DrZoidberg
Contributor
...and I think Christians know it, and have always known it.
When I read about the heresies, I'm often struck by how the various bishops who got kicked out of the early Christian church were very different in how they organised their churches. Often, very very different. Not just the words they were saying. But who did what, why and when. Who had power in what situations.
When Christianity became legalised it faced a lot of theological battles on the nature of Christ. Was Jesus a human adopted by God? Was Jesus divine. Was he divine all the time. Was he partly divine, partly God?
This is speculation on my part, but I think the real reason why these hair-splittings were important was because they came out of different traditions. One example, Arianism came out of the school of Alexandria, the primary seat of learning in the entire Roman empire. It was the epicentre of academic thought. Arianism was taught by a bishop named Lucius. We don’t know how Arian Christian rituals or church hierarchy functioned. This is lost in history. But my money is on that it was a hell of a lot more brainy, abstract and academic form of Christianity. Most likely with a looser hierarchy. This was the form of Christianity that appealed the most to the Germanic tribes. It was also the form of Christianity Constantine himself leaned toward.
My point is that I am sceptical that the nature of Christ debates really are about the nature of Christ. I think it was primarly about how to organise the church and who would have the power. Because these hair-splitting debates are often just silly. They must have known that at the time. I think the theology is just what they said they were arguing about. Not what they actually were arguing about.
An example of how Eastern Orthodoxy is different from Catholicism is the pope/patriarchs. Eastern Orthodoxy has five, all equal in status. There’s a mechanic with which Eastern Christian sees can declare themselves independent, and be it’s own patriarch. Catholicism doesn’t have this mechanic. This is a major difference in organisation that in no way is reflected in any of the stated reasons to why the Eastern and Western churches split. The reason is just retarded.
They split over whether or not it was right to say that Mary was the mother of God or if Mary was the mother of Christ. As I’ve understood it, the crux of it was that the term "motherhood" has slightly different connotations in Assyrian (at the time the language of the Eastern churches) than it does in Greek (at the time the language of the western church). It would simply have felt inappropriate for them to say that a woman bore a God. In Greek and Latin motherhood can be a more abstract concept.
In 1994 the pope met the pope of the Assyrian Church of the east and agreed that this disagreement was down to the different languages used, rather than a difference in meaning. And they laid their differences aside. Now members of each church can go to each others services with both patriarchs blessing. It's now officially, the same church. Even though, I'm sure, their patriarchs is in no hurry to take orders from each other.
Here's the statement:
Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East (November 11, 1994) | John Paul II (vatican.va)
I just don’t like that when we teach these Christological debates, (or iconoclasm etc) we’re completely leaving out mentioning church hierarchy and the political aspects. Not just which bishop should have power. But how the church organisation would change depending on who has power. Up until the 440’s AD all this was much in flux.
What do you think?
When I read about the heresies, I'm often struck by how the various bishops who got kicked out of the early Christian church were very different in how they organised their churches. Often, very very different. Not just the words they were saying. But who did what, why and when. Who had power in what situations.
When Christianity became legalised it faced a lot of theological battles on the nature of Christ. Was Jesus a human adopted by God? Was Jesus divine. Was he divine all the time. Was he partly divine, partly God?
This is speculation on my part, but I think the real reason why these hair-splittings were important was because they came out of different traditions. One example, Arianism came out of the school of Alexandria, the primary seat of learning in the entire Roman empire. It was the epicentre of academic thought. Arianism was taught by a bishop named Lucius. We don’t know how Arian Christian rituals or church hierarchy functioned. This is lost in history. But my money is on that it was a hell of a lot more brainy, abstract and academic form of Christianity. Most likely with a looser hierarchy. This was the form of Christianity that appealed the most to the Germanic tribes. It was also the form of Christianity Constantine himself leaned toward.
My point is that I am sceptical that the nature of Christ debates really are about the nature of Christ. I think it was primarly about how to organise the church and who would have the power. Because these hair-splitting debates are often just silly. They must have known that at the time. I think the theology is just what they said they were arguing about. Not what they actually were arguing about.
An example of how Eastern Orthodoxy is different from Catholicism is the pope/patriarchs. Eastern Orthodoxy has five, all equal in status. There’s a mechanic with which Eastern Christian sees can declare themselves independent, and be it’s own patriarch. Catholicism doesn’t have this mechanic. This is a major difference in organisation that in no way is reflected in any of the stated reasons to why the Eastern and Western churches split. The reason is just retarded.
They split over whether or not it was right to say that Mary was the mother of God or if Mary was the mother of Christ. As I’ve understood it, the crux of it was that the term "motherhood" has slightly different connotations in Assyrian (at the time the language of the Eastern churches) than it does in Greek (at the time the language of the western church). It would simply have felt inappropriate for them to say that a woman bore a God. In Greek and Latin motherhood can be a more abstract concept.
In 1994 the pope met the pope of the Assyrian Church of the east and agreed that this disagreement was down to the different languages used, rather than a difference in meaning. And they laid their differences aside. Now members of each church can go to each others services with both patriarchs blessing. It's now officially, the same church. Even though, I'm sure, their patriarchs is in no hurry to take orders from each other.
Here's the statement:
Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East (November 11, 1994) | John Paul II (vatican.va)
I just don’t like that when we teach these Christological debates, (or iconoclasm etc) we’re completely leaving out mentioning church hierarchy and the political aspects. Not just which bishop should have power. But how the church organisation would change depending on who has power. Up until the 440’s AD all this was much in flux.
What do you think?
