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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
To me, this means they differ on major categories: corporate, individual, divine, and temporal.
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.
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 systemThe material conditions are also very different, there's basically no sectarian violence anymore.
This "rejection of reason" is also why we have anti-vaxxers and a host of other problems.
Rejecting reason is insanity.
tekla•2h ago
7thaccount•6m ago
For those that don't know, the writers of Warhammer basically copied off of history and many other IP like Dune. In Warhammer, there was also a Council of Nicaea where it was discussed whether the use of psychic powers was acceptable in the Imperium of Man.