Topic: The Truth by Clark Carlton

[theistgal]

I've read it. It's actually less polemic than I thought it would be. Certainly less polemic than some of the threads around here!

[Justin Kolodziej]

Haven't read it, but I've read a lot of polemics on places like orthodoxinfo. I can only say my style, and it is a massive fault, would be similar were I to actually attempt to go talk about the RCC to Protestants. It is probably a good idea that I do not do so.

I know that believing the Truth is massively important. But I know that speaking it with love is also equally important. Where is that line where you say someone is in error and it is endangering their soul but in a way they can accept? It almost requires a supernatural knowledge of the other person's heart. There are some people who may need the polemics and some need a living witness.

[Rdunbar123]

I am a recent convert from RC to Orthodoxy. before i was recieved I read The Truth. I thought it was truthful, but can see where it would upset someone in between RC and inquiring into orthodoxy. We are currently studying "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy" by Andrew Damick and it is a very good comparison of Orthodoxy with other beliefs and why we claim to have the fullness of the faith.

[izrima]

Haven't read it, but I've read a lot of polemics on places like orthodoxinfo. I can only say my style, and it is a massive fault, would be similar were I to actually attempt to go talk about the RCC to Protestants. It is probably a good idea that I do not do so.

I know that believing the Truth is massively important. But I know that speaking it with love is also equally important. Where is that line where you say someone is in error and it is endangering their soul but in a way they can accept? It almost requires a supernatural knowledge of the other person's heart. There are some people who may need the polemics and some need a living witness.

One of the things I don't like about Carlton's book is that it seems like he feels called to refute every single thing the Roman church and/or the West has ever said. Early on, he talks about how there is essentially no reason to call the Byzantine Empire the Byzantine Empire since it was actually the Eastern Roman Empire and well didn't you know it, even the Turks called the Ecumenical Patriarchate the Rum Patrikhanesi. He actually says in the text and footnotes (twice, that is), "Hey, check out this Fr. John Meyendorff book about why the Westerners called it the Byzantine Empire, but I don't subscribe to his conspiracy theories." If the book is so problematic, why recommend it twice on the same page?

I think that when you have a debate with someone, you want to find some common ground and at least have some first principles in place. When that other person is so insistent on beating you that they even begin disputing things that seem irrelevant and are largely settled, it really sours the atmosphere. That's how I feel reading Carlton. He also has a bit of a problem as an outsider in that he zeroes in on things I would consider to be relatively minor or inessential parts of the RCC and makes a huge deal out of them.

[theistgal]

I'm going through the Kindle version and wonder if something was removed?  Because I don't see the slams at Catholic devotions and practices some of you are referring to. Not saying they aren't there, but I'm not seeing them. (Hmm, maybe I've just been desensitized! )

[orthonorm]

first principles

Someone put this in the begging the ironic question thread or whatever it is called.

This is another example.

[genesisone]

Here's a quote from the blurb at Regina Orthodox Press:

The Truth will give Roman Catholics a profound understanding of the Orthodox Church. It will give both Orthodox and Roman Catholics insight as to the reasons why the two churches are not in communion with one another. The Truth will also help those confused by the outward similarities between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism to understand the marked differences between the two churches. The Truth will help Protestants understand church history in a new way and claims of the Orthodox Church to be the Bride of Christ.

I would seem to me that although the book might cause offence to some RCs, it might be a good choice for those Protestants - especially Evangelicals - who accuse Orthodoxy of being nothing more than "Roman Catholicism without the Pope".

[Delphine]

I think that when you have a debate with someone, you want to find some common ground and at least have some first principles in place. When that other person is so insistent on beating you that they even begin disputing things that seem irrelevant and are largely settled, it really sours the atmosphere. That's how I feel reading Carlton. He also has a bit of a problem as an outsider in that he zeroes in on things I would consider to be relatively minor or inessential parts of the RCC and makes a huge deal out of them.

I can understand your frustration with this book--I read it as an early inquirer and the whole time I felt like his statements on the Catholic Church were exaggerated, distorted from their actual meaning, or simply untrue. With feelings like that, Carlton made it easy for me to dismiss objections that might have actually been valid. I found Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy by Fr. Andrew Damick to be a much more difficult read, because his objections couldn't be so easily disregarded. More difficult because of how it was affecting my Catholic identity, but much more worth reading, in my opinion.

I'm only now starting to read The Faith after several people recommended it, but The Truth really soured me to Clark Carlton.

[izrima]

I think that when you have a debate with someone, you want to find some common ground and at least have some first principles in place. When that other person is so insistent on beating you that they even begin disputing things that seem irrelevant and are largely settled, it really sours the atmosphere. That's how I feel reading Carlton. He also has a bit of a problem as an outsider in that he zeroes in on things I would consider to be relatively minor or inessential parts of the RCC and makes a huge deal out of them.

I can understand your frustration with this book--I read it as an early inquirer and the whole time I felt like his statements on the Catholic Church were exaggerated, distorted from their actual meaning, or simply untrue. With feelings like that, Carlton made it easy for me to dismiss objections that might have actually been valid. I found Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy by Fr. Andrew Damick to be a much more difficult read, because his objections couldn't be so easily disregarded. More difficult because of how it was affecting my Catholic identity, but much more worth reading, in my opinion.

I'm only now starting to read The Faith after several people recommended it, but The Truth really soured me to Clark Carlton.

I haven't read Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy yet (though I did recommend it in the books forum, then had Fr. Andrew pop into that thread to recommend the book again, and I promised him I would read it!), but I have listened to the whole podcast series. Maybe the book will be different, but I felt like the podcasts were fair and didn't put me on the defensive at all. A big part of that might be that Fr. Andrew always starts off by pointing out common ground and then starts to dig into the differences.

I shall look forward to Fr. Andrew's book, then. I'm also going to see about these Michael Whelton books.

[asdamick]

I haven't read Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy yet (though I did recommend it in the books forum, then had Fr. Andrew pop into that thread to recommend the book again, and I promised him I would read it!), but I have listened to the whole podcast series. Maybe the book will be different, but I felt like the podcasts were fair and didn't put me on the defensive at all. A big part of that might be that Fr. Andrew always starts off by pointing out common ground and then starts to dig into the differences.

Some folks still call that "the ol' bait and switch"! 

Orthodoxy has a lot in common with RCism, far more than I think many Orthodox realize.  Yet the differences have huge implications, which is why they've resulted in a lasting schism with heavy-hitting theologians on both sides insisting on no compromise on such things.  Doctrine matters!

[NMHS]

I read the "Truth" and found a bit polemical whereas coming from a RC background I've enjoyed "Two Paths" more than the "Truth".

[Peter J]

coming from a RC background I've enjoyed "Two Paths" more than the "Truth".

Sigh, you RCs with your relativism.

[NMHS]

 

coming from a RC background I've enjoyed "Two Paths" more than the "Truth".

Sigh, you RCs with your relativism.

Sure, what ever you gotta say.............

[Peter J]

coming from a RC background I've enjoyed "Two Paths" more than the "Truth".

Sigh, you RCs with your relativism. 

(Grin added for those who believe that every joke or quip ought to have an emoticon.)