This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In preparation for the currently ongoing papal conclave, I decided to read the official rules currently in force, UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS, issued by John Paul II in 1996. The document contains this provision (emphasis added):
Seems simple enough right?
Whoops.
Here I was, a schmuck, reading the canonically promulgated apostolic constitution as if it mattered, as if the supposed men of God involved in this 2000-year-old institution might care about established procedures.
Sure, Francis could have changed the rules, as many popes have done throughout the centuries, but he didn’t. He either didn’t notice or didn’t care, and neither did anyone else with influence within the Vatican either. How am I supposed to take this seriously if the cardinals and popes don’t even take it seriously?
I wish Christianity were true. I really do. It would certainly make my dating life easier. I’d have a sense of purpose in life, defined rules of virtue to follow, but it just doesn’t make any actual sense. The inconsistency I cited above is relatively minor, but it is illustrative of what one finds everywhere when one digs into the claims of Christianity and treats them with the truth-preserving tools of logic. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican II, Matthew 24:34, these are fundamental truth claims that can’t be handwaved away like the finer points of ecclesiastical law.
Luther in his Sermon for the Second Sunday in Advent; Luke 21:25-36 Christ's Second Coming: or the Signs of the Day of Judgment; and the Comforts Christians Have From Them, says it's the Jews.
More options
Context Copy link
If you're gonna clutch your pearls, dude, read up on the differences between dogma, doctrine, and discipline. Also that bureaucratic norms can be changed without it being "ZOMG they're re-writing the Gospels!!!!"
Pope Benedict XVI made changes to the proceedings in the Apostolic Letter Normas Nonnullas:
Please take note of the term "in the present historical circumstances". Golly gee wow, it's not 1996 anymore! We have not always had 120 cardinal electors, or 130, or however many are making you have a fit of the vapours.
Fun fact which people are riffing off now regarding past conclaves (and after Trump's portrait of himself as the pope), the conclave of 1268-1271 which ended up electing a guy who wasn't even ordained, much less present, as pope Gregory X:
I don't know if you're Catholic or just another person taking the opportunity to be shocked, shocked! about something or other to do with the Church, but I'm getting fed up of this carry-on. "Oh no, the people who claim to be divinely infallible have done something that contradicts each other! I am going to keel over in a faint from the shock!" Changes to the process have taken place over the centuries. The number of electors depends on how many current cardinals aged under 80 are present; you could have one million cardinals in the College and only 50 under 80 who would be eligible to be electors. Right now we have more cardinals under 80 alive to be electors, but that will change over the next few years as cardinals age out and die. This is not a matter of infallible teaching ex cathedra under the authority of the sacred Magisterium! It's election rules and tweaking the civil service!
Straighten out your theology and then make an informed comment. Forgive me if I sound grumpy, I'm irritated right now by (a) those who are not Catholic or even Christian sticking their oar in for point-scoring purposes, even if they have no intention at all of being involved in religious practice and (b) the perennial liberals who want the Church to hurry up, get with the times, and elect the pope who will ordain trans non-binary furry queer female married priests.
If this were Judaism, Shinto, Hinduism, or any other religion that isn't explicitly trying to convert the entire world, I would agree. But for the big two globalist religions, Christianity and Islam, I reserve the right to comment on their internal affairs and air my grievances. These religions will affect me whether I like it or not, because their followers will be trying to convert me either with relentless badgering from Christians or actual violence from Muslims. I shouldn't have to waste my time becoming "informed" about catholic theology before having an opinion that the Pope should be more liberal and open-minded.
On the one hand, yeah, the Church puts forth its opinions and does affect the secular world. So it does affect non-Catholics. On the other hand, people who have no intention whatsoever of stepping foot inside a church but want Catholicism to change to fit with Current Secular Thing (last time was gay, probably now is trans, next time furries? poly? who can say?) may express an opinion as to how if only, if only, this little teeny thing was different they would totally rush down for baptism tomorrow - and I can disbelieve them.
I can complain about the US President of the day, because he has outsize power on what affects my nation, but I don't get to tell Americans "well if you all just scrapped the way you do elections and do it by my preferred system, then I'd be ever so happy. No, I don't have a vote in American elections and don't live in America, but I should still be able to tell you to change to suit me".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Mocking the church is my god given right.
I’ve stopped being an annoying atheist because I’m no longer aged 12-23, but, come on, this stuff is still funny.
Or it’s extremely sad and pathetic.
I choose the funny route.
The mistake people always make is telling ((us)) that we don’t understand the history, the theology, the nuance, the glory, the what have you.
I understand why it bothers you, I do, but that doesn’t take into account how much bother religion has been to ((us)) in our own lifetimes.
You try to rule our life, and we mock you, that’s a fair exchange at this point imo. You’re no longer chopping off our heads, and we mock you a bit. What’s the issue, seriously?
I hope you persevere until the threat of Islam is pacified, and the threat of communism, and I hope you never ordain trans non binary furies as Cardinals.
But you will - and it’ll be kinda funny.
People who do have a notion of the history and theology are not the problem. People who pull the equivalent of "You know, whales are not fish, checkmate Christians!" are the problem (for a start, thinking this works on Catholics who just go "well yeah, and?" "but you guys believe the Bible is inerrant and divinely inscribed, don't you? but here it is being wrong on a scientific fact!" "let me put your straight on that")
That's where OP with the "this last pope changed a rule the pope before the pope before him set, guess that means the whole belief in God thing is a fraud" is the latter type. The new guy could make it a rule that "you know, you can wear navy to a funeral here, we don't mind" but he can't change "and for those of you who like to nibble on something sweet, the Communion wafer may be replaced by a chocolate chip cookie". There's a difference in degree and kind between the two.
More options
Context Copy link
By your wording trans non binary furies, is your conjecture that the Church is changing over time?
More options
Context Copy link
Care to clarify that?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Obviously, as a Mormon (member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, whew) I think you're actually on the right track. It's so blindingly obvious that the Catholic church is bumbling along, with zero internal consistency, for centuries and centuries. It shows up all over. Even today, Catholics are very loud about a number of major issues, but very small numbers of actual Catholics actually agree with their own church's doctrine, much less practice it, and that's even before you look at any history at all. Don't get me wrong, I respect Catholics, I get along with many, I still view the religion as an overall net good, etc. but their doctrine is a mess. I genuinely extra respect the Catholics who attempt to pull the doctrine together into a coherent whole, but I just don't see the hand of God guiding them.
Now, doctrinally, to me, this all goes away quite neatly when you give up on the idea of the Catholic line of authority being unbroken. Clearly they strayed, it's self-evident, so my own faith has the nice idea of needing someone to restore and clarify things and have a modern guide/prophet. I'm not saying that people don't find any inconsistencies in Mormon doctrine, there's a people component to be sure, but it's several orders of magnitude less. I strongly reject this idea that doctrine is developed by groups of people hashing it out. Council of Nicea? Convened by Constantine, he basically says I don't care what you produce as long as it's something unifying, and once you do, we'll burn the writings of dissenters and exile anyone not with the program. All this to say you should meet with the missionaries :)
Whoo boy, this has the potential to become a Californian Summer of "help help the entire state is burning down" levels of heated, and get us all banned. I'm biting my tongue real hard here not to snark about the Mormon church, second only to Scientology in "the brass neck of this guy" for its founder.
Let's all agree not to throw shade on one another's denominations and just wait for the results of the conclave?
Sorry, dunking on Catholics wasn’t really my intention, and I could have used softer language. I think you make a good point above about this being bureaucratic in nature, but it prompts the genuine question: once a Pope dies, where does the broad Church authority reside, exactly? Is it a specific group of people, or is more hand-wavy, or is it purely retrospective? Whatever the answer, has that always been the case?
The College of Cardinals.
Their powers are limited, but it is they who rule when the seat is vacant.
It's an interesting story actually, because the power to appoint the next Pope was seized by the cardinals from the Holy Roman Emperor (somewhat understandably given he was six years old at the time). Until then, noble families would fight pretty hard to get the seat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Church has existed for 2000 years. Can you name anything else that has 'bumbled along, with zero internal consistency' for so many 'centuries and centuries'?
Hinduism. Looks like we should all start worshipping Lord Krishna soon with this logic.
Hinduism is the equivalent of "Mediterranean religions" (including e.g. Mithraism and Greek mystery cults... and Renaissance Catholics writing about Greek mythology, besides the Greek and Roman pagans...). There are mono- and polytheistic Hindus! Yea, there are Buddhists!
Christianity is a single specific branch, equivalent in nesting to e.g. Shaktism. The Catholic Church would then be equivalent to an organization of temples adhering to Shaktism. In Hinduism, there is e.g. Mundeshwari Devi which is like a single small building, but "in operation" for about 1300 years.
Theravada Buddhism then if we're going to go down to considering different sects as being distinct entities. Still significantly older than the Catholic church and going strong today..
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It is an outrageous stretch to claim that "hinduism" has existed for thousands of years in the same way that The Catholic Church has. When this claim comes up, Hindus take the same tack as Muslims and Jews do, which is trying to claim that both there is no institution (whenever obvious problems with either of these religions come up), and that also it's the oldest institution.
There is no Hindu equivalent of The Pope, or The Cardinals, or Vatican City, or the Catechism. There are some old monestaries which have a loose connection to the modern world, some of which are almost as old as The Church.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Perhaps a better expression of my feeling is that Catholic doctrine, insofar as I understand it, explicitly promotes both Scripture and Tradition as (equal-ish) sources of doctrine... but simultaneously claims authority to make New Changes, due to pedigree/authority. Many Protestants view Sola Scriptura as the best source of doctrine, with perhaps a little history as helpful context, though others take a full "we figure it out with scholarship" approach and basically toss all of it out as unerring sources of doctrine. LDS theology by contrast at least has a nice hierarchy where modern clarifications/additions explicitly take precedence, so there really isn't the same kind of core conflict. That's why, at least to me, the Catholic attempt to split the difference, where some New Changes are OK to make and change Scripture and/or Tradition, but not too many, seems contradictory, and I think Catholic theological history reflects that inconsistency. It's possible I've misunderstood this point or been too uncharitable, of course, but that's my impression. How can a Catholic distinguish between a Tradition that's OK to change, and one that isn't? (Also, maybe doctrinal is the wrong word?)
First, we need to establish what actually counts as Church teaching. And that can be challenging, because there are lots of people running around on the internet and in real life saying, "My personal theological interpretation is the one true teaching of the Catholic Church, I know this because it is the personal theological theory my favorite saint expounded, who are you to say you're smarter than St X of X?"
So what is Catholic teaching? Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott is an encyclopedia of doctrine that is still used in Seminaries today. You can read it with a free account here. The introduction lays out seven categories in shades of certitude, ranging from "De Fide Definita" (which are defined by a solemn judgement of faith of the Pope or of a General Council) to "Tolerable Opinions" (which are weakly founded, but currently tolerated by the Church.)
Traditions that are "De Fide Definita" are not able to change. But they are pretty rare. There are about 1000 of them, and no, there isn't an infallible list of infallible teachings. People have read through every Church document and made lists, Ott's book above is one such list (though it then gives non-dogmatic explanations under each dogmatic statement. The explanations could be wrong.) Not every statement by a Pope or by a Church Council is infallible. Most are not. To make a De Fide Definita requires the magisterial source saying something like, "This pertains to the deposit of faith and binds everyone forever universally" before the statement. The statement itself is then considered infallible. The justification or explanation of the statement is not infallible even if it is given by the same authority that made the infallible statement.
So questions like "How many people are supposed to elect the pope?" is not infallible. It's not even a question of faith or morals. There are lots of disciplinary questions, like should priests marry or what songs should be sung at Mass, which are not even in the category of Faith and Morals, and therefore cannot by principle have an infallible answer.
How does doctrine develop? Acts gives us a good, basic example of what it looks like. At the beginning of the Church, every follower of Jesus was a Jew. Everyone was circumcised. There was no conflict to resolve, no debate. While it was true, even at that time in the past, that Jesus died for all, gentile and Jew, there was no need for the Church to have a clear teaching on circumcision yet. The truth was the same, but there was no clear teaching.
And then Gentiles started converting. Peter had a vision that he interpreted as God saying to baptize Gentiles. It fit into prior revelation - with Jesus' command to make disciples of all nations. There was a prior teaching which was held in tension to this one - that Jews should not visit with Gentiles. But Peter recognized the voice of God calling him to baptize Gentiles and that Jesus also commanded the baptism of all nations.
Over time, this theological tension grew. Conflicts arose with people who thought Gentiles needed to be circumcised and basically become Jewish first before receiving salvation. There was genuine disagreement with both sides thinking they were following the tradition handed to them.
So a council was called. The Council of Jerusalem declared that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. The council found other portions of scripture that supported this doctrine, and then promulgated the new doctrine that uncircumcised Gentiles can be baptized and saved.
So the fundamental aspects of doctrinal development are:
Due to a temporal change in circumstances, a legitimate disagreement has developed between two or more groups of well-intentioned believers. Both groups believe they find support in tradition and scripture.
A large number of bishops gather together to discuss the differences. (Catholics would say it's important that this gathering has either Peter or one of his successors promulgating the findings of the council, but outside of that distinction I think most Orthodox and many Protestants would agree without this point added.)
The gathering comes to a conclusion. Since both sides had some justification based on prior teaching, the conclusion will also be based on prior teaching, but will close off one of the previously acceptable theological positions.
And that is how Doctrine develops in the Catholic Church.
Wonderful post, thanks.
More options
Context Copy link
Hmm, that’s a good post, thank you. I guess the real lynchpin is, how broad is the “temporal change in circumstances”? Like for example, and maybe this isn’t actually a big sticking point, the longtime celibacy requirement of the Western church, I heard there was talk of changing that? Is that really up for a “new” debate? Doesn’t seem like there is much particularly different this century vs previous ones that that would become an issue still unresolved. Or is that just something that hasn’t made it to the definitive doctrine side of things, and it’s more like the issue has always been burning at a sub-critical mass? My other question is about the who. Is it only the Pope who can declare an issue severe enough that it demands resolution, or it more designed to be a fundamentally consensus-seeking semi-democratic process?
This is 100% capable of change, because it is not a matter of faith or morals. There is no declaration at all that requires us to believe that priests must be celibate as a matter of faith or morals. Of all the things that people list, this is such an easy thing to change. Almost as easy as rescheduling the donuts and coffee get together after mass. About as significant to our theology as rescheduling a parish breakfast.
We currently have married priests! One was my neighbor! If an Anglican or Orthodox priest converts, they are still a priest and still married. If a Lutheran pastor or similar level protestant converts, they can seek ordination while still married.
It's a discipline to have unmarried men enter the priesthood. Discipline means it's just a choice we made. Now, there's reasons we made that choice. But it's as significant as a uniform at a private school. It's distinctive! But it can be changed easily.
The reason people are talking about changing this is because there has been a real shortage of priests in the past few decades. That shortage seems to be changing - the flock itself is getting smaller, more young people are entering the seminary, there might not be a need.
There is a significant change this century, but either way this is a prudential matter.
In the Church's magisterial teaching authority. The bishops all together exercise this authority. When there are disputes, the Pope is where the buck stops.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Everyone always forgets the Orthodox, just because they are more spiritual/mystic and far far away …
The Orthodox also hold to both scripture and tradition (and recognize ecclesiastical (not theological) supremacy of the Pope if the schism is mended), so this points to this being the correct position instead of sola scriptura.
The Mormon hierarchy being effective(?) and therefore true is a novel point, but on an emotional level I prefer religion being a bit shrouded in mystery and vague and having thousands of years of wobbly-wobbly history with burning of incense, while Mormonism and Joseph Smith is too modern-american-conman-heretical-cult-constructed for my liking.
In the contrary I kind of appreciate it all being laid out in front of everyone warts and opposition and all, few if any major religions can claim the same, though of course it comes with its obvious downsides.
I’m curious though how you perceive ecclesiastical authority to be distinct from ideological? To me obviously they feel to be fundamentally intertwined, as “personnel is policy” as they say in the secular political world, but is it typical in either East or West orthodoxy to consider them quite distinct?
Both East and West tend to cite apostolic succession as the bedrock of their authority. Obviously Protestants tend to disagree because, well... none of them have a true chain of apostolic succession.
And then of course there are Anglicans (and, of course, continental Lutherans), who are very insistent that they have a chain of apostolic succession, even if the Vatican disagrees and the Orthodox... don't really care either way, apostolic succesion is tied to Church communion for them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Eastern and Western wings of the Church may disagree profoundly on many matters, but I think we both agree about a guy who said God is an astronaut 😁
As a band, though, they're excellent.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you believe:
We (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) agree on points 1 and 2 but not 3. Heaven is instead a physical place that exists in our universe. Some places are physically closer to it, others physically farther. It's imperceptible to us due to some fundamental characteristics of divine matter (which has interesting implications for dark matter, which we cannot detect except through its influence on gravity) but definitely exists in our universe.
I get that it's seen as heretical to believe God has a physical body and that all things spiritual are physical too. But please don't boil it down to "God is an astronaut," which greatly demeans him in my eyes. I would never call your idea of God a Planeswalker just because you believe he travels between dimensions.
I don't want to get any more insulting than I already have, and if I start seriously discussing Christology and the Mormon version thereof, I'm going to step over a line sooner or later. So I'm not trying to dodge you by not engaging, I'm trying to keep the heat level down.
Well, far be it from me to egg you on. I'd much prefer a serious discussion of Christology to passing snipes, though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I dont think its really that defined. If you wanted to make it into a scientific model, this propably fits the typical opinions pretty well, but Im not sure you need to. As an analogy, what would happen if roadrunner and coyote were to run into the tunnel holding hands? AFAIC, once youre in the realm of basically-magic already, its fine to say NULL.
Also Im pretty sure the mormon astronaut thing did involve other planets at one point.
I'm not denying that our God can be characterized as an astronaut. He probably doesn't travel through space--some form of instant travel seems more likely--but he's been to space and other planets at some point, sure. I'd just prefer to avoid those dismissive terms.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah I can get behind that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We kind of like it that way, I think. A big issue with the Catholic church imo is that power has corrupted them over the centuries.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I believe the idea is that since Christ entrusted Peter with the power to bind and loose (which is to say to forbid or permit with indisputable authority) he and his successors ultimately are to make that decision.
A distinctive component of Catholic faith is that the institution itself is a leg from Christ, and thus imbued with the legitimacy to change or not change at will. Of course Protestants will argue that Peter and his successors were mere men and can err or question lineage, to which a Catholic would retort a faith that God would not let his Church go astray in the end.
The interesting question being of course whether the Pope has the ability to lead the Church astray. It is my understanding that the mainstream Catholic view on this matter is a resounding no.
Illuminating comment. A different bind and loose interpretation than I am familiar with. Is the pope considered to be uniquely vested with some kind of revelation, or is any action justified simply by virtue of the position? It’s my perception that Catholics try to have it both ways, but maybe that’s unfair.
Catholic dogma holds that to be infallible (through the charismatic gift I previously outlined), the Pope has to be speaking ex cathedra, which is to say when as part of his office, he defines a doctrine that concerns faith or morals that is to be held by the whole Church. And he has to actually say that, you can't be infallible by accident.
The Church itself (the whole body of bishops) also has a form of infallibility derived from this gift.
However, in Pastor aeternus, the formal definition of this concept by Vatican I, infallibility is not allowed to apply to wholly new doctrines. Any doctrines defined must be "conformable with Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Traditions".
In any case, the Pope can very much still err or sin, unless he's exercising this particular charism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes which is why all of the other apostles always deferred to Peter in everything, and treated him like a king...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Japanese monarchy? The list isn't very long, but you don't go that long without encountering some tribulations.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As a Protestant, I agree with you that the papacy is no guarantor of doctrinal fidelity. But the core question is this: The pope is said to be the vicar of Christ – is he? Flawed historical assertions and doctrinal contradictions count as evidence against the claim, but the claim itself is true or false and should be addressed as such. (Whether this is the right forum to go deep on that question is a separate issue.)
The same is true of claims about the president of the Mormon church: Is he a true or false prophet? Having a true prophet may be useful, but that doesn’t determine whether Joseph Smith and Russell Nelson qualify. Flawed historical assertions and doctrinal contradictions count as evidence here too. And I think it’s audacious to say that the LDS score well.
What about the Mormon history of pre-Columbian America, which doesn’t jive with any historical source or archeological finds? Or the book of Abraham, whose source manuscripts turned out to be Egyptian funerary texts once we could read hieroglyphs? Or the edits to the Book of Mormon regarding the nature of the godhead? Or the doctrines which were said to be unchangeable but were nevertheless changed, like plural marriage?
I believe that the idea was to have an apostolic guidance for the church as a whole but persecution, deaths, unauthorized doctrinal changes, undue pagan influences, power grabs, a view that the Second Coming was imminent, and the gradual loss of divine revelation made the church fundamentally changed and eventually bereft of authority. Perhaps some city bishops had some legitimate authority for a while, but the connection that e.g. the Bishop of Rome would have any actual special sway over the church as a whole is highly suspect, as was especially the consolidation under Constantine. The later "sins" of the Catholic church are some evidence, but not the primary evidence. I agree that to the extent historical matters should be considered in coming to spiritual conclusions, that history both theological and otherwise are fair game for examination - though my comment was more about the theological history of the Catholics than their more political/historical acts.
Getting a little off topic I guess, but in terms of Book of Mormon history, the position has long been (and is mildly supported in-text) that the people there were simply one of many living side by side. Archeologically speaking, we simply do not have anywhere close to a comprehensive survey of all peoples who lived in Mesoamerica. Among the Maya, for example, we've only excavated about 1% of the sites and of those sites only 10% of what's there, approximately. The Book of Abraham I feel was used as a starting point for inspiration on Abrahamic writings rather than a true transliteration, though admittedly there are decent reasons to think otherwise I certainly wouldn't begrudge others for believing. A few edits to a single section don't really change anything about LDS in-text our out-of-text teachings on the Trinity. Many Old Testament prophets were polygamists, so clearly it's compatible with Christianity, yes? It's I believe a plausible or even likely reading of the history that Joseph Smith was forced into accepting plural marriage (obviously it brought nothing but trouble) as part of the "restoration of all things", i.e. re-treading parts of earlier pre-Christ Christianity as part of the doctrinal point that the gospel (Christianity broadly from Adam to now) is now in its ultimate and most complete form (though some allowance is made for new knowledge, teachings, and practices to be either restored or newly given). At least under this model of Christian history, there's far less confusion over having to litigate and reexamine each and every piece of modern practice and belief - Protestant, Catholic, or otherwise - for accuracy. Study is helpful for understanding true religious principles, and might be a rewarding activity, but it is not the cornerstone of doctrine, nor is there a need for major political activism to influence church leaders at the church-wide level.
Returning back a little bit to the original point, it's amazing to me that anyone would read the Epistles of Paul and come to any conclusion other than that there were serious doctrinal misunderstandings by new converts everywhere, on top of the rampant persecution, on top of the behavior problems, on top of the cultural difficulties popping up as many new members tried to blend their previous beliefs into the new religion. The vibe is that there's definitely a bit of a mess out there, yeah? Paul was obviously, I think everyone agrees, capable of correcting misunderstandings and offering some excellent guidance, but there were only so many people like Paul, and fewer by the year. And there's little evidence as far as I'm concerned that anyone satisfactorily took his place, much less the Bishop of Rome, though a few bishops tried to a limited extent.
I appreciate the summary. Could you clarify what you mean by authority in this context? You seem to be using it in a particularly Mormon way.
It likely goes without saying, but the Protestant take is that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative guide to the apostolic faith and that all subsequent teachers are to be judged by that standard; the canon is closed.
Obviously, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have their takes on the apostolic succession, but I don’t think their notion of authority is the same as yours, and it would be interesting to see it explained from your side.
Yeah, so to illustrate I’ll work backwards a bit. In LDS theology ant least, authority is given directly from God and is never assumed, nor transferred implicitly. For us, a modern council of 12 apostles is where the overall legitimacy resides, as it did anciently, given by various figures literally appearing and laying on hands in the earlier days of the church - a specific prophet in some cases for specific authority (Moses and John the Baptist, for example). Peter James and John jointly appeared to ordain the first set of apostles and prophet to those roles, including Joseph Smith. Succession is done by unanimous choice of the apostles to whom authority reverts, though historically it’s always been the most senior in time served selected as the next prophet.
We would distinguish that all authority is not equal - although the “priesthood” is the power to act in God’s name more generally, authorizing an eternal marriage is different than authorizing say a baptism. Only the 12 hold every “key”, in our vocabulary, to do every relevant action. Authority is also nearly synonymous with the actual right to receive specific guidance for your position, such as leading the church, and at the top that encompasses doctrinal revelation. Authority more generally is theologically important for many reasons, but most fundamentally, for one to give force and validity to promises made on behalf of God it seems like you’d obviously need His permission, as He ultimately is the one with the power to guarantee His part of the deal - marriage, baptism, communion, etc. I would view it as a great error to assume humans are allowed to do it all by themselves with their own permission (Hebrews 5:4).
This applies on a mundane level too. For example the various sacraments (we would call them ordinances) such as baptism or communion are only able to be performed because of an explicit line of delegation - all again through selection (we have a lay clergy and it’s impossible to seek priesthood as a career) and laying on of hands for specific permission and again, authority. But all of it has a source, both in acting capacity (church governance, who is above you in the leadership tree, which is strictly hierarchical, think military in the sense everyone has a commanding officer, if you will) and in ordination (I can trace my personal general priesthood ordination, who laid hands on who, back through the same) which is an important distinction. In other words, delegation can occur, but it still has an ultimate source. To illustrate, although I’ve been granted the authority (capability we could say) to baptize generally, I’d still need the permission of the relevant authority to do so (in the case of a non-convert baptism, the local bishop, himself delegated that down through the chain).
Jumping back in time, eg Stephen and the others are set apart via laying on of hands (Acts 6:5-6) and it is mentioned as a way of commissioning (Acts 13:2-3, 1 Tim 4:14 ), though other passages aren’t as explicit. We all know Jesus gave Peter the sealing power. He also specifically ordained the 12 in the first place, giving them power (Mark 3:14-15). Jesus talks about authority coming from him on a few occasions, and granting power (eg Luke 10:19). The scriptures are great, my church did actually come from a Sola Scriptura initial background, but in general the intention is for them to be used alongside current divine guidance (eg 2 Tim 3:16-17). Throughout a number of other references, there is a link drawn between having authority and also specifically doctrinal teaching as well (Titus 2:15, 1 Tim 1:4, 2 Tim 2:2, 2 Peter 1:20, etc), though of course settling debates between those with authority has very few examples (we only really see the Jerusalem meetup in detail). And self evidently, the Bible is not self explanatory enough for everyone to arrive at the same position, which is actually one opinion we might share with the Catholics, though the approach varies significantly, there are still some commonalities in the details even.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't have any particular beef with the Mormons--if anything, I admire them on a cultural level. But my understanding is that the current leadership is pretty committed to burying anything that makes the faith stand out from the undifferentiated mass of non-denominational Christianity generally.
Really, writ large, the history of Mormonism has been a history of retreat from anything that made it interesting or unique. The continued existence of Fundamentalist Mormon polygamy (in remote cities across the western United States) is clear evidence that the LDS church could have survived a steadfast refusal to conform with the demands of the U.S. government on that score. But the LDS chose growth (and financial stability) over their own revealed doctrines. More recently, the church took a strong stand in favor of traditional marriage with California's "Prop 8," only to retreat almost entirely from the issue within less than a decade (about half of Mormons today approve of same sex marriage, in complete disregard for their own history and teachings). Indeed, for most of the 20th century the LDS indulged in quite a lot of blisteringly anti-Catholic rhetoric, and mocked the wearers of crosses and crucifixes ("if they shot Jesus, would you wear an AK-47 necklace?")--only to take up the cross and incorporate "holy week" into their worship services in the 21st.
Of course the Mormons are not alone in any of this; the Great Awokening has shifted the ideological landscape a lot, such that the boggling inanity of stuff like "Queers for Palestine" has become de rigueur. But the LDS church seems to be speed-running the history of Christianity in reverse, starting as a sect of innovative and progressive doctrines (open canon, anti-slavery, apotheosis, polygamy, theocracy, miracles) then gradually reverting to a blandly Protestant cultural mean (no more polygamy, replacing "translation" with "inspiration" in explanations of the Book of Abraham, literally whitewashing their own history by painting over artwork in their temples), then landing on their own implementation of an infallible papacy (in the form of a well-heeled corporation sole).
This... probably sounds more critical than I intend it to be. Mormons are as good as any, and better than many, at building communities. Their doctrines have never been any more ridiculous than those of Catholics, or Jews, or Muslims (and if a ridiculous doctrine produces a valuable outcome, is it actually ridiculous?). North America would certainly be a more interesting place today if the Rocky Mountains had become a polygamist Mormon Theocracy, as the sect once planned. But the way history is unfolding, I would expect the LDS to be culturally and theologically indistinguishable from, say, progressive-ish Methodist congregations, within a century or two. The LDS will eventually ordain women and wed gays because their open canon gives them an excuse to do so, and their demonstrated preference is for continued growth and prosperity, not adherence to revealed doctrines. Indeed, Conquest's second and third laws of politics seems to apply:
I have seen the LDS do more in the last 20 years to appease its critics than to cater to its own existing membership (or teachings!). There is a commonplace that one should have an open mind, but not so open that one's brains fall out. Likewise, Mormonism's open canon was in the 19th century its evident strength, but in a world of mass media and "social justice" that same open canon has become a clear organizational liability. I am skeptical that recognizably religious Mormonism can long survive the--good, even perhaps noble--intentions of its corporate leadership.
Whether that is good or bad (or matters at all) is a separate question, of course. That parousia failed to occur promptly at the turn of the millennium came as a serious blow for many apocalyptic sects--this is, I think, an underappreciated aspect of the cultural changes that have happened since. I knew so many Christians, circa 1999, who clearly harbored serious hopes, verging on expectations, that 2000, 2001 at latest, was going to be the year the heathens burned. Churches have been forced to adapt (most have failed to do so), and the Mormons are no exception. The idea that Restorationism (of which the Mormons are an important, but not unique, example) results in "far less confusion over having to litigate and reexamine each and every piece of modern practice and belief" does not, I think, hold up to the test of history.
Such a thing has already happened elsewhere within the Mormon tradition!
More options
Context Copy link
My personal observation (as an outsider who is not even particularly familiar with the LDS) is that it seems like the LDS spent a century bending over backwards to be normal and finally reached the apex of mainstream acceptance by having a member of their faith nominated for President of the United States, only for Mitt Romney to be compared to Hitler and then of course lose the election.
Setting the question of LDS theology aside, the lesson I drew from that is that you might as well be weird.
More options
Context Copy link
This isn't really possible, is it? I've been on a bit of a rabbit hole chasing down what Mormons actually think for the last few months (it's really hard to find, which is odd for a "church"), and from what I can tell their claim of even being "Christian" at all is a bit of an intentional linguistic trick.
Mormons believe in somebody they call Jesus, but they believe he was a guy who came to The United States of America about 2000 years ago and met with people living there at the time. The core of their religion is that there was a group of Jews who sailed to North America several thousand years ago, split into two groups which formed large, continent scale societies, and then went to war. There was a guy, Mormon, who wrote down some revelation on golden tablets, hid them, and then eventually an angel came to Joseph Smith in 1850 and told him where to find them.
Again, it's a bit tough to actually find what the Mormons believe. I think the mormons try to hide this on purpose because of how it comes across to people not familiar with it.
Well that's an accusation I've never heard before. Usually we hear the opposite. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. A good place to start is Mormonism 101, but churchofjesuschrist.org has essentially all of our teachings, including very esoteric stuff.
Yeah man, those links are exactly the problem that I'm talking about. Those links reference somebody with the name Jesus, but what they fail to mention is that they're talking about an entirely different person (who just happens to have the same name) as the person that Christians are talking about when they say Jesus.
Stuff like this:
https://news-gu.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/mormonism-101#C8
No it isn't. There is a historical person who actually existed named Jesus, and he did not write a testament called "The Book of Mormon". This isn't a debate about theological interpretations, it is a historical fact.
It doesn't. It contains some things written by Joseph Smith in the 1830s in what he thought looked roughly like ancient egyptian.
Yes this is true, but what they're not mentioning on this page is that it was written in the 1830s by Joseph Smith.
This stuff is just frustrating to me. If you want to claim Joseph Smith as some prophet and start some new religion about it, then go for it. But just stop lying to people.
The rest of this page is the same sort of sophistic hand waving and not worth going through point by point.
You asked for what we believe. That link describes what we believe. Nothing is being hidden.
Well, no, we believe they're the same person. You can argue they're not, but that's not our belief, which is what you asked for.
Yes, we agree on this. I think you misunderstand what a testament is. Jesus didn't write the New Testament either.
OK. You asked for our beliefs, you have them.
OK. It sounds like when you say "it's a bit tough to actually find what the Mormons believe" what you mean is that it's a bit tough to track down the apologetics addressing contradictory evidence. For that I'd invite you to check out https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/. Or, again, just ask me. You're not going to see every piece of evidence for and against a claim addressed in a post called "Mormonism 101".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, not quite. They believe all human souls, including that of Jesus, were begotten of God (and the Eternal Mother, whom they try not to emphasize too much and is, to avert a misunderstanding, not Mary), and not created ex nihilo. The incarnation of Jesus, in their view, was a repeat of an event that God the Father also underwent — they believe that God the Father has a physical body. The most intense thing that can be said about them is they are not classical theists. They believe all human beings are literally brothers of Christ, in that we are all exactly like him.
Their stoteriology is that the end result of human life is the full deification of human beings, which they call exaltation — not as an interior unification with the life of God, but as apotheosis in the original meaning. They believe faithful Mormons are destined to create their own worlds, to be gods of their own universes, even to conceive their own spirit children with their eternal spouses (thus celestial marriage).
It is, not only from a Nicene Christian but a broader Abrahamic perspective, incredibly odd.
Thanks, this is pretty accurate. I do have some nitpicks:
We "believe" this in the sense that it seems like the most likely explanation, but it's certainly not doctrine.
We're the same type of being as him, but definitely not exactly like him, nor capable of becoming like him without his atonement.
Yes, but I want to clarify that we never match or exceed God. He will always be our Father, our divine authority will always stem from him. At some point we hope to become perfect the way he is, which does not mean actually being equal to him. I'd compare exaltation to the relationship between the Father and the Son--the Son is not inferior in any tangible way to the Father, he's not more sinful or lacking any divine quality the Father has, yet the relationship (and reality) is one of subservience and fealty, and the Father will always be greater than the Son.
I'd go so far as to say we don't believe this, though it's a possibility.
More options
Context Copy link
This is one of my nits to pick with mormons. The idea of calling Christians "Nicene" Christians, as if there is some alternative Christianity is ridiculous semantic poisoning. As far as I can tell the only people who use this term are Mormons.
I’m sorry, but this just isn’t correct. I am a Nicene Christian, and I use the term as a proud self-description!
The truth is, there are alternative Christianities. Have been since the beginning. Gnosticism. Arianism. When we move further on in the history of the ecumenical councils, Nestorianism.
When I say that I’m a Nicene Christian, I mean to say that I believe the Council of Nicaea defines Christianity. I do not mince my words by saying this. I am not, by saying it, saying that there are other Christians that are just as good.
I’m happy to extend the term “Christian,” sociologically, to Mormons, as in a matter of history they obviously derived from Christianity. But I do not by saying this mean to say that I believe that they are right, that their views are correct, or even that they are acceptable. I reject strongly any view of the divine nature that is not classically theistic, and would even say that Mormons do not even worship the same conception of God as Nicene Christians do, and that very often Mormons do not engage with this with the intense seriousness it deserves, as the principle theological difference between them and Nicene Christians. They obviously find this offensive, but I believe the only way to be charitable is not to water things down in the spirit of “being inoffensive”, but by speaking the truth as I understand it.
That means giving them a point when they deserve it, not being reflexively hostile. What hostility I have towards the LDS church I have because I have earnestly engaged it in the spirit of charity and found it to be too distinct to reconcile with the beliefs I hold dear, and many of its historical claims impossible to reconcile with historical evidence. I do not believe Mormons are evil, or insincere, but I do believe they are mistaken — and gravely so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, the Book Of Mormon is freely available as an audiobook on, for example, Apple Podcasts. I listened to the entirety of it, plus the whole Pearl of Great Price and a decent chunk of the Doctrine & Covenants. It’s not difficult for a layman to access these texts.
Is that so accessible, though?
You don't need to read the entire bible and all of the fan fictions to figure what Christians believe.
I doubt most people, even people who know lots of mormons know that "We actually think that Jesus came to America, and that there were several large lost civilizations of Jews who sailed here in 500BC" is what The Book of Mormon is actually about.
I didn’t need to read the entire Book Of Mormon to know that, either. You can even read just some small selections of it to get the gist of their theology, much as you can with the Bible.
Like, all of this is Google-able, Wiki-able, etc. Unless there’s some secret esoteric Mormonism going on in deep catacombs hidden not only from the public but also from run-of-the-mill members of the church — which I suppose we can’t rule out — none of the important doctrines of the church are remotely hidden from any curious outsider who is curious enough to access them. (Plus, you know, the church famously sends thousands of missionaries to publicly proselytize the faith.)
To the extent that most non-Mormons know almost nothing about the church’s theological claims is simply downstream of the fact that most human beings are profoundly incurious about other religions — particularly ones which they perceive as low-status. Hindus aren’t secretive about their beliefs, either, it’s just that almost no non-Hindus ever ask them about it, and would find a brief description befuddling.
There are plenty of things to criticize about the LDS church if one is so inclined, but “they’re hiding their beliefs from the public” is not one of them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think a lot of that is actually fair criticism, the last decade and a half has been sort of bland. Heck, we went from three hour church (!) to two, for example. Apart from one issue - the church was pretty big on its Family Proclamation which is not quite scripture but close, so that limits in a pretty practical way how far left it can drift, especially socially. That one can’t really be walked back. Plus, probably the next prophet is going to be Oaks, who is among the more conservative members, though he was a lawyer and judge by trade, so he’s also pretty careful with his wording.
To be precise my actual hope is that in my lifetime one of the leaders of the church busts out yet another book of translated ancient scripture, or something equally and delightfully abnormal. Failing that, another possible route I’d love to see is for us to become more aggressively focused on helping the poor or something similar. We are already slightly out of step as somewhat anti-Trump and pro-immigration, but the church is still pretty apolitical overall, so it’s hard to say how many waves we will make. The church is in a bit of a weird spot where you’d expect based on the demographics and educational levels for us to be more liberal than we are, but neither do we make perfect bedfellows with the more ebullient evangelicals, where no such increased rapport has occurred like with the Catholics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're doing the classical Protestant thing of elevating Saint Paul above even the Gospels. Paul is not and never was the successor of Peter.
Good catch, not my intention, and interestingly enough doctrinally I do believe Peter James and John had something special Paul did not. It’s just that we don’t have a whole lot from Peter doing major doctrinal correction like Paul, and obviously it’s hard to know if that is because he simply didn’t, or we just don’t have more letters showing it. The exact extent of Paul’s authority is a fascinating question that I don’t think I have a fully satisfying answer to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's quite obvious to me that the biggest problem is the Great Schism of 1054, where the patriarch of Rome decided he was better than the rest of the Church, based on specious reading of scripture.
Can you expound upon where the Great Schism of 1054 was Rome going off the rails? Because this is how Catholics see it:
From here, I have done some formatting because gosh that's a wall of text with names no one's heard about before.
Distilling down the barest essentials:
Patriarch of Constantinople declares, based on a document written by a local theologian, that Roman disciplines of consecrating unleavened bread and fasting on Saturday are horrible and disqualifying from being a member of the Church. They go so far as to desecrate the Eucharist in Roman churches.
Pope sends delegation that explains to the theologian how they are wrong, and that this ancient practice of the Latin Church is not disqualifying or heretical. Patriarch refuses to even see them.
Once it becomes clear that the Patriarch's side isn't going to win, he excommunicates the Pope. The papal legates excommunicate the Patriarch using the authority they have from the Pope (except at this time, unbeknownst to them, the Pope is dead so the excommunication isn't even valid on the Latin side, which was discovered shortly after).
Most of the Church didn't realize there's a permanent Schism, it slowly develops over time. The Massacre of the Latins in Constantinople in 1182 was a more significant event, with 60,000 Latins dead or sold into slavery, but the Schism probably really became permanent in the Fourth Crusade with the Sack of Constantinople.
This is the version I have always heard. Specifically, the Patriarch excommunicates the legates, not the Patriarch of Rome. Which is a crucial distinction:
From https://orthodoxwiki.org/Great_Schism#cite_note-Cross-1.
This is another major issue which... is pretty unambiguously the fault of the See of Rome.
While I'm sure there are a ton of small historical details you can quibble about, to me the overall thrust makes it pretty obvious that Rome is in the wrong. That being said, I try to be ecumenical and I do hope that the Church can become whole again one day. We'll see!
Politically or theologically?
I would say desecrating the Eucharist in 1054 and killing/expelling/enslaving all Italian Catholics in 1182 are both examples of Constantinople being in the wrong politically first.
I can't say for certain if the Papal Legates were on their best behavior or not in Constantinople. It seems like there are many sources and sides to the story, all of them undoubtedly biased.
Fortunately, what I can say is none of that matters as far as whether one should be Catholic or Orthodox. The question of if I should be Catholic or Orthodox is a theological question. Is there theological basis for Roman Primacy? I believe the answer is "Yes." I believe that the answer has been yes, and was demonstrably so even before the Synod of Chalcedon.
I would love for us to heal the schism. From Rome's perspective I don't think there's anything we'd require the other side to change, just reconfirmation of Rome's primacy. We already have many Eastern Catholic Churches that have a multiplicity of different views and practices. We see the Orthodox as having valid Holy Orders and sacraments.
If you’re interested in an Orthodox perspective that offers a grounded, non-triumphalist take on how the Orthodox view Papal primacy in the first millennium, I strongly recommend Laurent Cleenewerck’s His Broken Body. I recommend it both to Catholic and to Orthodox readers — he refuses to stump for either side, and deals frankly, and charitably, with the patristic evidence. He’s clearly someone for whom the schism is a wound, not an amputation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the antipopes in the 12 century should have been a clue. There’s no way that you could have tge head of the church be a single person with a direct line back to Peter, then have entire centuries in which there are two and sometimes three claimants to that title.
Luckily the Eastern Orthodox, with a variety of Patriarchs, don't have this problem.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not sure how the procedure for electing a pope bears on the truth of Christianity as such? Even leaving aside that Christianity could be completely true even at the same time that Catholicism is not (or rather, particular Catholic doctrines could be false and Catholic institutional practice ramshackle and poorly-grounded), I'm not at all clear on why you would an apostolic constitution of 1996 must be eternal and unchangeable even vis-a-vis Catholicism. The process by which the church elects a pope belongs to the freedom of the church - Catholics do not believe that it has been handed down by God. They believe that God allows them, as an institution, to decide the next pope.
More options
Context Copy link
Christianity isn't so much about 'things being true' but getting into a mindset where 'it doesn't matter if it's true or not, I believe it'. Christian theology is a complete mess because they go in with the answer in mind and then come up with justifications. They just make up all kinds of nonsense about 'free will' requiring everyone to suffer because of a snake and an apple. Or there being a great plan that requires Christians to suffer and get wrecked by huge natural disasters beyond their ability to handle. Omnipotence and benevolence does not require there to be random earthquakes and tsunamis that destroy you, it's pure cope to think that there's a plan behind it all or that 'this is the best of all possible worlds'. Theologians have spent thousands if not millions of man-years justifying this stuff but still hard-lose to the Epicurean argument because there is no satisfactory answer.
OK, you can be perfectly happy as a Christian ignoring these abstract issues and have a decent life which is better than can be said for many modern ideologies. Thousands of years have been spent turning the silliness into metaphors and capitalizing on the strengths, rationalizing and streamlining the religion.
But all that is ironically enough built on a foundation of sand. Once people realize that the astronomy and history is all wrong, the philosophy is silly, the predictions are wrong, the blankslatism and universal equality of iron-age institution-building isn't so relevant given modern technologies and culture... they also move on from the good elements of Christianity, the prohibition on incest and the well-functioning family structures. The solution is not to return to Christianity but to move on and do the hard work of getting ideology that actually fits with reality. This is extremely difficult and dangerous work but necessary nonetheless.
Respectfully, this comment smacks of the kind of naïveté expressed by progressives worldwide at the turn of the 20th century. Mankind is perfectable, we can use science and reason to deduce optimal ideologies, organizing society is like a mathematical problem with a solution, etc. And that thought process produced fascism, communism, and the deadliest conflicts in world history. Difficult and dangerous work, indeed…
I used to put my trust in man, now I put my trust in God.
Ok but then every other war ever is due to religious reasons?
If we had the same machinery during the Crusades, WWI & II would be barely a blip in the awe of massacre.
Tiny human tribes have been killing other tiny human tribes with the justification of religion since forever - you don’t get to point at the last century and say well look what you godless fucks have done!
You didn’t cuz you couldn’t! (Obviously not you or yours - just the palette of history)
A considerable amount of the 20th century's murder didn't happen during wartime, and it's quite obvious that not all or even most previous wars were primarily or even significantly religiously motivated.
Rational Materialism was supposed to solve war and governance, and indeed the perils of human nature generally. That was the explicit claim of its adherents going into and for most of the 20th century. It instead resulted in some of the worst war and worst governance ever seen. The places where it delivered the best results were the places where it was given the strongest pushback from "irrational" Christianity, ie the anglosphere, which diverged markedly from continental philosophical and political trends.
Neither were Hitler or Stalin motivated by rational progress, in fact they were known to stifle scientists who were politically incorrect ("Jewish science", lysenkoism).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Charitably, one could steelman the quote as referring to the development of ideologies that are merely more fit than traditional Christianity, as opposed to such that aim for utopia. Not that secular ideology is able to achieve perfection in any way, but only that it can outperform both Christianity and organic "modernity".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think you would find this claim very hard to square with even simply the Bible itself, much less the subsequent writings or even behaviour of Christians.
Christianity might be false - we may be, in Paul's words, of all people most to be pitied - but it is absolutely making truth claims, and those truth claims matter. They matter to Christians. The theology that you blithely dismiss can only exist because Christians care about this.
Subsequent writings are merely of the 'adding more epicycles' kind of truthseeking. First it was literally believing that men were created by God ex nihilo. Then Darwinism came around and showed this wasn't the case. So they just retreat back to 'OK fine evolution is real but God created all things and the individual soul is not produced by material forces'. There's no substantial change to the practical doctrine of blankslatism, they move on just as before with zero regard for skepticism or evidence.
The soul? You may as well go to Pakistan and pursue cutting edge research into the powers of djinn.
Likewise with the Epicurean argument. They created an entire discipline of theodicy to cope with it and still fail. Free will? Natural disasters have nothing to do with free will. And 'free will' itself is becoming more and more of an illusion, we are today capable of creating benign and malevolent digital beings. So too is God. God could've set the median level of aggression lower or altered incentives to produce more sympathy. There is no free will in front of an omnipotent who establishes the context, permits what genes come into existence or what genes even are.
Grand plan? Maybe Satan runs the world and has a grand evil-maxxing plan that tolerates good for greater evil... Or it's just outright incomprehensible. That works just as well.
Here's another one I found:
An omnipotent God can write the laws of Nature, Genesis describes this. The universe could run on the fuzzy principles of a human dream, not thermodynamics. You could have a physics of wishing or Daoist cultivation to immortality, Aristotelian physics or Harry Potter. All of that is simple for an omnipotent.
No matter what they try, the Epicurean trilemma still snuffs them out. And this is the key thing, the question of mindset I bring up at the start. They don't like the Epicurean Trilemma and so come up with some comforting story that fails if you look at it too closely, they never review their priors about the nature of God.
This is a nitpick, but I feel obligated to note that no, it wasn't. In Genesis 2:7, the first man is formed out of the dust of the ground. The Bible does not say that men were created ex nihilo, but in fact says the explicit opposite. I would gently suggest that if you want to seriously engage with Christian thought on a complex issue, you may wish to start by familiarising yourself with what Christian texts actually say.
Is this a nitpick? Is it not massively germane to your point? No, perhaps not, and if you want to look for all the ways in which Genesis 1-2 are not a scientifically accurate account of abiogenesis, you'll succeed. But then it is hardly the case that Christians, even long before Darwin, have understood it that way. Thinkers as older as Augustine, in 401, have understood that this narrative is not to be understood in that sense. Likewise Calvin, again prior to modern science, frankly writes "that nothing here is treated of but the visible form of the world" and adds "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere". As with astronomy, so with biology.
You may condemn Augustine and Calvin as adding epicycles, but I would say, rather, that the burden of proof lies with your assumption that the only reasonable way to understand Genesis is as a historico-scientific account of the origin of the universe. It seems to me that as Christians have taken other approaches, even many centuries before modern science, it is by no means obvious that that's the natural reading of it. My view, actually, is that the automatic reading of Genesis as scientific is itself a kind of modern debasement, an error characteristic of post-Enlightenment thinkers.
Now to the rest...
I actually don't find the Riddle of Epicurus particularly overwhelming here, not least because the Riddle predates Christianity by many centuries, and in fact the Problem of Evil is itself voiced with great eloquence and force in the Hebrew scriptures themselves. Confronting the earliest Christians with the fact of evil, in the face of God's omnipotence, would not surprise or challenge them in the slightest, and the difficulty that humans have understanding evil was as familiar to them as it is to us.
What I would say is that Christian faith does, in a sense, require the belief that there is some kind of answer to the Problem of Evil, even if we do not know it. And that in itself is not absurd. If we have good reason to believe that God exists and is benevolent, and yet we observe evil, it would seem to follow that there must be some kind of reason for evil. We need not be able to articulate that reason in order to believe that there must be one. The question has an answer, even if we do not know it. Christianity does not declare that there are no mysteries.
Thus, say, Peter van Inwagen's response to the Problem of Evil is what he calls a 'defense' rather than an 'theodicy'. He writes:
This much, I think, may be required of the Christian - not that they prove that this-or-that theodicy is true, but merely to prove that it is conceivably possible that evil may, for now, exist in a universe created and governed by a benevolent God. The bar required is reasonable doubt.
It seems to me that my justifications for understanding God to exist are sufficiently strong, and the possible explanations for evil's existence sufficiently many, that Epicurus' Riddle does not snuff out my bright candle.
More options
Context Copy link
I think logical arguments are a dismal way to look at metaphysics. If you agree that it doesn't have to make sense, why do you expect it to make sense? Should an omnipotent being not also have the power to sustain contradiction?
Or, as the Babel fish joke goes:
If I recall correctly the old BBC show animated that joke with a bogus math formula how color pigments mixed together gives a black painting color, but all color lights mixed together is a white light.
More options
Context Copy link
I always thought that was a remarkable passage from a self-described "radical atheist".
Why? It's riffing off religious arguments about faith, where the reason there isn't proof of God is that he's testing our faith or whatever. "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” and all that, so even though God wants us to believe in him and created the world he deliberately made it look like a world created by unthinking natural processes and restricted his miracles to unverifiable anecdotes. This is an argument that exists precisely because God isn't real so there's a demand for backwards logic where the lack of evidence to believe in God is itself a reason to believe in God. He humorously inverts this into an argument where, if there was actually proof of God's existence, it would be proof of God's nonexistence. This is then compared to proving that black is white. In real life, of course, he didn't think that the lack of evidence for God is a reason to believe in God (or that there is evidence of God which means we shouldn't believe in God). He thought that the lack of evidence that God exists means that God actually doesn't exist.
More options
Context Copy link
It's a good joke, but the bit about "without faith I am nothing" is classical atheism: gods depend on believers and cannot exist without them, if you demonstrate that belief is false then gods cease to exist.
That works great if you're an atheist: oh we used to believe in phlogiston, now we know that's not true. But for religion, it's putting the cart before the horse. If you're Christian, God existed ever before humans, so who were the believers who brought God into being? Faith is for the benefit of humanity, not for the benefit of God.
That's not the remarkable part. That's totally normal, as you say. The remarkable part is:
What does belief in God have to do with belief that black is not white and that you should look before crossing the street? It can't be that those things depend on your belief in them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If only the College of Cardinals had addressed this...
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-05/this-is-first-conclave-held-with-number-exceeding-120-electors.html
In the absence of a pope the College of Cardinals functions as a senate, although the legislation will need to be confirmed by a future pontiff.
Tomorrow or Friday the chimney will emit white smoke. The new pope will, after receiving homage from the cardinals, emerge from the room of tears and the protodeacon shall from the balcony overlooking the Vatican intone 'Habemus papam...' before the new pope shows himself to bless the crowd, the city of Rome, and the whole world. After this he will immediately confirm as valid legislation the decree of the College of Cardinals on this matter. All this has happened before, and it will happen again; the grand pageantry of tradition goes on and the everchanging world is transfixed.
I am reminded, when the queen of England died. A lunchlady- and this was in rural Texas, mind you- was distraught by the news. I did something to her walk in, she complained that, being a lunchlady, she would be unable to see the whole of the royal funeral, for it started at four AM and she needed to be at work at six- in the midst of mourning somebody else's queen. People care about the activities of legitimacy. The commoners cry out for a king. That's why the secular news livestreamed the chimney on the conclave hours before it would give any news, and on a day when there would inevitably be black smoke to boot. The commoners long for a ritual weight to legitimize the rulers, even if it isn't their rulers, unchanging tradition which says 'it's ok, we're still here, the world goes on'.
I've written before about Trump as the king of the red tribe. There's a lot of truth to that; he spun a narrative and then he goes and engages in the actions associated with authority. He pardons. He personally signs- Biden's autopen was a big deal for legitimacy reasons. He negotiates with foreign powers. He legislates- and his supporters are OK with that because he takes ritual, legitimating action. It says 'I am the king' and people believe it. The commoners have always loved the king. It's the way it is.
But back to the pope- papal legitimacy is not based on a valid election. It's based on universal recognition from the bishops and cardinals. The conclave is just a procedure to put forth a pope which the bishops and cardinals will recognize. Past conclaves have done some crazy things, but irregularities in the conclave can't upend papal legitimacy. What can is lack of assent from the bishops. And that was a serious and coming danger with the former pope Francis; the thesis that Benedict's resignation was invalid and thus pope Francis wasn't validly elected had become alarmingly popular from a stability perspective, and among alarmingly centrist clergy. It was only a matter of time until the cordon sanitaire broke and the bishops had to convene a council which would inevitably depose pope Francis- after all, he was unable to avert it. There'd been a respected, establishment-oriented priest excommunicated about once a week for it for the last few months of his reign. The growing popularity of the idea was probably why bishop Strickland was dealt with so harshly- you can't risk a serving bishop breaking for that. Electing a pope who can quell that is a top priority in the Sistine chapel right now, just as it was in 1978. John Paul II was able to convince the world's serving bishops not to join with radical theologians holding that the papacy had deposed itself, and their need to rely for ordinations on the senile brother of the former Vietnamese president who had been forced to retire from his episcopacy in Vietnam after his brother's assassination is why Sedevacantism is now a fringe movement of mostly actual literal cults in the sense of, like, compounds and identical clothing. No doubt, the trappings of legitimacy were an important part of the matter.
So the argument is that Francis implicitly did away with the 120 rule by appointing more cardinals (under the voting age limit) and so going himself over this number?
The reforms of Paul VI meant only cardinals under the age of 80 could vote as electors. So, if you're pope and you're calculating 'how long till the next conclave?', you have to look at how many cardinals there are, their ages, and how many will be over 80/dead in the next (say) five years. Building up a surplus just makes sense, since you don't know if you're going to drop dead tomorrow or in ten years time. You need a minimum of 120, but if it happens that (say) there are now 140 cardinal-electors and you drop dead tomorrow, then that's how many are going to get to vote.
This is all in addition to "the church in Asia or wherever is expanding, they need a new cardinal in this country which does not have one already or this country which has one cardinal needs two" usual needs of running the organisation, as well as "I have a programme about liberalisation/going back to traditional theology, I want to appoint guys who agree with me and will implement my policies" type of bureaucracy, all of which will bump up the number of cardinals.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Any update on predictions? Who are your current top three?
I would say that if a pope is elected tomorrow afternoon it’s probably one of the four of Avelline, Pizzaballa, Erdo, or Parolin(like 60% sure there’s more than 45 cardinals dead set opposed to him but only 60%). On Friday I’d add Ambongo and Mamberti. Of course the three dinosaurs that were in JPII’s inner circle and just stayed in important Vatican roles are always possible.
If it goes longer than that, it’s anyone’s game, but it’s probably someone very old, because papabile settling for a compromise candidate want another shot at the top job.
If it's Pizzaballa, I really hope he picks the name John for shits and giggles.
More options
Context Copy link
Is it fair to say that while Pizzaballa looks like perhaps the most logical candidate from an idealogical (mild conservative) and experience perspective (ie a diplomat with experience in the middle east) the fact that he's only 60 may be disqualifying for too many cardinals for him to have an actual chance at being elected?
Yes
More options
Context Copy link
There are two sides to this one:
Last time a 'placeholder' pope was picked to kick the (pizza)ball to the next conclave, it was John 23 who called Vatican 2 and was perhaps the most consequential pope of the last 500 or so years
Last time a 'young' pope was picked to try to Shephard the Church it was John Paul II which, like, does anyone really complain about him? Point in favor of Pizzaballa
NB I am rooting for Pizzaballa, I don't even quite know why, just what I'm feeling called to
I'd love one of the African cardinals but to be honest, they're too old and too conservative for the views of what's needed. I have no idea who's going to get it, an Italian after the run of non-Italian popes may well be on the cards.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
While I'm no monarchist, this is the principle that undergirds my belief in ordered worship, and especially structured, traditional weddings and funerals. The exact last thing I want when I'm choosing to make a lifelong commitment of love and sacrifice, or when I'm mourning someone who has died, is someone getting creative or trying to break the mould. When I get married, I don't want to have an ersatz commitment to someone, maybe, according to whatever private assumptions of relationship we have -- I want to get married according to a known mould with known obligations, duties, rights, and privileges.
And this is even more true with funerals -- when I'm grieving, I want to be upheld in a shared worldview that gives meaning to my grief and reassures that, despite the intensity of the loss, the world is still moving, and life will go on. And not only go on, but go on normally, that this death is not unique, that it does not shatter everything, that others have been here before, felt the very feelings, heard the very words, and listened to the very songs, that I'm hearing. I want to be carried along by a funeral, not pandered to; reassured by the very banality and normality of it that life will, some day, go back to being banal and normal, which is the cry of every mourner.
If I were to make a defense of liturgical religion and sacred ceremony on sociological and psychological grounds, it would be that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What's the fundamental truth claim here, in your reading?
That at least one person who is alive at the time Jesus made that statement will still be alive when the second coming happens.
That line doesn't apply to John the apostle seeing the book of Apocalypse play out from the island of Patmos?
Or John still being alive, which is the Latter-day Saint (Mormon) view.
Wait really? Can you expand on this?
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11528/what-is-the-basis-of-the-lds-mormon-belief-that-the-apostle-john-never-died
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Now thats an interpretation I've never heard before.
This would be a cool loophole if the text said, "this generation will not pass away until all these things are seen," but it actually says, "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place," which I don't think can be said to apply to a vision or other non-physical manifestations of the events in question.
You don't even have to go the Mormons - I believe some people have linked that prophecy to the idea of the Wandering Jew.
That said, as a Christian I don't think your interpretation of that claim is constraining. This is one way to read that verse but it is not clear to me that it necessarily excludes all others.
More options
Context Copy link
On that note, one could just apply the text to Christ Himself (see Matthew 26:29, 28:20).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For something amusing, see John 21:22 - 23.
More seriously, why do you think "generation" is the best translation for genea here (which can also be translated "nation" and or refer to a people group – Christ repeatedly, including in the section immediately prior, uses this word when referencing the Jews who opposed his teaching.)
And why do you think "this generation" refers to the generation of people alive at the time, as opposed to the generation that sees the beginning of the things (note the text in question comes at the end of the Parable of the Fig Tree) Christ is speaking of?
It seems to me there's some latent ambiguity in the text and I think that you can claim just about any text makes bad fundamental truth claims if you take the weakest possible interpretation of a single sentence.
(I should mention this is all my surface level reading here. I don't understand much about the period-appropriate Jewish conception of the end times, and given how referential Jewish Scripture is that seems very important – and there's likely other important context too. I am also not getting into the question of whether there's a different topic started at some point, given that the disciples asked three questions and Christ's answer, as recorded, does not necessarily signpost whether it stops addressing one question and starts addressing another – at least, not to the point where it's unambiguously clear to me in the interpretation. I believe some Christians believe that there's a division after verse 35 or so, the preceding verses were fulfilled in the Fall of Jerusalem, which is fairly tempting when because the timeline – and at a minimum some of the signs – line up. But the truth is that I don't feel like I know enough on those questions to have a strong opinion myself. If you, or someone else, has a strong opinion I'd love to hear it.)
Because that's how it's translated in like every English translation, such as the NRSV, the biblical scholar version. More seriously, here's a comment stolen from academicbiblical:
...
The earliest Christians believed that Jesus was returning soon, real soon. That's why Paul has to reassure the Thessalonians that the dead will rise and join Christ before them, the living. You can see the evolution of this belief in John, the last gospel to be written (multiple generations after Jesus's death), where the imminent apocalyptism of the Synoptics has completely vanished, because obviously Jesus hadn't returned yet. There's also the little passage at the end of John, where Jesus remarks, "If I want him [the beloved disciple] to remain until I return, what is that to you?". Now whether or not Jesus actually said this, clearly people thought he did, and so they thought the beloved disciple would be alive when Jesus returned. But because the beloved disciple died in the meantime, the gospel of John has to make clear that Jesus was making a hypothetical statement.
I think this is a pretty compelling reason, but I'd really like to know mechanically why.
You'll be forgiven if I take a Reddit source (which itself sources to scholarly works from between 15 and 20 years ago to represent the modern academic consensus) with a grain of salt. I'm not sure that it's wrong, necessarily, but 2009 was a long time ago. Their argument for the mechanics (which I am pleased that they have) is "context." Which is fine, as that goes, but I'm not sure I'm satisfied with it.
The text you quote suggests that it's a close parallel to 23:36 and that we use that for context. You'll note that I reference this in my text, and it seems to me that this (mildly) strengthens the non-temporal interpretation. Christ there says that the scribes and Pharisees murdered "Zechariah, son of Berechiah" who – was (it seems likely) a historical figure who lived hundreds of years prior to the time of Christ. Christ says elsewhere (Matthew 16:4) that no sign would be given to this generation except that of Jonah – but the people living at the time were given many miracles, and the like, so one interpretation would be that by "this generation" Christ is referring to a group of people (the scribes and Pharisees), right? So if we take Matthew 16:4, roll it forward to Matthew 23:36, and then (in agreement with the scholarship here) apply that here to Matthew 24:34, it seems like using generation to mean a period of time makes less sense than using generation to refer to a group of people – who are (thematically, at least) not limited to a "generation" in a temporal sense.
I'm not sure I'm very happy with that explanation either – it seems more straightforward just to accept that Christ is speaking non-literally in Matthew 16:4 about the zeitgeist. But of course one could roll that forward to 24:34 as well.
The consensus for scholarship seems to be circa 100. I suppose it depends on what you define as a generation!
I hope you can see why drawing a box around all the confusing, falsifiable bits and saying “yup those are the metaphors” might be unsatisfying.
Sure, a random Reddit comment might as well have negative value. Even though it’s citing a respectable commentary, it could be confused or lying, and I can’t exactly check at the moment. Can you offer anything to better represent “modern scholarship?”
Definitely! As I've said, a lot of the ideas we have discussed aren't satisfying to me. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Now, with that being said, would note there are other falsifiable bits (e.g. the existence of Pilate, or Christ Himself) that Christianity is pretty unambiguously correct on, so I would contest the idea that Christianity draws a box around all falsifiable bits. Some falsifiable bits have just resolved in Christianity's favor, so nobody contests them.
But more to the point, I'm not sure that the default mode of interpreting a confusing 1st century apocalyptic passage in Scripture should be modern literalism! I don't think that this is special pleading on the part of Christians, either, Jewish pre-Christian literature has a lot of similarly (and intentionally) vague passages – Christ is quoting Daniel in this one – and I think that reading them symbolically/non-literally predates Christ. So I'm cautious about reading the text and taking the most obvious and straightforward surface-level interpretation (particularly in a translation) as the correct one. (That's part of what's been very interesting and helpful to me about this discussion, is getting a feel for why people think it should be interpreted this way. As I think I mentioned, I do not have a settled opinion).
If it makes you feel better, I (and Christians more broadly) don't just apply this to disputed stuff like this with there is arguably a falsifiability question at play – I think, for instance, that Christ's telling His disciples that the bread at Passover is His body isn't literal – and in fact I think it's a (Trinitarian) reference to the afikomen. This isn't clear from the text itself, you have to understand Jewish culture accept that Christ isn't speaking literally. But obviously that interpretation could be wrong and it wouldn't have any real bearing on the truth of Christianity. Broader point here being – Christians often interpret Scripture metaphorically even when it's not related to one of the "falsifiable bits."
Not on this issue! But on some other issues that I used to track with a bit more interest, my recollection was that there were definite movements in the field since the early 2000s. Perhaps that does not generalize.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Biblical scholarship has been a thing for hundreds of years, and the Bible isn't getting many updates. This is not a particularly dynamic field, so I think sources from 2004 are fine in this regard. You can pick up just about any introductory new testament textbook or scholarly commentary and find the same view. It's not controversial like, say, the authorship of the pastoral epistles. Here's what, for example. RT France has to say about it in his commentary:
Sadly I don't have my finger on the pulse as much as I would like to, but from what I can tell – less true than you might think. I'm not saying that sources from 2004 are bad but I'm also not sure that 2004 is "contemporary scholarship."
Still not really seeing engagement with my point about Matthew 16:4. Which is probably fine – I am suspicious of arguments that rely too much on "hyperliteral interpretations of the text" and I think that argument tilts that way.
Again, I've looked through many commentaries, they are pretty unambiguous about this line. I feel confident enough not to bother pirating a more modern one.
Sure, it could be a group of people - contemporary people. Which is in line with every other place he uses it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If only there were such a thing as non-Catholic-Church Christianity. Like a billion other Christians think the Catholics are wrong about all sorts of stuff.
Silly Whitehead and Russell, being so modest as to only try to truth-preserve math with logic. They shoulda seen how easy metaphysics is for random Internet Commentators!
I will resist the urge to meet sarcasm with sarcasm and point out that this isn’t reassuring to someone struggling with the number of contradictions.
I don't know whether the common parental response to a child's, "That's not fair!" being, "Life's not fair," is considered sarcasm or not. But yeah, there's probably not a lot of reassuring things when one is approaching some of the deepest questions in life and the universe. There are, indeed, huge question marks all over the place that take time and effort to work through, and flippant takes shouldn't really expect much of a response besides pointing out that the take is, indeed, flippant. Such children almost certainly lack the perspective and ability to process context to have all that serious a conversation about the nature and purpose of fairness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To add to the points already made: the rules of the Church being subordinate to the needs or present situation of the Church (excepting certain claims of absolute moral right and wrong) is a pretty firm principle of Christianity going back to Jesus.
Or, to put it more bluntly, "Universi Dominici Gregis was made for the Cardinals, not the Cardinals for Universi Dominici Gregis."
More options
Context Copy link
I'm pretty sure the rules of the church are not doctrine; violating them isn't heresy, and their violation isn't indication of some fundamental flaw in Christianity or even Catholicism.
If there's a long-standing bureaucracy where the rules aren't often "more like suggestions" when those at the top want them to be, I haven't seen it.
Particularly when that bureaucracy is a) Italian and b) specifically empowered to change the rules to accommodate unforeseen circumstances in the event of an interregnum.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, no, you wish you thought it was true. It sounds like you can't even in theory imagine a world where it's actually true; such a world would not just give you a sense of purpose but an actual purpose!
More importantly, belief in Christianity doesn't necessarily follow from it being true. So you don't necessarily get any of the things you've listed even if it is true.
I think his wording was intentional. His desire to believe true things outweighs his desire to believe Christianity is true. And being unable to imagine a world where its true doesn't follow from what he said, just that on balance he thinks this isn't that world.
If his wording were intentional, he'd have listed benefits that came, not from belief in Christianity being true, but from Christianity actually being true. What he listed were all things that had to do with belief in Christianity. Hence talking about having a "sense of purpose" rather than just being glad to have a purpose.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What is the distinction between a "sense" of purpose and an "actual" purpose? How would a human person know how to distinguish between the two in the wild?
It's the same as the difference between a perception of anything and the thing itself. The map is not the territory.
When I write code, the code has no sense of purpose at all, yet still has a purpose. The same goes for humans if Christianity is true--purpose doesn't need to be perceived to exist.
There's a difference between applying that statement to a physical object, vs. to an intangible trait or quality.
Wasn't the community just arguing over this with Scott's piece on "the purpose of a system is what it does"? This doesn't clear things up any. There is your intention as the author; there is the result of the code as it functions; there are various interpretations of the code by outside observers/users...none of which necessarily overlap or align. Which is the objective "purpose" and what is the reliable method for determining it?
It doesn't matter which of these you'd like to call "purpose"--with any of them there's a difference between that and a "sense of purpose". It's reasonable to discuss code having a purpose by any definition, it's certainly not reasonable to talk about it having a sense of purpose.
I don't care to litigate the proper definition of the word "purpose". So long as you agree that the concept exists, I think we can agree that it's a different thing from the perception of it, which is my point.
Can you come up with any definition of the word "purpose" that does not differentiate between itself and a perception of itself? If not, why are we arguing?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
John Paul II himself saw Cardinals in excess of the number. It wasn't a proclamation of God ordaining there be only 120 Cardinals, it was a matter of bureaucratic efficiency to "establish fitting norms to regulate the orderly election of their Successor." Sola Church has libraries of debate, and I would need to know your exact issues with Vatican II, but for the last I can at least point to—
Preterism.
I'd like to get a bit more blow-by-blow of how you think preterism resolves Matthew 24.
Do you mean which specific events? Preterism resolves this as the belief that most or all Biblical Prophesies, such as those in Matthew, were fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I can't rightly say it's what "I" think, by which I mean I didn't derive it myself. I was curious about certain verses in the Gospel, read on eschatology and found Preterism.
In particular, in Matthew 24, the disciples ask Christ:
He says in verse 34:
Generation here, and elsewhere in Matthew, is the Greek genea, and in its uses in the context it means the living generation, the people who were alive at that time. The genea would witness those events. What events did they witness? Nero's reign, his imperial cult, his persecution of Christians, and the Romans destroying the Second Temple as they razed Jerusalem. The Antichrist, the False Prophet, the War with the Saints, and the Great Tribulation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Cardinal" and "cardinal elector" are two distinct concepts. Having more than 120 cardinals in existance does not violate the document. Having more than 120 cardinals vote in a conclave does.
Regarding preterism, from Matthew 24:
This flat out didn't happen in history. And before you say that this is all supposed to be allegorical, 1 Thessalonians 4:
Paul sure seems to think that Christ coming in the clouds from heaven means the ressurection of the body.
Maybe Matthew just got confused. Jesus prophesied first the destruction of the temple (itself an ending, and one which would be in a generation) and then later got asked by the disciples more about this terrible event but also the end times (different event).
I don't think you even need confusion on the part of the author, there – from what I understand manuscripts at the time were not necessarily always good at section breaks (chapters and verses were a more recent innovation) and text might not fully capture clarifying content that would be found in conversation. We read it as one long answer to three questions, but it seems possible to me that it person it might have been more clear which question was being addressed at which time.
You can even see how this might work on a skim – something like 1 - 25 are direct actionable pieces of advice for the Apostles concerning the near future, 26 - 31 is a contrast to 1 - 25, and the subsequent parable of the fig tree is referring to the things that they would experience and that did happen at the time with 26 - 31 not being referred to in this parable because it was a digression. That might be clearer in an in-person conversation than it would be written down. (I'm not particularly attached to this reading and haven't dug into it at all, so there might be slam-dunk reasons it is wrong, I'm just using it as an example of how the text might not capture what was and wasn't a digression.)
You also see double meanings fairly often in Scripture, where one event typifies or resembles another. (This reminds me of Isaiah's prophecy against the king of Babylon, which goes on to talk about a far greater power).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, and again, it violates bureaucratic decree, not divine proscription.
Partial Preterism, which is not considered incongruous with orthodoxy, holds much of the prophesies of Revelation as being fulfilled in 70 AD. The destruction of Jerusalem, Nero as the Antichrist, and the Romans as the tool for God's judgment on Israel as the Great Tribulation. It does not hold the Second Coming, the bodily resurrection of the dead, and the Last Judgment as having occurred.
That said, 29 is metaphorical, it uses the same language found throughout the Tanakh where what is being referred to is not the literal sun, moon and stars, but God's judgment on the nations of man. Invoking the Tanakh continues with 30, as God is repeatedly described as arriving upon a cloud to enact his judgment. And also, Paul was writing and died before 70 AD. He did condemn those, in his time, who claimed the prophecies had been fulfilled, but he did so while warning in his epistles of the imminence of the Second Coming.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If this is a topic in which you are actually interested, rather than simply a convenient opportunity to bemoan Christianity, here is a recent podcast of two canon lawyers discussing exactly this topic
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/ep-202-the-next-benevacantism
More or less, the rule was only put in place by Paul VI in 1975, and a Pope can't bind future Popes. The rule can be changed at any time by the Pope, and papal canon law cannot bind the Pope because it derives its authority directly from him.
Okay, I listened to the podcast. These guys are just wrong.
You're right that the rule can be changed at any time by the pope, except that the pope didn't actually change it. The 120 cardinal electors rule remains in place. The error that the podcast guys make is that they assume that the pope appoints "cardinal electors", but the pope doesn't appoint "cardinal electors", the pope appoints cardinals. "Cardinal elector" is not an office, it is simply a description of a cardinal who votes in the conclave. The rules for which cardinals get to be cardinal electors comes from the document Universi Dominici Gregis. Universi Dominici Gregis contains both the proposition that cardinals under the age of 80 have the right to vote, and the proposition that the maximum number of cardinal electors is 120.
As far as I can tell, the pope never decided which proposition controls. If he did, please cite it to me. Both propositions are from the same document and of equal weight.
The College of Cardinals acts as a supreme court in the event of an interregnum and they have ruled which proposition controls.
More options
Context Copy link
Doesn't matter, the Pope can do whatever he wants (on this matter). The law cannot bind the Pope, because the law is an instrument of the Pope. He has supreme unlimited absolute authority over the rules for creating cardinals, and can change or ignore them as he sees fit. He cannot be bound by his own authority or the authority of his predecessors.
They go over this in detail at about 35 minutes into the podcast
But…which pope decided on who the electors are here?
Francis
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My point is a bit more subtle than that. Universi Dominici Gregis is not a restriction on the pope's creation of cardinals. It is a restriction on how the conclave is to operate. I think your argument is that the pope's creation of more than 120 cardinals under the age of 80 in and of itself changes the law about how the conclave is to operate. This seems like an argument from, "it would really suck if that were true." Yeah, it would suck if Francis put the church in a position where we couldn't elect a pope until 13 otherwise eligible cardinals voluntarily agreed to give up their right to vote, but that is the best reading of the current law (in my opinion). It would be much easier to proceed as if Francis changed the law to let the maximum number of Cardinal electors exceed 120, but anyone reading the rules without the preexisting comittment of fidelity to the church can see that they're making it up as they go along.
The canon lawyers disagree with you.
The part about creating cardinals is a restriction on the person who creates cardinals, the Pope, who can ignore it at will.
The part that says no cardinal elector may be denied his right to elect the Pope is a restriction on the people who run the papal election, who are not the pope. They cannot dispense with it.
It might be that the Pope is in fact making up rules as he goes along, and you could make an argument that it would be better if the last 4 Popes had actually changed the wording of the law rather than just ignoring it, but none of that changes how the law actually applies and none of it changes the rules that require all cardinal electors to be allowed to vote.
It's like the arguments about "how many representatives to our national parliament should we have?" that go on in nearly every country. I've seen arguments about "now the population has increased to X million, we only have Y representatives, clearly we should have Z representatives instead so everyone gets a balanced representation" and the counter-arguments about "we can only fit Y number/Y number is the maximum workable, if we had Z number it would be too big to function".
OP seems to be taking it that "Pope A, who is held to be divinely infallible by the Catholics, made it a rule that there could only be 120 electors. Pope B is now contradicting this divine rule, this means it's all fake!" as though this was something in the Gospels that Jesus said had to be the way. No, it's a civil service procedure. It has nothing to do with "so is adultery okay after all if we call it polyamory?" or "baptism is all fake, really?" statements of doctrine.
It's like saying "the public service regulations say there should only be 150 departmental secretaries but the last president appointed an extra 20 so now there are 170, well I guess this means democracy is a total sham and having elections is fake! congress is a farce! the only true government is benevolent dictatorship!"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Personally I'd rank the chance of eternal salvation and neverending bliss somewhat higher than an easier dating life on this moral coil but I guess we all have our priorities.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link