OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 24, 2014, 04:12:04 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Catholics and EO's in the fifth century  (Read 11664 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,823


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #45 on: August 21, 2007, 10:57:22 PM »

Yes, I know you're kidding; I just don't find it funny.

How is your "Horror of Chalcedon" thread doing? Progressing to your satisfaction?

-Peter.

I am sorry if I offended you.  That was not my intention.  I have to remember that not everyone here knows how much I really do like the EO's and Catholics.  I thought you were joking with me and I joked back.  Obviously, I misread you and offended you.  Forgive me.

Actually that "horror" thread isn't really mine, since it was not I whose question started it.  Your question started it and, if I recall correctly, it was a good question too, wondering if Deacon Amde's calling Chalcedon and its consequences a "horror" reflected OO sentiments in general.  

To answer your question, the thread died after I put it into private.  I think that may be because you haven't really posted in it since then.  Do you not have access to the private forum?  If not, and if you like polemics, you may want to pm Fr. Chris for admission.  If you don't want to join the private forum that's O.K. but that thread, as well as the one you began about Nestorius and whether he was really a heretic when he wrote The Bazaar, will probably just continue to sit there, neglected.   Sad
« Last Edit: August 22, 2007, 12:10:15 AM by Salpy » Logged

Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,823


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #46 on: August 21, 2007, 11:25:21 PM »

PJ,

Would it help if I renamed the "Horror of Chalcedon" thread?  As I explained in reply #19 of this thread

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12288.15.html

I called the thread that because that phrase was what the discussion was about.  If it still offends you, though, I will change the name.  Just let me know.   Smiley
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #47 on: August 22, 2007, 11:24:45 AM »

I am sorry if I offended you.

In the time I've spent on these forums, there have been many statements made which I object to. These statements seldom offend me; rather I usually just make a note of them because they provide some insight about the poster, and sometimes about the overall board.

Take a look, for example, at Deacon Amde Tsion's post which started this:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12288.msg167147.html#msg167147

I won't quote the whole post here, but basically it's about how EOs and OOs are one church, not two, and both are Orthodox, and how God doesn't wish for them to be separated from each other.

About half-way through, you'll see this paragraph:

Therefore the only thing these two 'groups' have is the horror of Chalcedon which created the 'division' and the resulting two 'groups' (not churches).

Needless to say (or is it?) I found it quite "interesting" to see that paragraph in such an ecumenical post -- or rather, to see that paragraph in such an ecumenical-sounding post.

(Not to get off-topic, but perhaps you'll remember my commenting, not too long ago, about the Catholic "ecumenism" Fr. Robert Taft and his "to hell with Moscow" remark?)

The rest, as they say, is history: I posed an open question about Deacon Tsion's statement, and I received some replies. Was I offended by your reponses, Salpy (including the fact the you titled the split off thread "The Horror of Chalcedon")? No, I was not. I do think, however, that everyone's responses (including yours) say a lot (and I don't mean that in a good way) about the way things are on this forum.

Would it help if I renamed the "Horror of Chalcedon" thread?

No, I think you should do what you think is best.

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #48 on: August 23, 2007, 09:24:04 AM »

On the one hand, you challenge the ecumenicity of Chalcedon on the basis that it wasn't accepted by "one entire half of the church"; then you back that claim up with the statement that the Latin and EO Churches together only count as half of the Church BECAUSE they both accepted Chalcedon (and three later councils).

Dear PeterTheAleut,

Well I'm not really sure why you aren't giving me an answer, but I just read something which may be of interest to you:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12260.msg171186.html#msg171186
MODERATION:
I have removed the quote and replaced it with a link.
In future, do not quote things from the Private Fora and post them in the Public Fora.
George


Now before you get the wrong idea, I am not saying that I agree with Starvo overall. Far from it. (On the contrary, I would say that I have considerably greater disagreements with him than I have with you, PeterTheAleut. Case-in-point: his claim that Chalcedon "deviated from the truth".) Rather, I just want to give Starvo credit for not re-writing and manipulating history to say that Chalcedon wasn't accepted by "one entire half of the church".

God bless,
Peter.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2007, 09:57:26 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,907


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #49 on: August 23, 2007, 11:41:59 AM »

Now before you get the wrong idea, I am not saying that I agree with Starvo overall. Far from it. (On the contrary, I would say that I have considerably greater disagreements with him than I have with you, PeterTheAleut. Case-in-point: his claim that Chalcedon "deviated from the truth".) Rather, I just want to give Starvo credit for not re-writing and manipulating history to say that Chalcedon wasn't accepted by "one entire half of the church".
If by half you think I'm talking about an arithmetic half (0.5, 50%, 1/2, etc.), then, NO, that's not what I'm talking about.  I realize that those who accepted Chalcedon were much more numerous than those who rejected the council.  I just used the word half in a rather loose manner to denote the two large segments of the whole.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #50 on: August 23, 2007, 01:10:28 PM »

If by half you think I'm talking about an arithmetic half (0.5, 50%, 1/2, etc.), then, NO, that's not what I'm talking about.  I realize that those who accepted Chalcedon were much more numerous than those who rejected the council.  I just used the word half in a rather loose manner to denote the two large segments of the whole.

I can definitely agree that your use of word half can be described as "loose", but I think even better descriptions would be "biased", "manipulative", and "circular".

-Peter.

P.S. Sorry if that sounds a little harsh. I don't mean to be at all uncharitable.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,907


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #51 on: August 23, 2007, 01:36:25 PM »

I can definitely agree that your use of word half can be described as "loose", but I think even better descriptions would be "biased", "manipulative", and "circular".

-Peter.

P.S. Sorry if that sounds a little harsh. I don't mean to be at all uncharitable.
Please forgive me for offending you, for evidently I have.  That said, I think you're reading into my recent posts much more than I had intended to express and are accusing me of motives that are not mine.

-Peter
Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #52 on: August 23, 2007, 02:35:08 PM »

Quote
Rather, I just want to give Starvo credit for not re-writing and manipulating history to say that Chalcedon wasn't accepted by "one entire half of the church".

PJ,

You are aware that "the Church" is constituted by more than just Bishops, and that more Bishops had something to say about Chalcedon than the number that were invited to Chalcedon?

Statistically, it was probably closer to a third; I remember one academic source clearly stating this, and I would have no problem giving you a reference to that as I did with the other issue with which you had contentions (viz. whether Nestorius was still a heretic in his latter days, particularly when he declared his approval of the Tome of Leo--which I would love for you to get back to me on).

Needless to say, it appears very difficult to have reasonable dialogue with you, given that you appear to be overly sensitive, and yet somewhat hypocritical (i.e. constant accusations that you are being dealt with offensively--the majority of which are clearly unwarranted, but look at your last response to PeterTheAleut, and your generally sarcastic and condascending tone).

« Last Edit: August 23, 2007, 02:52:51 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #53 on: August 23, 2007, 04:37:07 PM »

Please forgive me for offending you, for evidently I have.  That said, I think you're reading into my recent posts much more than I had intended to express and are accusing me of motives that are not mine.

-Peter

Dear Peter,

I never said I was offended. (Please read what I just finished explaining to Salpy.) I said that your reasoning is circular: You said that Chalcedon wasn't accepted by "half of the Church". ("For instance, can we recognize a council as truly ecumenical if one entire half of the church never accepted it as ecumenical?")

Then, when I challenged this claim by pointing out that Chalcedon was accepted by both the Latins and the Byzantines, you replied that they counted as "half" the Church "considering that the EO and Latin churches were united through the end of the furor following the 7th Council, and that Chalcedon wasn't the issue that eventually divided the Latins from the EO".

That's what I call "circular reasoning", or if you prefer "begging the question" (and I hope you, in turn, won't be offended by my saying so): you're trying to show that the Chalcedonian side only counts as "half of the Church", but you're arguing that they are half because they are the Chalcedonian side.

But I give up. Believe what you will; for I have better things to do with my time than continue this conversation, which is starting to get a little ridiculous, having less to do with reasoning about the issues than with discussing whether the participants are "immature", "overly sensitive", etc.:

Needless to say, it appears very difficult to have reasonable dialogue with you, given that you appear to be overly sensitive, and yet somewhat hypocritical (i.e. constant accusations that you are being dealt with offensively--the majority of which are clearly unwarranted, but look at your last response to PeterTheAleut, and your generally sarcastic and condascending tone).

God bless you,
Peter.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2007, 04:57:09 PM by PJ » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #54 on: August 23, 2007, 05:14:42 PM »

Dear PJ,

Quote
having less to do with reasoning about the issues than with discussing whether the participants are "immature", "overly sensitive", etc.:

Please do not try and mislead people into believing that peripheral side-remarks were the main focus of the responses given to you. I can easily play that game with you, and argue that you are less interested in dealing with the arguments and sources given than with whether the responses offend you or cause you to conclude a negative impression of one's Church. In fact, if I recall correctly, the remarks of mine which you refer to in the above quote were made in direct response to those various remarks of yours which I have just alluded to.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2007, 05:25:54 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #55 on: September 09, 2007, 11:01:18 AM »

Dear PeterTheAleut,

Something -- I'm not sure what -- got me to thinking about this conversation again. In any case the end result was I realized that I really wasn't satisfied with the way it was left at the end.

Do not fear, however, that I am I planning on rehashing the argument. On the contrary, let's just suppose that all you have said is right. Rather, what I want to ask about is Acts 15 and similar passages which speak about laying "no greater burden than what is necessary" on those coming to the faith.

In particular, doesn't the insistence on your statement (i.e. the Chalcedon was not accepted by "one entire half of the Church") place an unnecessary burden on Catholics coming to Orthodoxy?

(Before this get off track again, please everyone note that I am talking about Catholic disagreeing with the statement, not about being "offended".)

Thanks in advance,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #56 on: September 09, 2007, 02:42:59 PM »

P.S. To be fair, Catholics have done (and many still do, I'm sure) something very similar, only in reverse: say that Chalcedon was accepted by "the whole Church", when in actual fact about one-third of the Church did not accept it.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,907


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #57 on: September 11, 2007, 01:25:16 AM »

In particular, doesn't the insistence on your statement (i.e. the Chalcedon was not accepted by "one entire half of the Church") place an unnecessary burden on Catholics coming to Orthodoxy?
How so?
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #58 on: September 11, 2007, 08:28:33 AM »

How so?

Yeah, what PtA asked. PJ's question makes no sense...to me.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #59 on: September 11, 2007, 11:03:57 AM »

Dear PeterTheAleut and Αριστοκλής,

How so?

Yeah, what PtA asked. PJ's question makes no sense...to me.

Alright, but my answer will depend which part of the question doesn't make sense to you.

For example, is my claim that it is an "unnecessary" burden the part you disagree with (i.e. is it your contention that the language "Chalcedon wasn't accepted by one entire half of the Church" is necessary for someone coming to Orthodoxy)?

If that is the case then, quite honestly, I'm not sure what argument I should respond with. (Perhaps some poster who is a convert, or just more familiar with conversions, could help me out here?) It just seems intuitively clear to me that it isn't necessary.

(And, again, to try to be fair to the Orthodox p.o.v., for Catholics to speak of Chalcedon having been "accepted by all" is a similarly unnecessary burden on Orthodox converting to Catholicism.)

If that isn't the part of my question which doesn't make sense to you, please tell me which part and I will do my best to explain.

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #60 on: September 11, 2007, 12:52:38 PM »

I am converting from Roman Catholicism and I don't see how that would be a 'burden'.

Maybe I am reading it differently, but to me it looks like you are both more or less saying the same thing.  One is saying you had a united Church when a chunk/group/third/half that was part of the Church did not accept Chalcedon, it is not commenting on what those members are afterwards (whether still part of the Church or now outside it).  While the other argument is saying that those who accepted it were part of the united Church and those who did not, were than instantly not part of it (hence the whole Church accepted it). 

Almost sounds like the Assumption/Dormition beliefs to me.  One statement leaves it more open at the end, while the other is definite.

If I am way off, forgive me.  Too many technical books might have me seeing things that are not exactly there.
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #61 on: September 11, 2007, 01:30:25 PM »

Maybe I am reading it differently, but to me it looks like you are both more or less saying the same thing.  One is saying you had a united Church when a chunk/group/third/half that was part of the Church did not accept Chalcedon, it is not commenting on what those members are afterwards (whether still part of the Church or now outside it).  While the other argument is saying that those who accepted it were part of the united Church and those who did not, were than instantly not part of it (hence the whole Church accepted it). 

Dear Friul,

Thanks for your input.

For what it is worth, I am not saying that those who didn't accept Chalcedon were no longer part of the Church. (I'm not even sure which post of mine you're referring to.)

What I believe is that the portion of the Church that accepted Chalcedon was about twice as large as the portion of the Church that didn't accept it. So I guess my question to you is, shouldn't your designation "One is saying you had a united Church when a chunk/group/third/half that was part of the Church did not accept Chalcedon" include just as much as PtA?

Thanks in advance for whatever answer you would like to give to this question and God bless you,
Peter.

P.S. I was just re-reading your post, Friul, and I realized that there could different ways of taking it. So perhaps a better question than the one I wrote above is simply, Can you explain what you meant?
« Last Edit: September 11, 2007, 01:48:04 PM by PJ » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #62 on: September 11, 2007, 01:51:06 PM »

I am converting from Roman Catholicism and I don't see how that would be a 'burden'.

I'm glad to hear that is the case for you. Perhaps I should have worded my statement more carefully, e.g. "saying that Chalcedon wasn't accepted by one entire half of the Church is an unnecessary burden on some Catholics coming to Orthodoxy". (Likewise, if Catholics speak of Chalcedon having been "accepted by all", that is an unnecessary burden on some Orthodox converting to Catholicism.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #63 on: September 11, 2007, 02:26:18 PM »

Maybe I am reading it differently, but to me it looks like you are both more or less saying the same thing.  One is saying you had a united Church when a chunk/group/third/half that was part of the Church did not accept Chalcedon, it is not commenting on what those members are afterwards (whether still part of the Church or now outside it).  While the other argument is saying that those who accepted it were part of the united Church and those who did not, were than instantly not part of it (hence the whole Church accepted it). 
Can you explain what you meant?

Hold on, I think I can answer my own question. The dichotomy confused me at first, but now I'm pretty sure that you are saying that there's not much difference between saying that Chalcedon was accepted by two-thirds of the Church (as I have) versus saying that Chalcedon was accepted by one-half of the Church (as PtA has); but that there is a very significant difference between saying that it was accepted by two-thirds of the Church versus saying that it was accepted by all of the Church.

Furthermore, you say this latter claim implies that those who did not accept Chalcedon were then instantly not part of the Church. (Is this all a correct interpretation of your post?)

I actually agree to some extent with the first part (time allowing, I'll try to say more about that later), but I disagree with the last statement. Just as PtA's statement does not imply that thinks the Latin Church wasn't part of the Church, so too the statement "Chalcedon was accepted by all" does not imply that those that who didn't accept it weren't part of the Church.

More specifically, if you talk with people who hold that view (and this is not just hypothetical, I have done so) and point out that there were some in the Church who didn't accept Chalcedon, they will typically respond that the phrase "accepted by all" does not literally mean "accepted by every single person in the Church" but rather that those who accepted it were a clear majority. (Personally, I don't really care for that kind of rhetoric. But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right?)

That's all for right now.

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #64 on: September 11, 2007, 03:01:05 PM »

I swear, the more Unix I work on, the more my English skills suffer.   Tongue

I think you got what I was trying to say in the last post.  While I was a Roman Catholic I never heard the "all accepted" statement, so it confused me a bit.  I thought maybe it meant that since to be in the Church you must accept it, those who did not accept it, were therefore not.  Things that are taken more loosely (all = majority, not having to be literally all) in every other part of life are so analysed and questioned when it comes to theology and the Church, eh?  Tongue
« Last Edit: September 11, 2007, 03:02:55 PM by Friul » Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #65 on: September 11, 2007, 03:57:51 PM »

I swear, the more Unix I work on, the more my English skills suffer.   Tongue
I think your English skills in this instance were better than mine. Smiley

I think you got what I was trying to say in the last post.  While I was a Roman Catholic I never heard the "all accepted" statement, so it confused me a bit.  I thought maybe it meant that since to be in the Church you must accept it, those who did not accept it, were therefore not.  Things that are taken more loosely (all = majority, not having to be literally all) in every other part of life are so analysed and questioned when it comes to theology and the Church, eh?  Tongue

Well said. (Incidentally, I should add that there have also been Catholics who've said that the Alexandrians were already in schism, and thus didn't count. But that's another matter; I simply wanted to make the point that say "all accepted Chalcedon" doesn't necessarily imply, etc.)

I actually agree to some extent with the first part (time allowing, I'll try to say more about that later),

Alright, to get back to that ...
You may very well be right in saying that the "all accepted Chalcedon" language is a bigger problem than the "only half accepted Chalcedon", so I won't argue with you there.

However, let me just add these thoughts:

1. If you consider the fifth-century Latin Church to have been outside the Church, then (naturally) it makes sense to say that one-half of the Church accepted Chalcedon and one-half didn't. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that logic.

2. P-the-A admitted to me earlier that he does consider the fifth-century Latin Church to have been in the Church (to his credit);

3. but he has strenuously avoided the logical implication: If you admit that the Latin Church was part of the Church at the time of Chalcedon, then you can no longer consider those who accepted and those who didn't accept Chalcedon to each be one-half of the Church.

4. Thus, without trying to say which is a bigger problem, I think that the "one-half accepted" rhetoric and the "all accepted" rhetoric are both pretty problematic.

Thanks again for your thoughts and God bless,
Peter.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2007, 04:00:54 PM by PJ » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #66 on: September 11, 2007, 04:20:51 PM »

Why anyone would think (#2 above) that the 5th century Latin church was not IN the Church (excepting OOs post 451) is beyond me.

No wonder RCs and EO can't talk today...
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,907


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #67 on: September 11, 2007, 11:26:20 PM »

However, let me just add these thoughts:

1. If you consider the fifth-century Latin Church to have been outside the Church, then (naturally) it makes sense to say that one-half of the Church accepted Chalcedon and one-half didn't. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that logic.

2. P-the-A admitted to me earlier that he does consider the fifth-century Latin Church to have been in the Church (to his credit);

3. but he has strenuously avoided the logical implication: If you admit that the Latin Church was part of the Church at the time of Chalcedon, then you can no longer consider those who accepted and those who didn't accept Chalcedon to each be one-half of the Church.

4. Thus, without trying to say which is a bigger problem, I think that the "one-half accepted" rhetoric and the "all accepted" rhetoric are both pretty problematic.
You're still stuck on a strict mathematical interpretation of my use of the word half, aren't you?

If by half you think I'm talking about an arithmetic half (0.5, 50%, 1/2, etc.), then, NO, that's not what I'm talking about.  I realize that those who accepted Chalcedon were much more numerous than those who rejected the council.  I just used the word half in a rather loose manner to denote the two large segments of the whole.

Let's just forget that I ever spoke of half the Church rejecting Chalcedon, for I see that I confused you unintentionally--I apologize for not making myself clear.  What I intended to say is that a large segment of the Church rejected Chalcedon.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #68 on: September 12, 2007, 09:43:54 AM »

You're still stuck on a strict mathematical interpretation of my use of the word half, aren't you?

Oh give me a break! Please read my posts before you respond to them. I never said that one-half has to mean literally one-half (just like I never said that "all" has to mean literally 100%).

The bottom line is, what's good for the goose is good for the gander: if it's okay for you, as an Orthodox, to use the "one-half" description, than it is also alright for Catholics to use the "accepted by all" description, and vice versa. (Personally, I would prefer that neither of those descriptions be used, but that's beside the point.)

I know, I know ... you're going to say that this just further proves that I'm "confused".

-Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #69 on: September 12, 2007, 09:55:15 AM »

Let's just forget that I ever spoke of half the Church rejecting Chalcedon, for I see that I confused you unintentionally--I apologize for not making myself clear.  What I intended to say is that a large segment of the Church rejected Chalcedon.

That's good. Can you say it again without the condescension?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #70 on: September 12, 2007, 10:50:46 AM »

That's good. Can you say it again without the condescension?

PJ,
It's very easy to misinterpret people's intentions in the written word, since it lacks the nuance of non-verbal communication etc. I can't see anything in PeterTheAleut's responses which suggest condescension in a negative way. Nor do I see anything where he says the 5th century Latin Church was not in the Church. You don't seem to realise it, but in fact you have misunderstood and misinterpreted him several times in this thread.
You need to calm down mate. This is a friendly board where we welcome people of other confessions than Orthodox Christianity, and we encoursge dialogue. But what you are engaging in with PeterTheAleut is not conversation, but combat.

George
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #71 on: September 12, 2007, 11:17:21 AM »

Ozgeorge,

Just because I disagree with someone, it doesn't mean I have misinterpreted or been "confused" by what they said.

It's very easy to misinterpret people's intentions in the written word, since it lacks the nuance of non-verbal communication etc.

And yet, you have no problem reading my posts and concluding that I need to "calm down"? Isn't that a double-standard?

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #72 on: September 12, 2007, 11:27:41 AM »

2. P-the-A admitted to me earlier that he does consider the fifth-century Latin Church to have been in the Church (to his credit);

Nor do I see anything where he says the 5th century Latin Church was not in the Church.

Is there an echo in here?  Wink Smiley
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #73 on: September 12, 2007, 11:31:08 AM »

And yet, you have no problem reading my posts and concluding that I need to "calm down"?
Nope

Isn't that a double-standard?
Nope
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,677


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #74 on: September 12, 2007, 12:23:40 PM »

PJ,

I followed this thread closely, and frankly, I am just dead confused at the point you're trying to make.  Trust me, I'm trying hard, but it seemed to me you're rehashing the "half the church" thing.  Seriously, and there is no condescension here, but I haven't seen anything offensive from PetertheAleut, and I'm having a hard time at what you're trying to say.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #75 on: September 12, 2007, 12:30:12 PM »

Nope

Nope

Oh.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #76 on: September 12, 2007, 12:33:13 PM »

PJ,

I followed this thread closely, and frankly, I am just dead confused at the point you're trying to make.  Trust me, I'm trying hard, but it seemed to me you're rehashing the "half the church" thing.  Seriously, and there is no condescension here, but I haven't seen anything offensive from PetertheAleut, and I'm having a hard time at what you're trying to say.

Well ... I think I may have made this more complicated than it need be. All I really want to say here is, don't go and start complaining when Catholics say that "Chalcedon was accepted by all". (The whole "goose/gander" business, y'know.)

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #77 on: September 12, 2007, 12:37:40 PM »

All I really want to say here is, don't go and start complaining when Catholics say that "Chalcedon was accepted by all". (The whole "goose/gander" business, y'know.)

Well, that's cleared things up..... Roll Eyes
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #78 on: September 12, 2007, 12:38:37 PM »

GEORGE!
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #79 on: September 12, 2007, 12:39:11 PM »

Well, that's cleared things up..... Roll Eyes

?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #80 on: September 12, 2007, 02:04:42 PM »

All I really want to say here is, don't go and start complaining when Catholics say that "Chalcedon was accepted by all". (The whole "goose/gander" business, y'know.)

Well, that's cleared things up..... Roll Eyes

This might be stating the obvious (and if so, I apologize), but the above statement was basically meant as a short-hand way of saying what I had already said to PtA:

The bottom line is, what's good for the goose is good for the gander: if it's okay for you, as an Orthodox, to use the "one-half" description, than it is also alright for Catholics to use the "accepted by all" description, and vice versa.

Thanks everyone for your patience, and God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #81 on: September 12, 2007, 02:13:07 PM »

Whew!
Finally....good show, lads.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,677


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #82 on: September 12, 2007, 05:04:10 PM »

Whew!
Finally....good show, lads.

Today's theme:  Fuzzy math is misleading.  Wink
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #83 on: September 12, 2007, 05:08:27 PM »

^ Post of the Month nomination
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #84 on: September 13, 2007, 12:15:30 PM »

At last---this Abbott and Costello sketch has run its course! Pardon me while I rest my Linda Blair head.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #85 on: September 13, 2007, 01:18:40 PM »

At last---this Abbott and Costello sketch has run its course! Pardon me while I rest my Linda Blair head.

If you say so.

Who's Linda Blair?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #86 on: September 13, 2007, 03:08:39 PM »

If you say so.

Who's Linda Blair?

And you call yourself Catholic?  Wink

Linda Blair is She of the Spinning Head:


Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,907


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #87 on: September 14, 2007, 12:28:02 AM »

Who's Linda Blair?
You never watched the 1973 movie The Exorcist?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #88 on: September 14, 2007, 10:54:15 AM »

You never watched the 1973 movie The Exorcist?

No, I haven't. But I'm glad to see that the conversation was resolved without any hard feelings (aside from lubeltri's neck muscles, apparently). I rather expected you to disagree with my statement that "than it is also alright for Catholics to use the "accepted by all" description". (I should have said "then" not "than", BTW.) But I guess that just goes to show that I shouldn't make assumptions about what other people are going to say.

Hopefully our next argument won't end with onlookers making Abbott and Costello comparisons.

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #89 on: September 14, 2007, 12:16:27 PM »

No, I haven't. But I'm glad to see that the conversation was resolved without any hard feelings (aside from lubeltri's neck muscles, apparently). I rather expected you to disagree with my statement that "than it is also alright for Catholics to use the "accepted by all" description". (I should have said "then" not "than", BTW.) But I guess that just goes to show that I shouldn't make assumptions about what other people are going to say.

Hopefully our next argument won't end with onlookers making Abbott and Costello comparisons.


Lighten up just a tad. My comment, on the circular and confusing semantics of the thread, was in good humor.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.148 seconds with 72 queries.