Atheists as members?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

What's with all the religious debate today?? Did someone take an extra shot of Holy Spirit last night?

DUDE, that would be Jesus' blood, not Holy Spirit.. you have to inhale the Holy Spirit...


Seriously people....

/not serious

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Prior to that schism then? The RCC was the only real Western Church, just as the Orthodox were the only real Eastern Church. They've gotten along and fought at different times throughout the years. But as far as what most people consider "Western Civ." goes, the RCC was it.

/Took a Byzantine history class, am well aware that "western" doesn't always mean what we think it means.

The point is, if the "RCC was the only real Western Church, just as the Orthodox were the only real Eastern Church," then it is rather inaccurate to say that the RCC "was considered the universal church" prior to the Reformation, don't you think? I'm sure that after the Great Schism, the Ecumenical Patriarch did not consider the Roman Catholic Church to be the universal church prior to the Reformation, anymore than he considers it so now. Universal chuch in the West, okay, but not simply the universal church. (And prior to the Great Schism, I think one would have to say that the universal church consisted of both the Roman Church and the Byzantine churches. But then the Copts, the Syriacs and others might have a beef with that statement. )

Originally Posted by Drolefille

DUDE, that would be Jesus' blood, not Holy Spirit.. you have to inhale the Holy Spirit....

Unless she meant the Holy Sprite.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat81

The point is, if the "RCC was the only real Western Church, just as the Orthodox were the only real Eastern Church," then it is rather inaccurate to say that the RCC "was considered the universal church" prior to the Reformation, don't you think? I'm sure that after the Great Schism, the Ecumenical Patriarch did not consider the Roman Catholic Church to be the universal church prior to the Reformation, anymore than he considers it so now. Universal chuch in the West, okay, but not simply the universal church. (And prior to the Great Schism, I think one would have to say that the universal church consisted of both the Roman Church and the Byzantine churches. But then the Copts, the Syriacs and others might have a beef with that statement. )

Unless she meant the Holy Sprite.

Yes but you have to consider in the frame of mind of Europeans around the Reformation. There WAS no Eastern world as far as they were concerned. Oh there was China.. and some strange stuff that came there, but they were hardly "civiliazation" in the minds of your average European. For Jean Smithe of France, as well as Juan Doe in Spain, etc.. your only option was The Church.

[Tom Earp]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yes but you have to consider in the frame of mind of Europeans around the Reformation. There WAS no Eastern world as far as they were concerned. Oh there was China.. and some strange stuff that came there, but they were hardly "civiliazation" in the minds of your average European. For Jean Smithe of France, as well as Juan Doe in Spain, etc.. your only option was The Church.

That is an interesting thought! No Eastern world which was the cradle of Civiliazation?

But, if You are talking about The Roman Catholic Religion, they wanted to rulke the known so called civilized world as in Europe.

Oh, there was a King of Turkey that had a lot to do with things of Christianity!

Check it out.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yes but you have to consider in the frame of mind of Europeans around the Reformation. There WAS no Eastern world as far as they were concerned. Oh there was China.. and some strange stuff that came there, but they were hardly "civiliazation" in the minds of your average European. For Jean Smithe of France, as well as Juan Doe in Spain, etc.. your only option was The Church.

Perhaps for the average Johannes Doe on the street, but hardly so among the Reformers or many others of the time. John Calvin's writings show a fair degree of familiarity with and influence of Eastern Orthodox theology. Cranmer's liturgical reforms in England show familiarity with Orthodox liturgical forms. There are numerous other examples. Educated people were familiar to a greater or lesser degree with Eastern Orthodoxy. That doesn't mean that they were prepared to ask for Orthodox missions in Switzerland, but they had an understanding of the Church in its Eastern as well as Western forms, and an understanding of the history of the Church in both its Roman and Byzantine forms. And remember that there are Eastern European countries that are and have long been Orthodox rather than Catholic. So while as a practical matter the Roman Church may have been considered the only game in town in Western Europe prior to the Reformation -- with the exception of certain pre-Reformation "Protestant" groups, some of which, like the Waldensians, still exist today -- it's not because they didn't know anything about Eastern Christianity.

In some ways, the Reformers thought that Orthodoxy taught the same "errors" that they perceived in the Roman Catholic Church, while in other ways they thought that it had avoided certain "errors." Meanwhile, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church considered the Orthodox heretical, or at least outside the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" because the Orthodox rejected the primacy of the See of Peter -- and therefore were not "One" with the See of Peter. The Orthodox likewise believed that the Roman Church had improperly "added" to the Catholic faith, thereby ceasing to be Catholic.

And, of course, politics was often at the root of what was considered "the only option."

[kerry4prez]

i think we should be tolerant of people that are all colors and religiouns and sexual choices.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by kerry4prez

i think we should be tolerant of people that are all colors and religiouns and sexual choices.

I agree wholeheartedly.

People who use bad grammar and spelling in 20 posts in 5 minutes, however, should meet the fate of William "Braveheart" Wallace and be disembowled while still alive.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I agree wholeheartedly.

People who use bad grammar and spelling in 20 posts in 5 minutes, however, should meet the fate of William "Braveheart" Wallace and be disembowled while still alive.

And I wholeheartedly heart Sheila.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat81

Perhaps for the average Johannes Doe on the street, but hardly so among the Reformers or many others of the time. John Calvin's writings show a fair degree of familiarity with and influence of Eastern Orthodox theology. Cranmer's liturgical reforms in England show familiarity with Orthodox liturgical forms. There are numerous other examples. Educated people were familiar to a greater or lesser degree with Eastern Orthodoxy. That doesn't mean that they were prepared to ask for Orthodox missions in Switzerland, but they had an understanding of the Church in its Eastern as well as Western forms, and an understanding of the history of the Church in both its Roman and Byzantine forms. And remember that there are Eastern European countries that are and have long been Orthodox rather than Catholic. So while as a practical matter the Roman Church may have been considered the only game in town in Western Europe prior to the Reformation -- with the exception of certain pre-Reformation "Protestant" groups, some of which, like the Waldensians, still exist today -- it's not because they didn't know anything about Eastern Christianity.

In some ways, the Reformers thought that Orthodoxy taught the same "errors" that they perceived in the Roman Catholic Church, while in other ways they thought that it had avoided certain "errors." Meanwhile, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church considered the Orthodox heretical, or at least outside the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" because the Orthodox rejected the primacy of the See of Peter -- and therefore were not "One" with the See of Peter. The Orthodox likewise believed that the Roman Church had improperly "added" to the Catholic faith, thereby ceasing to be Catholic.

And, of course, politics was often at the root of what was considered "the only option."

True. And that's clearly what drove the Reformers.. (or as we Catholics call them, the LYING HERETICS WHO WILL BURN IN HELL.... I'm totally kidding)

But if they wanted to attend an Orthodox church, they were SOL without traveling quite far.

They were the ones who brought these things to the attention of the guy on the street. As I understand, Luther never really wanted to break away, just fix problems. Before the reformation, your choice was the RCC, or nothing-which could lead to problems with the Church and government.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

As I understand, Luther never really wanted to break away, just fix problems. Before the reformation, your choice was the RCC, or nothing-which could lead to problems with the Church and government.

Indeed. They were reformers not break-awayers. But it got out of hand.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Indeed. They were reformers not break-awayers. But it got out of hand.

Right. Luther, Calvin and other of their generation were hoping to reform the church, not start a new one. I sometimes wonder whether, if they were alive after Vatican II, they would still see as strong a need for Reformation.

I think we're over-analyizing this, not too mention doing some considerable high-jacking (plus having a fun discussion, imo). My only point in my first post (that started the high-jack) was that some Eastern Orthodox might take issue with the unqualified statement that prior to Reformation the Roman Catholic Church was "considered the universal church." If the statement to which I was responding had been phrased that in Western Europe or in the West, the Roman Catholic Church was considered the universal church prior to the Reformation, then I think there'd be little room for argument. But without that qualification, I think a simple and accurate response is "Not in Greece, it wasn't." That's all I was saying.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by MysticCat81

Right. Luther, Calvin and other of their generation were hoping to reform the church, not start a new one. I sometimes wonder whether, if they were alive after Vatican II, they would still see as strong a need for Reformation.

I think we're over-analyizing this, not too mention doing some considerable high-jacking (plus having a fun discussion, imo). My only point in my first post (that started the high-jack) was that some Eastern Orthodox might take issue with the unqualified statement that prior to Reformation the Roman Catholic Church was "considered the universal church." If the statement to which I was responding had been phrased that in Western Europe or in the West, the Roman Catholic Church was considered the universal church prior to the Reformation, then I think there'd be little room for argument. But without that qualification, I think a simple and accurate response is "Not in Greece, it wasn't." That's all I was saying.

Excellent point.

[Drolefille]

But thread hijacks are fun!

And this wasn't going anywhere much besides "I'm glad my chapter doesn't follow the rules"

[sbelle223]

Originally Posted by enigma_AKA

How they lead their spiritual life is of no relevance to me. All she needs to do is remember and uphold the purpose of Alpha Kappa Alpha...with a smile!

enigma_AKA

Very well said and very much appreciated! Your whole post was very well put and it is so nice to see someone respect other people so greatly, no matter their race, religion, or creed! Thank you!

[Liberal_South]

I don't think Atheists should be a member, since wehn you join a glo you take an oath to that organization and most importantly to god. And if you don't believe in god, then there is nothing to hold you accountable.