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 -
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..
Yeah, if I wasn't Catholic, I'd be some version of Tibetan Buddhism (there are some practices not a million miles away from practices in Catholicism). But in reality, if I wasn't Catholic, I'd be straight-up atheist, no replacement Christianity or other religion for me - if belief goes, it goes completely.
While you're entitled to your conscience, every time I hear these kinds of statements it just makes me very sad; like what is being honored is the whole edifice, and not the encounter with Jesus Christ that is at the very heart of the Gospel -- and has always been the charge of the Church to transmit. Unfortunately, it often makes it easy for me to side with the Protestants and start going, "Wow, is Jesus really so contingent in your eyes not just on the historical continuity of the Church, but on the continuity of one particular interpretation of continuity in the Church?" And I often seriously consider at that juncture whether the attitude being presented is that of many Jews who expected a warrior-messiah and received a crucified one, and even rejected him, because he did not fit their preconceived notions of what God's plan in history would be.
Bor, if I lose my faith, I lose it completely. If I don't believe in God, Jesus, or the rest of it, there's no "well there's some buncha guys who went 'yes we agree with you that your former church was completely wrong about 90% of everything, or maybe 100% if we're one of the set that denies they were ever Christian at all in the first place, but this is the 10% we do agree is True and that you must and should believe', I guess I can switch to them" that will cajole me over to them. Because they didn't stumble across the True Original Gospels in a cave and read them for the first time, they broke away from the body which had handed on to them these things and which shaped them and which made the water in which they swam Christian.
If I become convinced "the entity that introduced the Gospel to me is all fake", why will I believe the "encounter with Jesus" is anything more than conditioning, brainwashing, self-deception, and some kind of cultural contamination where I convinced myself I had the 'burning in the bosom' to prove it all true? I'm not basing my faith on "well I like Gothic chasubles", dude. I'm basing it on "this is a truth-telling thing". If I don't believe it's truth-telling, I don't believe any shard of the wreckage is true. Why should I trust my warm fuzzy feelings about Jesus, when I can as easily find it in myself to have warm fuzzy feelings about Shiva or Buddha? Plenty of believers in those faiths have a personal relationship with the god, it's called bhakti. I am very fond of both Sun Wukong and Hanuman, that fondness has not convinced me to become a Daoist or Hindu.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think you understand what an institution is.
There are different ways people define what is an "institution", for example you'll find plenty of people here willing to defend the idea that marriage is an institution and if you're willing to be that broad then it easily wins over basically anything else as it goes back into prehistory. It all depends on how broadly you define "institution", and if your definition of one is narrow enough to not include the different, somewhat diffuse ideas that come under Theravada Buddhism then Christianity as an institution isn't 2000 years old either, it's more like 1700 years old and really came into being after the Council of Nicea when the Nicene Creed was affirmed and the Arians declared heretical. Before this point the Bishop of Rome wasn't even universally seen as being above the bishops of the other dioceses.
Sure, the current Catholic church may claim that the popes before the Council of Nicea were part of the exact same tradition to the extent that it all counts as one "institution" stretching back to the Pentecost but that doesn't mean the people who had lived back then would have seen things the same way. It's no different to how the current Japanese Monarchy may well claim it stretches back to the 7th Century BC but the rest of us don't have to take them at face value.
And if we take Christianity to only really be an institution since the Nicene creed then it gets handily beaten out by the White Horse Buddhist Temple in China which has been going strong since 68CE.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
Which branch are you again?
More options
Context Copy link
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 spirit matter (which has interesting implications for dark matter, which we cannot detect except through its influence on gravity) but definitely exists in our universe. (EDIT: this last sentence is not correct--heaven e.g. God's dwelling place is not purely spiritual, and thus not imperceptible, at least not for that reason)
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.
This is also a caricature of the Orthodox view on God. That being said, the Orthodox have little problem connecting the spiritual and the physical.
My admittedly limited understanding is that Mormonism literally believes in God the Father having a basically human physical body though...
The only part of what I said that I can see as a caricature is calling heaven a "dimension". Which, I mean, it is, right? You can say something like "the real heaven is way holier and more profound than the crass connotations of the word 'dimension'" but fundamentally it does match the definition.
Were you talking about the "all things spiritual are physical too"? I wasn't trying to caricature Orthodox beliefs there--that's an LDS belief. We essentially believe that nothing is not made of matter. Spirits are made of spirit matter which may well be composed of spirit atoms. There's not necessarily a fundamental difference between spirit matter and regular matter either.
Yes we believe God the Father has a perfected human physical body. The exact details, like whether he has blood, or is made of atoms, are unknown, but you have it right.
My impression is that most Christian sects find the physical fundamentally distasteful. Jesus' current physical body is de-emphasized. The final resurrection is de-emphasized--most people sort of see heaven as a place we go when we die, and the resurrection as an afterthought. Heaven is seen as a place wholly empty of physical matter, except perhaps for Jesus' body, which is the only thing in the entire realm with a physical form. God the Father having a physical body is seen as worse or inferior somehow than him not having a body.
We see this aversion to physical matter as an artifact of Gnosticism which made its way into the Catholic church over the centuries.
This leads to much deeper theological differences--like ancient Jews, we do not believe in creation ex nihilo. We don't believe God can violate physical laws--though the true laws of physics may be quite a bit different/deeper than what humanity has discovered so far. We don't believe in a God "by definition"--God doesn't need to be the Greatest Conceivable Thing in order to be God. (He may well be, but it's not necessary).
Does the Orthodox church not have this attitude towards the physical?
I dont think the Father is non-physical because its "better". I think its a continuation of jewish belief, and continues to draw some justification from the (reduced) image prohibition.
I wonder what you think of the Real Presence and relics? They seem in a similar spirit as physical resurrection to me.
Relics I pretty much think of as superstition. I'm not against the idea of holy objects or corpses, but relics imo verge into idol worship, where they seem to have power of their own. Even if Stephen was blessed for his faith, I'm not sure Stephen's fibula was blessed in the same way, and I especially don't think I'll be blessed for revering his fibula or carrying it around. It seems like a distraction pulling one away from Christ.
I've never really understood the Real Presence. It sounds like it means the bread and wine are literally Jesus' body in some sense, but in what sense? Clearly they don't actually physically become flesh and blood at any point--we would know if they did. I'm also sure that people have done unsavory things to bread and wine post-blessing, and while that may be symbolically violating Jesus I'm confident he's not actually harmed, so common sense tells me that the Communion isn't literally part of his body.
The physical resurrection has a strong biblical foundation. I'd argue Christ made a concerted effort to teach his apostles specifically that the resurrection was both real and physical. As I said elsewhere:
I guess you could see this as a "spiritual" resurrection, but then, what's the difference between a resurrected spirit body capable of eating food and otherwise interacting directly with matter, and a physical body? And why does the stipulation that the resurrection is non-physical matter so much, if these bodies possess important physical characteristics?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a great overview of Orthodox belief on heaven: https://www.saintjohnchurch.org/the-truth-about-heaven-and-hell/
In general, the Orthodox are much less focused on 'figuring things out' so to speak in a material way. We are more comfortable with divine mystery. It's hard to put into words exactly, but from what you describe of Mormon doctrine I think a lot of Orthodox would see these things almost as distractions, needless confusion arising from trying to be right in an intellectual sense.
That being said I'm new to Orthodoxy myself so please take all of this with a grain of salt!
That makes sense. The beliefs I've described are very rarely addressed anywhere in the church for the same reason--they're fundamentally meaningless compared to the core doctrine of Christ.
I've got to say though, this isn't off to a great start. If heaven and hell are not physical places, where is Jesus' physical body? Does it cease to exist when he goes to heaven, and then he puts it back on when he visits us? Or are they purely metaphorical/spiritual places except where Jesus is concerned? And where will our physical bodies be when we are resurrected?
I ask because I think Jesus made a concerted effort to convince the apostles of the resurrection. It was important for us to learn, not just that Christ ascended to the right hand of God (which could be true in a purely spiritual/metaphorical/non-physical sense), but that his body came back to life, and even possessed some of the same functions as mortal bodies, such as being capable of eating food. He was really trying to prove, not just that death is not the end, but that the resurrection specifically is a real thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
I realize you’re saying this because you find the comparison offensive, but this statement is pretty funny, outside of its context.
Yeah, I guess it is.
I don't really find the comparison offensive in a vacuum. Astronauts are cool. I've heard some Christians describe God as the ultimate scientist, one who invented the laws of physics according to his ultimate intelligence and created the beauty of our natural world out of his own limitless imagination. I love that comparison and don't really consider astronauts any worse than scientists.
It's more the attitude of "we true Christians agree a God who exists in space couldn't possibly be a real God, hahaha" that is somewhat annoying. Nbd though
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
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