Topic: Ecclesiologies with pictures

[ialmisry]

Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.

I am sorry but this is just stupid and you know it. If anyone declared that the pope was present in the host, you know that such a person would be declared an idolatrous heretic. You are reading your own prejudiced view into the teachings of the Catholic Church and are demonstrating that your views cannot be taken seriously.

He is quoting someone whom your much vaunted magisterium put in a position to teach.  Evidently, we can't take your magisterium seriously.

"See, for example, the ex-cathedra myth. The Pope is infallible only he speaks dogmatically ex-cathedra. When required to define what ex-cathedra means and to give examples of ex-cathedra statements, ambiguity ensues and the number of such statements varies from source to source. This is point one.

Point two consists of the many callings to obedience even to the non-ex-cathedra statements for various reasons.

A natural consequence of these two points, and which is never stated, is that, after all you should obey the Pope and the Pope alone in everything as it were a proclamation of God Himself. He is not God, but should be treated as if he was because he is "one with Him".

Latin apologetics is filled with these incomplete sylogisms. They say "every man is mortal", they say "Socrates is a man", and when someone points "Socrates is mortal" they shout "we never said that!" but get very glad when someone acts according to the conclusion."

Fabio nailed it.

And the problem is that you are joining him in your bias.

Calling the Vatican out on what it teaches, and the inconsistencies therein, isn't a bias. Except being biased in favor of Truth.

Do you think "one with Jesus" means onotoligcally one? Of course not and you know it.

One never knows with what the Vatican teaches at any given moment. "That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter him who is His representative on earth."  Given the strange ideas of the time machine of the IC and the semi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit of Kolbe, you ontological distinction may be without a difference.  Much like Paster Aeternus in practice.

You just want to score points in your attack against the Catholic Church.

I never atttach the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which I am a member.

[PeterTheAleut]

Peter, I'm sorry, but I think you're the one who does not understand Latin doctrine. It is far worse than an exalted perspective of a Patriarch. Papism, in the strict sense, is what it is. Not all RCs are actuall worshippers of the Pope but in what they consciouslly or uncounsciouslly deviate from that, they deviate from the synthesis of Latin doctrine.

See, for example, the ex-cathedra myth. The Pope is infallible only he speaks dogmatically ex-cathedra. When required to define what ex-cathedra means and to give examples of ex-cathedra statements, ambiguity ensues and the number of such statements varies from source to source. This is point one.

Point two consists of the many callings to obedience even to the non-ex-cathedra statements for various reasons.

A natural consequence of these two points, and which is never stated, is that, after all you should obey the Pope and the Pope alone in everything as it were a proclamation of God Himself. He is not God, but should be treated as if he was because he is "one with Him".

Latin apologetics is filled with these incomplete sylogisms. They say "every man is mortal", they say "Socrates is a man", and when someone points "Socrates is mortal" they shout "we never said that!" but get very glad when someone acts according to the conclusion.

Now, 1) the Body of Christ has a visible (the Pope) and an invisible head (Christ);  2) because there cannot be two heads, these two heads are one, what is torturing logic is the claim that the statement that the Pope is Christ made visible is iconic like in Orthodox theology which, by no means follows from 1 and 2.  Sure thing, that the Pope not only is an icon of Christ but is blasphemously usurping the role of Holy Spirit as Spirit of Truth, source of the Sacraments and revealer of Christ cannot be ever openly said, for the expression of this linguistically would defuse the madness that RC is, just like in any psychoanalysis.

Fabio, are you a former RC?  If not, then I'm going to take my cues on what RC's believe from them, not from you.  I'll accept what Papist and his friends have to say about their church and craft my polemic to address that before I accept the witness of someone who uses juvenile stick figures to attack that of which he obviously knows nothing.

[Papist]

Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.

I am sorry but this is just stupid and you know it. If anyone declared that the pope was present in the host, you know that such a person would be declared an idolatrous heretic. You are reading your own prejudiced view into the teachings of the Catholic Church and are demonstrating that your views cannot be taken seriously.

He is quoting someone whom your much vaunted magisterium put in a position to teach.  Evidently, we can't take your magisterium seriously.

"See, for example, the ex-cathedra myth. The Pope is infallible only he speaks dogmatically ex-cathedra. When required to define what ex-cathedra means and to give examples of ex-cathedra statements, ambiguity ensues and the number of such statements varies from source to source. This is point one.

Point two consists of the many callings to obedience even to the non-ex-cathedra statements for various reasons.

A natural consequence of these two points, and which is never stated, is that, after all you should obey the Pope and the Pope alone in everything as it were a proclamation of God Himself. He is not God, but should be treated as if he was because he is "one with Him".

Latin apologetics is filled with these incomplete sylogisms. They say "every man is mortal", they say "Socrates is a man", and when someone points "Socrates is mortal" they shout "we never said that!" but get very glad when someone acts according to the conclusion."

Fabio nailed it.

And the problem is that you are joining him in your bias.

Calling the Vatican out on what it teaches, and the inconsistencies therein, isn't a bias. Except being biased in favor of Truth.

Do you think "one with Jesus" means onotoligcally one? Of course not and you know it.

One never knows with what the Vatican teaches at any given moment. "That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter him who is His representative on earth."  Given the strange ideas of the time machine of the IC and the semi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit of Kolbe, you ontological distinction may be without a difference.  Much like Paster Aeternus in practice.

You just want to score points in your attack against the Catholic Church.

I never atttach the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which I am a member.

Quite frankly Isa, if you are bent on believing that Catholics think that the Pope and Jesus are ontologically the same being, then I cannot have a discussion with you. I cannot reason with some one who refuses to reason.

[Papist]

I never atttach the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which I am a member.

You really want to start up this silly debate?

[Fabio Leite]

There is a difference between being one with some one in that some one is in communion with another, as all Christians are united to Christ. The Pope is one with Christ in this sense, and also through his authority.

Then there is onotological oneness. As in the identity a=a. The Pope is not one with Christ in this sense.

Precisely. That is where I wanted to get, the meaning of the "is" or the "=".

As you said yourself, it is not identity. It is a symbol. The Orthodox Catholic tradition presents the primate as an icon of Christ - just like the priest during Liturgy. And all the attributes, including authority, are likewise iconic. For an *iconic* identity, one gets just *iconic* authority. That is why the Primate is a *symbol* of unit and not an authority over the other bishops. He is a icon, not a king. Therefore, the attribution of actual authority and role as actual rule of truth in dogmatic questions is uncatholic.  Actual authority and actual infallibility would be possible only under actual identity.

[Fabio Leite]

Fabio, are you a former RC?  If not, then I'm going to take my cues on what RC's believe from them, not from you.

I am although from the "lapsed" kind.

But why is the Epistle of a Pope less relevant to you then what your peers say? Mature study is based on documents, not on hearsay from pals. Putting group acceptance over documents is more a mark of adolescent thinking than the lack of ability to make better drawings, a fault I admit being guilty of.

I'll accept what Papist and his friends have to say about their church and craft my polemic to address that before I accept the witness of someone who uses juvenile stick figures to attack that of which he obviously knows nothing.

I assume you already knew about that Epistle of Pius XII, about his infallible statement (or maybe not depending on what ex-cathedra is) that the Pope and Christ are one and other similar statements, since you obviously know more than nothing.

[ialmisry]

Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.

I am sorry but this is just stupid and you know it. If anyone declared that the pope was present in the host, you know that such a person would be declared an idolatrous heretic. You are reading your own prejudiced view into the teachings of the Catholic Church and are demonstrating that your views cannot be taken seriously.

He is quoting someone whom your much vaunted magisterium put in a position to teach.  Evidently, we can't take your magisterium seriously.

"See, for example, the ex-cathedra myth. The Pope is infallible only he speaks dogmatically ex-cathedra. When required to define what ex-cathedra means and to give examples of ex-cathedra statements, ambiguity ensues and the number of such statements varies from source to source. This is point one.

Point two consists of the many callings to obedience even to the non-ex-cathedra statements for various reasons.

A natural consequence of these two points, and which is never stated, is that, after all you should obey the Pope and the Pope alone in everything as it were a proclamation of God Himself. He is not God, but should be treated as if he was because he is "one with Him".

Latin apologetics is filled with these incomplete sylogisms. They say "every man is mortal", they say "Socrates is a man", and when someone points "Socrates is mortal" they shout "we never said that!" but get very glad when someone acts according to the conclusion."

Fabio nailed it.

And the problem is that you are joining him in your bias.

Calling the Vatican out on what it teaches, and the inconsistencies therein, isn't a bias. Except being biased in favor of Truth.

Do you think "one with Jesus" means onotoligcally one? Of course not and you know it.

One never knows with what the Vatican teaches at any given moment. "That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter him who is His representative on earth."  Given the strange ideas of the time machine of the IC and the semi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit of Kolbe, you ontological distinction may be without a difference.  Much like Paster Aeternus in practice.

You just want to score points in your attack against the Catholic Church.

I never atttach the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which I am a member.

Quite frankly Isa, if you are bent on believing that Catholics think that the Pope and Jesus are ontologically the same being, then I cannot have a discussion with you. I cannot reason with some one who refuses to reason.

Must be fun at CCD.

Pray tell, what distinction can you make in "That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter him who is His representative on earth,"  that makes a difference? Whether by Pastor Aeternas and Lumen Gentium, you have to accept and submit to that teaching. So you believe that the supreme pontiff isn't ontologically the same being. Good for you. What difference does that make? Pretty much like the "distinction" the Vatican holds that although the Virgin was conceived without sin she was still in need of the Redemption. In other words, no difference to speak of.

[PeterTheAleut]

Fabio, are you a former RC?  If not, then I'm going to take my cues on what RC's believe from them, not from you.

I am although from the "lapsed" kind.

But why is the Epistle of a Pope less relevant to you then what your peers say? Mature study is based on documents, not on hearsay from pals.

Yes, mature study is based on documents, but on a direct reading of those documents, not on having someone interpret those documents for me.  However, if I were to trust someone's interpretation of those documents, I don't find your puerile polemics on this thread very convincing that it's your interpretation I should trust.

Putting group acceptance over documents is more a mark of adolescent thinking than the lack of ability to make better drawings, a fault I admit being guilty of.

I'll accept what Papist and his friends have to say about their church and craft my polemic to address that before I accept the witness of someone who uses juvenile stick figures to attack that of which he obviously knows nothing.

I assume you already knew about that Epistle of Pius XII, about his infallible statement (or maybe not depending on what ex-cathedra is) that the Pope and Christ are one and other similar statements, since you obviously know more than nothing.

I know a good spin job when I see it.

[Father Peter]

I am not a Catholic and have never been a Catholic, but there are very clear and Patristic reasons why someone who was born without sin would need a redeemer. The whole thrust of St Cyril and St Severus is that we are not born sinners but become sinners, and that those infants who die at birth are without sin, yet they still need a redeemer.

We are not separated by God only because of our own personal sins, but because of the state of separation from God into which we are born. Even a sinless person, if there is such, is still separated from God and under the judgement issued against Adam.

I disagree very much with the Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception, but I do not see any fault in the idea that a sinless person still needs a Saviour. This is the patristic teaching.

It also seems to me to be a false argument to insist that the Pope of Rome must either have an iconic relation to Christ and therefore no authority, or an ontological relation and have divine authority. It is clear in our Orthodox ecclesiology that our bishops do have an iconic relation to Christ AND have a proper authority of their office. I do not agree at all with the papal doctrines, and think them worse defects than any Christological ones, but it would be entirely reasonable, even if false, to propose that the Pope of Rome has a particular iconic relation which grants a particular and proper authority. It could be argued, for instance, that bishops have a proper authority as being the locus of unity of their dioceses and act as icons of Christ in their diocese, while the Pope has a proper authority as being the locus of unity for the college of bishops, and acts as the icon of Christ in the college of bishops. I do not believe this at all, but it could be argued and would not be illogical, and would be adequately described in the various encyclicals which have been quoted.

Father Peter

[Cymbyz]

Perhaps it's an oversimplification, but certainly one reason why a sinless person needs a savior is that sin is not the central and pivotal effect of the Fall:  death is.   Just so, the Theotokos, not being God by nature, had to die, even though she was "full of grace."  Christ, by treading down Death by death, has assured us that the pivotal effect of the fall is dealt with; taking care of the sin problem is, if you will, a byproduct of that.

[ialmisry]

I am not a Catholic and have never been a Catholic, but there are very clear and Patristic reasons why someone who was born without sin would need a redeemer. The whole thrust of St Cyril and St Severus is that we are not born sinners but become sinners, and that those infants who die at birth are without sin, yet they still need a redeemer.

I'm not very familiar unfortunately with Severus, but this doesn't jive with my read of St. Cyril's "On the Unity of Christ." Can you provide some quotes or summarize what arguments you are talking about, Father?

We are not separated by God only because of our own personal sins, but because of the state of separation from God into which we are born. Even a sinless person, if there is such, is still separated from God and under the judgement issued against Adam.

If they are born with ancestral sin (and all of us, save Christ, are) then they are not born without sin.

I disagree very much with the Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception, but I do not see any fault in the idea that a sinless person still needs a Saviour. This is the patristic teaching.

And what are they being saved from?

It also seems to me to be a false argument to insist that the Pope of Rome must either have an iconic relation to Christ and therefore no authority, or an ontological relation and have divine authority. It is clear in our Orthodox ecclesiology that our bishops do have an iconic relation to Christ AND have a proper authority of their office. I do not agree at all with the papal doctrines, and think them worse defects than any Christological ones, but it would be entirely reasonable, even if false, to propose that the Pope of Rome has a particular iconic relation which grants a particular and proper authority. It could be argued, for instance, that bishops have a proper authority as being the locus of unity of their dioceses and act as icons of Christ in their diocese, while the Pope has a proper authority as being the locus of unity for the college of bishops, and acts as the icon of Christ in the college of bishops. I do not believe this at all, but it could be argued and would not be illogical, and would be adequately described in the various encyclicals which have been quoted.

Father Peter

When one speaks of one head, all sorts of things proceed.

[ialmisry]

Perhaps it's an oversimplification, but certainly one reason why a sinless person needs a savior is that sin is not the central and pivotal effect of the Fall:  death is.   

Death is but the embodiement of sin.

[Fabio Leite]

Putting group acceptance over documents is more a mark of adolescent thinking than the lack of ability to make better drawings, a fault I admit being guilty of.

I'll accept what Papist and his friends have to say about their church and craft my polemic to address that before I accept the witness of someone who uses juvenile stick figures to attack that of which he obviously knows nothing.

I assume you already knew about that Epistle of Pius XII, about his infallible statement (or maybe not depending on what ex-cathedra is) that the Pope and Christ are one and other similar statements, since you obviously know more than nothing.

I know a good spin job when I see it.

Ah, one such as the one below dodging the question clearly made to insist in the poorly done ad homine silly addressed first at the quality of the drawings and now without base to the argument itself?

Fabio, are you a former RC?  If not, then I'm going to take my cues on what RC's believe from them, not from you.

I am although from the "lapsed" kind.

But why is the Epistle of a Pope less relevant to you then what your peers say? Mature study is based on documents, not on hearsay from pals.

Yes, mature study is based on documents, but on a direct reading of those documents, not on having someone interpret those documents for me.  However, if I were to trust someone's interpretation of those documents, I don't find your puerile polemics on this thread very convincing that it's your interpretation I should trust.[/quote]

That is why I will turn to Father Peter's argument which *does* address my argument in a mature way.

[Fabio Leite]

It also seems to me to be a false argument to insist that the Pope of Rome must either have an iconic relation to Christ and therefore no authority, or an ontological relation and have divine authority. It is clear in our Orthodox ecclesiology that our bishops do have an iconic relation to Christ AND have a proper authority of their office. I do not agree at all with the papal doctrines, and think them worse defects than any Christological ones, but it would be entirely reasonable, even if false, to propose that the Pope of Rome has a particular iconic relation which grants a particular and proper authority. It could be argued, for instance, that bishops have a proper authority as being the locus of unity of their dioceses and act as icons of Christ in their diocese, while the Pope has a proper authority as being the locus of unity for the college of bishops, and acts as the icon of Christ in the college of bishops. I do not believe this at all, but it could be argued and would not be illogical, and would be adequately described in the various encyclicals which have been quoted.

Father Peter

Hello Father!

I see your point. But I am being more specific here. It is really related to the mode of that relation. I do not say that if the authority of the Primate is iconic than he has *no* authority. But that likewise his authority is iconic. This is the kind of authority of the bishops indeed.

We must address than the possibility you mentioned, that there are two types of iconic authority based on the "locus" of its exercise.

Let's consider that any group needs a "coordinating" position that will give consistency to it. That is why a council or even an assembly has a presiding chair. Of course, when the bishops are taken as a group, there is a need of a primate. We also have some writings that say that the kings and emperors are "images" of Christ on Earth. The "theory" behind all this is that in any leader-team relation we have an icon of Christ-Creation. That is good Orthodox Catholic eclesiology. The Bishop is the leader of a local community, he is *like* Christ towards them. The primate is a leader in meetings of Bishops, he is like Christ towards them.

That is not, however, Latin eclesiology. Because "Christ and the Pope" are one, there is a kind of identity between Christ and the Chair of the Pope (not each individual person that occupies it). The Pope authority overrides the bishops authority and is its very source. The leadership of the bishops is made conditional in relation to the leadership of the Pope who has authority over them and over their flock. The Latin confession is not catholic in the traditional sense that each local diocese is an image of the relation of Christ with the whole church. It is an inflated diocese with only bishop and hundreds of "auxiliary bishops".

Because of that, we can say that under Latin eclesiology, the primate is *the* icon of Christ par excellence with no churches that are "according to the whole" (catholic). The bishops are images of the Pope directly and just indirectly images of Christ. It is just one big unity. We do not have here Christ as the Rock upon which the others are based. Their claim is that we Christ, but that rock is "invisible" so upon it, together with it, being one with it, completing this imperfection for the manifestation of Christ, we have a visible rock, that one being the physical actual base of the others.

In Catholic eclesiology the primate is so just in a relative sense. Each local church is "according to the whole", that is, an image of the relation of Christ with the whole church. Because Bishops meet, and must act together, a leader exists among them, the primate, but he, too, is just a part. He *is* a leader among the bishops, but he is not an "übber-bishop" so to speak, of which the authority of all the other is dependent on. Each bishop is directly founded upon Christ-Rock, the leadership of the Primate, although blessed and approved by God, is not a intermediate between them.  

Another of saying that is that in Latin eclesiology, there is a college of bishops only because there is a primate, while in Catholic eclesiology, it is because we have a college that we have a primate. Also, that the authority of the primate being an icon of Christ's relation to Creation, is limitted to the activities of the episcopal college itself. Thus, he is a leader among the bishops, and a *symbol* of universal union. But he does not "break through" the iconicity of the bishops toward their flocks. That is why it is proper to say that Latin eclesiology is "two-headed" either we look from the bishops side or from the Christ-Church side.

In my opinion, this is somehow related to the diune god Fatherson-Holy Spirit of the Latins, but I still have not studied this relation further.

[Keble]

Fabio, why should anyone accept your authority to set forth the polity of someone else's church, especially considering the polemic you have thus far treated us to?

[ialmisry]

Fabio, why should anyone accept your authority to set forth the polity of someone else's church, especially considering the polemic you have thus far treated us to?

By the same authority that stated the fact that the Soviet Union was not a democracy, although it had a constitution that said it was: "Article 2. All power in the USSR belongs to the people." Yeah, right.

[ialmisry]

I never atttach the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which I am a member.

You really want to start up this silly debate?

What debate: it is a statement of fact.

[Fabio Leite]

Fabio, why should anyone accept your authority to set forth the polity of someone else's church, especially considering the polemic you have thus far treated us to?

That is why I used an official document of the Pope. What's so hard to understand about that? Aleut, Papist and you, on the other hand, bring to confront that, just informal conversation of pals in a forum. In what I had wrong information - about the organization of the Aglican community - I simply asked questions and learned. You'll not find any polemic from my side regarding that. So much for I just trying to create polemycs.

Now, on the issue of the RC, despite an official epistle of an infallible Pope saying that the sky is red, people want to give a plethora of indirect, metaphorical meanings that are no-way implied in the clear-cut straight statement of the infallible Pope just to prevent admitting that he stated an absurdity and got it wrong. And when people claim that internet conversations between friends should have more proeminence than official documents issued by infallible authorities, it is *I* who would be trying to use an argument of authority? Please.

[Fabio Leite]

Fabio, why should anyone accept your authority to set forth the polity of someone else's church, especially considering the polemic you have thus far treated us to?

By the same authority that stated the fact that the Soviet Union was not a democracy, although it had a constitution that said it was: "Article 2. All power in the USSR belongs to the people." Yeah, right.

Exactly. Someone comes and say "God and I are one, I'm the visible aspect of what He is". When the common sense, unsophisticated people reply "Hey, you're trying to usurp God's place, putting yourself on His place" the only reply we get is "We never said that, don't be mean drawing this kind of absolutely unrelated conclusion. Bad, evil, mean, prejudicial! All I mean is that we have a special relation. So, obey me all the time because I may or may not be stating something infallible right now and not because I demand obedience like the one that is proper to God only. That's the only intelligent, tolerant, loving thing to do!"

One has to analyse claims *and* concrete acts to understand what is going on. And in the RC, regarding the Pope, it's mostly doublespeak.

[PeterTheAleut]

Fabio, why should anyone accept your authority to set forth the polity of someone else's church, especially considering the polemic you have thus far treated us to?

That is why I used an official document of the Pope. What's so hard to understand about that?

That you, just like your buddy Isa, like to build your polemics on proof texts.  Yes, I recognize as an academic how important it is to cite authorities outside yourself if you want to communicate your point persuasively, but there's a very fine line between that legitimate practice on the one hand and shameless proof texting on the other.

Aleut, Papist and you, on the other hand, bring to confront that, just informal conversation of pals in a forum. In what I had wrong information - about the organization of the Aglican community - I simply asked questions and learned. You'll not find any polemic from my side regarding that. So much for I just trying to create polemycs.

Now, on the issue of the RC, despite an official epistle of an infallible Pope saying that the sky is red, people want to give a plethora of indirect, metaphorical meanings that are no-way implied in the clear-cut straight statement of the infallible Pope just to prevent admitting that he stated an absurdity and got it wrong. And when people claim that internet conversations between friends should have more proeminence than official documents issued by infallible authorities, it is *I* who would be trying to use an argument of authority? Please.

See my earlier comments on proof texting.  You're using a few statements from a pope, which you've likely removed from their proper context, to prove your point in an Internet discussion.  I think it totally legit, therefore, to question your use of this statement (as opposed to the statement itself) and compare your use of this statement against how our Catholic posters understand it.

[Fabio Leite]

Fabio, why should anyone accept your authority to set forth the polity of someone else's church, especially considering the polemic you have thus far treated us to?

That is why I used an official document of the Pope. What's so hard to understand about that?

That you, just like your buddy Isa, like to build your polemics on proof texts.  Yes, I recognize as an academic how important it is to cite authorities outside yourself if you want to communicate your point persuasively, but there's a very fine line between that legitimate practice on the one hand and shameless proof texting on the other.

Aleut, Papist and you, on the other hand, bring to confront that, just informal conversation of pals in a forum. In what I had wrong information - about the organization of the Aglican community - I simply asked questions and learned. You'll not find any polemic from my side regarding that. So much for I just trying to create polemycs.

Now, on the issue of the RC, despite an official epistle of an infallible Pope saying that the sky is red, people want to give a plethora of indirect, metaphorical meanings that are no-way implied in the clear-cut straight statement of the infallible Pope just to prevent admitting that he stated an absurdity and got it wrong. And when people claim that internet conversations between friends should have more proeminence than official documents issued by infallible authorities, it is *I* who would be trying to use an argument of authority? Please.

See my earlier comments on proof texting.  You're using a few statements from a pope, which you've likely removed from their proper context, to prove your point in an Internet discussion.  I think it totally legit, therefore, to question your use of this statement (as opposed to the statement itself) and compare your use of this statement against how our Catholic posters understand it.

The problem there Aleut, is that I did not bring a statement out of context. I brought the two paragraphs that are related to it, which are from a publically available document on the internet. I hope that you are not saying that the only honest thing would be to copy the entire document here. If in its immediate context (two paragraphs I made available here) or in the whole of the document there is something that can, in a straight-forward manner change the meaning of those statements, please, bring it to the discussion and I'll be glad to change my opinion if that is the case.

Here is the whole quote again:

Pope Pius XII Encyclical of 1943

40. But we must not think that He rules only in a hidden[59] or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Divine Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. You know, Venerable Brethren, that after He had ruled the "little flock"[60] Himself during His mortal pilgrimage, Christ our Lord, when about to leave this world and return to the Father, entrusted to the Chief of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded. Since He was all wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisible, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into heaven this Unam Sanctam;[61] and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.

41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.

[Father Peter]

To be fair to Catholics, the context of any one passage is the entire Catholic Tradition. Any papal encyclical must be understood in the context of the Catholic Tradition, and especially any passage from an encyclical must be understood in the context of the Catholic Tradition.

It is not reasonable to excerpt a passage and explain it as YOU want to explain it without reference to how the wider and comprehensive Catholic Tradition interprets it. We may well disagree with that Catholic Tradition, but reading a passage with reference to that Tradition is the only proper way to proceed unless we have a narrowly polemical agenda.

Father Peter

[ialmisry]

Fabio, why should anyone accept your authority to set forth the polity of someone else's church, especially considering the polemic you have thus far treated us to?

That is why I used an official document of the Pope. What's so hard to understand about that?

That you, just like your buddy Isa, like to build your polemics on proof texts.  

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.

Sorry, I'm a peeker.

[PeterTheAleut]

^ And what does that have to do with the number of fleas on a dog's back?

[ialmisry]

To be fair to Catholics, the context of any one passage is the entire Catholic Tradition. Any papal encyclical must be understood in the context of the Catholic Tradition, and especially any passage from an encyclical must be understood in the context of the Catholic Tradition.

That's just the problem, Father. Century after century, papal bull after papal bull, crusade and after crusade.  The Vatican's tradition doesn't start at the "spirit of Vatican II."

It is not reasonable to excerpt a passage and explain it as YOU want to explain it without reference to how the wider and comprehensive Catholic Tradition interprets it. We may well disagree with that Catholic Tradition, but reading a passage with reference to that Tradition is the only proper way to proceed unless we have a narrowly polemical agenda.

Let's give an example you may be familiar with.  As you commemorate Pope Shenoudah, you are aware of that title.  Ordinarily, those hierarchs who submit to the Vatican are allowed to keep their titles, so the Syriac Patriarch of Antioch in submission is still called Patriarch, the Armenian primate in submission to the Vatican bears the title catholicos, etc. Not so Alexandria: neither the Copt who submited, nor the Melkite who appended it to is titles, nor the Latin that the Fifth Crusade was supposed to impose is allowed to have their Orthodox counterparts "Pope." The Vatican's communion isn't big enough for two popes. Another difference between it and the Church of the first millenium.

[ialmisry]

^ And what does that have to do with the number of fleas on a dog's back?

Don't know. Don't have a dog, or fleas.

As for taking the Vatican at its word, that should be self explanatiory.  So the Vatican claims that it hasn't reduced its episcopate to one bishop with a myriad of auxiliaries if not acolytes. Look at it in action.

[Father Peter]

I do believe that the doctrine of ordinary papal jurisdiction essentially destroys the traditional ecclesiology of the Church.

But where I think I disagree with you is that if I was to write a paper on that topic I would want to thoroughly understand how the Catholic Church understands that doctrine and would not want to write as though my understanding was sufficient in itself. Having thoroughly understood the Catholic position I might want to say either that I disagreed with it, or that I understood what the Catholics wanted to say by it, but believed that it had unintended consequences.

But a proper discussion of a Catholic doctrine must surely require a proper appreciation of the Catholic context.

I have endured 16 years of being told what I believe by people who clearly do not know what I believe, therefore in regard to others I always want to try to hear what they believe from their own mouths as far as possible. I regularly meet with Catholic bishops and priests and therefore have no excuse for not finding out properly what they believe before I criticise a point of view.

Father Peter

[JLatimer]

Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.

I am sorry but this is just stupid and you know it. If anyone declared that the pope was present in the host, you know that such a person would be declared an idolatrous heretic. You are reading your own prejudiced view into the teachings of the Catholic Church and are demonstrating that your views cannot be taken seriously.

blahblahblah, "I don't like it, so it's all prejudice, I won't hear it."

The priest who said it wasn't. Plus since when logical syllogisms are "prejudices"?

1) The Pope is the visible head of the Church and Christ is the invisible head;
2) The Pope and Christ are one;

Which one follows?

3a) The relation of Pope and Christ is iconic as per Orthodox eclesiology for bishops, therefore "Pope and Christ are one" is just a figure of speech;

or

3b) The relation of the Pope and Christ is *more than* iconic and more intimate than that;

If 3a) and the Pope is just iconically Christ, so his sovereignity over the Church is also iconic, a symbol, "primus inter pares" and not substantial allowing actual government and intervation; that is the actual Orthodox Catholic eclesiology about the Primate.

If 3b) and the Pope is *more* iconic than the other bishops, if his relation is more intimate than the other bishops, than RC eclesiology would be right, for it would be *through* him that the others would have his legitimacy; *This* is the actual claim of RCs, that he is shepard of shepards, that he is the one who conveys legitimacy to sacraments. Now, is there something in between A is B and A represents B? Can something have more than close resemblance without being identity? Because if there were, "Pope and Christ are one" would still be a figure of speech pointing to this alternative. If there isn't, as I believe it is the case, then "Pope and Christ are one" is literall, which if it were true, would justify RC eclesiology and acts.

What is it? Which one follows from

1) H = C; (on heaven)
2) H = P; (on earth)

3) P = C (on earth)?

or

3) P = (an icon of) C?

There is a difference between being one with some one in that some one is in communion with another, as all Christians are united to Christ. The Pope is one with Christ in this sense, and also through his authority.

Then there is onotological oneness. As in the identity a=a. The Pope is not one with Christ in this sense.

The fact that you cannot see or that you refuse to see this is a clear demonstration of your deep seated and irrational prejudice against the Catholic Church. You are creating staw men for the sake of scoring points in your attack on the Catholic Faith. Unfortunatley Isa has joined you in this and I find it really disappointing.

I'm not sure what to think about Fabio's argument, but it seems to me you haven't addressed his most important question, namely, is there some third term between (a) identity (or what you called "ontological unity"), and (b) iconic representation which could be said to describe the pope's relationship with Christ?

Until you answer that satisfactorily, I'm afraid it looks to me as if you are indeed guilty of proposing incomplete syllogisms and then complaining when someone dares draw out the conclusion.

I agree with you that Fabio is using something like a straw-man argument, since I assume you do not actually believe the pope and Christ are ontologically one. Certainly I've never met any Catholics who'd claim this! But I think what Fabio is trying to get you to see is that maybe you should: if you draw out the logical conclusions of your ecclesiology, you would believe in Fabio's scarecrow. If that makes you uncomfortable, you should find a different ecclesiology that doesn't lead to idolatry. Until then, you'll be trying to hold onto disparate, contradictory beliefs while claiming them, against reason, to be non-contradictory.

Does that make any sense?

[Father Peter]

If you read the Catholic Cathechism on the Episcopal College, and in many other places, then it clearly describes the position of the Pope, and seems to me to clearly describe an ecclesiology which is not Orthodox. But it describes the Catholic view as the Catholic Church wishes it to be understood, and should therefore surely be the appropriate place to begin.

In the Catechism the local bishop is given jurisdiction over his local Church, which is as we would describe our hierarchy, but we would depart when the Catehchism says that the Pope has universal and unhindered jurisdiction over the whole Church, and when it says that a council of bishops has no authority apart from when in union with the Pope. This does deny the local bishop any jursidiction at all which is not actually subject to the Pope.

The Catechism seems coherent, but wrong from an Orthodox point of view. I see no value or charity in insisting that the Catholics believe something other than the Catechism teaches. The Catechism does not seem to me to teach that the Pope IS Christ, but that he acts with Christ's authority.

Father Peter

[JLatimer]

You're using a few statements from a pope, which you've likely removed from their proper context, to prove your point in an Internet discussion.  I think it totally legit, therefore, to question your use of this statement (as opposed to the statement itself) and compare your use of this statement against how our Catholic posters understand it.

But what Fabio's arguing, if I understand him correctly, is that the Roman Catholic "context" is itself the problem, that is to say, taken as a whole, Latin doctrine appears full of incomplete syllogisms that the RC believer is asked to refrain from completing out loud.

The problem is exactly that "how our Catholic posters understand" their doctrine, and what their doctrine actually teaches may be two different things!

[Fabio Leite]

To be fair to Catholics, the context of any one passage is the entire Catholic Tradition. Any papal encyclical must be understood in the context of the Catholic Tradition, and especially any passage from an encyclical must be understood in the context of the Catholic Tradition.

It is not reasonable to excerpt a passage and explain it as YOU want to explain it without reference to how the wider and comprehensive Catholic Tradition interprets it. We may well disagree with that Catholic Tradition, but reading a passage with reference to that Tradition is the only proper way to proceed unless we have a narrowly polemical agenda.

Father Peter

Father, as a linguist, I must disagree. Just like any kind of measure, to interpret a text, we must have a clearly defined reference. What you are saying is like saying the only way to know the position of an object is if we consider *all* the space in the universe. That is not abstractly impossible, but it is unfeasible in practice.

In a similar fashion, and that stands for Orhtodoxy as well, we cannot call Tradition as the only reference because it is simply too wide. The interextual possibilities are so many that basically any meaning can be derived from any singular piece being examined.

To analyse critically a text one has to *first* determine a limited scope of reference not to fall into polisemy.

We are analysing what the popes mean when they say they are one with God and that they are the visible aspect of what Jesus is invisibly. I chose an encyclical of a Pope, who, it's safe to assume, has studied these matters deeply. I have brought those statements. Aleut called for a wider context than loose sentences. I pointed out the context had already been given in the two paragraphs and that the whole document was freely available for an even wider context. Now that it was pointed out, there is a calling for an even larger context which, in my opinion, can make any sentence mean anything. Which by the way, is the argument some RCs friends had already made in trying to convince me that the Pope's infallibility is correct. As they have said "You just have to accept his statement. There are several ways of understanding it!" Of course there are! Everything can mean anything in a non-delimited context.

But, if an encyclical from a Pope, making reference to what another Pope had said before, about the nature of the Church and the role of his office is not contextualized enough, what is?

[JLatimer]

I see no value or charity in insisting that the Catholics believe something other than the Catechism teaches.

I see limited value in it. I don't wish to be uncharitable toward Roman Catholics or to offend anyone on this thread. And I take Catholics at their word about what they believe.

However,

I'm mostly exploring what Fabio is saying because it is interesting to me as an argument. I don't think it's an illegitimate argument, because no one has yet explained to me the flaw in the reasoning. But I'm totally open to seeing the flaw. I'm no expert logician.

My mom, a Protestant, once told me 'I believe Jesus Christ is truly literally present in Communion.' I suggested that her belief in the real presence was inconsistent with her Protestant ecclesiology (and frankly with the teaching of her church). I think I was right, but of course, my mom wants to have her cake and eat it too. I think this situation is not unlike the one we're discussing. People often claim to believe things that ultimately, placed side-by-side, are contradictory. I think it's legitimate to call such beliefs into question.

People often grill us Orthodox on contradictions and we usually just shout "Mystery!" to get them off our backs. But just because I think Orthodoxy is true, doesn't mean I think it's out-of-bounds (or even uncharitable) for people to question what they see as contradictions in my belief system.

I think if we can all agree to be nice, we can do that sort of grilling here without too many feelings being hurt.

[Fabio Leite]

You're using a few statements from a pope, which you've likely removed from their proper context, to prove your point in an Internet discussion.  I think it totally legit, therefore, to question your use of this statement (as opposed to the statement itself) and compare your use of this statement against how our Catholic posters understand it.

But what Fabio's arguing, if I understand him correctly, is that the Roman Catholic "context" is itself the problem, that is to say, taken as a whole, Latin doctrine appears full of incomplete syllogisms that the RC believer is asked to refrain from completing out loud.

The problem is exactly that "how our Catholic posters understand" their doctrine, and what their doctrine actually teaches may be two different things!

That's exactly it JLatimer. You nailed my point. I know RCs don't believe in an identity of Christ and the Pope ontollogically. But unless a third term to conclude the syllogism is found, one must either accept this horrendous idea, or return to Orthodox eclesiology (iconic identity) which does not support the kind of administration the RCC currently has.

[JLatimer]

charity

Also, charity and misology are not the same thing. Neither are polemic and dialectic.

(i.e. we're all adults here and should be able to handle difficult questions and arguments)

[Fabio Leite]

Just as a note to whoever thinks I don't understand what RCs believe about the Pope (which is, in my opinion, radically different from what several Popes of post-Caroligian periods have stated about themselves).

It is a relation of King (Christ) and Steward(the Pope). Since ancient times, and we see that even in the story of Joseph of Egypt, the lord of a house would give the keys of his treasury to a person of trust who administer it. In fact, one can reasonably argue that Joseph, in this respect, is a prefiguration of the primate as well.

However, there is an even better prefiguration of the role of the primate in the Old Testament, in the figure of Elliakin. Here is the passage:

Isaiah 22:14-25
And it was revealed in my ears by the LORD of hosts, Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die, saith the Lord GOD of hosts.

Thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, Go, repair to this treasurer, even to Shebna, who is over the house, and say,

What hast thou here? and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewed thee out a sepulcher here, as he that heweth him out a sepulcher on high, and that graveth a habitation for himself in a rock?

Behold, the LORD will carry thee away with a mighty captivity, and will surely cover thee.

With violence he will surely turn and toss thee like a ball into a wide country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.

And I will drive thee from thy station, and from thy state shall he pull thee down.

And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:

And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.

And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.

In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken it.

All the famous passage of Matthew breaths with reference to this. The donation of the keys. "I will pray for you to be steady", and so on. The keys as a symbols of a kind of governing power.

But the prefiguration shows more than RCs would like.

First, that this grace is *not* given in a irremovable way. Shebna before Elliakin had it, but lost it. Even Elliakin's privilege is foreseen to be lost in the future. Indeed,*when Eliakin abandoned his role as steward to put himself as king of Judah, under the name of Jehoiakim, by interference of Pharaoh*, among other things that brought great idolatry to the kingdom, he burned the prophecies of Jeremiah, in practice, though not in words, breaking apart with the Word of God and His people, and bringing about what had been foreseen, in spite of him being "fastened as a nail in a sure place":

Jeremiah 36

28 "Take another scroll and write on it all the words that were on the first scroll, which Jehoiakim king of Judah burned up. 29 Also tell Jehoiakim king of Judah, 'This is what the LORD says: You burned that scroll and said, "Why did you write on it that the king of Babylon would certainly come and destroy this land and cut off both men and animals from it?" 30 Therefore, this is what the LORD says about Jehoiakim king of Judah: He will have no one to sit on the throne of David; his body will be thrown out and exposed to the heat by day and the frost by night. 31 I will punish him and his children and his attendants for their wickedness; I will bring on them and those living in Jerusalem and the people of Judah every disaster I pronounced against them, because they have not listened.' "

 32 So Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to the scribe Baruch son of Neriah, and as Jeremiah dictated, Baruch wrote on it all the words of the scroll that Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And many similar words were added to them.

What God is telling us in this prefiguration is that, indeed, the prerrogatives of the Primate are high. But it does not belong to any person in particular. It was taken from Shebna to be given to Eliakin and later were taken from Eliakin as well. This is, my friends, Orthodox Catholic ecclesiology. The Primate was first Rome, now it is Constantinople and in the future, should Constantinople fall, could be Antioch, Alexandria or any other Patriarchal see.

The problem is that - despite not being said with these words, nor thus explicitily believed by RCs - they do *act* as if there was an "ontological" identity between the role of "steward of the King before the Church" and the role (not the person) of the Roman pope.

Because this remains unsaid but it is acted upon, worse "beasts" are raised in that silent realm. The role of the steward substitutes the role of the king himself. The other "officials" of the kingdom are seen to have their authority not from the king directly, but from the king *through* the steward. The steward is visible and the king is invisible.

I, particularly, do not think it is too odd, that we see, side by side to Orthodox statements about the primate as steward of the King in the Church, statements of absolute power as we saw in many Popes and others more ambiguous today that depend on "context".

The Caroligians, as a clan, used to be the stewards of the previous dinasty, the Merovingians. More and more, the stewards assumed roles of the kings, even going to war, being the "visible authority" while the "invisible king" remained in the castle. The "visible head" of the kingdom carried all the signs given by the "invisible king" and were ever more ruling the kingdom not in name of the king, but in name of themselves.

At last, Pepin, the Short, pressed the Pope asking if it was right that there was a powerless king. This way, he became the first Caroligian king. His son was Charlesmagne, who played more or less the same cards but with higher bets since the Emperor of the Roman Empire was, for the West, an "invisible king", thus allowing himself to play the role of the "visible head" in practice, although he never actually used the imperial titles. Much like papal discourse soon later, he would refrain from claiming a perfect identity with the emperor, but would reclaim all the related authority from those under his control.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepin_the_Short )

Again, in my opinion, this "caroligian virus" is what contaminated Rome and eventually led to its fall away from the Church. The steward more and more seeks power de facto that is proper to the King while vehemently denying in all de jure instances to assume it, until he has in practice usurped it and needs only an "authority" to letigitimize it socially.

[Irish Hermit]

Apology. Wrong thread.

[theistgal]

I know there is this idea (especially on the Internet) that the way to convert people is to make fun of their current belief system and make them realize how stupid it is.  It's amazing, however, how often that does NOT work out in real life.  Maybe it's because it wasn't the way Jesus did things.

Remember His conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well?  Did He show her amusing, cynical pictures indicating how dumb and heretical the Samaritans were for their beliefs?  Maybe that's in the new Orthodox Study Bible; it's not in my version. 

My point being: caricaturing other people's beliefs and making them sound worse than they really are, in practice, is not going to win anyone to Christ.  And I assume that's what you're trying to do here - win people to the true church of Christ.  Right? 

[Keble]

Well, it has been proven that one of the basic purposes of the internet is to make it easier to assemble a group of like-minded people so we can congratulate ourselves on the correctness of our thought and ridicule the wrong-headed.

[theistgal]

Well, it has been proven that one of the basic purposes of the internet is to make it easier to assemble a group of like-minded people so we can congratulate ourselves on the correctness of our thought and ridicule the wrong-headed.

  Hi Keble!  Nice to see you are still here.

I haven't been logging in here (or at any religious-discussion forum, for that matter) for several months, mainly because of threads like this, which tend to irritate me.  And now that I'm starting menopause, trust me - you do NOT want to irritate me.        

[JLatimer]

And I assume that's what you're trying to do here - win people to the true church of Christ.  Right? 

In this case, that's not what I, at least, am trying to do. I was trying to have a discussion with people, like-minded and different-minded alike, about an interesting theological topic, and about logic, and categories, and authority, and textual interpretation, and about the nature and value of arguments, etc..

Interesting discussions often include tough questions, difficult topics, uncomfortableness, and sometimes they even get heated [gasp!]: see Plato, collected works.

Generally I don't expect to win any body to Orthodoxy with an argument. A forum is an ideal place for mature, thinking people to engage in serious, interesting discussion. Alas, too often anything that makes anyone slightly uncomfortable is denigrated on this site as "polemic" (as if polemic was necessarily a pejorative anyway - read Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments: great, interesting book, polemic in style).

As I've suggested before, this is misology masquerading as charity.

[PeterTheAleut]

Remember His conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well?  Did He show her amusing, cynical pictures indicating how dumb and heretical the Samaritans were for their beliefs?  Maybe that's in the new Orthodox Study Bible; it's not in my version. 

It's not in the new OSB either, so I think your attempt at a sly cheap shot a bit off the mark.   Otherwise, you make some very good points.

[theistgal]

Remember His conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well?  Did He show her amusing, cynical pictures indicating how dumb and heretical the Samaritans were for their beliefs?  Maybe that's in the new Orthodox Study Bible; it's not in my version.  

It's not in the new OSB either, so I think your attempt at a sly cheap shot a bit off the mark.  Otherwise, you make some very good points.

Now see, that's the whole problem with these forums!  You think I was making a cheap shot at the OSB and I wasn't - was actually trying to point out the opposite - the difference between what what is sometimes (regrettably) put forward on the Internet as Orthodoxy and what it actually teaches.  I have actually had good conversations with a lot of Orthodox friends, online and in person.  So my apologies if it sounded like I was being unkind - it wasn't intentional!   

As for the "convert priest" quoted above, I'm sure you'll agree that converts don't always get their facts straight.  And there are, shall we say, overly enthusiastic folks in every tradition.  I remember many years ago coming across a devotional pamphlet about Mary by some very well-meaning person who had somehow gotten the idea that we consume the flesh of MARY in the Eucharist as well as Jesus!  Her reasoning?  Jesus got His human nature (DNA) from Mary only; therefore, if you believe the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus, then ipso facto, ergo sum, it's Mary too!  Erm, makes sense, right?  

Need I point out that that, also, is not what the Catholic Church teaches?  But I'm sure some non-RC person read that pamphlet and found more fuel for their "Roman Catholics worship Mary" beliefs.

[theistgal]

And I assume that's what you're trying to do here - win people to the true church of Christ.  Right? 

In this case, that's not what I, at least, am trying to do. I was trying to have a discussion with people, like-minded and different-minded alike, about an interesting theological topic, and about logic, and categories, and authority, and textual interpretation, and about the nature and value of arguments, etc..

Interesting discussions often include tough questions, difficult topics, uncomfortableness, and sometimes they even get heated [gasp!]: see Plato, collected works.

Generally I don't expect to win any body to Orthodoxy with an argument. A forum is an ideal place for mature, thinking people to engage in serious, interesting discussion. Alas, too often anything that makes anyone slightly uncomfortable is denigrated on this site as "polemic" (as if polemic was necessarily a pejorative anyway - read Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments: great, interesting book, polemic in style).

As I've suggested before, this is misology masquerading as charity.

It's one thing to ask tough questions.  It's another to post out-and-out falsehoods ("Catholics believe the Pope is part of the Eucharist!") and then claim Catholics are being immature when they object.

[Fabio Leite]

And I assume that's what you're trying to do here - win people to the true church of Christ.  Right? 

In this case, that's not what I, at least, am trying to do. I was trying to have a discussion with people, like-minded and different-minded alike, about an interesting theological topic, and about logic, and categories, and authority, and textual interpretation, and about the nature and value of arguments, etc..

Interesting discussions often include tough questions, difficult topics, uncomfortableness, and sometimes they even get heated [gasp!]: see Plato, collected works.

Generally I don't expect to win any body to Orthodoxy with an argument. A forum is an ideal place for mature, thinking people to engage in serious, interesting discussion. Alas, too often anything that makes anyone slightly uncomfortable is denigrated on this site as "polemic" (as if polemic was necessarily a pejorative anyway - read Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments: great, interesting book, polemic in style).

As I've suggested before, this is misology masquerading as charity.

It's one thing to ask tough questions.  It's another to post out-and-out falsehoods ("Catholics believe the Pope is part of the Eucharist!") and then claim Catholics are being immature when they object.

Only that it was never stated that. I just quoted what a priest said as evidence that the "ad absurdum" conclusion of the sylogism could and was taken on occasion.

[Fabio Leite]

And plus let me say something. I was rather surprised by the claim of "offense" because of the drawings. I could expect, ugly, badly done, and even "simplory"- this one I think someone made - since I had done them as a kind of schematic thing and schemes - like the typical drawing of an atom - are more references than maps and usually fall greatly behind of what they represent. Yet, they *do* point to the real thing.

But, offensive?? This was rather surreal to me. It sounded like those people who when you say "Hi Jane, nice hair!" respond with with a lawsuit for sexual harassment.

If a body with an invisible head and a visible head is insulting in image, why is it not in words? It could have been a misrepresentation as was with the Anglican church. I was corrected, accepted, learned one more thing and moved on. I only would like to see this kind of indignation come when that same image is proposed even in words, even if by someone who claims to be the said visible head.