OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 23, 2014, 09:49:27 PM *
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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Two Catholic apologetic sites  (Read 4378 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« on: May 01, 2010, 01:36:54 PM »

1) http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/orthodoxy-eastern-index-page.html
2) http://gulielmusbyzantinus.blogspot.com/2008/08/eastern-orthodoxy.html

Have anyone of you had a chance to study the materials from these two websites in depth? If yes, have you noticed any misquoting, mistranslations, manipulations of facts, etc.? I'm going to analyze these apologetics but first I would like to know if their content is "clean" (not that I'm accusing Catholics of dishonesty, but I know that with apologetic texts, no matter if Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, one have to be careful).
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2010, 02:17:22 PM »

1) http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/orthodoxy-eastern-index-page.html
2) http://gulielmusbyzantinus.blogspot.com/2008/08/eastern-orthodoxy.html

Have anyone of you had a chance to study the materials from these two websites in depth? If yes, have you noticed any misquoting, mistranslations, manipulations of facts, etc.? I'm going to analyze these apologetics but first I would like to know if their content is "clean" (not that I'm accusing Catholics of dishonesty, but I know that with apologetic texts, no matter if Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, one have to be careful).

From what I've seem of William Huysman's texts, he is pretty darn careful with his words and his citations.  He is a pain in the neck with his confrontational presentations and darn near kills what otherwise might be some very excellent Catholic teaching.

Dave Armstrong is Dave Armstrong.  There is one contributor to Dave's pages, William Klimon, who I think would be very trustworthy and thoughtful and he would work to achieve accuracy in his texts and analyses without polemics.  There may be others there...Aidan Nichols is generally trustworthy as far as he goes.  And Adrian Fortesque is Adrian Fortesque and you can trust him to be who he is vis a vis eastern Orthodox.   

I would say that there is more of a polemic nature on Dave's site than on William's because Dave himself tends toward the polemic...William simply allows himself to be offended by the young Internet Turks of Orthodoxy and he lets it all hang out.  I would hope that in time William will finally become satisfied with the truth and let all the rest of it drop.

How in God's holy name do you expect to "analyze" two such massive collections of data and doctrinal systematics?  That boggles my mind. 

M.
Logged

Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2010, 02:25:01 PM »

Thans for your answer, Elijahmaria.

How in God's holy name do you expect to "analyze" two such massive collections of data and doctrinal systematics?

Well, bit after bit. Wink
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2010, 03:19:35 PM »

Thans for your answer, Elijahmaria.

How in God's holy name do you expect to "analyze" two such massive collections of data and doctrinal systematics?

Well, bit after bit. Wink

 laugh....I guess!! 

I'll be interested in your estimations.  My thinking is that there are a whole load of historically interesting but unnecessary words, which tend to detract from the clarity of the core of the teachings on the Armstrong site.  I think the other fellow does a better job of hitting the nub of the teachings immediately...well...after he gets done letting us know that he's upset with the Orthodox when that applies.

I also think that there's a good bit of unnecessary posturing going on on both sites, with the exception of William Klimon and one or two other of the guest presenters on the Armstrong site. 

I also have always thought that if I had a name like Armstrong, I give up apologetics or change my name!!  Tongue

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2010, 06:08:39 PM »

1) http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/orthodoxy-eastern-index-page.html
2) http://gulielmusbyzantinus.blogspot.com/2008/08/eastern-orthodoxy.html

Have anyone of you had a chance to study the materials from these two websites in depth? If yes, have you noticed any misquoting, mistranslations, manipulations of facts, etc.? I'm going to analyze these apologetics but first I would like to know if their content is "clean" (not that I'm accusing Catholics of dishonesty, but I know that with apologetic texts, no matter if Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, one have to be careful).
What facts?

Your first one at least has truth in labeling
Quote
a Catholic sophomore theology
http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-god-led-me-to-rome-instead-of.html
Quote
Why God Led Me To Rome Instead Of Constantinople
1. The Poor Record of Constantinople
1. The See of Constantinople, which was not founded by the Holy All-Praised and προτοκλήτος (First-Called) St. Andrew the Apostle (martyred 11/30/60),

He states that so matter of factly, and yet there is plenty to place St. Andrew at Constantinople, or rather Byzantium at the time: the "Acts of St. Andrew, for instance, state "Embarking in a ship he sailed into the Hellespont, on the way to Byzantium. There was a great storm. Andrew prayed and there was calm. They reached Byzantium." 
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actsandrew.html
It dates from c. 150-200, 260 at the latest, and the version I got this from is an asbstract of St. Gregory of Tours' epitome of it, c. 593, a century before, in the East and the West, the "Catholic Sophmore" dates the beginnings of "this legend."

Quote
{1} has a long history of heterodoxy,

One has to remove the logs of Ultramontanism, the filioque, Mariolatry and other abuses of the Vatican before one can attept to take the specks out of Constantinople's eyes.

Quote
and she extended her patriarchal jurisdiction via gross caesaropapism.{2}

Crusades.

Such Ultramontanists also fault the Orthodox for not falling for the union schemes that the emperors tried to strong arm the Church into in return for the Vatican's aid.  It seems they only find certain kinds of caesaropapism (or it that technically erastianism) gross.

Quote
The see was polluted by three Arians (Eusebios, Eudoxios, Demophilos), one Semi-Arian (Macedonios I), one Nestorian (Nestorios), five Monophysites (Acacios, Phravitas, Euphemios, Timothy I, Anthimos), six Monothelites (Sergios I, Pyrrhos, Paul II, Peter, John VI), and seven Iconoclasts (Anastasios, Constantine II, Nicetas I, Paul IV, Theodotos I Cassiteras, Anthony I Kassymatas, John VII Lecanomantos), one Calvinist (Cyril I Lukaris)--though some idiosyncratic commentators dispute the charge of Calvinism against the latter, who was murdered after he occupied the throne seven times—and one Freemason who declared Anglican orders to be valid (Meletios IV Metaxakis).

20 out of 271. Not a bad record, especially since Rome hasn't had an Orthodox one from 1016 at least.

Quote
The other three sees have similar records,

Acutally, no.  Jerusalem's Patriarch St. Sophronius, for instance stood firm when all the other patriarchates (INCLUDING Rome) fell to Monotheletism.

Quote
and they often servilely followed the policy of Constantinople.

And those "patriarchates" that the Crusaders set up in Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople and the one laying in waiting in Rome for Alexandria, what did they do?

This reproach, however, has more truth to it than it should, e.g. Patriarch "of Antioch" Balsamon.

Quote
By the standards of the Orthodox themselves, the see has had even more heretical patriarchs: one anti-Palamite (John XIV Kalekas) and more than five Catholics (John XI Bekkos, Joseph II, Metrophanes II, Gregory III Mammas, Cyril II Kontares, and many others, according to the old Catholic Encyclopedia entry "Greek Church").

Always use discernment with the "Catholic Encyclopedia."

Interesting that he starts with EP John XI Bekkos: Emeperor Michael VIII used him to replace EP Joseph I, who resigned rather than submit to the "union" of Lyons.  Again, selective disgust with Caesarpapism.


Quote
Many of the Patriarchs of Constantinople were not merely desirous of reunion with the Catholic Church, but confessed the dogmas of the Catholic Church to be true.
That would be those same heretical Patriarchs of Constantinople that he just mentioned.

The rest of the article similarly contains a plethera of falisies. I don't have the time now to go through them all.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2010, 07:01:05 PM »

1) http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/orthodoxy-eastern-index-page.html
2) http://gulielmusbyzantinus.blogspot.com/2008/08/eastern-orthodoxy.html

Have anyone of you had a chance to study the materials from these two websites in depth? If yes, have you noticed any misquoting, mistranslations, manipulations of facts, etc.? I'm going to analyze these apologetics but first I would like to know if their content is "clean" (not that I'm accusing Catholics of dishonesty, but I know that with apologetic texts, no matter if Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, one have to be careful).
What facts?

Your first one at least has truth in labeling
Quote
a Catholic sophomore theology
http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-god-led-me-to-rome-instead-of.html
Quote
Why God Led Me To Rome Instead Of Constantinople
1. The Poor Record of Constantinople
1. The See of Constantinople, which was not founded by the Holy All-Praised and προτοκλήτος (First-Called) St. Andrew the Apostle (martyred 11/30/60),

He states that so matter of factly, and yet there is plenty to place St. Andrew at Constantinople, or rather Byzantium at the time: the "Acts of St. Andrew, for instance, state "Embarking in a ship he sailed into the Hellespont, on the way to Byzantium. There was a great storm. Andrew prayed and there was calm. They reached Byzantium."  
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actsandrew.html
It dates from c. 150-200, 260 at the latest, and the version I got this from is an asbstract of St. Gregory of Tours' epitome of it, c. 593, a century before, in the East and the West, the "Catholic Sophmore" dates the beginnings of "this legend."

From an Orthodox Source:

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_4.html

Milton V. Anastos

Constantinople and Rome

A Survey of the Relations between the Byzantine and the Roman Churches.

M. Anastos, Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium (Political Theory, Theology, and Ecclesiastical Relations with the See of Rome), Ashgate Publications, Variorum Collected Studies Series, 2001. ISBN: 0 86078 840 7.



4. The legend of the founding of the Church of Constantinople by Andrew, "the first-called of the Apostles" (John 1.37-42)(28)

At first, the Byzantine Church made no attempt to match the elaborate structure of testimony, archaeological and literary, which had grown up around the account of the foundation of the Roman Church by the Apostle Peter. But in the fourth century, the Emperor Constantius (337-61), or possibly his father, Constantine, as some sources say, built the Church of the Holy Apostles(29) in Constantinople (destroyed in 1453 by the Turks) as a shrine for the remains of the emperors, and sought to invest it with special sanctity by depositing therein the relics of Saints Andrew, Luke, and Timothy. No one then claimed that the see of Constantinople had been founded by one of the Apostles. With the passage of time, however, as the controversy between East and West waxed hot, Byzantine apologists began to feel the need of counteracting the Roman tradition about Peter with one of their own. Actually, there were a number of texts, which proved useful to them. First of all, they had the passage in the Gospel of John (1.37-42) according to which it was Andrew, one of the first two disciples to be converted, who introduced his brother, Simon Peter, to Christ. This was the foundation for the later Byzantine exegesis, which referred to Andrew as the "first-called" ( protokletos) of the Apostles.(30)

Next, they could turn to accounts of the life and activity of Andrew, which had been circulating in one form or another since the middle of the third century, if not before, and hence scarcely later than the first unambiguous references to a sojourn of Peter in Rome. These biographies of Andrew are classified among the "Apocrypha."(31) That is, they were not deemed to be sufficiently inspired or meritorious to be included among the canonical books of the New Testament (the contents of which were fixed in 367 for Byzantium and in 382 for Rome, although the Byzantine Church did not endorse the Revelation of St. John unreservedly until the fourteenth century).

Extracanonical writings occasionally preserve some kernels of historical truth. But these are so deeply embedded under layers of legend that it is usually impossible to disentangle fact from fiction. Hence, the details about Andrew's missionary journeys set forth in the Apocrypha are for the most part completely unworthy of credence. This judgment applies especially to the allusions to his operations in Achaea and Thrace(32) and to his visit to Byzantium,(33) although there is nothing improbable about his having travelled and preached in these parts.

It must be admitted also that the history of the careers of all but a few of Jesus' twelve disciples is shrouded in mystery because most of them, except for Peter and Paul, had the bad fortune to work in the remoter and less famous regions of the Empire, and partly on this account failed to attract the attention of a responsible historian who might have recorded their achievements in a manner that would command respect.

In the Middle Ages, however, which knew very little about modern criteria for evaluating such documents, the data reported about Andrew's missionary journeys were readily accepted, as, for example, by Philastrius of Brescia (d. ca. 397) and Jerome (ca. 347-419/20), with regard to his visit to Achaea, and by the chronicler Gregory of Tours (538-94), with regard to his voyage to Byzantium.

Byzantium itself at first seemed not to be interested in the full exploitation of the traditions about Andrew. But by the seventh century, Constantinople was frequently described in Byzantine texts as an "apostolic city,"(34) without specific reference to Andrew, who was not named as the founder of the Church of Constantinople until the latter part of the seventh century, or the beginning of the eighth, when the "Pseudo-Epiphanius" produced a List of the Apostles and Disciples of the Lord,(35) according to which the Apostle Andrew, while sojourning in Argyropolis, a suburb of the Byzantine capital, created the bishopric of Constantinople by appointing Stachys, who is mentioned in Paul's Epistle to the Romans (16.9), as its first bishop.

Around the end of the eighth century, similar accounts appeared in other works;(36) and a legend of the late eighth or early ninth century(37) has it that, when Pope John Ι of Rome visited Constantinople in 526, he was shown a somewhat expanded version of the above-mentioned Pseudo-Epiphanius and pronounced it authentic. John admitted that the accounts of Andrew's missionary activities in Thrace would make Constantinople an older apostolic foundation than Rome (since Andrew became a disciple of Christ before Peter did), but maintained that this did not affect Roman precedence, which, he said, depended, not on the age of the Roman Church, but on the prestige of its founder, who was the "Prince of the Apostles.

The Patriarch Photius apparently made no use of the Andrean argument in his disputes with Rome,(38) nor does Pope Nicholas Ι make any reference to it.(39) But, beginning with the tenth century, and especially after 1204,(40) Byzantine theologians delighted in tracing the descent of Constantinople from the "first-called" of the Apostles, who served thus as a buttress for their claim that the Church of Constantinople ranked highest in the whole of Christendom. Nevertheless, they never leaned upon Andrew so heavily as the popes did on Peter. This was probably in part to be explained by the growing dominance in later Byzantine ecclesiology of the doctrine of the pentarchy (§ 21 below).



NOTES

28. - On the subject as a whole, see Francis Dvornik, "The idea of apostolicity in Byzantium and the legend of the Apostle Andrew (Dumbarton Oaks Studies", 4 [Cambridge, Mass., 1958]).

29. - Glanville Downey, «The tombs of the Byzantine emperors at the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople,» "JHS", 79 (1959), 27-51; "idem", «The builder of the original Church of the Apostles at Constantinople,» "DOP", 6 (1951), 51-80; Dvornik, "Apostolicity", 139 ff.

30. - Dvornik, "Apostolicity", 138-264, n.b. 197-214.

31. - Eusebius, "ΗΕ", 3, 25, 6; Ρaul Feine, "Einleitung in das Neue Testament", 9th ed., ed. Johannes Behm (Heidelberg, 1950), 305-8; Wilhelm Michaelis, "Einleitung in das Neue Testament" (Bern, 1946), 346 f.; S. Μ. Zarb, "De historia canonis utriusque Testamenti", 2d ed. (Rome, 1934); Ε. Amann, «Apocryphes du Nouveau Testament,» DictBibl, Supplément, 1 (Paris, 1928), 460-533; Η. Höpfl, «Canonicité,» "ibid.", 1, 22-45; Ε. Jacquier, "Le Nouveau Testament dans l'église chrétienne, 3d ed., 1 (Paris, 1911); Johannes Leipoldt, "Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Κanons, 1 (Leipzig, 1907); Brooke F. Westcott, "Α general survey of the history of the canon of the New Testament", 7th ed. (London, 1896); the great classic on this subject is Theodor Zahn, "Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Κanons, 2 vols. in 4 (Erlangen-Leipzig, 1888-92). Οn the apocryphal accounts of the careers of the apostles, the major work is Richard Α. Lipsius, "Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, 2 vols. in 3 and suppl. (Braunschweig, 1883-90).

32. - See the texts published by Μ. Bonnet, "Acta apostolorum apocrypha", 2, 1 (Leipzig, 1898, reprinted Darmstadt, 1959), 1 ff., 47.6 ff.; 62.1 f., 25; Philastrius, CSEL, 38, ed. F Μarx, 28; Jerome, CSEL, 54, ed. C. L. Hildberg, 546; Dvornik, "Apostolicity", 174 ff., 187 f., 214, 216 ff.; Ι. Flamion, "Les actes apocryphes de l'Apôtre André (Louvain-Paris-Brussels, 1911).

33. - Gregory of Tours, "Liber de miraculis S. Andreae Apostoli", MGH "SRM", 1, 831, quoted by Dvornik, Apostolicity", 185; English trans. by Montague R. James, "The apocryphal New Testament" (Oxford, 1924), 337, 339 ff.

34. - Passages are listed in Dvornik, "Apostolicity", 161 ff.

35. - "Prophetarum vitae fabulosae, lndices apostolorum discipulorumque Domini, Dorotheo, Epiphanio, Hippolyto aliisque vindicata", ed. Theodor Schermann (Leipzig, 1907), 120.19 ff.; so Dvornik, "Apostolicity", 173-78.

36. - Schermann, op. cit., 137.7 ff., 146.7 ff. (Pseudo-Dorotheus); "Acta apostolorum apocrypha", 2 (Leipzig, 1898), ΧVΙ; ΑΒ, Ι3 (1894), 358; Dvornik, "Apostolicity", 171-80.

37. - Schermann, op. cit., 151.11-152.17; PG, 92, 1072.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 07:01:36 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2010, 07:21:40 PM »

The Patriarch Photius apparently made no use of the Andrean argument in his disputes with Rome,(38)

Why would he?  It played no part in 381 or 450, nor does it now.


Quote
nor does Pope Nicholas Ι make any reference to it.(39)

And?  Why would he?

Quote
But, beginning with the tenth century, and especially after 1204,(40) Byzantine theologians delighted in tracing the descent of Constantinople from the "first-called" of the Apostles, who served thus as a buttress for their claim that the Church of Constantinople ranked highest in the whole of Christendom.

I don't recall seeing a single "Adrean argument" that New Rome was higher than Old Rome.

Quote
Nevertheless, they never leaned upon Andrew so heavily as the popes did on Peter.

Of course not.  Orthodoxy isn't founded on St. Andrew nor his successors (despite what you were told at Ravenna). Ultramontanism isn't founded on St. Peter either, but it claims to be.


Quote
This was probably in part to be explained by the growing dominance in later Byzantine ecclesiology of the doctrine of the pentarchy (§ 21 below).
The Pentarchy isn't technically ecclesiology. The tendency to mistake it as such predates the schism by quite a bit.
http://books.google.com/books?id=IeH4OKYflbkC&pg=PA49&dq=five+senses+pentarchy&cd=2#v=onepage&q=five%20senses%20pentarchy&f=false
Papal primacy: from its origins to the present By Klaus Schatz
http://books.google.com/books?id=XgRrh2M08p0C&pg=PA99&dq=five+senses+pentarchy&cd=9#v=onepage&q=five%20senses%20pentarchy&f=false
The challenge of our past: studies in Orthodox Canon law and Church history By John H. Erickson

It at least dates from the time of Justianian, where, for instance, the Archbishop of Cyprus was autocephalous, but not a patriarch as the pentarchy.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,182


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #7 on: May 02, 2010, 01:38:00 AM »

The only site I'm familiar with is Dave Armstrong's, who was quite popular on certain boards back when I was exploring Catholicism circa 2000/2001 (though I seem to remember a very different site back then, not the blog-oriented one you linked to). I remember him saying somewhere that the reasons he became a Catholic rather than Orthodox--or two of the important reasons, anyway--was the issues of divorce and contraception. I never really understood that, but hey, we all have our own difficulties or issues. I noticed that there was an Fr. Al Kimel listed at Armstrong's site... I assume that that is the same akimel who posts here at OC.net, though his contribution at Armstrong's site seems to lead to a page that is no longer available.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2010, 01:38:37 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 02, 2010, 07:35:12 AM »

The Patriarch Photius apparently made no use of the Andrean argument in his disputes with Rome,(38)

Why would he?  It played no part in 381 or 450, nor does it now.


Quote
nor does Pope Nicholas Ι make any reference to it.(39)

And?  Why would he?

Quote
But, beginning with the tenth century, and especially after 1204,(40) Byzantine theologians delighted in tracing the descent of Constantinople from the "first-called" of the Apostles, who served thus as a buttress for their claim that the Church of Constantinople ranked highest in the whole of Christendom.

I don't recall seeing a single "Adrean argument" that New Rome was higher than Old Rome.

Quote
Nevertheless, they never leaned upon Andrew so heavily as the popes did on Peter.

Of course not.  Orthodoxy isn't founded on St. Andrew nor his successors (despite what you were told at Ravenna). Ultramontanism isn't founded on St. Peter either, but it claims to be.


Quote
This was probably in part to be explained by the growing dominance in later Byzantine ecclesiology of the doctrine of the pentarchy (§ 21 below).
The Pentarchy isn't technically ecclesiology. The tendency to mistake it as such predates the schism by quite a bit.
http://books.google.com/books?id=IeH4OKYflbkC&pg=PA49&dq=five+senses+pentarchy&cd=2#v=onepage&q=five%20senses%20pentarchy&f=false
Papal primacy: from its origins to the present By Klaus Schatz
http://books.google.com/books?id=XgRrh2M08p0C&pg=PA99&dq=five+senses+pentarchy&cd=9#v=onepage&q=five%20senses%20pentarchy&f=false
The challenge of our past: studies in Orthodox Canon law and Church history By John H. Erickson

It at least dates from the time of Justianian, where, for instance, the Archbishop of Cyprus was autocephalous, but not a patriarch as the pentarchy.

I believe the real issue at hand in this thread is the integrity of the posters in terms of being honest to the best of their ability.

So my point was that you contested the assertion that Andrew did not establish the See at Constantinople as an example of their un-truths.

I posted the article to indicate to you that at least one Orthodox person disputed your own personal assertions concerning the statement that Andrew did not establish the See at Constantinople.

As far as I can see you still have not presented any real clear evidence that the men running those websites are dishonest.

You might say that some of what they say is disputed but it is clear that much of it is disputed within Orthodoxy as well as between Catholics and Orthodox.

M.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #9 on: May 02, 2010, 08:52:01 AM »


1) http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/orthodoxy-eastern-index-page.html

Have anyone of you had a chance to study the materials from these two websites in depth?
Christ is Risen!

Dave Armstrong must feel that Catholics are in danger of conversion to Orthodoxy if has has devoted so much energy to creating a website against us.

Was the website created at the time when the Orthodox were permitted to interact with Catholics on Catholic Answers Forum and so many conversions took place?

I see that Dave has enlisted Fr Kimel in his desire to build barricades against Orthodoxy...  Perhaps we could begin by looking at the site with a discussion of Fr Kimel's article since he is a member here and he can discuss things with us.

Why Not Eastern Orthodoxy? (Fr. Al Kimel)
http://web.archive.org/web/20051219074801/http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=929
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #10 on: May 02, 2010, 09:16:38 AM »

The Patriarch Photius apparently made no use of the Andrean argument in his disputes with Rome,(38)

Why would he?  It played no part in 381 or 450, nor does it now.

I believe the real issue at hand in this thread is the integrity of the posters in terms of being honest to the best of their ability.

So my point was that you contested the assertion that Andrew did not establish the See at Constantinople as an example of their un-truths.


Unfortunately, I didn't have to parse through the whole thing, which is of similiar "quality" or worse. The one on unleavened bread is particularly bad.

Quote
I posted the article to indicate to you that at least one Orthodox person disputed your own personal assertions

I didn't state my personal assertion: I just skimmed the documentation placing St. Andrew at Constaninople/Byzantium predating 381, predating in fact the founding of New Rome.

Quote
concerning the statement that Andrew did not establish the See at Constantinople.

It matters not if a million who claim to be Orthodox claim that St. Andrew did not found the See of Constantinople.  But then, as to the point on the Truth of Orthodoxy, it doesn't matter if St. Andrew did or not either.  What does matter is that Christ and the Holy Spirit founded the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox (i.e. right believing) Church at Jerusalem.

Quote
As far as I can see you still have not presented any real clear evidence that the men running those websites are dishonest.

I didn't even attempt to: I think they sincerely believe the lies.

Quote
You might say that some of what they say is disputed but it is clear that much of it is disputed within Orthodoxy as well as between Catholics and Orthodox.
Whether the followers of the Vatican should be baptised when they come to Holy Orthodoxy is disputed.  From whom HH EP Bartholomew traces his apostolic sucession is not.

Btw, if you want to see disputes, look at the various editions of the official list of Popes of Rome.  My favorite is how this has affected the "numbering" of the "Pope John"s.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #11 on: May 02, 2010, 09:26:41 AM »


1) http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/orthodoxy-eastern-index-page.html

Have anyone of you had a chance to study the materials from these two websites in depth?
Christ is Risen!

Dave Armstrong must feel that Catholics are in danger of conversion to Orthodoxy if has has devoted so much energy to creating a website against us.

Was the website created at the time when the Orthodox were permitted to interact with Catholics on Catholic Answers Forum and so many conversions took place?

I see that Dave has enlisted Fr Kimel in his desire to build barricades against Orthodoxy...  Perhaps we could begin by looking at the site with a discussion of Fr Kimel's article since he is a member here and he can discuss things with us.

Why Not Eastern Orthodoxy? (Fr. Al Kimel)
http://web.archive.org/web/20051219074801/http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=929

Christos Voskrese!

Was this the one who took on Perry Robinson's demolition of the filioque? I remember that years, years ago.

So we are not Augustinian? So what? The West putting all her dogamtic eggs in that basket hasn't helped her any.  Western Rite Orthodox aren't Augustianian in the sense that is wanted by those on the other side of Orthodoxy.  That's why the WRO are Orthodox. What is Orthodox in St. Augustine is retained (and there is much), what is not is refined out as dross by the consensus of the Fathers.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #12 on: July 31, 2012, 05:17:44 PM »

I'll be interested in your estimations.

Short and to the point: I returned to the Church of my baptism, which I believe to be the true one.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2012, 05:27:36 PM by Michał » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #13 on: July 31, 2012, 05:37:02 PM »

I'll be interested in your estimations.

Short and to the point: I returned to the Church of my baptism, which I believe to be the true one.
Panie zmiłuj się!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 31, 2012, 05:50:57 PM »

I'll be interested in your estimations.

Short and to the point: I returned to the Church of my baptism, which I believe to be the true one.

God's abundant blessings. 

In Christ's peace!

Mary
Logged

orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2012, 06:52:11 PM »

I'll be interested in your estimations.

Short and to the point: I returned to the Church of my baptism, which I believe to be the true one.
Panie zmiłuj się!

OK with zero Polish or whatever that is, I am going to guess that doesn't mean anything like:

Glory to God!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2012, 07:00:11 PM »

I'll be interested in your estimations.

Short and to the point: I returned to the Church of my baptism, which I believe to be the true one.
Panie zmiłuj się!

OK with zero Polish or whatever that is, I am going to guess that doesn't mean anything like:

Glory to God!
Lord have mercy!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2012, 07:16:44 PM »

I'll be interested in your estimations.

Short and to the point: I returned to the Church of my baptism, which I believe to be the true one.
Panie zmiłuj się!

OK with zero Polish or whatever that is, I am going to guess that doesn't mean anything like:

Glory to God!
Lord have mercy!

By following my patent pending, space age system, you too can correctly not read in any language!*




*Text must be written by predictable polemicist whose opinions you know well. 
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,230


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #18 on: August 01, 2012, 11:55:46 AM »

I'll be interested in your estimations.

Short and to the point: I returned to the Church of my baptism, which I believe to be the true one.

God's abundant blessings. 

In Christ's peace!

Mary

+1

JM
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,943



« Reply #19 on: August 01, 2012, 01:00:21 PM »

I'll be interested in your estimations.

Short and to the point: I returned to the Church of my baptism, which I believe to be the true one.

Care to elaborate? You can PM if you don't want to open a can of worms.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2012, 01:11:03 PM »

I'll be interested in your estimations.

Short and to the point: I returned to the Church of my baptism, which I believe to be the true one.

Care to elaborate? You can PM if you don't want to open a can of worms.

I too am curious to know more, Michał. Not meaning to pressure you if you'd rather not answer, but you converted from what to what?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,473


« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2012, 01:18:07 PM »

I too am curious to know more, Michał. Not meaning to pressure you if you'd rather not answer, but you converted from what to what?

From Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy and recently - the other way around.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2012, 01:24:17 PM »

I too am curious to know more, Michał. Not meaning to pressure you if you'd rather not answer, but you converted from what to what?

From Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy and recently - the other way around.

Thanks. I was guessing that was what he meant, but I didn't want to "assume".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2012, 12:22:34 AM »

1) http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/orthodoxy-eastern-index-page.html
2) http://gulielmusbyzantinus.blogspot.com/2008/08/eastern-orthodoxy.html

Have anyone of you had a chance to study the materials from these two websites in depth? If yes, have you noticed any misquoting, mistranslations, manipulations of facts, etc.? I'm going to analyze these apologetics but first I would like to know if their content is "clean" (not that I'm accusing Catholics of dishonesty, but I know that with apologetic texts, no matter if Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, one have to be careful).

I hope you are still around.

Catholic apologetics sites in general are dreadful at quoting.

I cite Wiki, only 'cause I wrote it myself...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_the_doctrine_of_Papal_Primacy

Athanasius is used as a witness for papal primacy on numerous Catholic apologist sites.

"Rome is called the Apostolic throne."[6][7]
Whelton however says that Athanasius does not use the definite article (the) in the text.[8]

"Thus from the first they spared not even Liberius, Bishop of Rome, but extended their fury even to those parts; they respected not his bishopric, because it was an Apostolical throne…"[9]
Rome is an Apostolic throne, not the Apostolic throne. Augustine too is misquoted on the same point of grammar...

Pope Leo XIII

"And for a like reason St. Augustine publicly attests that, "the primacy of the Apostolic chair always existed in the Roman Church (Ep. xliii., n. 7)"[10]
Augustine

"…because he saw himself united by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished."[11]
Whelton goes on to say that for Augustine there is not one Apostolic See, but many...

"You cannot deny that you see what we call heresies and schisms, that is, many cut off from the root of the Christian society, which by means of the Apostolic Sees, and the successions of bishops, is spread abroad in an indisputably world-wide diffusion..."[12]


6 Quote list http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/deb_papacy/chris/rebut1.htm/
7 Papal Primacy - Patristic Thoughts  http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/primacy.htm/
8 Whelton, M., (2006) Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims, (Concillar Press; Ben Lomond, CA), pp63-4.
9 History of the Arians Part V.Persecution and Lapse of Liberius.35
10 Satis cognitum - Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII On the Unity of the Church Abridged from sections 10 through 15.
11 Letter XLIII. To Glorius, Eleusius, the Two Felixes, Grammaticus, and All Others to Whom This May Be Acceptable, My Lords Most Beloved and Worthy of Praise, Augustin Sends Greeting
12 Letter CCXXXII To the People of Madaura, My Lords Worthy of Praise, and Brethren Most Beloved, Augustin Sends Greeting, in Reply to the Letter Received by the Hands of Brother Florentinus.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2012, 12:23:53 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #24 on: August 14, 2012, 12:28:46 AM »

somewhere I posted Alexandria being called the Apostolic see in the Ecumenical Council.

St. Augustine can't be misquoted, as Latin has no definite nor indefinite article, while Greek (amongst others) does.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #25 on: August 14, 2012, 03:42:58 AM »

somewhere I posted Alexandria being called the Apostolic see in the Ecumenical Council.

St. Augustine can't be misquoted, as Latin has no definite nor indefinite article, while Greek (amongst others) does.

I didn't know that.

(Gaelic has the definitive, but that's it - so cu can be either dog or a dog, but an chu is the dog)
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Trebor135
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 132


« Reply #26 on: August 20, 2012, 04:06:21 AM »

Was the website created at the time when the Orthodox were permitted to interact with Catholics on Catholic Answers Forum and so many conversions took place?


I've been a CAF member for a couple years now and become quite active in the past twelve-odd months. There aren't a lot of Eastern Orthodox posters, but those that one encounters--frequently converts from Catholicism, actually--don't seem to walk on eggshells to stay on the safe side of the moderators. Tongue Was there an OrthodoxChristianity.net thread in session back when things were getting heated over at CAF in which all of this was hashed out thoroughly?

Quote

I must say, the arguments put forward in that post were a great disappointment. Their like, always being made by those who swim the Tiber over the Bosphorus, never actually seek to show that the West's Vatican I dogmas--which represent the biggest doctrinal problem in the view of the East--have a rock-solid foundation in the early Church. Shouldn't converts to Rome over Constantinople be propounding that they were drawn by the former's superior arguments from the Fathers and Councils despite the latter's claims to maintaining the ecclesiology of Holy Tradition? Huh
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 04:24:21 AM by Trebor135 » Logged

Trebor135
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 132


« Reply #27 on: August 20, 2012, 04:18:40 AM »

One has to remove the logs of Ultramontanism, the filioque, Mariolatry and other abuses of the Vatican before one can attept to take the specks out of Constantinople's eyes.


First, I understand why you take issue with the Vatican I dogmas. Second, I don't comprehend the filioque issue to begin with and have no interest in a lifetime of migraines, so I'm not going there. Third, I would like, however, to ask you to clarify how Catholic theology near-deifies St. Mary?
Logged

dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #28 on: August 20, 2012, 04:27:57 AM »

There seems to be a lot of apostasy going on this summer. I hope it ends soon.
Logged

LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #29 on: August 20, 2012, 08:39:29 AM »

Quote
Third, I would like, however, to ask you to clarify how Catholic theology near-deifies St. Mary?

The RC dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin. Take it from there.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.159 seconds with 57 queries.