#church creed

[milkloomis]

Misc meme doodles

[banishedchildofeve]

‘Jesus Christ in Sorrow in Gethsemane’ - Carl Heinrich Bloch

⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ♰

[dairsmuids]

just in case anyone wants to see the full high res versions of the templar portraits from assassin's creed 3

[vertigoartgore]

1993's X-Men Unlimited Vol.1 #3 cover by cover artist Bill Sienkiewicz.

[imnotadogiswear]

I wonder what Church thought when he saw Connor walk in as Haytham was beating him for betraying the Templars. Like, Master Kenway, what are YOU doing at the devil's sacrament?

[itstimeforstarwars]

I love how religious a lot of the fanart for star wars is. Star wars is the 21st century bibble and every artist putting halos on cody or obi wan or anakin are our mutant ninja turtle Renaissance artists.

[anli-rambles]

Biddle : Mr Kenway will reward me greatly for getting rid of you

Connor : Nobody tell him "Mr Kenway" is currently aboard my ship actively doing nothing to stop me from killing him

[thepatristictradition]

Your "Biblical World View" is just 19th Century Enlightenment Propaganda

Is it just me, or does everyone stroking their ego about how "Biblical" they are, and how "Bible-Believing" they are (protestants, always), always seem to never actually believe the Bible?

I think so many of the tumors growing on the back of Sola Scriptura (where is that in the Bible?) are a result of late enlightenment, materialist philosophies, built on a bedrock of a hermeneutics of suspicion.

I saw a horrific example of this when I read someone discount John John 8:7-11 because, "Well, that section of John wasn't written by John, actually. It was added by scribes, so you shouldn't take it as seriously." Like, what? If this is your take, do you just not believe in any of the Bible? If some part is less Divinely Inspired, if it is less the Word of God, how is any of the Bible to be believed?

This is very funny, please laugh.

What this does is create impossible win conditions verging on, "If Jesus didn't write the Bible with his own earthly hands and leave it on a table for John the Baptist (not Catholic) to copy by hand, then none of it is real." Do you see how stupid that is? It is very stupid, and also very much not the historical view of the Church.

Scripture is Divinely inspired and Inerrant. It is inspired by God and has no Errors. This does not mean all of Genesis as we have it now was written by Moses himself. But all the people who recorded it for him, translated it, recovered it, and edited it were divinely inspired, and their collective work is without error.

I don't care what kind of historiographic view you take on Gospel authorship-- I care that you actually believe in the Bible. This handwringing over, "oh, who really physically wrote xyz," is a product of actual Free Masons, no I am not kidding.

This is what singled-minded, scholarly fixations on the Bible will do to people, and this is exactly why the Church needs Tradition. Tradition is why we have the Bible in the first place-- you're welcome, by the way. Tradition teaches you how to interpret the Bible. It is nothing less than the height of hubris to assume you know better, you are more imbued with the Holy Spirit, and more worthy of interpreting the scriptures than men who knew the apostles personally.

[apenitentialprayer]

i've read that mormons and JWs are considered heretics because they don't affirm the trinity, so i was wondering what the sort-of 'cut off' point is. like would the ACOE be considered heretics because they say mary isn't the mother of God, only the mother of christ, for example

Alrighty, this is a big one. So, as far as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the (mainstream) Latter Day Saints movement go, things are.... a little more complicated in terms of whether their doctrine is "heresy" or if they are just plain non-Christian (and thus wouldn't count as heretical).

The crux of the argument that they are not Christian is that they do not affirm the Nicene Creed, which was articulated during the Councils of Nicaea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD). While Mormons and JWs can affirm the most primitive of Christian creeds ("Christ is Lord"), the Nicene Creed very quickly took on the status of the σύμβολον, or symbolum in Latin; the "symbol of faith," the creed whose affirmation is itself a verification of one's Christian identity. That's why during the Council of Trent, for example, the Tridentine Fathers invited Protestants to participate in the Council on the condition that they could still affirm the Creed.

Of course, Mormons and JWs do not see it that way. They self-identify as Christians; and each group doesn't see themselves just as Christians, but as restorers of a purer, more original Christianity that had existed before the creation of that Creed.

But, anyway, if the conclusion of this argument is accepted, and members of the (mainstream) Latter Day Saints movement and Jehovah's Witnesses are not considered Christian, they by definition cannot be considered heretics; per the Baltimore Catechism, heretics are "baptized Christians, but do not believe all the articles of faith" (Q 1170).

The Assyrian Church of the East affirms the Nicene Creed, have Apostolic Succession, and have limited intercommunion with the Catholic Church. And, Christologically, they have an interesting situation going on. The Assyrian Church has not formally accepted the dogmatic Christological definitions of the Council of Ephesus (431). And, on that alone, the ACoE would seem to fit into the Baltimore Catechism's definition of heretic.

But over 1550 years after that split, the leaders of both the Assyrian Church of the East and the Catholic Church signed a document that affirmed that both Churches saw the other's Christological doctrines as valid, and that both theologies were expressions of the same Apostolic faith. You can read the full document, which is not very long, here.

But to abstract the discussion of heresy for a moment (bold of me to do, admittedly, after saying the last ask was a little vague); we need to make a distinction between formal heresy and material heresy. As Pope Benedict noted in 1993, which itself was an echo of the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia's description of heresy, the defining characteristic of formal heresy is pertinacia, which can be translated as "stubbornness." What makes a person a "heretic" in a condemnable sense is this pertinacia, this holding fast to falsehoods in defiance of correction by proper authority.

So while the first generations of Protestants may be considered formal heretics, Pope Benedict noted that this does not reflect the actual social and religious conditions of Protestants living today, who are simply living out their Christian faith in the traditions that have arisen since the Reformation. They may be material heretics, and the doctrines of Protestantism may be considered heretical from the Catholic viewpoint, but being a Protestant does not automatically incur the guilt of heresy.

And, in all honesty, most Christians alive today (and most Christians in all ages) have in all probability been material heretics - i.e., they hold some wrong or incorrect opinions concerning the faith, but simply out of ignorance and not in defiance of proper authority. And that is not a sin.

[sashaistakingpictures]

[sistersorrow]

Something in 40k which I find interesting, very funny, and also both realistic but a really weird worlbuilding choice for a setting that is meant to be at least somewhat satirical is that the Imperial Cult of the Imperium of Man is in many ways more tolerant of heterodoxy than the real world Catholic Church

[dairsmuids]

laughing at this picture in the ac3 strategy guide

[frogs-under-logs]

born to scale church towers and hide in hay piles, forced to play assassin's creed

[imnotadogiswear]

AU where Haytham and Kanihtí:io stay together and he helps raise Ratonhnhaké:ton for the first five years of his life. When the village is attacked Haytham believes that his son died alongside Ziio, until he meets an assassin named Connor.

[dark-elf-writes]

Desmond: If I had to list the reasons I was persecuted by the Church throughout my life, being gay is pretty far down the list. They were real mad when I said priests were just as likely to make people sick with unwashed hands as pretty much everyone else

Desmond: Between me saying that God can’t actually heal sickness and weirdly enough being left handed it took them quite a while to get down the list far enough that the gay thing was an issue.

[anli-rambles]

Hold up.

So I was looking something up for an upcoming AC project of mine and I just realised something. Benjamin Church and Nicholas Biddle died only 10 days apart; Church in Martinique on March 7th 1778 and Biddle in the Bahamas on March 17th 1778. It would've taken the Aquila between 4-6 weeks to make the trip from New York to Martinique so Connor must have taken the opportunity to also kill Biddle on his way back home. (It takes between 5 to 10 days to sail from Martinique to the Bahamas, so the math checks out for that one). And we know that Haytham made the trip with Connor on his ship, which means that canonically speaking, Haytham had to have been aboard the Aquila when Connor killed Nicholas Biddle AND THE IMPLICATION OF THAT IS SO FUNNY.

Nicholas Biddle's assassination is completely optional (for some reason) to the completion of the main story and you can do it whenever, even after Haytham's death, and I'm guessing that's Ubisoft's excuse for not putting him there but I want to call bs on that — if it's possible to relive a memory out of order in the first place then Haytham had no reason not to be there as well.

Let's be real, the true reason for this is that it was another HUGE oversight by Ubisoft, but since they won't fix their mess I will now take it as canon that after killing Ben Church, Haytham was somehow okay with Connor steering off course to go kill yet another Templar (and this time not a treacherous one) which makes him at the very least complicit in Biddle's death and I can't stop laughing bc at this point all Haytham does is kill other Templars, I—