If I were you I would not believe it then. Or do you suggest that if something doesn’t make sense to you, it must be inherently implausible?
Actually, it makes sense to me…and I’m not trying to convince anyone else of it…so what difference does it make if it makes sense to you?
Granted, my explanation of theology is not very good. As I said, that is why I usually tend to avoid discussions of it. But my failings don’t have anything to do with whether the theology is valid or not.
But at some point things are taken on faith. To say Christ was completely God and completely man…? I can’t fathom that but I believe it and can understand to the extent I need to.
That’s the trouble; it’s not usually being used this way in a serious conversation. If it were a discussion about dogma I’d have much less problem correcting them. It’s that it’s used as a flippant expression “Me, pregnant? Only if it’s an immaculate conception!”…come to think of it, maybe I should just let those go, because it’s not in the right context so it doesn’t really matter what they mean…??
Your nagging suspicion is one I share !
Heh, the first time I visited the Holy Sepulchre was in 1991
On a ledge, by JC’s bed, conveniently sited for receiving the ash from his morning cigarette, was an Indian brass vase ( I can tell those things at 100 paces, as I once sold them in a street market).
Oddly, the tourist shops were full of similar Indian brassware.
We figured that there was some sort of protection/product placement racket going on - and wondered if we could get the fragrance houses interested.
- Sort of JC uses Givenchy aftershave
And of course Scholl sandals could be placed at the foot of his bed …
Thinking about it a slot machine dishing out Indulgences could be a money spinner - so many missed opportunities.
At any rate they split,It (I undersand) over the triune God.
Until the time Of Constantine, Christianity was many small groups. Even Peter and Paul didn’t agree on everything. Hence, the reason that Constantine asked for a council that created a basic creed for all believers.
Monavis
It’s important not to confuse the issue of whether you think something has truth value with the issue of whether or not it has intelligible meaning. The latter is necessary for the former, because without the latter, what exactly is it that you think has truth value?
Again, I can say that I think that a “square circle” exists, but given that I cannot conceive of what such a thing would be or look like, what exactly is it that I am claiming exists? There isn’t any real way to determine. I seem to basically just be agreeing with a bunch of words, rather than agreeing with any concept behind the words.
Again, saying, on faith that you believe this string of words to be true is not the same thing as saying that there is a concept there you understand that is true. If you don’t understand or can’t conceive of what the concept is behind the words, then what does it really mean that you “believe” it? It just seems like you’ve been told that a Christian must agree to this statement. It’s no different, in a way, than being told that you must agree to the truth of whatever statement I have in this here black box, and you decide to agree in order to please me without knowing what it is you are agreeing to.
True, a lot of people seem to be ignorant of the particulars of Catholic doctrine. But then, many Christians in America seem to think that Rapture theology is a fundamentally litteral, ancient, and nearly universal Christian doctrine, when it is none of those things. What are you gonna do?
It’s not about making sense to me in particular. I’ve never encountered anyone who can explain what they mean on this score. It’s like the Trinity or the Incarnation: saying you believe it seems to be some sort of loyalty test more than a coherent doctrine where people understand what is actually being conveyed.
It might not make a difference to you, and you might not care, but that’s irrelevant. When you say that it makes sense to you, I don’t believe you. In my experience, people just haven’t thought about exactly what it is this doctrine actually means. It contains a bunch of words that make sense and seem to convey an emotional core that people like. But when it comes time to explain what I means, I’ve seen people time and time again fail to be able to do so.
True, but in this case, I think the fault is the theology, not your knowledge of it.
Uh, didn’t the Orthodox/Catholic split happen over filioque? “Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son”?
Putting two and two together… 
I hope you’ll excuse the hijack.
As it happens, I know several people who are members of a Christian denomination which predates Roman Catholicism. They’re members of theArmenian Church which was founded by St. Gregory and officially adopted as the state religion of Armenia in 301 CE. While I’m sure this would disappoint a former poster here who maintained there were groups of Protestants who existed in parallel to the Catholic Church from the time of Christ, their beliefs have more in common with the Catholic Church than other denominations, including Orthodox denominations.
That, and the pope of Rome’s claim to universal jurisdiction, and the Latins’ use of azymes, and a whole bunch of stupidity on both sides as well.
The Armenians are an Orthodox church, albeit Oriental Orthodox, so they are in communion with the Copts, Syrians, and Ethiopians, rather than the Greeks and Russians. In terms of theology and ethos, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are closer to each other than either are to the Latin church, and chances for reunion between them are much greater than they are between the Latins and the Orthodox.
Not if you ask the Armenians. The ones I know take a certain amount of pride in pre-dating and being separate from the Catholic Church. If you ask them, if no Armenian Church is available, the next best option for them is Catholic, not Orthodox. I’m not sure who they’re officially in communion with and what I know is based on what I’ve learned from informed lay people. If you need a cite, I can e-mail it to you.
Catholics may take Communion at Orthodox and Coptic churches. I don’t know if the reverse is true.
Right. Filioque and the headship of Rome. And politics.
Are you talking about Armenian Catholics or Armenian Orthodox? The latter (the majority of Armenian Christians) are definitely in communion with the Coptic Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, and Ethiopian Orthodox, and not with the Catholic church, so one of those churches would be preferable if no Armenian church were available.
If you did have a cite that had episcopal backing (i.e. from a bishop or approved by a bishop), that said that in the absence of an Armenian Orthodox church it is preferable for Armenian Orthodox to commune at a Catholic church rather than one of the other non-Chalcedonian Orthodox churches that the Armenian Orthodox are in communion with, I’d be very interested in seeing it – my email is ybeayf at gmail dot com.
Catholics are allowed by their own church to commune at Orthodox churches, but Orthodox will not commune Catholics, and Orthodox are not allowed by their churches to commune at Catholic churches.