Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church has said that there is no need to stir up fear around nuclear weapons, as Christians are not afraid of the end of the world.
Kirill added that this “does not mean that we should sit by idly”.
“On the contrary, our earthly mission is to be the Lord’s soldiers … to resist evil and defend high moral ideals. This is the goal setting in Russia,” he said.
Unsure if sarcastic.
What if two patriarchs differ? I mean, they already differ because otherwise there’d only be one denomination of Christianity, so which one is right?
That was a trick question. You aren’t allowed to decide because you’re some random Christian. You can only allow your head to implode.
Then they differ. The Orthodox Churches are autocepalous, that is, self-leading, there’s one per nation – and generally only one, if multiple are operating in the same then because they’re serving their diaspora and there’s no native orthodox church. The Patriarch of Constantinople has a special role among the patriarchs as first among equals but it’s about representation, calling synods, no actual power. Oh, one thing: To declare a Church autocephalous. The Russian Church maintains that it’s the prerogative of the individual Patriarchs to turn internal sub-divisions into new Churches and guess who declared the Ukrainian Orthodox Church autocephalous, and who didn’t, and who the other Patriarchs agree with.
Christianity in fact has the doctrine of universal priesthood, though it tends to get forgotten: Believers need no mediator to be in contact with god, consequently, god can choose to act through anyone. Luther re-ignited that whole thing which is why Lutherans are saner and much more democratic than Catholics and then America happened making people retroactively think the reformation was a mistake. All you really need is a vision and a following and you’ve got yourself a denomination.
The truth of it all is that it’s all held together by inertia, tradition, and hastily applied duct tape slowly turning into the former two. Just like anything else in human culture.
The unbroken chain of succession is why catholic leadership is typically more sane than Lutheran leadership, though the laity can go either way.
American Catholics get a bad rap, but in my experience they have two groups that give it to them: the neofrancoists, and the vibes based converts. The average person who grew up a Catholic in America is socially a bit more conservative than the Democratic Party, but votes for them and is more opposed to state enforcement of religious rules than American Protestants. Think JFK and Biden.
I’ll also say that the rejection of sola fide and the reasonable hope for salvation by works alone are probably the things that temper Catholics the most. But really you get everyone from Alito to Dorothy Day under the umbrella of American Catholics. if you’ve done a lot of left wing activism in America you’ve probably worked alongside people who felt called to do so by their Catholic faith
I’m sorry but it wasn’t Lutheran leadership which systematically and institutionally covered for, protected, and enabled, paedophiles, and you dare talk back to me about sanity. That “unbroken chain of succession” is a massive source of hubris and self-righteousness. It’s also a myth there’s been plenty of broken links in that chain.
And why would sola fide need to be tampered: The difference here between Lutheran and Catholic positions, both accepting sola gratia, is that faith is the result of that grace, its acceptance, faith cannot be without grace. Your works aren’t god’s grace. Your prayer and your worship isn’t god’s grace, only god’s grace is god’s grace. You’ll see it at the heaven’s gates, you’ll see definite proof of it, all you need is to not reject it once you have that proof. You really think an omnibenevolent and omnipotent god would create a world with plenty reason for doubt but then “haha gotcha, stupid” people into hellfire.
The one with the longest beard