bore the label. "Ecumenical" implies different cultures and traditions united by a common belief. Ecumenism is just spinelessness disguised as tolerance.
If you're going to babble something about how everyone's right in response to every theological question, you'll never offer any form of genuine spiritual guidance. The whole point of any religion is that there is a definite and eternal truth to be found.

[Alexander's Horse]

The real reason was the Roman empire split. All the "theological" issues came after.

I think believers on both side should treat each as brothers and sisters and ignore the idiots in the hierarchies on both sides.

[Straybow]

The RC Church is constitutionally incapable of reform. They can never admit to error in official doctrine or dicta without showing the Emperor to have been naked all along.

[Heresson]

Copts ARE in our communion, as are the Ethiopians

Both are monophysite.

Some months ago in his "Ecclesia De Eucharistia" he even forbade all Catholics, to visit non catholic Communions

They can visit them, if there's no catholic one near.
I think it's the right way.
What do You expect, with catholics being target of protestant conversion groups?
The idea of the church is that others are Christians as well, so eventually You can pray with them. But I believe no church can ever say that it's just one of other churches - because then, it looses it's reason to exist.

sadly enough John Paul II the current Pope seems to be the greatest Obstacle to Ecumenism.

That's not anything wise to say. The current pope was the first one to enter a synagogue and a mosque, for example. That's really much.

The RC Church is constitutionally incapable of reform. They can never admit to error in official doctrine or dicta without showing the Emperor to have been naked all along.

And what error in doctrine do You mean?

[Ned]

It is interesting that the East and Western churches continued to attend ecumenical councils together, IIRC, until the 1200's.

In my view, the only way to put Humpty Dumpty back together again would be to again hold joint ecumenical councils. As there no longer is an Emperor to call one, perhaps the EU could do it - as the EU, in a way, reflects a reunion of the Eastern and Western empires. Somehow, the Russians have to be invited as well - so perhaps a joint EU-Russian invitation for the clergy of the East and West to come to a joint ecumenical council.

BTW, is there a direct descendant of the last Western Emperor? Perhaps he could make the invitation? Also, isn't the Queen of England also the Elector of Hannover? Does this give her enough authority to call an ecumencial council as Elector, not as head of the Church of England?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Straybow

Again, not quite true; definite majority of Christians of Syria, Armenia and Egypt were monophysite, and of Mesopotamia and further east - nestorian. There were some 5 bishoprics (later even less) of greek rite in Egypt, compared to dozens of Coptic ones.

Only five Orthodox bishoprics in Egypt, yet Alexandria alone had nearly a million in population. Constantinople was 1.4 million, larger than whole countries in Europe! Average cities in Asia Minor and the Levant were ~250k, with huge walls encompassing enough acreage of wheat fields to be nearly immune to starvation seige tactics. No wonder crusaders returned to Europe with a new perspective!

In terms of population the great centers of the
West no longer existed. After the third sack of Rome in 491 IIRC the size of Rome never rose much above 50k (down from 800k at its peak in the 3rd-4th cen). Aachen and a few other trade centers in northern Europe had at most 100k people but typically closer to 70k.

Nothing new to me...
But You're exagerrating; Constantinopleis not believed to have ever had over a million population, and yes, BIG eastern cities, like Ephesos in its good days, had over 250K population, but it wasn't average size. Mazaca, which was one of the main Anatolian cities, had allegedly 400K in Heraclius times. These were the major cities, but it all doesn't mean that the east outnumbered the west completely; still the majority of population was the rural one.

Bury the corpse and start a new institution to carry the practical burdens of organization. That's what happened in the Reformation, and in a couple mini-Reformations since.

I believe that the separation from the mainstream church didn't help the cause at all; it was the thing that started the religious wars, it weakened the reformative wing of the catholic church, and anyway... protestants were even more zealous than catholics, as seen on Sweden's example, which was bad enough to ban all catholics and forbid catholicism, even though it had a catholic king.

[Elok]

Er, the power to hold ecumenical councils doesn't rest in the emperor of byzantium. Constantine called the first, but from the second on all of them were called by the hierarchy of the church itself. I'm guessing the responsibility passed to the pope first, and then to the current ecumenical patriarch in Constantinople. Not that it matters, since the last true ecumenical council was held in the 780s.
And the copts are monophysite, but we are allowed to partake of sacraments at their churches, or were last time I checked.

[Ben Kenobi]

Some months ago in his "Ecclesia De Eucharistia" he even forbade all Catholics, to visit non catholic Communions, just before the ecumenical Kirchentag in Berlin, where Catholics and Protestants in Germany celebrate together and where it is Traditon to hold a joint Communion where Protestants and Catholics aren´t separated.

Yes, I heard about that latest ban. What a downer! My girlfriend wanted to come with me to my church, where we would have shared communion for the first time, before the Pope issued this edict.

Now, the Catholics reject what we offer in good faith.

I understand why I can't take communion with the Catholics, but why bar Catholics from taking communion from a Protestant?

AH:

I agree with you that Christians should work together, but to do so does not mean glossing over the differences. It is only by examining the differences, can we ever come to a joint understanding.

Efforts are going to have to be met with compromises on both sides, not just the Protestants making concessions to the 'one true church'. Don't get me wrong, I admire this pope, who up until this ban has been the most ecumenical pope. Look at the second Vatican council where he said that Protestants are not apostate, but seperated brethren. This is why this latest edict seems so out of character.

[Elok]

Er, I think the appropriate word would be heretic, not apostate. You already know my opinion about "ecumenism."

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Straybow
The RC Church is constitutionally incapable of reform. They can never admit to error in official doctrine or dicta without showing the Emperor to have been naked all along.

That's not true - Galileo finally got cleared a couple of years ago