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 -
Of course, from the Orthodox perspective, the whole process starts with the Patriarchs of Rome starting to get big false ideas about their status as primus inter pares a number of centuries after Christ, schisming away from the Orthodox church, and Protestantism being a logical conclusion of the various theological issues spawning from that affair. "The Pope was the first Protestant".
This is of course disputed, both excommunicated each other at the same time and both claim apostolic tradition. If anything, the Catholic church is more stable and has more logical standing when it comes to apostolic tradition, since as of now it is even hard to say who exactly "ortobros" are. There are at least four permanent schisms within orthodoxy including two parallel patriarchates in both Antioch and Alexandria - which are not in communion with each other and thus their adherents are banned to receive sacraments between the churches. In fact it is quite messy to follow when which branch of orthodoxy separated itself from the others and for what reasons, it is almost like minoprotestantism in that sense.
The successive loss of the second and third Romes defaulted leadership back to Rome.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Saint Peter, the Protestant!
I obviously like my orthobros, but this is a major cope. Why did none of the bishops oppose the gospel of Mathew during the councils assembling the Bible? Why did they ask the pope for his blessing (in the colloquial sense) over their work?
By the 4th century, it was already established that the Pope had a leadership role different than the other bishops. It makes sense that at some point (1000 years after the church was founded and after it had become a major global power) that there would be people who would claim leadership of it, but for geopolitical reasons.
Again, I like the orthodox bros. They are cool, and I pray almost daily for reunification, but this claim is pretty ridiculous on its face. Was Jesus a Protestant too?
As a Protestant - obviously St. Peter was not a Protestant, but he was not Roman Catholic or Orthodox in any meaningful way either. Those distinctions did not exist in his day. He was a follower of Christ.
Now as it happens I think it's ahistorical nonsense to say that he was a pope or a bishop either, offices that did not exist in his day and which have been applied to him retroactively, but at any rate, St. Peter certainly did not think of himself in confessional terms that far postdate him. I would say that St. Peter was, in the proper sense, small-letter catholic, orthodox, and yes, protestant (that is, witnessing to the gospel), and that these denominational slapfights only embarrass those determined to engage in them.
More options
Context Copy link
You're assuming that the Bishop of Rome is actually Peter's successor is an established fact. Even though Linus and Clement are both mentioned in the Bible, they are never explicitly mentioned as Peter's successors, and no one identifies them as such until ~180 AD, 81 years after Clement's death.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link