Battle Royale

[Antonious Nikolas]

I'm not trying to tell you guys how to run your site, but if I may I'd like to offer a few observations and maybe a suggestion or two.  It is obvious that the Non-Chalcedonian forum has become little more than a debate forum.  I would say that 8 out of 10 posts made here are either attacks on the Oriental Orthodox, or posts made in defense of those attacks.  The rest seem to be the kinds of questions which are posed in a way that will deliberately and inevitably lead us into debate.  I am not talking about the more innocuous inquiries either.  I am talking about the ones that seem to deliberately invite debate between Linus & Peter, etc.  Like I said before, I guess sitting back and watching the resulting fracas is easier than cracking the spine on some history books and doing some real old fashioned off-line research.  It is obvious to anyone who posts here that bad feelings have developed.  The forum seems to be poisoned.  Is it possible to divide the forum into a debate section and another section for more general posts?  I used to really enjoy posting here, and even taking part in the occasional debate, but now it seems like debate and bad feelings reign supreme.  I would really like to keep posting here, but I do not find it enjoyable under the present circumstances.  I know for a fact that I am far from the only one who feels this way.  Esteemed moderators, what changes are being considered?

[Ben]

I just want to say that I don't think its gotten that bad, and personally I have learned a great deal from the debates that have taken place in this forum. I can honestly say I have learned a lot, and now I just want to learn more.

Keep up the great work mods and admins!

[Mor Ephrem]

Dear Nik,

Rather than take the time to write what I'd really like to write, I am forced by my circumstances to keep this brief.  

At this point, I don't want to do anything without first consulting with the others.  Therefore, any plans--I have some ideas of my own--will be released only after I have a chance to talk to the rest of our admins/mods.  That's all I can say for now.

[David]

Odium Theologicum.  It's a sad thing.

[Linus7]

You all might want to consider the facts that the Eastern Orthodox and the Non-Chalcedonians really do not share the same faith and are not part of the same communion (and that is putting it mildly).

Therefore the attempt to run a web site as if they were - as if there were such a thing as "generic orthodoxy" - is bound to encounter problems, perhaps even insurmountable problems.

[Ben]

I do somewhat agree with Linus. There seems to be too much issues with the OO/EO situation for this forum to run peacefuly. Just my opinion though.......

[Elisha]

You all might want to consider the facts that the Eastern Orthodox and the Non-Chalcedonians really do not share the same faith and are not part of the same communion (and that is putting it mildly).

Therefore the attempt to run a web site as if they were - as if there were such a thing as "generic orthodoxy" - is bound to encounter problems, perhaps even insurmountable problems.

 

Thank you Linus for letting us all know the exact opinion all of EOxy has towards the OO.  

I definitely don't see this as heated as AN does, but agree with the negative vibe from the "debates" per se.  On a theological level, I'm definitely more inclined to agree with your points as opposed to Peter's but I have yet to see a shred of charity in ANY of your postings on the matter.  It's as if you're deliberately trying NOT to understand their view and see that it could possibly be in the correct patristic mindset.  Again, I don't have some preconceived notion of you as a bigot or have any grudge.  I've never met you and only know you from your online writings.   You seem to come off as if you're an expert on Orthodox Theology and Canon law and I've yet to see you spout any credentials.

Please make an effort.

Peter,
Going to get back to my questions?  Thanks.

[Linus7]

Elisha:
Thank you Linus for letting us all know the exact opinion all of EOxy has towards the OO.  

Obviously, I cannot speak for all of "EOxy."

But what the Orthodox Fathers had to say on the subject is there for anyone to see, and in good English translations.

One can choose to endorse dialogues initiated, promoted, and sponsored through the WCC (an organization not known for its loyalty to or concern for the Patristic Consensus).

One can choose to believe persons who couch what they say in glowing terms of "unity" and "understanding" who at the same time attack councils regarded by the Orthodox Church as inspired by the Holy Spirit, persons who persist in assertions and terminology the Fathers declared heretical.

When Orthodox Christians insist upon acceptance of all of the ecumenical councils, when they insist that the Fathers are wiser and holier than we and understood these issues better, they are accused of being divisive by Non-Chalcedonians who, although unwilling to compromise their own positions, wish to portray themselves as the irenic emissaries of peace, love, and understanding.

Elisha: I definitely don't see this as heated as AN does, but agree with the negative vibe from the "debates" per se.

I agree. I don't think they are any more heated than the threads over on the Catholic Forum.

It seems that it's okay for all of us to jump on the Catholics (I've done it myself) and challenge them.

But when an EO disagrees with the NCs, he's being uncharitable, divisive, and mean.

Elisha: On a theological level, I'm definitely more inclined to agree with your points as opposed to Peter's but I have yet to see a shred of charity in ANY of your postings on the matter.

Your definition of charity and mine must differ.

I may at times have been too blunt, but I do not engage in the sorts of attacks that have been perpetrated against me.

It is highly charitable to tell the truth.

It sets men free.

Elisha: It's as if you're deliberately trying NOT to understand their view and see that it could possibly be in the correct patristic mindset.  Again, I don't have some preconceived notion of you as a bigot or have any grudge.  I've never met you and only know you from your online writings.   You seem to come off as if you're an expert on Orthodox Theology and Canon law and I've yet to see you spout any credentials.

Please make an effort.

Peter,
Going to get back to my questions?  Thanks.

I have never said I am an expert, nor have I spent much, if any, time citing canon law (a thing about which I know little).

As I said before, what the Orthodox Fathers had to say on the NCs and their doctrines is there for everyone to see.

If we stick with that, we will be right.

If we contradict them in order to please men, we will have gone astray.

And going astray leads to becoming lost.

[Antonious Nikolas]

Thank you Linus for helping to drive home my point. :cwm17:

You see moderators?  Even in this thread, which had to do with the state of the forum and was not at all about Church history or theology, a thread which was in fact a call for changes in the forum, we are treated to a theological polemic!  Every single thread in this forum turns into the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT over and over again.

We could start a thread about a recipe for cupcakes, and Linus would take that as another opportunity to vent his spleen  :cwm8: about the evils of ecumenism and the dangerous monophysite heretics.  Thanks once again Linus for illustrating my point so eloquently.

[Ben]

I am sorry AN, but Linus was responding to a post. Elisha brought up such issues, and it was Linus's right to respond, is he susposed to sit back as others talk about him? or challenge him? or ask him questions? Linus was simply stated his opinions, and in this last post, in a very well civilized manner, you are way too sensitive. I have a questions AN, have you been to the Catholic-Orthodox forum?? The same thing happens - heated arguments, why should the OO forum be any different?

[Ben]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be rude in my last post, its just that I think some OO Christians around here are getting a little too sensitive. If one goes over to the Catholic-Orthodox forum they will see that there are heated discussions all the time, and a lot of time EOs jump all over RCs. I don't see why the OO forum needs to have special rules or that something needs to be done due to a few heated arguments, I just understand why the OO forum should be any different.

[Antonious Nikolas]

Actually Ben, Linus was responding to a post which was a response to an earlier post of his.  And whatever the case may be, the singular fact remains that even this thread has become a theological debate, as most others in this forum do.  Obviously, there need to be some changes in this forum.  If it really is a "general Orthodox" forum which includes both families like the admins claim, then the Oriental Orthodox need a place to discuss other issues besides Chalcedon.  If not, then perhaps Linus is right when he says:

"You all might want to consider the facts that the Eastern Orthodox and the Non-Chalcedonians really do not share the same faith and are not part of the same communion (and that is putting it mildly).

Therefore the attempt to run a web site as if they were - as if there were such a thing as "generic orthodoxy" - is bound to encounter problems, perhaps even insurmountable problems."

And Ben, you need to take your advice and not be so sensitive yourself.  When a Non-Chalcedonian takes a tone you don't like (often is response to some provocation) you are awfully quick to try to chastise them and offer some "sage advice" .  Chill out buddy.  Don't be so sensitive!

[Ben]

AN, may I ask why the OO forum need be any different? Why it can't be a theological discussion and debate forum, like the Catholic-Orhodox forum? Why should this forum be any different? Just because a few OO individuals, who have themselves made outrages claims and have slandered others, are upset?

[Anastasios]

You all might want to consider the facts that the Eastern Orthodox and the Non-Chalcedonians really do not share the same faith and are not part of the same communion (and that is putting it mildly).

According to you, and you are entitled to your view which is one out of two different opinions held by Orthodox in good standing with their Church, but not by the majority of the bishops of these communions (no one ever claimed they were the same communion though).

Therefore the attempt to run a web site as if they were - as if there were such a thing as "generic orthodoxy" - is bound to encounter problems, perhaps even insurmountable problems.

 

Before you and Peter Farrington started at it, we didn't seem to have such problems.  And in addition to that, the same issues do not seem to come up in the Orthodox-Catholic folder, where the two faiths are much more different.

anastasios

[Elisha]

According to you, and you are entitled to your view which is one out of two different opinions held by Orthodox in good standing with their Church, but not by the majority of the bishops of these communions (no one ever claimed they were the same communion though)

anastasios

Exactly one of my two points!  He's basically practicing Sola Scriptura toward them like Protestants but wrt the Fathers.

[Antonious Nikolas]

AN, may I ask why the OO forum need be any different? Why it can't be a theological discussion and debate forum, like the Catholic-Orhodox forum? Why should this forum be any different? Just because a few OO individuals, who have themselves made outrages claims and have slandered others, are upset?

A few points for you Ben:

1. I don't post in the Catholic-Orthodox folder so I don't know what its like over there.  If you have an issue with that folder, that's your problem.  Bring it up with the mods/admins, but don't try to get me to act like you.  I'll say something to the mods if I want to, when I want to, whether I have your approval or not.  Believe it or not, every once in a while, entire days will go by where I don't worry about whether or not I have your approval for my actions!

2. Why can't this forum be just a debate forum?  Because there is much more to our Faith than whether or not we accept a certain synod.  That is not the be-all-end-all for us, and we do not define ourselves exclusively in relation to that synod.  Not every discussion has to come back to that issue.

3. The mods/admins have repeatedly stated their belief that this is a "general Orthodox" forum for both familes, who they believe are both Orthodox, and share the same Faith.  They have NEVER made that statement about the Roman Catholics.  So, since the mods/admins run the forum, and not you and Linus, it behooves them to act according to their stated beliefs, and in this context, the Oriental Orthodox forum should be much different than the Orthodox-Catholic forum.  Notice that this forum is described by those who built it as being The Non-Chalcedonian Forum: For Issues Pertaining to the Oriental Orthodox.  It is not described as the Orthodox-Non-Chalcedonian forum, juxtaposing the two traditions, as is the other forum you mentioned (i.e. the Orthodox-Catholic forum).

[Αριστοκλής]

A good point, AntoniousN.
I think the Oriental board should be named "For Oriental Orthodox Topics" - not "issues" which encourages challenge.

Demetri

[Αριστοκλής]

According to you, and you are entitled to your view which is one out of two different opinions held by Orthodox in good standing with their Church, but not by the majority of the bishops of these communions (no one ever claimed they were the same communion though).

<Bold added by this poster>

Emperor Dustinian,
Is this "majority" you cite hyperbole, conjecture, hopeful speculation, or fact? Just curious.

Demetri

[Ben]

I don't post in the Catholic-Orthodox folder so I don't know what its like over there.  If you have an issue with that folder, that's your problem.

 

I don't have a problem with debate or heated discussion. I don't mind discussing the major issues at hand, but obviously you do, no offense, but from your posts, I gather you prefer a peaceful and happy environment, where the real issues aren't discussed or debated.

but don't try to get me to act like you.

lol...how am I trying to get you to act like me?

I'll say something to the mods if I want to, when I want to, whether I have your approval or not.

Thats what I've said all along, but Stavro old me to keep my opinions to myself, but since he is a OO Christian and there is a double standard, you don't care about his outrages and insulting comments, esp those directed at Linus.

 

Because there is much more to our Faith than whether or not we accept a certain synod.

But see to the Chalcedonians Chalcedon is more than just a certain synod, it is and Ecumenical Council guided by the Holy Ghost.

The mods/admins have repeatedly stated their belief that this is a "general Orthodox" forum for both familes, who they believe are both Orthodox, and share the same Faith.

 

Well thats where problems start, many don't feel that the EO and OO Churches share the same faith. I also do wonder why this forum was named "Non-Chalcedonian" and not "Oriental Orthodox" if the admins are so set on this site being one for "both familes" of Orthodoxy.

They have NEVER made that statement about the Roman Catholics.

I know, I never said they did.  

[Antonious Nikolas]

 

I don't have a problem with debate or heated discussion. I don't mind discussing the major issues at hand, but obviously you do, no offense, but from your posts, I gather you prefer a peaceful and happy environment, where the real issues aren't discussed or debated.lol...how am I trying to get you to act like me?

Benny, Benny, Benny, are you being contentious, or do you just not get it?  I don't have a problem with discussing or debating the issues at hand, blah blah blah.  If you'd read my posts, you'd see I called for a specific forum in which to do just that, separate from the main OO forum.  The reason I said "If you have a problem with the Orthodox-Catholic forum..." was not because I assumed you had a problem with it, but because you brought up this forum, whereas I have never seen it and could not care less about it.  Therefore, any gripes you did or didn't have about it would be your problem and irrelevent.  Your comparing it to this forum is not valid because of the POV expressed by the admins/mods.  I said you were trying to get me to act like you in that you were basically telling me I shouldn't complain to the mods/admins.

Thats what I've said all along, but Stavro old me to keep my opinions to myself, but since he is a OO Christian and there is a double standard, you don't care about his outrages and insulting comments, esp those directed at Linus.

Stavro told you he didn't need your advice or approval.  Now I'm telling you the same thing.  Don't sweat what you can't control, Ben.  I'm just making a suggestion to the mods/admins (the guys who can control stuff).  Its not my place to correct Stavro, and I wouldn't have even spoken to you about any of your posts if you weren't trying to correct me, so put your ruler away, you can't smack my knuckles.

 

But see to the Chalcedonians Chalcedon is more than just a certain synod, it is and Ecumenical Council guided by the Holy Ghost

Yeah, so?  Does that mean it has to be the subject of every single thread in this forum?

Well thats where problems start, many don't feel that the EO and OO Churches share the same faith. I also do wonder why this forum was named "Non-Chalcedonian" and not "Oriental Orthodox" if the admins are so set on this site being one for "both familes" of Orthodoxy.I know, I never said they did.  

Who cares what "many" think?  I addressed this thread to the admins/mods encouraging them to act on their stated beliefs, not to "many".  I'm not trying to convince anyone who doesn't think we're Orthodox  that we are.  I couldn't care less what they think.  I'm suggesting to the mods/admins some things about the administration of the forum.  Why was the forum named what it was named?  Who knows?  Ask them.  It does kinda seem like a compromise doesn't it, and I mentioned this same point before (even though it does say "Oriental Orthodox" underneath in smaller letters).  Oh, and you may not have said that the mods/admins regarded the RCs as Orthodox, but you're comparisons implied that the RC-EO and OO forums should be run the same way, and that runs contrary to the stated opinions of the mods concerning the RCs and the OO respectively.

In the end, the mods/admins either will revise the forum, or they won't.  They've already read my suggestions and know how a lot of the OO posters (and some of the EO posters) feel.  My discussing this with you is merely academic, as you can do nothing one way or the other.  So....

TTFN

[Ben]

AN, I am not going to respond, best to keep my mouth shut, but please my name is Ben, not Benny.

[Stavro]

Peace,
thanks Antonious Nikolas for expressing our frustrations.

Thats what I've said all along, but Stavro old me to keep my opinions to myself, but since he is a OO Christian and there is a double standard, you don't care about his outrages and insulting comments, esp those directed at Linus.

Does Ben care about those outrages, racist and insulting comments made by Linus ? No.

Why does a thread that discusses rules, and approaches to a better discussion, have to be hijacked by BEN, and Linus into the same old discussion ?

I think it needs a definition of what the site owners want to accopmlish by this forum. If some think we (OO) are Orthodox, your treatment to OO does not reflect this. If you think we are not Orthodox, make an effort to show us what is Orthodoxy, because the repeated insults by Linus are not helping much in this cause.You might even discover we have the same faith after all, even if we do not venerate the same people. If you extend love to RC, and rightly so, and to Protestants, and that is praised, at least show us the same by stopping the likes of Linus from his repeated misrepresentation of our faith. That is all what we ask for. Let ONLY OO talk about what OO believe in without Linus and others interrupting. If they absolutely need to, I think another forum for debate can be opened.
This is for the coming posters to enjoy a better experience in this site.

Peace,
Stavro  


 

[Ben]

Does Ben care about those outrages, racist and insulting comments made by Linus ? No.

Why stavro thanks for answering for me. I can always use a good friend to put words in my mouth..thanks!

As for Linus, in the "Would a Council be Nessecary" thread, I have asked you again and again to please point out where Linus has made racist comments. And you have yet to back up your attacks.

He made ONE comment that did seem a little racist, but he explained himself, it may have been a careless mistake on his part, but he did not mean to be racist, but that doesn't seem to matter to you. You seem to want to condemn Linus as a racist instead of listening to why he made that comment, and what he meant when he made it.

Why does a thread that discusses rules, and approaches to a better discussion, have to be hijacked by BEN, and Linus into the same old discussion ?

Read over this thread again, I haven't hijacked it. But once again you are more interesting in pointing the finger. You don't care what me or Linus have to say, you just want to bad mouth us, which I find extremely un-Christian.

 

If you think we are not Orthodox, make an effort to show us what is Orthodoxy, because the repeated insults by Linus are not helping much in this cause.

Please list Linus's "repeated insults". Any one can read through your posts and see that you have non-stop attacked Linus for his "racism", which you have yet to prove!

[Antonious Nikolas]

Read over this thread again, I haven't hijacked it...

You defended its hijacking though.  This thread was started to ask the moderators what new kinds of policies could be considered in the forum.  Theological debate over Chalcedon had absolutely no place in this thread.  And yet, there it was again, rearing its ugly head.  And you defended those who hijacked it.  The phenomenon is somewhat akin to fillibustering.  The OO will have no place in which to discuss any issue besides Chalcedon.  The discussion will always be dragged back to that topic no matter what its original subject was.  As long as every thread in this forum, no matter what its topic, goes back to a discussion of Chalcedon, we will have a problem.

I am not surprised that you are a defender of the current status quo.  You have said yourself that the discourses have been of great benefit to you, no matter how much they have disrupted this forum.  I'll bet it has saved you many man-hours of doing real research.  Much easier to have Linus and Peter chew your food for you.

[Linus7]

A good point, AntoniousN.
I think the Oriental board should be named "For Oriental Orthodox Topics" - not "issues" which encourages challenge.

Demetri

I would be absolutely thrilled if this forum could be limited to non-controversial discussion among NCs and those curious about their liturgy, customs, etc.

The problem is that it regularly breaks out into criticisms of the Orthodox Faith; i.e., the ecumenical councils (especially Chalcedon), and the Fathers (especially Pope St. Leo the Great). It also seems to elicit ill-considered statements about our "shared faith," our need for "union," and the supposed "mistakes in terminology" that led to the separation between our communions.

If those who post here would simply avoid such controversial topics, then, well, there would be no controversy.

Believe it or not, I really do not like arguing all the time.

But I also find claims that we "share the same faith" a bit hard to swallow while those who are making those claims simultaneously attack the Council of Chalcedon, claim that one of our martyrs was not really a martyr, and post criticisms of Pope St. Leo the Great.

[Linus7]

anastasios:
According to you, and you are entitled to your view which is one out of two different opinions held by Orthodox in good standing with their Church, but not by the majority of the bishops of these communions (no one ever claimed they were the same communion though).

I think you are wrong.

I do not believe that the majority of Orthodox bishops believe that NCs and EOs share the same faith.

Since you have made such a claim, perhaps you would care to support it.

Even if you were right, and a majority of EO bishops believe as you say, how would that alter the truth?

Such things have happened before. In fact, every time there was an imperial attempt at conciliating the NCs through heretical compromise, it seems the majority of Eastern bishops went along with it. Such attempts led only to tragedy, confusion, and the martyrdom of Orthodox saints who stood up for the truth.

anastasios: Before you and Peter Farrington started at it, we didn't seem to have such problems.  And in addition to that, the same issues do not seem to come up in the Orthodox-Catholic folder, where the two faiths are much more different.

anastasios

I disagree again. I remember a few of those who used to post here who spoke out against equating Non-Chalcedonians with the Orthodox. Paradosis comes to mind, but there were others. They all seem to have gone away.

You could ban both Peter and me. That might solve the problem for awhile.

Elisha: Exactly one of my two points!  He's basically practicing Sola Scriptura toward them like Protestants but wrt the Fathers.

Well, I don't believe in "the Fathers alone," if that's what you mean.

But I also don't believe in "What the majority of the bishops say is always right."

First off, I don't think anastasios is correct in saying that a majority of Orthodox bishops believe NCs share our faith.

Secondly, "majority episcopal rule" never has been the rule in the Church.

If it were, we would all be Arians now.

Read the history of the Church. There have been a number of times when the majority of bishops, ever pliable in the hands of their Emperor, endorsed heresy.

Such a situation - minus the Emperor - might occur again.

Undoubtedly it will occur again in the future, with the part of the Emperor taken by the Antichrist.

Bishops - like every other Orthodox Catholic Christian - are obligated to follow the faith of the Fathers.

When they do not follow it - even when a majority of them do not follow it - they are wrong.

You accused me of a version of Protestantism in adhering to what the Fathers taught concerning the Non-Chalcedonians.

What are you offering in its place?

Belief in a "magisterium" composed of a simple majority of bishops?

[Anastasios]

Linus,

I am basing my observation that the majority of EO and OO hierarchs beleive this way based on official statements I have read from the majority of the patriarchates and on the way that in my observation the majority of EO hieararchs commune Non-Chalcedonians.  At SVS it is taught--without at least public protest from anyone in the Synod--that Oriental and Eastern Orthodox are both Orthodox. This is what my professors teach us and what bishops know is being taught.

You are right, just because the majority of the bishops beleive something doesn't mean it is necessarily right, but it could also mean that this is the consensus of the Church.  Conciliarity is a double-edged sword: sometimes it takes time to sort these matters out.

anastasios

[Anastasios]

PS

Linus, to be honest with you yes we could ban you and Peter Farrington but you know what? Despite the controversy Phil (Mor Ephrem) and I like you and him otherwise so that's not something we are really considering. And there will be others like you two so that's why we want to restructure things.

anastasios

[Elisha]

Linus,
It is good (and expected!) to not compromise your faith - and no one is expecting you too.  Noone here is directly advocating immediate communion with NCs or rushing to some sort of false ecumenism.  All that is going on is trying to understand exactly what the issues are and understand what they (NCs) are saying from their POV.

You seem to be stubborn as hell and refusing to even try and understand.  Instead of saying, "Hmmmm, I think I understand what you are saying about X, but I disagree that Y=Z."  You are stating the issues empirically, as if you both understand the cultures and historical context to a 't' and are speaking as if you are the spokesperson of EOxy.  You are not disagreeing/debating in charity, but being deliberately polemnical.

Furthermore, if the EO and OO are two different faiths, then why are they so similar in rites and praxis historically speaking?  Why has there actually been so much recent (past few years) positive dialogue between major Orthodox groups (e.g. SCOBA and SCOOCH locally and EO and other OO Churches abroad)?  Why did that Vespers at the GOA cathedral in NY happen?  The only theological issue, big as it it, is the Chalcedonian issue.  As opposed to the many differences between the EO and RCC (post schism issues at least), the EO and OO are small in comparison.

[Father Peter]

Hiya

I have a busy life. I'd love to spend time here writing things that made a difference, but I guess from Linus' comments here that there is no point me reading any of the (more) controversial threads where I thought he wanted to talk without terminology.

I don't like arguing, I'd love to know what Elisha's questions were - send me an email - but I can't afford to spend hours each day trying to counter what I do consider misinformation coming from Linus all the time. I just have to leave it to God. Believe it or not I am on other forums where EO and OO don't have to argue all the time. If I start reading the forums I'll get sucked back in and I feel at the moment that this is of the devil not of God (I don't mean the forum, but the way everything keeps working out).

I know you could ban me but I would consider that iniquitous since I am only responding to posts accusing me of believing blasphemies - I believe I have tried hard not to refer to any EO controversial figure even as a heretic, an I certainly haven't gone through some of Linus' posts which could be understood in a Nestorian sense quite easily. That is not what I am interested in.

I like your post just above Elisha and wish that Linus could take that tone.

Ce la vie. Till I need to pop in for a PM again

You all know my email address

[Linus7]

peterfarrington: I believe I have tried hard not to refer to any EO controversial figure even as a heretic, an I certainly haven't gone through some of Linus' posts which could be understood in a Nestorian sense quite easily.

Very good.

Imply that I am a Nestorian while painting yourself as the persecuted emissary of peace.

Your constant criticisms of the Council of Chalcedon began this conflict.

Ending them through your own initiative is the least you can do.

[Elisha]

Very good.

Imply that I am a Nestorian while painting yourself as the persecuted emissary of peace.

Your constant criticisms of the Council of Chalcedon began this conflict.

Ending them through your own initiative is the least you can do.

Get over it.  He never implied anything of the sort.  You are the one who is always on the attack and always with haughty, negative tone.  It amazes me how everyone but you realizes it.

[Linus7]

Elisha: Linus,
It is good (and expected!) to not compromise your faith - and no one is expecting you too.  Noone here is directly advocating immediate communion with NCs or rushing to some sort of false ecumenism.  All that is going on is trying to understand exactly what the issues are and understand what they (NCs) are saying from their POV

I don't think you have kept up with these threads.

That is not "all that is going on."

What has gone on is this: a particular member presented himself as the advocate of peace, compromise, and unity while simultaneously attacking the Council of Chalcedon and Orthodox Fathers like Pope St. Leo the Great.

This person ranged throughout the entire web site, giving advice and answering questions for new converts and enquirers, often with a decidedly NC spin, leaving the false impression that whether one becomes Coptic or EO is simply a matter of taste and/or convenience.

Elisha: You seem to be stubborn as hell and refusing to even try and understand.  Instead of saying, "Hmmmm, I think I understand what you are saying about X, but I disagree that Y=Z."  You are stating the issues empirically, as if you both understand the cultures and historical context to a 't' and are speaking as if you are the spokesperson of EOxy.  You are not disagreeing/debating in charity, but being deliberately polemnical.

We disagree.

I am stubbornly adhering to what I know is right.

I appear to be "polemical" because I seem to be the only one here willing to disagree with Peter Farrington.

Elisha: Furthermore, if the EO and OO are two different faiths, then why are they so similar in rites and praxis historically speaking?

Do you actually know that is the case, or are you assuming it is so?

I imagine the Arians were also very similar to the Orthodox "in rites and praxis" (and no, I am not trying to equate NCs with Arians).

Did such things make them orthodox?

Elisha: Why has there actually been so much recent (past few years) positive dialogue between major Orthodox groups (e.g. SCOBA and SCOOCH locally and EO and other OO Churches abroad)?  Why did that Vespers at the GOA cathedral in NY happen?

What kind of a century was the 20th century, Elisha?

One of steadfast loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition, or one of increasing modernism, secularism, and ecumenism?

In which century did many of the Orthodox churches join themselves with the sponsor of many of these dialogues, the World Council of Churches?

Are you saying that such meetings negate what the Orthodox Fathers had to say?

If the GOA says vespers with some Non-Chalcedonians, does that unsay and unwrite what men and women full of the Holy Spirit had to say and write?

Do these men-pleasers and compromisers know more than the Fathers did?

It is not surprising that erroneous ideas would infiltrate even the Orthodox Church during the 20th century.

Look at what was happening in so many other denominations once thought conservative.

Elisha: The only theological issue, big as it it, is the Chalcedonian issue.  As opposed to the many differences between the EO and RCC (post schism issues at least), the EO and OO are small in comparison.

I really disagree.

At least one major Non-Chalcedonian leader has said the Sixth Council (Constantinople III, 680-81) is even more problematic for Non-Chalcedonians than Chalcedon.

We share a Trinitarian faith (and that is good), some Eastern approaches to mysticism, and some external appearances.

But we differ on Christology, on ecclesiology, on the councils, and on the saints and fathers.

That's a lot.

It seems to me that an EO who says of Non-Chalcedonians and the EO, "We are both Orthodox," is wrong. If he says it innocently in his ignorance and desire to heal what he sees as a lamentable schism, that is excusable.

On the other hand, it seems inexcusable to me that an EO who knows what the Fathers had to say would dare to contradict them.

We don't hate Non-Chalcedonians.

That's why we must tell them the truth.

The door of the Church is open to them.

But it lies at the end of the path of repentance and acceptance of the full Orthodox faith, including the ecumenical councils.

[Linus7]

Get over it.  He never implied anything of the sort.  You are the one who is always on the attack and always with haughty, negative tone.  It amazes me how everyone but you realizes it.

Do you visit this site often enough to know that?

You have a history of dislike for me, although I have only tried to be friendly toward you.

You are hardly a dispassionate observer.

Your negative remarks do not trouble me.

If it is your desire to badmouth me, take a number and stand in line.

There are many more ahead of you.

[Antonious Nikolas]

You are the one who is always on the attack and always with haughty, negative tone.  It amazes me how everyone but you realizes it.

Me too.  I've said this before.  Its NOT the content, its the tone.  It must be nice to believe its the content, then you can believe you are being persecuted for standing up for Orthodoxy, but its not, its the arrogant, petulant, self-righteous tone.

[TomS]

I want to say something:

Even though you might not agree with what Linus says -- and may object to his tone, if you read the history of Eastern Orthodoxy you will find that he is conducting himself as strongly and as passionately as the EO Fathers did in defense of what they considered a Heresy.

I just find it interesting that people object to Linus' "tone" when he is simply passionate about what he (and his Orthodox Fathers) considered a Heresy.

I don't think many EO would go back and condemn the Church Fathers for their passion, do you?

[Linus7]

Me too.  I've said this before.  Its NOT the content, its the tone.  It must be nice to believe its the content, then you can believe you are being persecuted for standing up for Orthodoxy, but its not, its the arrogant, petulant, self-righteous tone.

You are likewise hardly a dispassionate observer.

Speaking of content, attacking the "tone" of one's opponent is often a smokescreen for the absence of content in one's own arguments. When you run out of argument, attack the person of your opponent.

At least Farrington occasionally attempts to argue the actual facts.

BTW, the only "tone" you guys would like would be the tone of submission and acquiescence.

You won't hear that from me.

[Linus7]

I want to say something:

Even though you might not agree with what Linus says -- and may object to his tone, if you read the history of Eastern Orthodoxy you will find that he is conducting himself as strongly and as passionately as the EO Fathers did in defense of what they considered a Heresy.

I just find it interesting that people object to Linus' "tone" when he is simply passionate about what he (and his Orthodox Fathers) considered a Heresy.

I don't think many EO would go back and condemn the Church Fathers for their passion, do you?

Thanks, Tom.

Your post was like a cup of cool water to one crossing a terrible desert.

[Antonious Nikolas]

I understand what you are saying Tom, but how far can you take this logic?  St. Nicholas the Wonderworker punched Arius in the chops if I'm not mistaken.  Would you advocate me, or Linus, or whoever else, adopting that kind of behavior today?

[TomS]

I understand what you are saying Tom, but how far can you take this logic?  St. Nicholas the Wonderworker punched Arius in the chops if I'm not mistaken.  Would you advocate me, or Linus, or whoever else, adopting that kind of behavior today?

Yes. Sorry.

Heresies against the Faith must be stopped at any cost.

[Antonious Nikolas]

You are likewise hardly a dispassionate observer.

Speaking of content, attacking the "tone" of one's opponent is often a smokescreen for the absence of content in one's own arguments. When you run out of argument, attack the person of your opponent.

At least Farrington occasionally attempts to argue the actual facts.

If it makes you feel better to think that is the case, be my guest.  I "argued the facts" with you several times early on,  but saw that it was a pointless endeavor.  If you'll notice, I've hardly posted at all here recently, because I truly believe that interracting with you is generally bad for my soul.  One simply tires of arguing with you, whether they have more points to make or not, because they get sick of your internet tough guy persona.

BTW, the only "tone" you guys would like would be the tone of submission and acquiescence. You won't hear that from me.

My, aren't we tough?  And dramatic too!  :cheeky:

[Linus7]

If it makes you feel better to think that is the case, be my guest.  I "argued the facts" with you several times early on,  but saw that it was a pointless endeavor.  If you'll notice, I've hardly posted at all here recently, because I truly believe that interracting with you is generally bad for my soul.  One simply tires of arguing with you, whether they have more points to make or not, because they get sick of your internet tough guy persona.My, aren't we tough?  And dramatic too!  :cheeky:

It must be bad for your soul.

It's led you into mockery (see Isaiah 28:22).

I don't know anything about any "internet tough guy persona."

Face it: you just don't like what I have to say.

[Anastasios]

Hi Linus,

I can always tell when you are in attack mode because instead of paragraphs you write short sentences with spaces in between

anastasios

[Anastasios]

"Face it, you just don't like what I have to say."

Why does it have to always been about what your opponents "like", Linus?  Sometimes people don't agree with your reasoning.

anastasios

[Antonious Nikolas]

It must be bad for your soul.

It's led you into mockery (see Isaiah 28:22).

Thank you, starets.  It is comforting to know that you are fit to judge the condition of my soul.  Not mockery.  Just trying to keep the mood light, as a counter to your super-dramatic routine.

I don't know anything about any "internet tough guy persona."

You wouldn't would you?  I'm not the only one who has told you that you have and arrogant and belligerent tone.  If one guy tells you your breath stinks, maybe he's just being a jerk.  If three or four guys tell you that, chances are you need a tic-tac.  Even if we aren't dispassionate observers.

Face it: you just don't like what I have to say.

I've heard what you have to say from others, both in academic journals and here on-line, and I never have a problem with them like I do with you.  Face it.  I just don't like the way you express yourself.

BTW, you may have noticed that from time to time I even agree with you.  I'm not one of these OO who wants to rush into communion with you guys.  I'm fine where I am.  I think we need an honest discussion, and some of the points you've brought up do need to be addressed.  Like I said, I'm just not a big fan of the way come off.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Oriental Orthodox Discussion (Moderator: Salpy) > Topic: Battle Royale