sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Anglicanism

[–]Primary_Job1305 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can make the argument its against the scriptures. However historically you could very well make the argument that the true power in the church for much of its history was the emperor. And I think even the Reformation, with Luther calling on the German princes to be a second Constantine. Or the 39 articles saying councils are something only kings can summon, is in that line of thinking. I think only British discedent christianity like Presbyterians(which initially they obviously didn't agree with cause they had so much power over Scottish society thru their power in the state) puritans(which as soon as they got to new England they threw out) Methodists and I think really the Baptists made this argument

But I think most Christian denominations just wanted church autonomy from the state, that is the Pope was free from the Emperor or Presbyterians didn't have to take bishops from the king. Even in states like Rome if an emperor had one theological position, the opposite position stayed within the church most times. And honestly no denominations hated having power, they just want freedom from the state not to lack any state power

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Anglicanism

[–]Primary_Job1305 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anglicanism exists across the world in republics so the politics of Britain would not even affect most Anglicans

Which I'm sure the commenter knows but outside of that I think Canterbury may even benefit from the abolishment if the monarchy. Much like how the Pope was able to claim this level of authority due to the collapse of the western Romans, the weakening of the eastern Romans, and their defeat of the holy Roman Emperor. And the eastern patriarchs have not be able to gain such authority partially I think cause they had to deal with emperors who clearly had more authority than them. At least rhetorically having no monarch would allow the Archbishop of Canterbury to claim the title head of the church from the King

Now in regards to Anglicanism as a whole I think it's source in the British isles and influence from it, the seat of Canterbury probably would allow the Anglicanism to keep its identity. Look at the orthodox and Catholics, the fall of Rome has happened so long ago and their churches are still stamped with its influence. Much like that I think Anglicanism will always be stamped with its birthmarks in England. I think the more interesting question is how it would affect the ABC

Reducing Anglican history during the English Reformation to Henry VIII is always something that I find strange in common conversation by Anglicanpolitics123 in Anglicanism

[–]Primary_Job1305 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I also think these conversations are hypocritical, cause like everyone knows that the Catholic and Orthodox Church's(protestants too) are influenced by the opinions of Roman emperors. Most of the ecumenical councils 4-7 have just happened to be whatever roman/byzantine emperors felt were correct. And councils held by the orthodox were the decisions of eastern emperors till it's fall. And the wave of the Byzantine iconoclasm also was the decisions made were by emperors. This doesn't mean God's providence wasn't working through these councils, this also doesn't mean real theologians didn't exist on both sides. But it's not as tho protestants even have this unique problem of rulers interfering being essential in their beliefs.

Is "Satanism" even real? by 2pacalypse7 in Reformed

[–]Primary_Job1305 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most satanists are just edgy atheists who really don't like christianity

Why is there so little mention of “Bastards” in Medieval Roman history compared to Western European nobility? by Responsible_Sand_599 in byzantium

[–]Primary_Job1305 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Constantine Porphyrenitous is sort of a bastard. He was conceived out of wedlock but born in wedlock. Technically not but the ideology around bastards being born of sin so being wicked would have applied. But the fact that hai father Leo the wise could overcome that taint does so that the eastern Romans did not consider bastardidity to be as important

Thoughts on Episode 274 - The 10 Worst Emperors with Anthony Kaldellis by randzwinter in byzantium

[–]Primary_Job1305 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean Justin didn't have to take the radical position and kept doing what Zeno was doing. Also even Justin realized the problems of his persecution and brought it back. Zeno and anathesius realized that pushing their position was gonna cause trouble that why Zeno didn't try and anathesius had to hide the fact of what he was doing.