hckrnws

I forgot who formulated the idea that difficult-to-understand and difficult-to-believe doctrines tend to have a unifying force for religious communities because they tend to require members of those communities to be more serious about their commitments, or a way for them to show how seriously they take them, by asserting to doctrines that are difficult.

This article says that Nicene Christianity is more difficult to believe and more illogical than some of the heresies. If so, that difficulty may have been a challenge for orthodox Christian believers that allowed them to feel, or demonstrate, more unity with their fellow believers! It may have created a firmer distinction between Christians and non-Christians or near-Christians, for one thing.

Edit: one search found the theory of Laurence R. Iannaccone (which is about different churches within Christianity) who argued that churches that impose more or stronger doctrinal requirements tend to receive more loyalty and commitment from their members. I'm not sure if that was the version that I was originally thinking of, but it seems closely related.

> difficult-to-understand and difficult-to-believe doctrines tend to have a unifying force for religious communities because

I would also venture that this leads to many members having different interpretations and assuming everyone shares their own. Of the Wittgenstein ilk.

But, this theory may conflict with your Edit addendum.

See also: evaporative cooling of group beliefs (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporativ...)

>that churches that impose more or stronger doctrinal requirements tend to receive more loyalty and commitment from their members.

that looks to be true to the totalitarian movements/regimes too. Bolsheviks, fascists (notably that the original fascist's - Mussolini - split from the Social Democrats was very similar in nature (hardlining of ideology) to the split of Lenin's bolsheviks from the Russian socialists), nazis (who again split from their original Social Democrats on the basis of enforcing of more extremist and hardline ideology), etc. Emergence of such hardline totalitarian/extremist movements from the original wide socialist movement is similar to emergence of Cristian orthodoxy from the original wide Christianity.

An i think one can see some degree of such an "orthodoxation" in Republican party becoming Trumpism party and Democrat party becoming, for lack of better term, wokism party. In both cases many postulates are becoming more extreme while simultaneously are more and more supposed to be accepted without questioning of rationale (which may exist or not). (Note: my point here isn't about existence or not of rationale behind specific postulates, my point is that current situation in those parties requires unquestionable acceptance of the postulates)

As we are in the holiday season it may enlighten readers to know St Nicholas, from whom we derive Santa Claus, was known for two things: secretly giving gifts to the poor and needy, and slapping heretic Arius at this council.

It would be nice to have a new Council, an ecumenical one, coming to agreement to unite Catholic, Orthodox, and as many mainline protestant churches as possible. It may require the Catholic church to make some sort of concession, which is probably the biggest obstacle.

There is no question that not everyone could or would want to unite. But some progress would be nice. To take a historical example the Council of Chalcedon did result in a schism (Oriental Orthodox I think), yet even so, more Christians came out of that Council united than were united prior to it.

Extremely unlikely, as there are a lot of theological dealbreakers: the Catholic veneration of Mary & the saints, Protestant sola scriptura & sola fide, Catholic papal infallibility, among many others.

Venerate:

1 to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference

2 to honor (an icon, a relic)

Merriam-Webster.

What's the problem with venerating Mary?

The Apostolic Church, East and Rome can over come their differences, there's little substantive difference.

The differences between East and Rome are very substantive in my mind. The Holy Spirit operates in the Church differently (decentralized vs centralized), and they experience God differently (directly vs indirectly), and they even shape the Trinity differently, not to mention preservation vs development of doctrine.

To me, this means they differ on major categories: corporate, individual, divine, and temporal.

"Venerate" is a technical term here, so using the dictionary definition is incorrect.

Many Catholics believe that Mary was born without sin (immaculate conception), never died (assumption into heaven), can advocate to Jesus for believers (intercession) and has been crowned the Queen of Heaven. This goes well beyond "admiring" or "honoring". To complicate matters, many of these dogmas were only formalized by the Catholic church in the past 200 years. Quite a hard sell for the "sola scriptura" contingent.

"Dealbreakers" are the reason councils exist. I'm not saying it would be easy. Far from it. But the longer we wait to try, the harder it will be.

Why would any of the organizations involved want to do this? Who benefits?

The material conditions are also very different, there's basically no sectarian violence anymore.

There is a lot less. I wouldn't say there is none. Not sure how old you are but many of us can remember the conflict in Northern Ireland. And today, one might look at the way the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been treated in the Russia-Ukraine War.

But consider how each sect defines unity and the criterion for uniting to others. In my mind, to simplify:

    Evangelicals: we must agree to a common *subset* of beliefs
    Catholics: we must agree to allow contradictory belief systems under the primacy of a single “politically” unifying belief
    Orthodox: we must agree to unite under one belief system

The Catholics' willingness tolerating diverse beliefs under a single universal shepherd is key. A return to conciliarism (vs. a single pope), which was already the political system in the Catholic Church historically, at least for a time, could be one path to greater unity. Gets around Protestants' reticence to submit to the Pope and sidesteps the issue of papal infallibility.

Why?

Every religion in existence has multiple and often contradictory interpretations of doctrine and what is and isn't "canon." Why should Christianity be any different?

At least Catholics recognize Protestants and Orthodox as fellow Christians and aren't burning them at the stake for heresy anymore. That's probably the best we can hope for.

A lot of evangelical christians (like the predominant factions in the southern US) are very suspicious of Catholicism and many don't view it as true Christianity.

The Arian Heresy seems to arise perpetually. Now it is typically of the form, “Christ was a great religious figure, like Buddha, or Mohammed.”; “every religion has X, what makes Christianity different?”; etc.

It directly lead to Magnus to fall and commit heresy