On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:07 PM, <> wrote:
>
> Gary
>
> >> It is my verbiage, though I don't claim any official connection beyond
> that
> >> of a layperson interested in history the perspective it gives in
> > contemplating faith and the modern world. There are a few positive
> comments in the thread at COTI and I got a few PM's also expressing
> interest. Some from definitely non-theist perspectives but expressing
> appreciation for an angle that they normally didn't use at all and
> provided
> >> good data mining material. Most of the rest hasn't been shared widely.
>
> Yes, but a very well-informed layperson. So are you RC or Eastern
> Orthodox? There's a lot of Eastern/Greek Orthodox language in there which
> I am only very peripherally familiar with.
>
I consider myself an Orthodox Catholic Christian. :D
less facetiously of the Latin Rite, though I admire most of the Eastern
Fathers as much as those of the West.
>
>
> >> It's not all progressive amity, though. Criminal Justice code based on
> the
> >> 7 Deadly Sins isn't going to be popular with many in the modern
> > relativist
> >> world, or a Church and Knighthood bound by Canon instead of Civil Law.
>
> I didn't see that stuff in there, but admittedly skimmed some. However,
> the mention of their commitment to democracy, and preventing persecution
> of minorities, atheists and agnostics is pretty far from the portrayal
> most people would create of a church given that much rope to play with.
> Could something that progressive and open remain that unchanged for so
> long?
>
Some is implied. Most of it hasn't been put up explicitly yet, though if
it appears too "progressive," maybe I need to make it a higher priority. ;)
It's the logical endpoint and something that would be uncomfortable to
many in the West accustomed to a greater secularization, particularly in
what's usually seen as personal matters yet undeniably crimes that could be
classified as mala in se rather than mala prohibita (particularly
adultery). The point of the Turin Consolidation seemed the rejection of
secularism, though I thought it should still have a very Solomani rejection
of the [Vilani] Imperium's ethos (which would seem a necessary prerequisite
for it's membership in the Confederation as opposed to the Imperium). I
did consider that the trappings of Christendom would invite the nobility,
etc which is why I referenced some of the colonies altering themselves to
Constitutional Monarchies. Dichotomy seems to be the modus operandi.
Supports Hiroshi's goals, though not all of his methods (for example),
mostly those elements that inspired them to leave Terra in the Interstellar
Wars to begin with. Toleration of agnostics and atheists doesn't precisely
mean they'd be welcomed, particularly if they behaved as belligerents and
excommunication would be a very serious offense, particularly in the early
days. While they wouldn't be burned at the stake or stoned, they would
effectively become persona non grata if not effectively exiled.
> You may be doing this, but do you have the church pulling in local
> people's/races' hallowed/legendary/sanctified figures into the ranks of
> the saints? This was something that the (Roman) Catholic church did very
> successfully, and gave us other "military" saints like St. Barbara. This
> is much like the Imperial Romans did when they rolled into a town, looked
> at the local gods, and said, "Hey, we know them. Those are Apollo and
> Athena, you just know them by one of their other names. So you're already
> one of us! Huzzah!" Hence a shrewd meaning of the "Roman" in "Roman
> Catholic"
>
>
I was more interested in covering the breadth of Traveller history but I do
like to envision the Vilani Mission launched to proselytize while the
Interstellar Wars were heating up, if not raging. I've often questioned
whether I have the stones for martyrdom myself, if not the pure selfless
denial that would be required for such an undertaking, likely doomed to a
fate of an obscure fate hundreds of light years from home and unlamented
and unmourned.
The Missions themselves would have been aimed at precisely that, though
it's an interesting philosophical exercise to ponder the need of salvation
or not that the various aliens would have. One can make numerous arguments
for and against the various Major and Minor Races and I thought of canon
and non-canon examples of each that would instigate an appropriate amount
of theological wrangling inside the Universal-Orthodox Church in Charted
Space. The likely reaction of the K'kree to the Eucharist and
Transubstantiation is a favorite of the former, as well as the glorious
martyrdom that would be likely to follow.
>
> Some of it intended
> > out
> >> of practical interpretation and some for drama. Of course, man being
> > man
> >> there will be some of those with negative traits and the oddball
> villain
> >> or
> >> two as a 'man of the cloth' cynically using his religion as a means
> > rather
> >> than an end.
>
> To the extent that so many political leaders are described as being
> members of the church I would assume that like today that is as much the
> rule as the exception.
>
>
A bit beyond, since the higher clergy would in some ways more resemble
their medieval counterparts and have at least limited secular authority. I
imagine the modern Roman Church's prohibition of outright politics would
continue through the Interstellar Wars period with more of the unscrupulous
pushing the boundaries as far as they could and in the face of the
increasing chaos in the Rule of Man would probably be condoned if not
promoted as a backstop against the lack of central secular authority.
>
> >>> 2. I note at the (Second) Council of Nicea in 2054 that US Episcopals
> > don't join. Is that a result of the recent split with the Anglicans, so
> is
> >>> it based on current events?
> >> No, most of the concept I did in the late 90's and was hypothetical on
> > the
> >> ecumenical movement as it was then. I think Episcopalians having women
> > priests was still relatively a big deal.
>
> What about your church in Turin? Male and female priests yet? There's a
> real tension in SF between retaining ancestral strictures to make them
> more vivid and allowing change to show the passage of time.
>
>
Yet not everything that is unchanging is bad and not all change is for the
better. I would likely have avoided any explicit reference, and like to
imagine the timelessness potential that the core pillars in AD 3000, 4000,
or 5000 wouldn't necessarily differ as much from AD 1000 or 2000 in that
regard. I definitely envisioned the Roman sanctioned Anglicate Rite
allowing a married lower clergy (below the Episcopate, at least) but that
it would still be male. There would be repetitions of many of the more
obscure heresies arguing concepts like Rex Mundi, and rumors of obscure and
sanctioned Rites... There would be the perpetual debate between the Eastern
Rites and the Latin on the merits and perils of married secular clergy.
They just wouldn't be tossing anathemas about it anymore.
> >>> 3. It is really interesting what you are doing in a game which
> historically has not addressed religion much.
> >> I definitely thought it was lacking, but it's obviously an area almost
> > any
> >> company would be hesitant to get into much detail on since it's so very
> > easy to offend SOMEONE and dig a big PR hole, if not very serious nut
> cases.
>
> Yeah, I can't see our having gone there, at least not with clearly
> identified current churches. (I made a "CommSent" church in Ranger, its
> priest semi-named after my favorite Catholic priest, Father Amerigo
> DiNorcia.) But watching someone else play with it in their personal
> universe is certainly intriguing.
>
>
Indeed. Just because it's delicate PR wise doesn't mean it's likely to
just go away. Regardless of those who wish it would.
> >> I also wanted to bring a different and more serious element to the
> > rather
> >> cartoonishly simplistic Solomani Confederation. DGP showed the
> Booteans
> >> as
> >> one alternative, but the Nazis still seemed way too predominant (though
> > it
> >> didn't annoy me as much as the cliches of the French Nth Republic -
> > Reformed, 2nd Edition, the Latino Banana Republic, corrupt eastern bloc
> Europeans, Apartheid in Space, etc. They couldn't all be a bunch of
> nincompoop stereotypes could they?
>
> Idunno, depends upon your opinion of humanity. After the day I've had
> today, yeah, maybe they could.
>
>
They just seem so dated on top of being stereotypes. Apartheid In Space
aka Doochean seems especially hard to handwave. Quesada today would be
cartel kingpins, etc.
More realistic for an Ibero-Latin-American polity of a general
European-flavored character than "Estados Unidos Quesada" IMO. The French
Nth Republic is more of a Continental/secularist joint French-German
polity. etc.
>>> 4. What happens to the Lutherans? Surely you know better than to lump
> > us
> >>> in with the rest of the Protestants.
> >> Sure enough. After the Anglicans, I see the Lutherans as the next
> > closest
> >> theologically,
>
> I quibble with that a little because of the nature of the origin of the
> Anglicans as a change in management so the king could change his woman and
> get England out from under Italian thumbs. And "via media" was a PR
> invention by Anglicans themselves. Aside from English hymns vs. German
> hymns you can hardly slip a piece of paper between the Anglicans and
> Lutherans, and we're in full communion and with joint congregations. Along
> with the RC we are the sacramental churches with more in common with each
> other than most of the other protestants. Real presence, infant baptism,
> ONE baptism.
>
>
Indeed, I generally wouldn't dispute those in favor of the Lutheran though
I would tend to Anglican on the intercession of Saints, the nature of Holy
Orders and the procession of the Sacraments.
Both would face the largest obstacle to ecumenical reunion and be
incompatible on grounds of Justification and particularly ideas of Sola
Fidei and Sola Scriptura though from my perspective there is stronger
influence of Anglo-Catholics in the Anglicans ranks. Of course, I'm
speaking in vague generalities
>
> > but there are some pretty big theological bullets,almost
> > too big to smooth over beyond relatively simple Roman primacy and
> calendar
> >> details like the Orthodox would face. I wouldn't expect either the
> bulk
> >> of
> >> the self respecting Lutherans to bend on any more than I expect the
> Rock
> >> of
> >> St Peter's. I would have had relations cordial following Nicea 2054 but
> had
> >> ideas for at least one world in the Consolidation with a rich Lutheran
> > heritage, though refusing to implement a Universal-Orthodox hierarchy,
> much
> >> less bend to it, as a matter of principle. I might not have my finger
> > on
> >> the pulse of Lutheran ecumenism enough to be accurately capture that,
> > though so maybe you can provide a better perspective on how they would
> have
> >> reacted to Vilani contact, the Council itself, and which theological
> fences
> >> would be more willing to compromise on than others, if not also the
> > launch
> >> of Caelis Torino and the establishment of the TCA, Rule of Man, Turin
> > Consolidation, Solomani Movement, etc.
>
>
> Yikes. That is way too big of a homework assignment to think of how they'd
> respond to all of those in-game events.
>
How about just the Council itself, if not the idea of Caelis Torino?
> However, as far as American Lutherans go, the ELCA would go a great
> distance toward unity with the RC,
> Anglicans and Reformed movements, and already has. Missouri Synod and
> Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, however, don't even like to be in the same room
> with ELCA. Can't have their pictures taken with them in the paper. And
> then their are the two new lutheran churches that splintered off in the
> last year.
>
> The Lutherans and RC have already agreed on justification, which was what
> sparked off Brother Martin to begin with. We agree on the priesthood of
> all believers. Most of the differences in that area were in
> emphasis/tradition, not actual theology or doctrine. That and lazy
> prejudice and habit. There is a strong will in the ELCA for real unity. I
> can walk into any RC, Ang, or Lutheran church and know the order of
> worship and all the words to all of the liturgy (English, not Latin). I
> would think you could with not too far a stretch imagine a Lutheran Rite,
> or perhaps Melancthonian Rite in your church. A number of Lutheran
> churches are still in, or have gotten back into the Apostolic Succession,
> so are considered as Catholics by not just themselves, but by some
> Catholic standards.
>
Definitely Interesting. I like that idea. And the etymology of the
Melancthonian Rite. So shall it be in the next revision.
> Would Lutherans take back the other five sacraments? Would they pray to
> saints? Venerate Mary? Could those things become adiaphora? Although
> doctrinal stuff seems like it would be the biggest obstacle, "feel" stuff
> like the RC approach to tradition would loom large. But the biggest thing
> would probably be the obvious thing, Primacy of the Pope and Papal
> Infallibility. But a lot of Lutherans would want to find a way to make it
> work. Maybe if the Pope took the first step.
>
You definitely give me ideas to incorporate and flesh out a bit more of the
early pre-IW history.
> Speaking of Papal Infallibility, how did the RC and Orthodox settle that
> in your Ortho-Catholic church?
>
Greater emphasis on "Primus Inter Pares." More than diminishing Rome's
own stature, the elevation and renewed influence of the other Patriarchs
particularly in the expansion into Vilani and uncharted space, more than in
the historical territories that have been long dominated by Islam (speaking
of which, I an Islamic interstellar power taking the place of the Doocheans
IMTU). Official concession of at least the sharing of the Keys in an
Ecumenical Council, if not to the individual Patriarchs in their own
spheres of influence.
>> I think a losing war against the Vilani (as it was hypothesized for the
> launch of Caelis Torino) would inspire some open minded theology, as
well.
>> Catholic-Orthodox... cordiality, if not full reunion seems inevitable.
The
>> huge differences of the past are relatively trivial today. I've
studied
> the early history of Christianity at some length, particularly the early
heresies and how the western and eastern Church grew and dealt with them.
>> The whole idea of the culmination of the ecumenical movement stemmed
> from
>> the ideal scenario and counterpoint to the nasty drama between
Patriarch
> Michael Kerularios and Cardinal Humbert and the reunion of the two
oldest
>> branches of Christianity. Mostly it started from some of my reading of
the
>> Latin/Greek Schism, so it was no coincidence I put the reunion 1000
> years
>> later. It might be TOO coincidental but it does seem an obvious date
> to
>> try to do something symbolic on, as well.
>> Still, it's almost hilarious to see the differences that Photius
> condemned
>> as anathema the Latins for things as petty as not beginning Lent until
> Ash
>> Wednesday instead of 3 days earlier, as well as the classic staples of
> married clergy and filioque (which is probably too subtle for most
non-religious to appreciate).
However, another piece of the tension in your church in Traveller is that
digging in on "petty" differences like that comes from people feeling very
strongly about them, and feeling strongly about things correlates with
surviving as a continuous movement for a long time. In order to keep a
movement together, you can't relax on too many things.
Certainly. I just don't find the differences to be nearly as significant
as those of say... Arius or Nestorius or even the Iconoclast Emperors or
their minions they intruded on the Patriarchal throne. I always found the
Filioque debates a bit fascinating as the Procession of the Holy Spirit
wasn't mentioned at Nicea at all. Though I take the issue very seriously,
it doesn't arouse wrath in me as much as healthy desire to study history
and refine my apologetics.
Photius himself is at least as interesting as any of the figures of the
Reformation, though his intrusion on the See of Ignatius seems difficult to
justify at best and the most obvious source of his later turn from
supplication to antagonism with Rome.
>
> >> I don't expect many Protestants or modern Evangelicals to join the
> > party,
> >> though, without backtracking on relatively core theology that the
> Catholics
> >> and Orthodox can't bend on either.
>
> The word "Protestant" hardly means anything, except they signed a letter
> in 1529, back before most of the denominations were invented...usually in
> a huff by people stomping out. Since then all it means is "Anybody who's
> not RC or Orthodox," and the distance between the sacramental churches is
> much less than the breadth across "Protestantism" as a whole.
>
Right. That's the general intent of my use of the term and most definitely
lacking any pejorative intent. Less hyphenated than
"Non-Universal-Orthodox" but (generalizing, of course) with a sola fidei
and/or sola scriptura perspective.
> >>> > I Love that Dulinor quote. Hints at a depth and humanity to an
> >>> otherwise
> >>> undeveloped character known (and almost universally reviled) only for
> > what he did, not why.
> >>> Thanks. I wanted to give him a bit of a grace note, because there had
> >
> >> I was going to blame some of it on the Virasin. :) The notes for the
> > Brotherhood of SenWenclus have a few refences to theological debate and
> Apologetics defending the Arkgallop of Illelish against the claims of the
> >> Dlan Virasin
>
> And your final observation here maybe gets at why intrigues me about your
> Traveller church. When Traveller says that Dulinor is a Virasin, I think,
> "okay, makes sense, whatever they are."
>
That was facetious. Survival Margin said he expressed interest, though I
never took it to mean he actually joined. Which is why he wore black and
one of the reasons he's known as "Dulinor the Black." Even before the
pejorative inspired by the assassination and later Black War.
> But when you say, "Cleon was a
> (Latin) Catholic," I go, "huh? That doesn't make sense."
>
Not precisely what I intended, either. For Cleon, it was noted in the same
tone as the Imperial Encyclopedia data that has some kernel of truth but
may or may not be objectively true as the Ref's Section (and preference)
would determine. It could be Universal-Orthodox Propaganda...
anti-Alkhalikoi propaganda, etc and most of the general history is to be
considered as commonly accepted in the timeframe of the New Era (subject to
the reconstruction of the local database, fragmentary hard copy records,
etc). IMTU caveat would have had him more in the mold of Hiroshi, possibly
practicing but keeping it in the contemporary 20th century public sphere as
a private personal matter than one that influenced his governing, much less
government. It also served the purpose of spreading the neglected concept
of religion in general through "Big Names" in Traveller history. Though I
purposely left off any mention of the more fleshed out characters of the
late 3I, Rebellion, Hard Times, and New Era. Though naturally have my own
ideas.
>
>
>
> Gary
>
> >> It is my verbiage, though I don't claim any official connection beyond
> that
> >> of a layperson interested in history the perspective it gives in
> > contemplating faith and the modern world. There are a few positive
> comments in the thread at COTI and I got a few PM's also expressing
> interest. Some from definitely non-theist perspectives but expressing
> appreciation for an angle that they normally didn't use at all and
> provided
> >> good data mining material. Most of the rest hasn't been shared widely.
>
> Yes, but a very well-informed layperson. So are you RC or Eastern
> Orthodox? There's a lot of Eastern/Greek Orthodox language in there which
> I am only very peripherally familiar with.
>
I consider myself an Orthodox Catholic Christian. :D
less facetiously of the Latin Rite, though I admire most of the Eastern
Fathers as much as those of the West.
>
>
> >> It's not all progressive amity, though. Criminal Justice code based on
> the
> >> 7 Deadly Sins isn't going to be popular with many in the modern
> > relativist
> >> world, or a Church and Knighthood bound by Canon instead of Civil Law.
>
> I didn't see that stuff in there, but admittedly skimmed some. However,
> the mention of their commitment to democracy, and preventing persecution
> of minorities, atheists and agnostics is pretty far from the portrayal
> most people would create of a church given that much rope to play with.
> Could something that progressive and open remain that unchanged for so
> long?
>
Some is implied. Most of it hasn't been put up explicitly yet, though if
it appears too "progressive," maybe I need to make it a higher priority. ;)
It's the logical endpoint and something that would be uncomfortable to
many in the West accustomed to a greater secularization, particularly in
what's usually seen as personal matters yet undeniably crimes that could be
classified as mala in se rather than mala prohibita (particularly
adultery). The point of the Turin Consolidation seemed the rejection of
secularism, though I thought it should still have a very Solomani rejection
of the [Vilani] Imperium's ethos (which would seem a necessary prerequisite
for it's membership in the Confederation as opposed to the Imperium). I
did consider that the trappings of Christendom would invite the nobility,
etc which is why I referenced some of the colonies altering themselves to
Constitutional Monarchies. Dichotomy seems to be the modus operandi.
Supports Hiroshi's goals, though not all of his methods (for example),
mostly those elements that inspired them to leave Terra in the Interstellar
Wars to begin with. Toleration of agnostics and atheists doesn't precisely
mean they'd be welcomed, particularly if they behaved as belligerents and
excommunication would be a very serious offense, particularly in the early
days. While they wouldn't be burned at the stake or stoned, they would
effectively become persona non grata if not effectively exiled.
> You may be doing this, but do you have the church pulling in local
> people's/races' hallowed/legendary/sanctified figures into the ranks of
> the saints? This was something that the (Roman) Catholic church did very
> successfully, and gave us other "military" saints like St. Barbara. This
> is much like the Imperial Romans did when they rolled into a town, looked
> at the local gods, and said, "Hey, we know them. Those are Apollo and
> Athena, you just know them by one of their other names. So you're already
> one of us! Huzzah!" Hence a shrewd meaning of the "Roman" in "Roman
> Catholic"
>
>
I was more interested in covering the breadth of Traveller history but I do
like to envision the Vilani Mission launched to proselytize while the
Interstellar Wars were heating up, if not raging. I've often questioned
whether I have the stones for martyrdom myself, if not the pure selfless
denial that would be required for such an undertaking, likely doomed to a
fate of an obscure fate hundreds of light years from home and unlamented
and unmourned.
The Missions themselves would have been aimed at precisely that, though
it's an interesting philosophical exercise to ponder the need of salvation
or not that the various aliens would have. One can make numerous arguments
for and against the various Major and Minor Races and I thought of canon
and non-canon examples of each that would instigate an appropriate amount
of theological wrangling inside the Universal-Orthodox Church in Charted
Space. The likely reaction of the K'kree to the Eucharist and
Transubstantiation is a favorite of the former, as well as the glorious
martyrdom that would be likely to follow.
>
> Some of it intended
> > out
> >> of practical interpretation and some for drama. Of course, man being
> > man
> >> there will be some of those with negative traits and the oddball
> villain
> >> or
> >> two as a 'man of the cloth' cynically using his religion as a means
> > rather
> >> than an end.
>
> To the extent that so many political leaders are described as being
> members of the church I would assume that like today that is as much the
> rule as the exception.
>
>
A bit beyond, since the higher clergy would in some ways more resemble
their medieval counterparts and have at least limited secular authority. I
imagine the modern Roman Church's prohibition of outright politics would
continue through the Interstellar Wars period with more of the unscrupulous
pushing the boundaries as far as they could and in the face of the
increasing chaos in the Rule of Man would probably be condoned if not
promoted as a backstop against the lack of central secular authority.
>
> >>> 2. I note at the (Second) Council of Nicea in 2054 that US Episcopals
> > don't join. Is that a result of the recent split with the Anglicans, so
> is
> >>> it based on current events?
> >> No, most of the concept I did in the late 90's and was hypothetical on
> > the
> >> ecumenical movement as it was then. I think Episcopalians having women
> > priests was still relatively a big deal.
>
> What about your church in Turin? Male and female priests yet? There's a
> real tension in SF between retaining ancestral strictures to make them
> more vivid and allowing change to show the passage of time.
>
>
Yet not everything that is unchanging is bad and not all change is for the
better. I would likely have avoided any explicit reference, and like to
imagine the timelessness potential that the core pillars in AD 3000, 4000,
or 5000 wouldn't necessarily differ as much from AD 1000 or 2000 in that
regard. I definitely envisioned the Roman sanctioned Anglicate Rite
allowing a married lower clergy (below the Episcopate, at least) but that
it would still be male. There would be repetitions of many of the more
obscure heresies arguing concepts like Rex Mundi, and rumors of obscure and
sanctioned Rites... There would be the perpetual debate between the Eastern
Rites and the Latin on the merits and perils of married secular clergy.
They just wouldn't be tossing anathemas about it anymore.
> >>> 3. It is really interesting what you are doing in a game which
> historically has not addressed religion much.
> >> I definitely thought it was lacking, but it's obviously an area almost
> > any
> >> company would be hesitant to get into much detail on since it's so very
> > easy to offend SOMEONE and dig a big PR hole, if not very serious nut
> cases.
>
> Yeah, I can't see our having gone there, at least not with clearly
> identified current churches. (I made a "CommSent" church in Ranger, its
> priest semi-named after my favorite Catholic priest, Father Amerigo
> DiNorcia.) But watching someone else play with it in their personal
> universe is certainly intriguing.
>
>
Indeed. Just because it's delicate PR wise doesn't mean it's likely to
just go away. Regardless of those who wish it would.
> >> I also wanted to bring a different and more serious element to the
> > rather
> >> cartoonishly simplistic Solomani Confederation. DGP showed the
> Booteans
> >> as
> >> one alternative, but the Nazis still seemed way too predominant (though
> > it
> >> didn't annoy me as much as the cliches of the French Nth Republic -
> > Reformed, 2nd Edition, the Latino Banana Republic, corrupt eastern bloc
> Europeans, Apartheid in Space, etc. They couldn't all be a bunch of
> nincompoop stereotypes could they?
>
> Idunno, depends upon your opinion of humanity. After the day I've had
> today, yeah, maybe they could.
>
>
They just seem so dated on top of being stereotypes. Apartheid In Space
aka Doochean seems especially hard to handwave. Quesada today would be
cartel kingpins, etc.
More realistic for an Ibero-Latin-American polity of a general
European-flavored character than "Estados Unidos Quesada" IMO. The French
Nth Republic is more of a Continental/secularist joint French-German
polity. etc.
>>> 4. What happens to the Lutherans? Surely you know better than to lump
> > us
> >>> in with the rest of the Protestants.
> >> Sure enough. After the Anglicans, I see the Lutherans as the next
> > closest
> >> theologically,
>
> I quibble with that a little because of the nature of the origin of the
> Anglicans as a change in management so the king could change his woman and
> get England out from under Italian thumbs. And "via media" was a PR
> invention by Anglicans themselves. Aside from English hymns vs. German
> hymns you can hardly slip a piece of paper between the Anglicans and
> Lutherans, and we're in full communion and with joint congregations. Along
> with the RC we are the sacramental churches with more in common with each
> other than most of the other protestants. Real presence, infant baptism,
> ONE baptism.
>
>
Indeed, I generally wouldn't dispute those in favor of the Lutheran though
I would tend to Anglican on the intercession of Saints, the nature of Holy
Orders and the procession of the Sacraments.
Both would face the largest obstacle to ecumenical reunion and be
incompatible on grounds of Justification and particularly ideas of Sola
Fidei and Sola Scriptura though from my perspective there is stronger
influence of Anglo-Catholics in the Anglicans ranks. Of course, I'm
speaking in vague generalities
>
> > but there are some pretty big theological bullets,almost
> > too big to smooth over beyond relatively simple Roman primacy and
> calendar
> >> details like the Orthodox would face. I wouldn't expect either the
> bulk
> >> of
> >> the self respecting Lutherans to bend on any more than I expect the
> Rock
> >> of
> >> St Peter's. I would have had relations cordial following Nicea 2054 but
> had
> >> ideas for at least one world in the Consolidation with a rich Lutheran
> > heritage, though refusing to implement a Universal-Orthodox hierarchy,
> much
> >> less bend to it, as a matter of principle. I might not have my finger
> > on
> >> the pulse of Lutheran ecumenism enough to be accurately capture that,
> > though so maybe you can provide a better perspective on how they would
> have
> >> reacted to Vilani contact, the Council itself, and which theological
> fences
> >> would be more willing to compromise on than others, if not also the
> > launch
> >> of Caelis Torino and the establishment of the TCA, Rule of Man, Turin
> > Consolidation, Solomani Movement, etc.
>
>
> Yikes. That is way too big of a homework assignment to think of how they'd
> respond to all of those in-game events.
>
How about just the Council itself, if not the idea of Caelis Torino?
> However, as far as American Lutherans go, the ELCA would go a great
> distance toward unity with the RC,
> Anglicans and Reformed movements, and already has. Missouri Synod and
> Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, however, don't even like to be in the same room
> with ELCA. Can't have their pictures taken with them in the paper. And
> then their are the two new lutheran churches that splintered off in the
> last year.
>
> The Lutherans and RC have already agreed on justification, which was what
> sparked off Brother Martin to begin with. We agree on the priesthood of
> all believers. Most of the differences in that area were in
> emphasis/tradition, not actual theology or doctrine. That and lazy
> prejudice and habit. There is a strong will in the ELCA for real unity. I
> can walk into any RC, Ang, or Lutheran church and know the order of
> worship and all the words to all of the liturgy (English, not Latin). I
> would think you could with not too far a stretch imagine a Lutheran Rite,
> or perhaps Melancthonian Rite in your church. A number of Lutheran
> churches are still in, or have gotten back into the Apostolic Succession,
> so are considered as Catholics by not just themselves, but by some
> Catholic standards.
>
Definitely Interesting. I like that idea. And the etymology of the
Melancthonian Rite. So shall it be in the next revision.
> Would Lutherans take back the other five sacraments? Would they pray to
> saints? Venerate Mary? Could those things become adiaphora? Although
> doctrinal stuff seems like it would be the biggest obstacle, "feel" stuff
> like the RC approach to tradition would loom large. But the biggest thing
> would probably be the obvious thing, Primacy of the Pope and Papal
> Infallibility. But a lot of Lutherans would want to find a way to make it
> work. Maybe if the Pope took the first step.
>
You definitely give me ideas to incorporate and flesh out a bit more of the
early pre-IW history.
> Speaking of Papal Infallibility, how did the RC and Orthodox settle that
> in your Ortho-Catholic church?
>
Greater emphasis on "Primus Inter Pares." More than diminishing Rome's
own stature, the elevation and renewed influence of the other Patriarchs
particularly in the expansion into Vilani and uncharted space, more than in
the historical territories that have been long dominated by Islam (speaking
of which, I an Islamic interstellar power taking the place of the Doocheans
IMTU). Official concession of at least the sharing of the Keys in an
Ecumenical Council, if not to the individual Patriarchs in their own
spheres of influence.
>> I think a losing war against the Vilani (as it was hypothesized for the
> launch of Caelis Torino) would inspire some open minded theology, as
well.
>> Catholic-Orthodox... cordiality, if not full reunion seems inevitable.
The
>> huge differences of the past are relatively trivial today. I've
studied
> the early history of Christianity at some length, particularly the early
heresies and how the western and eastern Church grew and dealt with them.
>> The whole idea of the culmination of the ecumenical movement stemmed
> from
>> the ideal scenario and counterpoint to the nasty drama between
Patriarch
> Michael Kerularios and Cardinal Humbert and the reunion of the two
oldest
>> branches of Christianity. Mostly it started from some of my reading of
the
>> Latin/Greek Schism, so it was no coincidence I put the reunion 1000
> years
>> later. It might be TOO coincidental but it does seem an obvious date
> to
>> try to do something symbolic on, as well.
>> Still, it's almost hilarious to see the differences that Photius
> condemned
>> as anathema the Latins for things as petty as not beginning Lent until
> Ash
>> Wednesday instead of 3 days earlier, as well as the classic staples of
> married clergy and filioque (which is probably too subtle for most
non-religious to appreciate).
However, another piece of the tension in your church in Traveller is that
digging in on "petty" differences like that comes from people feeling very
strongly about them, and feeling strongly about things correlates with
surviving as a continuous movement for a long time. In order to keep a
movement together, you can't relax on too many things.
Certainly. I just don't find the differences to be nearly as significant
as those of say... Arius or Nestorius or even the Iconoclast Emperors or
their minions they intruded on the Patriarchal throne. I always found the
Filioque debates a bit fascinating as the Procession of the Holy Spirit
wasn't mentioned at Nicea at all. Though I take the issue very seriously,
it doesn't arouse wrath in me as much as healthy desire to study history
and refine my apologetics.
Photius himself is at least as interesting as any of the figures of the
Reformation, though his intrusion on the See of Ignatius seems difficult to
justify at best and the most obvious source of his later turn from
supplication to antagonism with Rome.
>
> >> I don't expect many Protestants or modern Evangelicals to join the
> > party,
> >> though, without backtracking on relatively core theology that the
> Catholics
> >> and Orthodox can't bend on either.
>
> The word "Protestant" hardly means anything, except they signed a letter
> in 1529, back before most of the denominations were invented...usually in
> a huff by people stomping out. Since then all it means is "Anybody who's
> not RC or Orthodox," and the distance between the sacramental churches is
> much less than the breadth across "Protestantism" as a whole.
>
Right. That's the general intent of my use of the term and most definitely
lacking any pejorative intent. Less hyphenated than
"Non-Universal-Orthodox" but (generalizing, of course) with a sola fidei
and/or sola scriptura perspective.
> >>> > I Love that Dulinor quote. Hints at a depth and humanity to an
> >>> otherwise
> >>> undeveloped character known (and almost universally reviled) only for
> > what he did, not why.
> >>> Thanks. I wanted to give him a bit of a grace note, because there had
> >
> >> I was going to blame some of it on the Virasin. :) The notes for the
> > Brotherhood of SenWenclus have a few refences to theological debate and
> Apologetics defending the Arkgallop of Illelish against the claims of the
> >> Dlan Virasin
>
> And your final observation here maybe gets at why intrigues me about your
> Traveller church. When Traveller says that Dulinor is a Virasin, I think,
> "okay, makes sense, whatever they are."
>
That was facetious. Survival Margin said he expressed interest, though I
never took it to mean he actually joined. Which is why he wore black and
one of the reasons he's known as "Dulinor the Black." Even before the
pejorative inspired by the assassination and later Black War.
> But when you say, "Cleon was a
> (Latin) Catholic," I go, "huh? That doesn't make sense."
>
Not precisely what I intended, either. For Cleon, it was noted in the same
tone as the Imperial Encyclopedia data that has some kernel of truth but
may or may not be objectively true as the Ref's Section (and preference)
would determine. It could be Universal-Orthodox Propaganda...
anti-Alkhalikoi propaganda, etc and most of the general history is to be
considered as commonly accepted in the timeframe of the New Era (subject to
the reconstruction of the local database, fragmentary hard copy records,
etc). IMTU caveat would have had him more in the mold of Hiroshi, possibly
practicing but keeping it in the contemporary 20th century public sphere as
a private personal matter than one that influenced his governing, much less
government. It also served the purpose of spreading the neglected concept
of religion in general through "Big Names" in Traveller history. Though I
purposely left off any mention of the more fleshed out characters of the
late 3I, Rebellion, Hard Times, and New Era. Though naturally have my own
ideas.
>
>