Topic: "Apologists Who Concede Nothing"

[ialmisry]

Let this be a lesson in never ask a question that you do not want answered, at least truthfully.
http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/11/18/on-apologists-who-concede-nothing/#comments

What he has to say has been said by someone here (I'm just not in the mood nor have the time to shift through posts), so I'm not picking on him. He just has a good summary of the "points" that have to be responded too. Besides, not like he didn't bring it up:

I’ll be closing comments soon, since it seems to me (and from reading Isa’s comments over at OrthodoxChristianity.net forums) that this discussion will not make fruitful progress toward unity.

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/11/14/who-do-the-orthodox-say-the-bishop-of-rome-is/comment-page-1/
This, from this question he posted:

Who Do the Orthodox Say the Bishop of Rome Is?
We’ve had some great interactions, and I want to personally thank everyone who has weighed in on the comments of these posts, especially Steven Greydanus (Christianity’s preeminent film reviewer), Perry Robinson, Nick, Isa Almisry, Joe Heschmeyer, Nicholas, Hieromonk Ambrose (who gets the coolest name award, hands-down), Timothy Flanders, John Hogg, and Peter aka PMG.

Jesus asked the Apostles, “who do you say that I am?” I’d like to ask the same thing of my Orthodox friends. Not because I’m trying to trap you, but because I honestly don’t know.

Who do you say the bishop of Rome, Pope Benedict, is?

Is there an official Orthodox position on the bishop of Rome?

Is he a heretic? A schismatic? Both? An Anti-Christ?

IOW, our opinion was asked.  Not that we had to step in and correct incorrect thoughts on the Orthodox Church (though we had to do that too).  Not that we were "trolling" to pick a fight.  Our opinion was asked, and we gave it.

I seem to have missed the "only replys that agree with the Vatican will be received" caveat.  Was it in here?

Regarding the Dialogue We’ve Been Having

How often to Orthodox and Catholic laymen get together and hash out our differences, in a respectful and calm way? In my experience, not very. Which is why I’ve enjoyed these posts that have gotten such a positive interaction from people on both sides. My thought is, if we can’t talk about it, we’ll never get anywhere.

Further, I let the comments range all over. That’s the way I roll. Other sites—ones I greatly respect—moderate comments that aren’t focused on the particular topic at hand. That makes the posts and comment threads stay on topic and is quite helpful. But I feel that, especially in this discussion, having a discussion is more important than having a laser-focused one. Let’s just talk and argue and hopefully come out more knowledgeable and respecting of each other afterward.

My response:

First, the official Orthodox answer about the bishop of Rome is that the only bishop in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church with his see at Rome is Bp. Siluan Spam, by statute of the Romanian Patriarchate.

The only Metropolitan of Italy in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church has his see in Venice, Met. Gennadios, who, by agreement of all the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, serves as chairman of the Orthodox Episcopal Conference of Italy and Malta and as the chairman of its executive committee.

They are serving persuent to canon 2 of Constantinople I: “…the synod of each province will confine itself to the affairs of that particular province, in accordance with the regulations decreed in Nicaea. But the churches of God that are situated in territories belonging to barbarian nations must be administered in accordance with the customary practice of the Fathers.” St. Nicodemus interprets this (around the time the Orthodox jurisdiction of Italy was first being solidified) “As for the churches of God that are situated in the midst of barbarian nations, where there either were not enough bishops to make up a synod, or it was necessary for some scholarly bishop to go there in order to bolster up the Christians in their faith. These churches, I say, ought to be managed in accordance with the prevailing custom of the Fathers. To be more explicit, neighboring and abler bishops ought to go to them, in order to supply what is missing for a local synod. Which, though contrary to Canons, yet as a matter of necessity was allowed by the Council. Read Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV, and c. I of the Sixth.”

As they are not exercising jurisidction persuant to canon 6 of Nicea I, and are suffragans of others (i.e. the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Patriarch of Romania, etc.), the only pope in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church is “His Divine Beatitude Theodore II the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, All Egypt and All Africa, Father of Fathers, Pastor of Pastors, Highpriest of Highpriests, the Thirteenth of the Apostles and Judge of the World/Universe,” who has no jurisdiction in Italy.

As for the successor of St. Peter, beyond every bishop, in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, that would be his 170th successor where the disciples were first called Christians (Acts 11:26), “the Most Reverend and Most Holy Father, His Beatitude Ignatius IV Patriarch of Antioch, the Great City of God, of Syria, Lebanon, Arabia, Cilicia, Mesopotamia and all the East; Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Master of Masters, and Thirteenth of the Holy Apostles, our Father and Chief Shepherd.”

As for your supreme pontiff in the Vatican, Benedict XVI, he is purged of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church for heresy. As to the nature of his heresy, it may be summed up by the renunciations asked of any of his followers if they wish to confess the Orthodox Faith and be received into Catholic communion:
“Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the declaration of our Saviour Christ himself: “who proceedeth from the Father”: doth not suffice; and that the addition, of man’s invention: “and from the Son”: is required?”
“Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that it doth not suffice to confess our Lord Jesus Christ as the head of the Universal Church; and that a man, to wit, the Bishop of Rome, can be the head of Christ’s Body, that is to say, of the whole Church?”
“Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that the holy Apostles did not receive from our Lord equal spiritual power, but that the holy Apostle Peter was their Prince: And that the Bishop of Rome alone is his successor: And that the Bishops of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and others are not, equally with the Bishop of Rome, successors of the Apostles?”
“Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of those who think that the Pope of Rome is superior to the Ecumenical Councils, and infallible in faith, notwithstanding the fact that several of the Popes have been heretics, and condemned as such by the Councils?”
“Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of those who think that the Pope of Rome is superior to the Ecumenical Councils, and infallible in faith, notwithstanding the fact that several of the Popes have been heretics, and condemned as such by the Councils?”
“Dost thou renounce all the other doctrines of the Western Confession, both old and new, which are contrary to the Word of God, and to the true tradition of the Church, and to the decrees of the seven Ecumenical Councils?”
Along with the promises:
“Bishop. Dost thou believe and confess that power hath been given by our Saviour Christ unto the Orthodox-Catholic Church to bind and. to loose: and that whatsoever, by virtue of that power, is bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven?
Answer. I believe and confess it.
Bishop. Dost thou believe and confess that the Foundation, Head, and Great High Priest and Chief Shepherd of the Holy OrthodoxCatholic Church is our Lord Jesus Christ; and that Bishops, Pastors and Teachers are appointed by him to rule the Church; and that the Guide and Pilot of this Church is the Holy Spirit?
Answer. I believe and confess that this Church is the Bride of Christ, and that therein is true salvation, which was in the Ark of Noah at the Flood.
Bishop. Dost thou promise true obedience, unto thy life’s end, in guidance which is salutary unto the soul, to the Most Holy Synod; to the Most Holy Patriarch, the Equal-of-the-Apostles (or to the Ecclesiastical Authorities of the Autocephalous Provincial Church); and to the Bishop of this Diocese, as the true Pastors appointed by the Holy Spirit; and to the Priests ordained by them?
Answer. I promise it, with heart unfeigned.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=fBk9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA456&output=text#c_top

As to Pope Benedict XVI personally, many of us (including myself, my priest and many in my parish) were members of the Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club from way back. His abolishion of his patriarchate of the West was a mistake, especially not coupled with his ealier (pre-election) idea of promoting the local episcopal conferences.

To which the objection was raised:

It all sounds so polemical, so over the top. I mean, really? Are countries with predominant (or once-predominant) Catholic populations considered “barbarian lands” still?

And the profession of faith, much of that is false dichotomies and polemics as well. I dunno. This reminds me of the Orthodox laity, priests, and bishops calling the Pope the AntiChrist before his visit to Cyprus (which I linked to in the post).

which objections I answered

The office of reception of converts would of course be polemical. The convert is of course rejecting one thing to embrace another. Given the question, I wanted something a little more of an official answer than my own thoughts on the nature of what heresies Pope Benedict XVI of the Vatican might be guilty of.

For “barbarian” read “outside the normal system of things.” When the canon was written, the organization presupposed the context of the Roman Empire: there were no metropolitans in the Sassanid empire, for instance, given that it was not built on cities like Rome was. Right now, it would refer to areas not within the established patrimony of an autocephalous Holy Synod. Poland, for instance, which is overwhelmingly on the Vatican’s side of the issue, is not “barbarian lands” as it has a Holy Synod, its primate commemorated by his autocephalous peers, etc.

“Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church” again is to use official terminology:one of the major defects of Ravenna was the idea of defining Orthodox communion in terms of communion with Constantinople. That is true only as long as his peers commemorate him in their diptychs. Again, I wanted to give more official, less my own personal views.

As to alleged false dichonomies etc., they would have to have their own post.

to which last point I'll reply later, Lord willing.

In the meantime, after the comments were closed on the subject of this thread
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,40904.0.html
there came this:

On Apologists Who Concede Nothing

We had a big Orthodox discussion this week and last here on the blog. Overall, I learned a lot, both about Orthodoxy but perhaps even more the arguments Orthodox apologists make. In the end, I had to take the unfortunate step of closing the comments and also warning two Orthodox apologists about their comments.

There is more, but at this point, what was I supposed to concede? 

That his supreme pontiff Benedict XVI should be in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church?

That neither he, nor his followers who come to be received into communion with the bishops in the Orthodox diptcyhs of the Catholic Church be required to renounce any of the beliefs

That I should, per the dictates of his supreme pontiff, deny the proper and traditional title to my patriarch, the Pope of Alexandria, as the Vatican has-contrary to its usual way of dealing with its "sui juris" hierarchies-banned the use of the title by the Latin, Melkite and Coptic primates it has set up there (showing thereby how "sui juris" "of one's own right" the Vatican means-not very: its ecclesial community is too small for two popes (but it can manage 4 patriarchs of Antioch and three of Alexandria))?

That I should ignore Bishop Siluan at Rome, a bishop in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, and commune instead with the sovereign of the Vatican?

That I should take the Vatican's curia over the Orthodox Episcopal Conference of Italy and Malta? On that, I think I went into some detail:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30219.0.html

So, exactly was I to "concede"?  I think Devin (the blogger) answered that, and I'll post that next, Lord willing.  Let us say, it seems that dialogue means we Orthodox will be informed what the Vatican thinks important (like "something special about the bishop Rome), and what it thinks is not important/"isnt' dogmatic" (like the filioque), and we will adjust accordingly.  Sorry, dialogue isn't dictation.

[Irish Hermit]

Tried to publish this, three times, but it was not allowed to appear.
________________________________


The Orthodox have been charitably clear since the first days of the ecumenical era that they are not bringing their faith into the market place.  They don't have an interest in concessions.  They wish to present and explain their faith to anybody with an interest and invite them to return to the faith which united us for 1000 years.

One finds that even such an Orthodox proponent of ecumenism, Fr Thomas Hopko, retired dean of Saint Vladimir's seminary NY, presents Rome with a shopping list of doctrinal amendments.  They begin about 1/3 down the webpage...
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php

It maybe should be stressed that the Orthodox have no interest at all in subordinating any Church to another Church. They seek no authority.  Their only desire is unity in the faith,  When we achieve that, communion will follow naturally.

In the loving words of Alexey Khomiakov:

"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... Oh that you could only consent to be again what
you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion."

[Maria]

Tried to publish this, three times, but it was not allowed to appear.
________________________________


The Orthodox have been charitably clear since the first days of the ecumenical era that they are not bringing their faith into the market place.  They don't have an interest in concessions.  They wish to present and explain their faith to anybody with an interest and invite them to return to the faith which united us for 1000 years.

One finds that even such an Orthodox proponent of ecumenism, Fr Thomas Hopko, retired dean of Saint Vladimir's seminary NY, presents Rome with a shopping list of doctrinal amendments.  They begin about 1/3 down the webpage...
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php

It maybe should be stressed that the Orthodox have no interest at all in subordinating any Church to another Church. They seek no authority.  Their only desire is unity in the faith,  When we achieve that, communion will follow naturally.

In the loving words of Alexey Khomiakov:

"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... Oh that you could only consent to be again what
you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion."

I agree.

In the words of Father Vasily of the Church of Onion Domes,

Change? Is outrage!

[Irish Hermit]

Note I am talking about a few of the Orthodox commenters. Not all of them. I have since learned they have a reputation for going around to other blogs and forums and arguing in this manner.

Oh dear, some people have been misleading Devin.   I do not write on blogs. Deven was rather unique for me.  I write on this Forum.  I have not written on Catholic Answers for 4 years. I contribute less than one message every two months to ByzCath.

WHY is it that Catholics respond to the Orthodox, when our position/teaching discomfits them, by banning us?  Why cannot we enjoy a clear and robust dialogue? 

[LBK]

WHY is it that Catholics respond to the Orthodox, when our position/teaching discomfits them, by banning us?  Why cannot we enjoy a clear and robust dialogue? 

Because the truth hurts .... 

[biro]

Because you don't want dialogue.

[FrChris]

What about this discussion surprises you, Ialmisry? What happened in the situation you described happens everywhere. Simply put, a non-revisionist historical account is not accepted in the West. That is why I no longer debate or discuss the topic: you cannot discuss anything with a person who does not want to hear you.

[ialmisry]

What about this discussion surprises you, Ialmisry? What happened in the situation you described happens everywhere. Simply put, a non-revisionist historical account is not accepted in the West. That is why I no longer debate or discuss the topic: you cannot discuss anything with a person who does not want to hear you.

LOL. Doesn't surprise me at all, Father.  Nor upset me.  I just have had a number of thoughts on this issue for some time that I thought time to put down (more to come).

I will say, as I always have believed, that if you do not want a question answered, don't ask it.

[xariskai]

Tried to publish this, three times, but it was not allowed to appear.
________________________________


The Orthodox have been charitably clear since the first days of the ecumenical era that they are not bringing their faith into the market place.  They don't have an interest in concessions.  They wish to present and explain their faith to anybody with an interest and invite them to return to the faith which united us for 1000 years.

One finds that even such an Orthodox proponent of ecumenism, Fr Thomas Hopko, retired dean of Saint Vladimir's seminary NY, presents Rome with a shopping list of doctrinal amendments.  They begin about 1/3 down the webpage...
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php

It maybe should be stressed that the Orthodox have no interest at all in subordinating any Church to another Church. They seek no authority.  Their only desire is unity in the faith,  When we achieve that, communion will follow naturally.

In the loving words of Alexey Khomiakov:

"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... Oh that you could only consent to be again what
you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion."

Welcome to the Index of Forbidden Posts.    

His latest page is a bit hard to figure out on his original stated premise of honest dialog; evidently he is after dialog with those who disagree with him unless they are not in favor of working for unity with Rome on his terms, or if they hesitate to concede Total Factual Error if he deems a Roman Catholic poster has presented some "devastating counterpoint." Resistance is futile.

[Iconodule]

What, someone, somewhere on the internet, said some dumb crap about Orthodoxy? Woah.

[Riddikulus]

What, someone, somewhere on the internet, said some dumb crap about Orthodoxy? Woah.

Hard to imagine, I know. 

[Papist]

Note I am talking about a few of the Orthodox commenters. Not all of them. I have since learned they have a reputation for going around to other blogs and forums and arguing in this manner.

Oh dear, some people have been misleading Devin.   I do not write on blogs. Deven was rather unique for me.  I write on this Forum.  I have not written on Catholic Answers for 4 years. I contribute less than one message every two months to ByzCath.

WHY is it that Catholics respond to the Orthodox, when our position/teaching discomfits them, by banning us?  Why cannot we enjoy a clear and robust dialogue? 

The problem is, is that so many EO's appear to be extremely rude in online debate.

[PeterTheAleut]

Note I am talking about a few of the Orthodox commenters. Not all of them. I have since learned they have a reputation for going around to other blogs and forums and arguing in this manner.

Oh dear, some people have been misleading Devin.   I do not write on blogs. Deven was rather unique for me.  I write on this Forum.  I have not written on Catholic Answers for 4 years. I contribute less than one message every two months to ByzCath.

WHY is it that Catholics respond to the Orthodox, when our position/teaching discomfits them, by banning us?  Why cannot we enjoy a clear and robust dialogue? 

The problem is, is that so many EO's appear to be extremely rude in online debate.

Like we have a monopoly on rudeness, Papist?

[biro]

That makes it okay, because two wrongs make a right.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

That makes it okay, because two wrongs make a right.

 

To whom are you talking?

[Schultz]

Note I am talking about a few of the Orthodox commenters. Not all of them. I have since learned they have a reputation for going around to other blogs and forums and arguing in this manner.

Oh dear, some people have been misleading Devin.   I do not write on blogs. Deven was rather unique for me.  I write on this Forum.  I have not written on Catholic Answers for 4 years. I contribute less than one message every two months to ByzCath.

WHY is it that Catholics respond to the Orthodox, when our position/teaching discomfits them, by banning us?  Why cannot we enjoy a clear and robust dialogue? 

The problem is, is that so many EO's appear to be extremely rude in online debate.

Like PTA said.  Your head must be so far buried somewhere if you think that just by being RC one cannot be rude in online debate.  Of course there are rude Orthodox Christians all over the place.  The INTERNET is a spawning ground for self absorbed, self righteous jackasses who think they are divinely ordained to defend their (weak) faith against any all comers. 

They all need to grow up, get off the internet, and learn some tact, humility, and quit acting the Pharisee.

ALL of them, no matter their religious affiliation.

[Riddikulus]

Note I am talking about a few of the Orthodox commenters. Not all of them. I have since learned they have a reputation for going around to other blogs and forums and arguing in this manner.

Oh dear, some people have been misleading Devin.   I do not write on blogs. Deven was rather unique for me.  I write on this Forum.  I have not written on Catholic Answers for 4 years. I contribute less than one message every two months to ByzCath.

WHY is it that Catholics respond to the Orthodox, when our position/teaching discomfits them, by banning us?  Why cannot we enjoy a clear and robust dialogue? 

The problem is, is that so many EO's appear to be extremely rude in online debate.

Rudeness on the net. Who would have thunk it!

[biro]

That makes it okay, because two wrongs make a right.

 

To whom are you talking?

I was talking to Xariskai, but it could go for the whole thread. Self included.

[WetCatechumen]

Tried to publish this, three times, but it was not allowed to appear.
________________________________


The Orthodox have been charitably clear since the first days of the ecumenical era that they are not bringing their faith into the market place.  They don't have an interest in concessions.  They wish to present and explain their faith to anybody with an interest and invite them to return to the faith which united us for 1000 years.

One finds that even such an Orthodox proponent of ecumenism, Fr Thomas Hopko, retired dean of Saint Vladimir's seminary NY, presents Rome with a shopping list of doctrinal amendments.  They begin about 1/3 down the webpage...
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php

It maybe should be stressed that the Orthodox have no interest at all in subordinating any Church to another Church. They seek no authority.  Their only desire is unity in the faith,  When we achieve that, communion will follow naturally.

In the loving words of Alexey Khomiakov:

"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... Oh that you could only consent to be again what
you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion."

As leader of the world's Christians, the Pope of Rome would travel extensively. He would take full advantage of contemporary means of transportation and communication. He would master electronic media to serve his ministry in proclaiming Christ's Gospel, propagating Christian faith, promoting ethical behavior, protecting human rights, and securing justice and peace for all people. He would be the servant of unity among all human beings, first of all his fellow Christians, not as an episcopus episcoporum, but as a true servus servorum Dei.

....

This demand seemed to me to be the silliest. "The Pope has to continue doing what he is already doing!"

Fr. Hopki has illuminated some clear differences, but he has also some silly demands, especially concerning the way the Roman Church runs its liturgy.

Seriously. You guys have got to give up the whole, "There can only be one right way to do liturgy and administer sacraments!" What caused this schism in the first place? Greek Catholics in Southern Italy being forced to adopt Latin practices, partially. Leavened bread as normative. That's right, **** off Maronites and Armenians! You're all wrong! We might as well insist that you allow the laity to drink from the chalice as we do, and often happened in apostolic times - or even receive the Body of Christ in their hands - as they did in ancient times! How dare you depart from the apostolic faith with little t tradtions.

Or the demand to get rid of cardinal bishops at Rome - this system existed before the schism. Cardinal Humbert, anyone? Also a silly demand.

I think that there are much more important things to be focused on than those.

[Alpo]

Rudeness on the net. Who would have thunk it!

Rudeness in a religious discussion in anywhere online or offline. Who would have thunk it!

[elijahmaria]

Now there you go confusing him with facts!!...

As leader of the world's Christians, the Pope of Rome would travel extensively. He would take full advantage of contemporary means of transportation and communication. He would master electronic media to serve his ministry in proclaiming Christ's Gospel, propagating Christian faith, promoting ethical behavior, protecting human rights, and securing justice and peace for all people. He would be the servant of unity among all human beings, first of all his fellow Christians, not as an episcopus episcoporum, but as a true servus servorum Dei.

....

This demand seemed to me to be the silliest. "The Pope has to continue doing what he is already doing!"

Fr. Hopki has illuminated some clear differences, but he has also some silly demands, especially concerning the way the Roman Church runs its liturgy.

Seriously. You guys have got to give up the whole, "There can only be one right way to do liturgy and administer sacraments!" What caused this schism in the first place? Greek Catholics in Southern Italy being forced to adopt Latin practices, partially. Leavened bread as normative. That's right, **** off Maronites and Armenians! You're all wrong! We might as well insist that you allow the laity to drink from the chalice as we do, and often happened in apostolic times - or even receive the Body of Christ in their hands - as they did in ancient times! How dare you depart from the apostolic faith with little t tradtions.

Or the demand to get rid of cardinal bishops at Rome - this system existed before the schism. Cardinal Humbert, anyone? Also a silly demand.

I think that there are much more important things to be focused on than those.

[Papist]

Note I am talking about a few of the Orthodox commenters. Not all of them. I have since learned they have a reputation for going around to other blogs and forums and arguing in this manner.

Oh dear, some people have been misleading Devin.   I do not write on blogs. Deven was rather unique for me.  I write on this Forum.  I have not written on Catholic Answers for 4 years. I contribute less than one message every two months to ByzCath.

WHY is it that Catholics respond to the Orthodox, when our position/teaching discomfits them, by banning us?  Why cannot we enjoy a clear and robust dialogue?  

The problem is, is that so many EO's appear to be extremely rude in online debate.

Like PTA said.  Your head must be so far buried somewhere if you think that just by being RC one cannot be rude in online debate.  Of course there are rude Orthodox Christians all over the place.  The INTERNET is a spawning ground for self absorbed, self righteous jackasses who think they are divinely ordained to defend their (weak) faith against any all comers.  

They all need to grow up, get off the internet, and learn some tact, humility, and quit acting the Pharisee.

ALL of them, no matter their religious affiliation.

Not that I need to justify myself to you, but I am well aware that there are rude RC posters. But to be completely honest, the EO position seems to be almost exclusively defended by the rude. Think about who addresses EO/RC issues on this forum the most. It's not balanced and reasonable people like you.

[ialmisry]

Tried to publish this, three times, but it was not allowed to appear.
________________________________


The Orthodox have been charitably clear since the first days of the ecumenical era that they are not bringing their faith into the market place.  They don't have an interest in concessions.  They wish to present and explain their faith to anybody with an interest and invite them to return to the faith which united us for 1000 years.

One finds that even such an Orthodox proponent of ecumenism, Fr Thomas Hopko, retired dean of Saint Vladimir's seminary NY, presents Rome with a shopping list of doctrinal amendments.  They begin about 1/3 down the webpage...
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php

It maybe should be stressed that the Orthodox have no interest at all in subordinating any Church to another Church. They seek no authority.  Their only desire is unity in the faith,  When we achieve that, communion will follow naturally.

In the loving words of Alexey Khomiakov:

"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... Oh that you could only consent to be again what
you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion."

As leader of the world's Christians, the Pope of Rome would travel extensively. He would take full advantage of contemporary means of transportation and communication. He would master electronic media to serve his ministry in proclaiming Christ's Gospel, propagating Christian faith, promoting ethical behavior, protecting human rights, and securing justice and peace for all people. He would be the servant of unity among all human beings, first of all his fellow Christians, not as an episcopus episcoporum, but as a true servus servorum Dei.

....

This demand seemed to me to be the silliest. "The Pope has to continue doing what he is already doing!"

Depends on what he is refering to.  Continuing going down the right direction of course the right thing to do.  The abolition of your Patriarchate of the West, and the justification, was a swerve off the right path.  Skimming through the article, I haven't found your quote, so I don't know what it refers to: was it his quote or your spin?

Fr. Hopki has illuminated some clear differences, but he has also some silly demands, especially concerning the way the Roman Church runs its liturgy.

Perhaps he is answering a fool in his folly.  Given the silliness that Vatican II brought in, I'm not sure what "silly demands" would be.

Seriously. You guys have got to give up the whole, "There can only be one right way to do liturgy and administer sacraments!"

LOL. Because the Vatican has finally for the most part (but not totally) given up on that?

Some things there is only one way to celebrate Divine Liturgy, e.g. with an epiclesis.

Btw, I seem to have read it more closely than you, e.g.

The pope would also insure that the faithful always participate in the consecrated wine, the blood of Christ, at Holy Communion. How this is practically done may differ in different churches, but it must be done, without exception.

What caused this schism in the first place? Greek Catholics in Southern Italy being forced to adopt Latin practices, partially. Leavened bread as normative. That's right, **** off Maronites

LOL. Bad example: unleavened bread is a Latinization forced on the Maronites, amongst others.

and Armenians!

this seems to have developed after Chalcedon, and in connection with the fallout from it.

You're all wrong! We might as well insist that you allow the laity to drink from the chalice as we do,

LOL, you mean as you do now. But we know the Vatican didn't start at Vatican II, and remember how your Utraquists came running to us, the first talks for WRO, around the same time as your council of Florence.

and often happened in apostolic times

Often?  The laity always received from the chalice

- or even receive the Body of Christ in their hands - as they did in ancient times!

And they never did at the Vatican until Vatican II.

How dare you depart from the apostolic faith with little t tradtions.

How about little v vatican traditions?  What you bring up are things not only NOT practiced by the Vatican until Vatican II, but actually forbidden.

Or the demand to get rid of cardinal bishops at Rome - this system existed before the schism. Cardinal Humbert, anyone? Also a silly demand.

Cardinal bishops did exist, but the college of cardinals and the system for which it serves as the core did not.  As I just recently posted, again:

We might as well insist that you allow the laity to drink from the chalice as we do,

It looks like you have never heard of the Liturgy of St. James.

Or the demand to get rid of cardinal bishops at Rome - this system existed before the schism.

But in the way you have it now.

This changes nothing in his message.  The beef doesn't change.  All this does is support his assertion that EOs pick at the Catholic Church without much historical to back them up on very many things.  And are exceptionally nasty about it.

Oh? Like this?

Probably none. Not a lot of people harbor the seething resentment that seems to be trapped in your head. Probably not a lot of people even care. Then again, that would contradict your raving anger, and you wouldn't be able to pick another fight, no matter how much you want to.

You get away with a lot because you're a priest. It's people like you who make me not want to be Orthodox.

It can't be 'right glory' to just be obnoxious and provoke people all the time.

I think certain people are too nice here and they're afraid to break out the ban hammer.

What a shame.

Is that seething resentment towards facts, or just the presenter thereof?

A cardinal, of course, is an honorary title for a member of a select group of archbishops. And the title of archbishop has been around since waaaay back when. Let's not get silly.   Unless Isa didn't know that, in which case he's talking out of his hat. Doesn't he need a new hat by now?  

evidently not.

The only archbishop waaaaay back when in Rome was the archbishop a/k/a the pope now (7th century or so, the title meandering from Alexandria-upon whom it was bestowed-through Carthage to Rome).  The other half dozen or so bishops were suffragans, who consecrated the new archbishop (a similar set up was in Alexandria, but not in Constantinople, Antioch or Jerusalem).  The first diocesan bishop, let alone archbishop, to be named cardinal didn't happen until 1163, when beseiged Pope Alexander III (another pope-antipope schism over the "font of unity")  let Archbishop Konrad of Mainz keep his see, although named cardinal in the college at Rome.

Not all cardinals are bishops.

Do get your facts straight.

The college of cardinals does not predate your schism, and the cardinal bishops of the college that Fr. Hopko speaks of (as opposed to original suburbicurian synod out of which the college of cardinals grew) do not predate it either.  In fact, many of those involved in sealing your schism were involved in creating your college of cardinals-and exceptionally nasty about it-created in the aftermath of yet another pope-"anti-pope" struggle on who is the "true font of unity," and there is PLENTY of history to back up the EO on the Vatican's assertions misrepresenting the Catholic Church.

I think that there are much more important things to be focused on than those.

Yes, like the filioque.

[ialmisry]

Well, the Protestants have their invisible church, and you have your invisible facts.

Now there you go confusing him with facts!!...

As leader of the world's Christians, the Pope of Rome would travel extensively. He would take full advantage of contemporary means of transportation and communication. He would master electronic media to serve his ministry in proclaiming Christ's Gospel, propagating Christian faith, promoting ethical behavior, protecting human rights, and securing justice and peace for all people. He would be the servant of unity among all human beings, first of all his fellow Christians, not as an episcopus episcoporum, but as a true servus servorum Dei.

....

This demand seemed to me to be the silliest. "The Pope has to continue doing what he is already doing!"

Fr. Hopki has illuminated some clear differences, but he has also some silly demands, especially concerning the way the Roman Church runs its liturgy.

Seriously. You guys have got to give up the whole, "There can only be one right way to do liturgy and administer sacraments!" What caused this schism in the first place? Greek Catholics in Southern Italy being forced to adopt Latin practices, partially. Leavened bread as normative. That's right, **** off Maronites and Armenians! You're all wrong! We might as well insist that you allow the laity to drink from the chalice as we do, and often happened in apostolic times - or even receive the Body of Christ in their hands - as they did in ancient times! How dare you depart from the apostolic faith with little t tradtions.

Or the demand to get rid of cardinal bishops at Rome - this system existed before the schism. Cardinal Humbert, anyone? Also a silly demand.

I think that there are much more important things to be focused on than those.

[Irish Hermit]

Now there you go confusing him with facts!!...

Poor Father Hopko!

However my intention in introducing his shopping list to Devin was to show that the Orthodox who responded to Devin’s request as to how the Orthodox view the Pope are not a freaky minority or Catholic-haters.   The denigration of the Orthodox contributors as mean and fundamentalist was not true, not just and not charitable.    They were responding honestly to Devin’s request with statements shared across the Orthodox world and by such an eminent theologian as Fr Thomas Hopko.  But it is clear that unless the Orthodox position suits the Catholic stereotype we may expect scorn. Sad –and not conducive to progress in mutual understanding.

As leader of the world's Christians, the Pope of Rome would travel extensively. He would take full advantage of contemporary means of transportation and communication. He would master electronic media to serve his ministry in proclaiming Christ's Gospel, propagating Christian faith, promoting ethical behavior, protecting human rights, and securing justice and peace for all people. He would be the servant of unity among all human beings, first of all his fellow Christians, not as an episcopus episcoporum, but as a true servus servorum Dei.

....

This demand seemed to me to be the silliest. "The Pope has to continue doing what he is already doing!"

Fr. Hopki has illuminated some clear differences, but he has also some silly demands, especially concerning the way the Roman Church runs its liturgy.

Seriously. You guys have got to give up the whole, "There can only be one right way to do liturgy and administer sacraments!" What caused this schism in the first place? Greek Catholics in Southern Italy being forced to adopt Latin practices, partially. Leavened bread as normative. That's right, **** off Maronites and Armenians! You're all wrong! We might as well insist that you allow the laity to drink from the chalice as we do, and often happened in apostolic times - or even receive the Body of Christ in their hands - as they did in ancient times! How dare you depart from the apostolic faith with little t tradtions.

Or the demand to get rid of cardinal bishops at Rome - this system existed before the schism. Cardinal Humbert, anyone? Also a silly demand.

I think that there are much more important things to be focused on than those.

[/quote]

[elijahmaria]

Now there you go confusing him with facts!!...

Poor Father Hopko!

However my intention in introducing his shopping list to Devin was to show that the Orthodox who responded to Devin’s request as to how the Orthodox view the Pope are not a freaky minority or Catholic-haters.   The denigration of the Orthodox contributors as mean and fundamentalist was not true, not just and not charitable.    They were responding honestly to Devin’s request with statements shared across the Orthodox world and by such an eminent theologian as Fr Thomas Hopko.  But it is clear that unless the Orthodox position suits the Catholic stereotype we may expect scorn. Sad –and not conducive to progress in mutual understanding.

Another one that I've heard that is similarly annoying is "oh!...we are small and weak and we need special tending"...

At any rate.  I've never met more aggressive nasties than I have on Orthodox venues on the Internet.  Either they are busy attacking Catholics or one another but it is mean to the bone.

That has been a huge disappointment to me over the years.  Much bigger even than Catholic Answers dumping their Orthodox members and sections...why?...because I know the attacks would continue with or without the Catholic Church.  I think the word that comes to mind is fissiparous...

M.

[Irish Hermit]

[Another one that I've heard that is similarly annoying is "oh!...we are small and weak and we need special tending"...

I have never heard that.  It is nonsense anyway.

And the allegation that Orthodox attack one another.....?  I am trying to bring to mind the names of forum members who do that.  There have been attacks from time to time from schismatic groups who deny that the Orthodox have grace or that we are baptized but that is no more than a minor irritant such as your Sede Vacante groups.

At any rate.  I've never met more aggressive nasties than I have on Orthodox venues on the Internet.  Either they are busy attacking Catholics or one another but it is mean to the bone.

That has been a huge disappointment to me over the years.  Much bigger even than Catholic Answers dumping their Orthodox members and sections...why?...because I know the attacks would continue with or without the Catholic Church.  I think the word that comes to mind is fissiparous...

M.

[Irish Hermit]

Unfortunately Devin seems to have preconceived and inaccurate ideas of Orthodoxy and when he asked questions and then found the answers did not suit he began to slag off the Orthodox participants.  Unfortunately this encouraged some of the Catholic participants to do the same.

Even a little knowledge would have been useful, even just a quick perusal of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s basic introduction to Orthodoxy The Orthodox Church.

He writes:

"But there also exists in the Orthodox Church a
more rigorous group, who hold that since Orthodoxy is the Church, anyone who is not Orthodox
cannot be a member of the Church. Thus Metropolitan Antony, head of the Russian Church in
Exile and one of the most distinguished of modern Russian theologians, wrote in his Catechism:

Question: Is it possible to admit that a split within the Church or among the Churches could
ever take place?

"Answer: Never. Heretics and schismatics have from time to time fallen away from the one
indivisible Church, and, by so doing, they ceased to be members of the Church, but the Church
itself can never lose its unity according to Christ’s promise’.

"Of course (so this stricter group add) divine grace is certainly active among many
non-Orthodox, and if they are sincere in their love of God, then we may be sure that God will
have mercy upon them; but they cannot, in their present state, be termed members of the Church.

"Workers for Christian unity who do not often encounter this rigorist school should not forget that
such opinions are held by many Orthodox of great learning and holiness."

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_P1S.HTM

As an example, here is something from the Greek Metropolitan Athanasios in 2010.  Metropolitan Athanasios is the renowned spiritual director in Kyriacos C. Markides “ The Mountain of Silence.” You will see he does not believe that the Catholics have a priesthood or a Eucharist.

That does not mean that everybody agrees with him of course.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27796.0.html

[stanley123]

Tried to publish this, three times, but it was not allowed to appear.
________________________________


The Orthodox have been charitably clear since the first days of the ecumenical era that they are not bringing their faith into the market place.  They don't have an interest in concessions.  They wish to present and explain their faith to anybody with an interest and invite them to return to the faith which united us for 1000 years.

One finds that even such an Orthodox proponent of ecumenism, Fr Thomas Hopko, retired dean of Saint Vladimir's seminary NY, presents Rome with a shopping list of doctrinal amendments.  They begin about 1/3 down the webpage...
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php

It maybe should be stressed that the Orthodox have no interest at all in subordinating any Church to another Church. They seek no authority.  Their only desire is unity in the faith,  When we achieve that, communion will follow naturally.

In the loving words of Alexey Khomiakov:

"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... Oh that you could only consent to be again what
you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion."

I agree.

In the words of Father Vasily of the Church of Onion Domes,

Change? Is outrage!

If change is an outrage, how come there has been change in the Orthodox Church on a few issues?

[Irish Hermit]

If change is an outrage, how come there has been change in the Orthodox Church on a few issues?

There have been a few changes.  Once it was a serious sin to lend money and receive interest.

[username!]

, bickering and going off topic and picking on each other will be treated in accordance to oc.net rules -username! section moderator

[xariskai]

Perhaps I haven't read enough of the threads, but I don't see anyone on either side of anything as being that incredibly rude around here. Funny how it tends to be "them" rather than "us" who are "the most rude," whoever "we" may happen to be. Or is it?

Sometimes people *can* be rude. Also -quite often!- people are more easily *perceived as rude* when they are on THE OPPOSITE SIDE of a pet issue from an "offended party" whether rudeness was really intended or not (think of matter meeting anti-matter).


ON CIRCLES, ECLIPSES AND WRONGS REAL OR PERCEIVED

H. S Liddell, "The Experimental Neurosis," Annual Review of Physiology Vol. 9: 569-580 (Volume publication date March 1947)

"It is now thirty years since Pavlov's attention was directed to the phenomena ol abnormal behavior in animals and man. A dog, subjected to prolonged conditioning, was unable to distinguish between the appearance of a luminous circle as a signal for food and an almost circular ellipse as a signal for no food and in consequence suddenly exhibited extreme and enduring agitation. As Pavlov [(1), p. 292] describes it:

“The hitherto quiet dog began to squeal in its stand, kept wriggling about, tore off with its teeth the apparatus for mechanical stimulation of the skin and bit through the tubes connecting the animal's room with the observer, a behavior which never happened before. On being taken into the experimental room the dog now barked violently, which was also contrary to its usual custom; in short, it presented all the symptoms of acute neurosis... Alter these experiments we paid considerable attention to pathological disturbances in the cortical activity and began to study them in detail."

"From this laboratory incident eventuated a systematic program of research in Pavlov's laboratories devoted to the chronically disordered behavior of dogs... Of particular importance was his discovery that "experimental neuroses are usually permanent, aflecting an animal for months and even years" [(2), p. 180]..."

The dog becomes hostile and aggressive because it can not deal with a situation of cognitive dissonance when it is in some way invested in the nature of the result. The animal's reaction is one of fear, hatred, and aggression. The same temptation applies to human beings, as has been experimentally verified repeatedly.

Some years ago a friend of mine told me a story about two astronomers who became practically blue in the face while engaging in a screaming match about whether Pluto was a planet or a planetoid in the presence of an auditorium filled with spectators. One can almost imagine two dogs snarling: "it's a circle!" "No, an ellipse!!" I have seen the same thing countless times with countless issues. Most of us have, but if we are personally invested we may not see it in the same manner. on both sides of a thing :-)

Rarely do we ever meet someone who supposes the opposing parties are usually more rational and reasonable than they are, though statistically we might expect to find this in at least half of all cases, or unless most of those "someones" we run across  are superior masters of virtue beyond that of the average bear -or dog.  ;-)

Neurosis born of dissonance -whether temporary or, as *usually* the case in animal experiments, permanent- is a real result of inability to cope with cognitive dissonance. This phenomenon is in fact ubiquitous and strongly confirmed experimentally for humans. If there is merit to such studies there seems little doubt that internet fora would be rife with the whole spectrum from mild temporary reactions to permanent neuroses involving extreme anxiety to hatred at the mere sight of an "ellipse" -and invariably more the fault of the one presenting it. Such a reaction will only be magnified by degree with special emotional attachment or similar investment.

Perhaps we may find the circle or ellipse position we oppose seems to be almost exclusively defended by the rude. Or perhaps those who present ellipses -or circles as the case may be- make some of us more nervous than we realize or may wish to suppose.

Whatever the truth of the matter it is we ourselves who we each have not only the greatest greatest responsibility, but the greatest ability to change. Let us strive to model virtue at both sides of this equation, whether to cure our own possible rudeness with a dose of kindness, or to cure our automatic anxiety triggered by situations of cognitive dissonance with a dose of patience, from the Gk. μακροθυμία, "suffer long." If we suffer with Him we will reign with Him. Lord Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on us, sinners all.

Eph 4:2:  "Always be humble and gentle. Be patient with each other, making allowance for each others' faults because of your love."

[ialmisry]

Seems the devil is at work again at Devin's blog:

Mountains out of Molehills, a Demon’s Delight
Gothmog here. Lord of the Balrogs, Flame of Udun, etc.

Couldn’t help but read (with scarcely concealed glee) the hundreds of comments on the posts about Eastern Orthodoxy. Most of all I was delighted in remembering how skillfully my Master had driven a wedge and fueled the fires that led to the delicious division from the Enemy’s Church.

I’m gonna show my cards to you to see how genius we are in the Underworld. How we used molehills to cause the greatest schism in history:

my favorite is

2. Filioque

Hahahahaha! I just laugh every time I hear this phrase. Few things incite us more than the recitation of the Creed (which we call the Screed), so why not instigate a division over a tiny phrase inserted into it in the West? This was actually my idea and I got a big demotion (which you would think of as a promotion) over it.

Curses forever to Pope Benedict for reaching out to the Orthodox and omitting the Filioque. Fortunately even this effort was coolly received and even spurned in some Orthodox quarters. “Let no good deed go unpunished,” one of our more cleverly hellish aphorisms.

Fact is, the Catholics and Orthodox both came to agreement on how this could be understood, but we dispatched a legion of demons to break up this accord and they found success quickly. Disunity achieved again!...

Final Thoughts

So now, nothing makes us happier than seeing you argue to death over yeast in the bread and little phrases that you once agreed on...

it seems the Vatican apologists get to tell us what is important, and impose their revisionism at the same time.  Patronize much?

3. The Pope

Barf! I think of him and get sick to my stomach. But beautifully, the Enemy made him the chief, and that gave us an opening, for no human likes accepting an authority–non serviam and all that. We focused on him like a laser, stirred up rebellion, tried to get the worst possible men in this position, and sometimes succeeded!

Nothing offended the erudite and contemplative Eastern mind more than a loutish oaf sitting on St. Peter’s Chair. How could this man be preeminent? In the backwaters of the old capital of the Empire? The cultural divide grew, and our work became easy. A little push here, a nudge there, and boom! mutual excommunications laid down in 1054 AD. The ensuing centuries required little attention on this front, as the divide had been secured.

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/11/30/mountains-out-of-molehills-a-demons-delight/

[J Michael]

Seems the devil is at work again at Devin's blog:

Mountains out of Molehills, a Demon’s Delight
Gothmog here. Lord of the Balrogs, Flame of Udun, etc.

Couldn’t help but read (with scarcely concealed glee) the hundreds of comments on the posts about Eastern Orthodoxy. Most of all I was delighted in remembering how skillfully my Master had driven a wedge and fueled the fires that led to the delicious division from the Enemy’s Church.

I’m gonna show my cards to you to see how genius we are in the Underworld. How we used molehills to cause the greatest schism in history:

my favorite is

2. Filioque

Hahahahaha! I just laugh every time I hear this phrase. Few things incite us more than the recitation of the Creed (which we call the Screed), so why not instigate a division over a tiny phrase inserted into it in the West? This was actually my idea and I got a big demotion (which you would think of as a promotion) over it.

Curses forever to Pope Benedict for reaching out to the Orthodox and omitting the Filioque. Fortunately even this effort was coolly received and even spurned in some Orthodox quarters. “Let no good deed go unpunished,” one of our more cleverly hellish aphorisms.

Fact is, the Catholics and Orthodox both came to agreement on how this could be understood, but we dispatched a legion of demons to break up this accord and they found success quickly. Disunity achieved again!...

Final Thoughts

So now, nothing makes us happier than seeing you argue to death over yeast in the bread and little phrases that you once agreed on...

it seems the Vatican apologists get to tell us what is important, and impose their revisionism at the same time.  Patronize much?

3. The Pope

Barf! I think of him and get sick to my stomach. But beautifully, the Enemy made him the chief, and that gave us an opening, for no human likes accepting an authority–non serviam and all that. We focused on him like a laser, stirred up rebellion, tried to get the worst possible men in this position, and sometimes succeeded!

Nothing offended the erudite and contemplative Eastern mind more than a loutish oaf sitting on St. Peter’s Chair. How could this man be preeminent? In the backwaters of the old capital of the Empire? The cultural divide grew, and our work became easy. A little push here, a nudge there, and boom! mutual excommunications laid down in 1054 AD. The ensuing centuries required little attention on this front, as the divide had been secured.

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/11/30/mountains-out-of-molehills-a-demons-delight/

Tongue. In. Cheek.   

[Cavaradossi]

Seems the devil is at work again at Devin's blog:

Mountains out of Molehills, a Demon’s Delight
Gothmog here. Lord of the Balrogs, Flame of Udun, etc.

Couldn’t help but read (with scarcely concealed glee) the hundreds of comments on the posts about Eastern Orthodoxy. Most of all I was delighted in remembering how skillfully my Master had driven a wedge and fueled the fires that led to the delicious division from the Enemy’s Church.

I’m gonna show my cards to you to see how genius we are in the Underworld. How we used molehills to cause the greatest schism in history:

my favorite is

2. Filioque

Hahahahaha! I just laugh every time I hear this phrase. Few things incite us more than the recitation of the Creed (which we call the Screed), so why not instigate a division over a tiny phrase inserted into it in the West? This was actually my idea and I got a big demotion (which you would think of as a promotion) over it.

Curses forever to Pope Benedict for reaching out to the Orthodox and omitting the Filioque. Fortunately even this effort was coolly received and even spurned in some Orthodox quarters. “Let no good deed go unpunished,” one of our more cleverly hellish aphorisms.

Fact is, the Catholics and Orthodox both came to agreement on how this could be understood, but we dispatched a legion of demons to break up this accord and they found success quickly. Disunity achieved again!...

Final Thoughts

So now, nothing makes us happier than seeing you argue to death over yeast in the bread and little phrases that you once agreed on...

it seems the Vatican apologists get to tell us what is important, and impose their revisionism at the same time.  Patronize much?

3. The Pope

Barf! I think of him and get sick to my stomach. But beautifully, the Enemy made him the chief, and that gave us an opening, for no human likes accepting an authority–non serviam and all that. We focused on him like a laser, stirred up rebellion, tried to get the worst possible men in this position, and sometimes succeeded!

Nothing offended the erudite and contemplative Eastern mind more than a loutish oaf sitting on St. Peter’s Chair. How could this man be preeminent? In the backwaters of the old capital of the Empire? The cultural divide grew, and our work became easy. A little push here, a nudge there, and boom! mutual excommunications laid down in 1054 AD. The ensuing centuries required little attention on this front, as the divide had been secured.

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/11/30/mountains-out-of-molehills-a-demons-delight/

Tongue. In. Cheek.   

Or just going off the deep end. Honestly, I maybe prefer his blog this way, as a tongue-in-cheek mouthpiece for demons. 

[J Michael]

Seems the devil is at work again at Devin's blog:

Mountains out of Molehills, a Demon’s Delight
Gothmog here. Lord of the Balrogs, Flame of Udun, etc.

Couldn’t help but read (with scarcely concealed glee) the hundreds of comments on the posts about Eastern Orthodoxy. Most of all I was delighted in remembering how skillfully my Master had driven a wedge and fueled the fires that led to the delicious division from the Enemy’s Church.

I’m gonna show my cards to you to see how genius we are in the Underworld. How we used molehills to cause the greatest schism in history:

my favorite is

2. Filioque

Hahahahaha! I just laugh every time I hear this phrase. Few things incite us more than the recitation of the Creed (which we call the Screed), so why not instigate a division over a tiny phrase inserted into it in the West? This was actually my idea and I got a big demotion (which you would think of as a promotion) over it.

Curses forever to Pope Benedict for reaching out to the Orthodox and omitting the Filioque. Fortunately even this effort was coolly received and even spurned in some Orthodox quarters. “Let no good deed go unpunished,” one of our more cleverly hellish aphorisms.

Fact is, the Catholics and Orthodox both came to agreement on how this could be understood, but we dispatched a legion of demons to break up this accord and they found success quickly. Disunity achieved again!...

Final Thoughts

So now, nothing makes us happier than seeing you argue to death over yeast in the bread and little phrases that you once agreed on...

it seems the Vatican apologists get to tell us what is important, and impose their revisionism at the same time.  Patronize much?

3. The Pope

Barf! I think of him and get sick to my stomach. But beautifully, the Enemy made him the chief, and that gave us an opening, for no human likes accepting an authority–non serviam and all that. We focused on him like a laser, stirred up rebellion, tried to get the worst possible men in this position, and sometimes succeeded!

Nothing offended the erudite and contemplative Eastern mind more than a loutish oaf sitting on St. Peter’s Chair. How could this man be preeminent? In the backwaters of the old capital of the Empire? The cultural divide grew, and our work became easy. A little push here, a nudge there, and boom! mutual excommunications laid down in 1054 AD. The ensuing centuries required little attention on this front, as the divide had been secured.

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/11/30/mountains-out-of-molehills-a-demons-delight/

Tongue. In. Cheek.   

Or just going off the deep end. Honestly, I maybe prefer his blog this way, as a tongue-in-cheek mouthpiece for demons. 

I actually like his blog, *either* way.  No accounting for taste, eh  ?
 

[FormerReformer]

Well, at least it's nice to see a Screwtape rip-off that doesn't actually try to be a new Screwtape missive, unlike some other bloggers.

[DevinRose]

Hello everyone! Yay, my registration finally went through on this forum.

The blog post's point is, of course, that the fact that such a small thing as the presence or absence of yeast in bread is cited as an important reason behind the schism shows the cunning power of evil.

The call is for Orthodox and Catholics to lay down the arms, polemics, and avoid making mountains out of molehills. There are differences between our Churches, but nothing that Christ cannot overcome. It starts with us.

[J Michael]

Hello everyone! Yay, my registration finally went through on this forum.

The blog post's point is, of course, that the fact that such a small thing as the presence or absence of yeast in bread is cited as an important reason behind the schism shows the cunning power of evil.

The call is for Orthodox and Catholics to lay down the arms, polemics, and avoid making mountains out of molehills. There are differences between our Churches, but nothing that Christ cannot overcome. It starts with us.

Amen!  Amen!  Amen!

[ialmisry]

Hello everyone! Yay, my registration finally went through on this forum.

The blog post's point is, of course, that the fact that such a small thing as the presence or absence of yeast in bread is cited as an important reason behind the schism shows the cunning power of evil.

The call is for Orthodox and Catholics to lay down the arms, polemics, and avoid making mountains out of molehills. There are differences between our Churches, but nothing that Christ cannot overcome. It starts with us.

That's nice.

Now root out the fililoque out of your faith tradition and ecclesial community, and work on bringing your ecclesiology back into conformity to the episcopate Christ founded.

Then, we will not only welcome you to the forum (Welcome!), but into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

[DevinRose]

Isa and other esteemed Orthodox,

Isa, you have not been banned from my blog, but you and Hieromonk Ambrose's comments will first go into moderation. I corresponded privately with Fr. Ambrose about this, but did not with you. My bad.

I did ask questions over the course of several posts, and you answered to the point on at least one comment, which I saved in a document along with the other relevant comments made by other Orthodox commenters (this was regarding ecumenical councils).

So to claim that I asked and didn't like an answer is false. In fact, across those posts I let all comments through, probably close to 500, and moderated none of them.

Further, acting as if I shut down Orthodox commenters is false. Perry Robinson, an articulate proponent of Orthodoxy, along with Nicholas of Myra, John Hogg, and others, have all commented and continue to do so (and their comments are not moderated).

So what's the problem I had with your comments? Simply this: you show no fairness when describing the history of our Churches and the schism. When I asked for some reasonable balance on conceding that there was pride and sins on the Orthodox side as well as the Catholic side, neither you or Fr. Ambrose acknowledged this but just kept up the same lopsided comments. I gave you three chances on this, and your continued comments demonstrated that you are were not willing or capable of doing so. Hence, I closed the comments and put future comments of yours (none of which I have seen you make) in moderation.

The comments you have made in this forum only confirm that my decision was correct. I would welcome it if you proved me wrong.

So I do not ask for a concession for concession's sake, on some core doctrinal issue that you believe Orthodox are right on, but rather just acknowledging that there were Orthodox Christians, and not just Catholics, who contributed to the schism. If you cannot concede that then there is no point is discussing other topics, because your judgment of history is so one-sided as to be unreasonable.

God bless,
Devin

[elijahmaria]

So what's the problem I had with your comments? Simply this: you show no fairness when describing the history of our Churches and the schism.

Fairness?  To the dickens with Fairness!!

Try ACCURACY

Not much of that and it's far more essential to dialogue.

[J Michael]

So what's the problem I had with your comments? Simply this: you show no fairness when describing the history of our Churches and the schism.

Fairness?  To the dickens with Fairness!!

Try ACCURACY

Not much of that and it's far more essential to dialogue.

Agreed.  But fairness in one's judgement of history and in assigning blame/responsibility, etc. *along with* accuracy would be even better, no?  Hey, if we're going to ask for the improbable, why not ask for the impossible, too  ?

[FormerReformer]

So what's the problem I had with your comments? Simply this: you show no fairness when describing the history of our Churches and the schism.

Fairness?  To the dickens with Fairness!!

Try ACCURACY

Not much of that and it's far more essential to dialogue.

EM, in all fairness, there's no accuracy to be found in accounts of a division that produced so much animosity on both sides.

DR, I once believed (back in my Anglican days) that there had to be two wrong parties in the schism, just on the basis of suspicion (one I felt well-founded by my researches in the Protestant Reformation and subsequent schisms between the Protestant parties- that is, I found that both Rome and the Protestants were wrong about different issues), however, I have yet to find any real fault with the Orthodox side. Did Leo IX or Michael Cerularius start the fight that eventually led to the Schism? We can argue about that all day. Was the patriarch wrong to criticize the use of unleavened bread in the Western churches? Possibly (probably). But who excommunicated who? And, the question that is going to have to be addressed before any reunion is possible, did the Church of Rome have the right to enter one little phrase into the Creed (yes, the history of the filioque is much more complicated than that) and demand the other Churches follow suit? That is, does the Pope indeed rule over all the Church, or is the governing of the Church supposed to be more conciliar? I believe any objective study of history must answer the latter, that is why I became Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.

The only way our churches will be reunited is if the Pope gives up supremacy (along with claims of infallibility). A new council will have to be convened, and the possibility of a new order for the Pentarchy could come to the table (FWIW I would be in favor of Rome and Constantinople taking the last two spots- Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople, but that is highly unlikely, I'm sure [of course, Rome could volunteer for last place, the leader becoming the servant in accord with Dominical parable]). The Primacy of Rome was based upon Rome being the capital of the Empire and defender of Apostolic teaching, neither of which have been in effect in the past thousand years.

[elijahmaria]

EM, in all fairness, there's no accuracy to be found in accounts of a division that produced so much animosity on both sides.

This, along with your conclusions, is a reduction to the absurd.

What else is new?...as they say.

[J Michael]

EM, in all fairness, there's no accuracy to be found in accounts of a division that produced so much animosity on both sides.

This, along with your conclusions, is a reduction to the absurd.

What else is new?...as they say.

Ain chadash tachat haShemesh.  (Bad transliteration of the Hebrew for "There's nothing new under the sun.")

[FormerReformer]

EM, in all fairness, there's no accuracy to be found in accounts of a division that produced so much animosity on both sides.

This, along with your conclusions, is a reduction to the absurd.

What else is new?...as they say.

Not at all. Everyone here is going to champion one historical account over the other on the basis of what we want to believe. The fact of the matter is, we only have accounts from either the Roman side or the Greek side. The Muslims weren't interested enough in our squabble to write accounts of it, the remaining pagans weren't literate enough, and the Protestants were still 400 years to come. All we have to go by are polemics of the time. Any attempt to recreate an "accurate" history would merely create a woefully false history that would do injustice to both sides.

[elijahmaria]

EM, in all fairness, there's no accuracy to be found in accounts of a division that produced so much animosity on both sides.

This, along with your conclusions, is a reduction to the absurd.

What else is new?...as they say.

Not at all. Everyone here is going to champion one historical account over the other on the basis of what we want to believe. The fact of the matter is, we only have accounts from either the Roman side or the Greek side. The Muslims weren't interested enough in our squabble to write accounts of it, the remaining pagans weren't literate enough, and the Protestants were still 400 years to come. All we have to go by are polemics of the time. Any attempt to recreate an "accurate" history would merely create a woefully false history that would do injustice to both sides.

Yes.  As I said a moment ago.  You have bought into the secular relativism of the age: hook, line and snooker.

[FormerReformer]

EM, in all fairness, there's no accuracy to be found in accounts of a division that produced so much animosity on both sides.

This, along with your conclusions, is a reduction to the absurd.

What else is new?...as they say.

Not at all. Everyone here is going to champion one historical account over the other on the basis of what we want to believe. The fact of the matter is, we only have accounts from either the Roman side or the Greek side. The Muslims weren't interested enough in our squabble to write accounts of it, the remaining pagans weren't literate enough, and the Protestants were still 400 years to come. All we have to go by are polemics of the time. Any attempt to recreate an "accurate" history would merely create a woefully false history that would do injustice to both sides.

Yes.  As I said a moment ago.  You have bought into the secular relativism of the age: hook, line and snooker.

Hardly. Were I into secular relativism I'd still be a communicant of a certain woman-ordaining, lawsuit bringing, constitution over-riding denomination. I believe I know the more accurate interpretation of the events of the schism, I am completely certain as to which side was the least wrong, and I have acted on those beliefs, certainties, and faith. I can still allow for the possibility that I might be wrong as to one or two points in the accuracy of my history, as I was not an eye-witness to those events. I can completely understand why my view would be considered inaccurate by those on your side of the fence, as I consider the Roman Catholic account to be inaccurate.

What I cannot do is try to construct some absurd pseudo-history for the purposes of making peace between our two Communions. That would be false on my part and as a falsity should be insulting to you.

[elijahmaria]

EM, in all fairness, there's no accuracy to be found in accounts of a division that produced so much animosity on both sides.

This, along with your conclusions, is a reduction to the absurd.

What else is new?...as they say.

Not at all. Everyone here is going to champion one historical account over the other on the basis of what we want to believe. The fact of the matter is, we only have accounts from either the Roman side or the Greek side. The Muslims weren't interested enough in our squabble to write accounts of it, the remaining pagans weren't literate enough, and the Protestants were still 400 years to come. All we have to go by are polemics of the time. Any attempt to recreate an "accurate" history would merely create a woefully false history that would do injustice to both sides.

Yes.  As I said a moment ago.  You have bought into the secular relativism of the age: hook, line and snooker.

Hardly. Were I into secular relativism I'd still be a communicant of a certain woman-ordaining, lawsuit bringing, constitution over-riding denomination. I believe I know the more accurate interpretation of the events of the schism, I am completely certain as to which side was the least wrong, and I have acted on those beliefs, certainties, and faith. I can still allow for the possibility that I might be wrong as to one or two points in the accuracy of my history, as I was not an eye-witness to those events. I can completely understand why my view would be considered inaccurate by those on your side of the fence, as I consider the Roman Catholic account to be inaccurate.

What I cannot do is try to construct some absurd pseudo-history for the purposes of making peace between our two Communions. That would be false on my part and as a falsity should be insulting to you.

I think that is why we allow our bishops to work it all out.  Near-instant communications and access to far more documentary evidence than in the past will make things ever so much easier.   All you and I need to do is sit back and relax...

[FormerReformer]

EM, in all fairness, there's no accuracy to be found in accounts of a division that produced so much animosity on both sides.

This, along with your conclusions, is a reduction to the absurd.

What else is new?...as they say.

Not at all. Everyone here is going to champion one historical account over the other on the basis of what we want to believe. The fact of the matter is, we only have accounts from either the Roman side or the Greek side. The Muslims weren't interested enough in our squabble to write accounts of it, the remaining pagans weren't literate enough, and the Protestants were still 400 years to come. All we have to go by are polemics of the time. Any attempt to recreate an "accurate" history would merely create a woefully false history that would do injustice to both sides.

Yes.  As I said a moment ago.  You have bought into the secular relativism of the age: hook, line and snooker.

Hardly. Were I into secular relativism I'd still be a communicant of a certain woman-ordaining, lawsuit bringing, constitution over-riding denomination. I believe I know the more accurate interpretation of the events of the schism, I am completely certain as to which side was the least wrong, and I have acted on those beliefs, certainties, and faith. I can still allow for the possibility that I might be wrong as to one or two points in the accuracy of my history, as I was not an eye-witness to those events. I can completely understand why my view would be considered inaccurate by those on your side of the fence, as I consider the Roman Catholic account to be inaccurate.

What I cannot do is try to construct some absurd pseudo-history for the purposes of making peace between our two Communions. That would be false on my part and as a falsity should be insulting to you.

I think that is why we allow our bishops to work it all out.  Near-instant communications and access to far more documentary evidence than in the past will make things ever so much easier.   All you and I need to do is sit back and relax...

Let our bishops work it out? You obviously don't know what the internet is for! 

[ialmisry]

Isa and other esteemed Orthodox,

Isa, you have not been banned from my blog, but you and Hieromonk Ambrose's comments will first go into moderation. I corresponded privately with Fr. Ambrose about this, but did not with you. My bad.

I did ask questions over the course of several posts, and you answered to the point on at least one comment, which I saved in a document along with the other relevant comments made by other Orthodox commenters (this was regarding ecumenical councils).

So to claim that I asked and didn't like an answer is false. In fact, across those posts I let all comments through, probably close to 500, and moderated none of them.

Further, acting as if I shut down Orthodox commenters is false. Perry Robinson, an articulate proponent of Orthodoxy, along with Nicholas of Myra, John Hogg, and others, have all commented and continue to do so (and their comments are not moderated).

So what's the problem I had with your comments? Simply this: you show no fairness when describing the history of our Churches and the schism. When I asked for some reasonable balance on conceding that there was pride and sins on the Orthodox side as well as the Catholic side, neither you or Fr. Ambrose acknowledged this but just kept up the same lopsided comments.

I do not recall seeing such a request.  So EP Michael Celarius was stubborn and arrogant. Let us say, for sake of argument, so was EP St. Photios and Leo of Ohrid.

Does that make filioque more true?  Not at all. Does it make it more acceptable?  Not a jot.

I didn't get into personalities-which is what you seem to be asking-because they come and go.  The closest I came IIRC was this:

As to Pope Benedict XVI personally, many of us (including myself, my priest and many in my parish) were members of the Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club from way back. His abolishion of his patriarchate of the West was a mistake, especially not coupled with his ealier (pre-election) idea of promoting the local episcopal conferences.

The office of reception of converts would of course be polemical. The convert is of course rejecting one thing to embrace another. Given the question, I wanted something a little more of an official answer than my own thoughts on the nature of what heresies Pope Benedict XVI of the Vatican might be guilty of.

Rather, I stuck to the issues, and mentioned the actors only in reference to them.

I gave you three chances on this, and your continued comments demonstrated that you are were not willing or capable of doing so. Hence, I closed the comments and put future comments of yours (none of which I have seen you make) in moderation.

What three chances are you speaking of (I'd rather you say it yourself)?

The comments you have made in this forum only confirm that my decision was correct. I would welcome it if you proved me wrong.

Prove you wrong on the positions you take, or you decision to moderate posts?

So I do not ask for a concession for concession's sake, on some core doctrinal issue that you believe Orthodox are right on, but rather just acknowledging that there were Orthodox Christians, and not just Catholics, who contributed to the schism. If you cannot concede that then there is no point is discussing other topics, because your judgment of history is so one-sided as to be unreasonable.

God bless,
Devin

So, yeah:there are some Orthodox Christians who "contributed to the schism" in the sense that they made demands that were not necessary.  I, for one, don't get too worked up on azymes.  What does that change as far as the reason why the Vatican has gone into schism?  Nothing.

[ialmisry]

EM, in all fairness, there's no accuracy to be found in accounts of a division that produced so much animosity on both sides.

This, along with your conclusions, is a reduction to the absurd.

What else is new?...as they say.

Not at all. Everyone here is going to champion one historical account over the other on the basis of what we want to believe. The fact of the matter is, we only have accounts from either the Roman side or the Greek side. The Muslims weren't interested enough in our squabble to write accounts of it, the remaining pagans weren't literate enough, and the Protestants were still 400 years to come. All we have to go by are polemics of the time. Any attempt to recreate an "accurate" history would merely create a woefully false history that would do injustice to both sides.

Yes.  As I said a moment ago.  You have bought into the secular relativism of the age: hook, line and snooker.

Hardly. Were I into secular relativism I'd still be a communicant of a certain woman-ordaining, lawsuit bringing, constitution over-riding denomination. I believe I know the more accurate interpretation of the events of the schism, I am completely certain as to which side was the least wrong, and I have acted on those beliefs, certainties, and faith. I can still allow for the possibility that I might be wrong as to one or two points in the accuracy of my history, as I was not an eye-witness to those events. I can completely understand why my view would be considered inaccurate by those on your side of the fence, as I consider the Roman Catholic account to be inaccurate.

What I cannot do is try to construct some absurd pseudo-history for the purposes of making peace between our two Communions. That would be false on my part and as a falsity should be insulting to you.

I think that is why we allow our bishops to work it all out.  Near-instant communications and access to far more documentary evidence than in the past will make things ever so much easier.   All you and I need to do is sit back and relax...

...so at dawn we sleep.

[ialmisry]

So what's the problem I had with your comments? Simply this: you show no fairness when describing the history of our Churches and the schism.

Fairness?  To the dickens with Fairness!!

Try ACCURACY

Not much of that and it's far more essential to dialogue.

physicianess, heal thyself.

[Irish Hermit]

Hello everyone! Yay, my registration finally went through on this forum.

The blog post's point is, of course, that the fact that such a small thing as the presence or absence of yeast in bread is cited as an important reason behind the schism shows the cunning power of evil.
 

History, dear boy, history!   Young apologists must bone up on history to achieve credibility.  We are all conditioned by our history and what took place long ago.

The Orthodox prohibition on unleavened bread stems from the early centuries when it was discovered that Armenia was using unleavened bread as a concrete symbol of what was heresy in the eyes of the Orthodox, the monophysite teaching of only one nature in Christ.  A bitter dispute ensued.   Since that time unleavened bread has carried this taint of heresy for our Orthodox Churches.  So when the Eastern Catholics discovered that the Western Catholics had started using unleavened bread, immediately the spectre of the old heresy loomed in their minds.

Btw, love "mountains-out-of-molehills-a-demons-delight".  A great piece of witty writing.

[Irish Hermit]

The blog post's point is, of course, that the fact that such a small thing as the presence or absence of yeast in bread is cited as an important reason behind the schism shows the cunning power of evil.

If you look at the Bull of Excommunication (posted on your Blog somewhere) the anxiety over being castrated loomed as a far more important reason than leavened bread.  Whether or not the Byzantines had been castrating Italians, I actually do not know.

[FormerReformer]

EM, in all fairness, there's no accuracy to be found in accounts of a division that produced so much animosity on both sides.

This, along with your conclusions, is a reduction to the absurd.

What else is new?...as they say.

Not at all. Everyone here is going to champion one historical account over the other on the basis of what we want to believe. The fact of the matter is, we only have accounts from either the Roman side or the Greek side. The Muslims weren't interested enough in our squabble to write accounts of it, the remaining pagans weren't literate enough, and the Protestants were still 400 years to come. All we have to go by are polemics of the time. Any attempt to recreate an "accurate" history would merely create a woefully false history that would do injustice to both sides.

Yes.  As I said a moment ago.  You have bought into the secular relativism of the age: hook, line and snooker.

Hardly. Were I into secular relativism I'd still be a communicant of a certain woman-ordaining, lawsuit bringing, constitution over-riding denomination. I believe I know the more accurate interpretation of the events of the schism, I am completely certain as to which side was the least wrong, and I have acted on those beliefs, certainties, and faith. I can still allow for the possibility that I might be wrong as to one or two points in the accuracy of my history, as I was not an eye-witness to those events. I can completely understand why my view would be considered inaccurate by those on your side of the fence, as I consider the Roman Catholic account to be inaccurate.

What I cannot do is try to construct some absurd pseudo-history for the purposes of making peace between our two Communions. That would be false on my part and as a falsity should be insulting to you.

I think that is why we allow our bishops to work it all out.  Near-instant communications and access to far more documentary evidence than in the past will make things ever so much easier.   All you and I need to do is sit back and relax...

Let our bishops work it out? You obviously don't know what the internet is for! 

Upon further reflection I should make a more serious reply: It is all well and good to say "Let the bishops work it out", but the one thing our Roman Catholic friends have to remember is that for the Eastern Orthodox the final say in any reunion is the (Orthodox) Church, that is reception by the laity that any decisions that have been made are sound. The results of the Council of Florence bear witness to this.

[Irish Hermit]

So what's the problem I had with your comments? Simply this: you show no fairness when describing the history of our Churches and the schism. When I asked for some reasonable balance on conceding that there was pride and sins on the Orthodox side as well as the Catholic side, neither you or Fr. Ambrose acknowledged this

If you care to mention the sins of the Orthodox on this forum perhaps we can address them.  You'll find messages here which speak of the pre-schism Eastern Catholic atrocities against Venetians and Genoese in Constantinople.

But the anti-Orthodox tone on your blog became increasingly pronounced.  Your comments against the Orthodox encouraged other Catholics to join in with sly and derogatory remarks.

[WetCatechumen]

So what's the problem I had with your comments? Simply this: you show no fairness when describing the history of our Churches and the schism. When I asked for some reasonable balance on conceding that there was pride and sins on the Orthodox side as well as the Catholic side, neither you or Fr. Ambrose acknowledged this

If you care to mention the sins of the Orthodox on this forum perhaps we can address them.  You'll find messages here which speak of the pre-schism Eastern Catholic atrocities against Venetians and Genoese in Constantinople.

But the anti-Orthodox tone on your blog became increasingly pronounced.  Your comments against the Orthodox encouraged other Catholics to join in with sly and derogatory remarks.

So before the schism you were Catholic but after you were Orthodox?

[William]

The Orthodox prohibition on unleavened bread stems from the early centuries when it was discovered that Armenia was using unleavened bread as a concrete symbol of what was heresy in the eyes of the Orthodox, the monophysite teaching of only one nature in Christ.

[xariskai]

So before the schism you were Catholic but after you were Orthodox?

Catholic simply means universal.

The opposite is particularistic theology -faith which is held by some but not universally, like faith in papal infallibility, of which there is not even the germ of what developed into the later idea in the entire first millennium of Christianity according to academic historian and Roman Catholic Cardinal Yves Congar, the general consensus of major academic historians, and the Orthodox Church.

Orthodox Christians affirm the first seven Ecumenical Councils, and so do Roman Catholics, these beliefs are "universal/catholic,"

Roman Catholics have 21 Councils -fourteen beyond our seven. These do not reflect universal or historic Christian belief at many points and therefore are not "catholic" in the original sense of the word "universal" -from our point of view. There are a number of dogmas of Latin Catholicism which are not shared by the Orthodox Church, like propitiation in soteriology, storehouses of merit, sin as demerit which has to be "paid back," purgatory as a paying off of one's sins, indulgences, and so on. These from our perspective are not "universal" beliefs of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church (these are just examples, not meant to be comprehensive, and of course there will be different "slants" on all of these things ad infinitum).

Orthodox Christians affirm one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" -that Church for us is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church, which is in schism and regards all who affirm papal infallibility is not true or reasonable are excommunicated (from the Roman Catholic side). This type of perspective seems to "offend" some Roman Catholics, but it is not meant to offend anyone but to express Orthodox Christian belief.

[Irish Hermit]

I gave you three chances on this, and your continued comments demonstrated that you are were not willing or capable of doing so. Hence, I closed the comments and put future comments of yours (none of which I have seen you make) in moderation.

What three chances are you speaking of (I'd rather you say it yourself)?

What the Orthodox did not realise was that their participation  on your blog was conditional on their being concessionary.  This was not made clear and if it had been clear from the beginning it would have been probably better for us not to participate under such a pre-imposed condition.

On this forum and on others such as Catholic Answers participants are not asked to be concessionary but to be polite.  So we were accustomed to a different mode of participation than what we now realise you wanted on your blog.

All the same, we are now able to discuss and share, here on OC.net, with maximal freedom and I welcome the fresh chance for dialogue.

[Irish Hermit]

EM, in all fairness, there's no accuracy to be found in accounts of a division that produced so much animosity on both sides.

This, along with your conclusions, is a reduction to the absurd.

What else is new?...as they say.

Not at all. Everyone here is going to champion one historical account over the other on the basis of what we want to believe. The fact of the matter is, we only have accounts from either the Roman side or the Greek side. The Muslims weren't interested enough in our squabble to write accounts of it, the remaining pagans weren't literate enough, and the Protestants were still 400 years to come. All we have to go by are polemics of the time. Any attempt to recreate an "accurate" history would merely create a woefully false history that would do injustice to both sides.

Yes.  As I said a moment ago.  You have bought into the secular relativism of the age: hook, line and snooker.

Hardly. Were I into secular relativism I'd still be a communicant of a certain woman-ordaining, lawsuit bringing, constitution over-riding denomination. I believe I know the more accurate interpretation of the events of the schism, I am completely certain as to which side was the least wrong, and I have acted on those beliefs, certainties, and faith. I can still allow for the possibility that I might be wrong as to one or two points in the accuracy of my history, as I was not an eye-witness to those events. I can completely understand why my view would be considered inaccurate by those on your side of the fence, as I consider the Roman Catholic account to be inaccurate.

What I cannot do is try to construct some absurd pseudo-history for the purposes of making peace between our two Communions. That would be false on my part and as a falsity should be insulting to you.

I think that is why we allow our bishops to work it all out.  Near-instant communications and access to far more documentary evidence than in the past will make things ever so much easier.   All you and I need to do is sit back and relax...

You have not taken into account the Orthodox Magisterium Fidelium.  

[elijahmaria]

EM, in all fairness, there's no accuracy to be found in accounts of a division that produced so much animosity on both sides.

This, along with your conclusions, is a reduction to the absurd.

What else is new?...as they say.

Not at all. Everyone here is going to champion one historical account over the other on the basis of what we want to believe. The fact of the matter is, we only have accounts from either the Roman side or the Greek side. The Muslims weren't interested enough in our squabble to write accounts of it, the remaining pagans weren't literate enough, and the Protestants were still 400 years to come. All we have to go by are polemics of the time. Any attempt to recreate an "accurate" history would merely create a woefully false history that would do injustice to both sides.

Yes.  As I said a moment ago.  You have bought into the secular relativism of the age: hook, line and snooker.

Hardly. Were I into secular relativism I'd still be a communicant of a certain woman-ordaining, lawsuit bringing, constitution over-riding denomination. I believe I know the more accurate interpretation of the events of the schism, I am completely certain as to which side was the least wrong, and I have acted on those beliefs, certainties, and faith. I can still allow for the possibility that I might be wrong as to one or two points in the accuracy of my history, as I was not an eye-witness to those events. I can completely understand why my view would be considered inaccurate by those on your side of the fence, as I consider the Roman Catholic account to be inaccurate.

What I cannot do is try to construct some absurd pseudo-history for the purposes of making peace between our two Communions. That would be false on my part and as a falsity should be insulting to you.

I think that is why we allow our bishops to work it all out.  Near-instant communications and access to far more documentary evidence than in the past will make things ever so much easier.   All you and I need to do is sit back and relax...

You have not taken into account the Orthodox Magisterium Fidelium.   

Oh but I have.

[WetCatechumen]

So before the schism you were Catholic but after you were Orthodox?

Catholic simply means universal.

The opposite is particularistic theology -faith which is held by some but not universally, like faith in papal infallibility, of which there is not even the germ of what developed into the later idea in the entire first millennium of Christianity according to academic historian and Roman Catholic Cardinal Yves Congar, the general consensus of major academic historians, and the Orthodox Church.

Orthodox Christians affirm the first seven Ecumenical Councils, and so do Roman Catholics, these beliefs are "universal/catholic,"

Roman Catholics have 21 Councils -fourteen beyond our seven. These do not reflect universal or historic Christian belief at many points and therefore are not "catholic" in the original sense of the word "universal" -from our point of view. There are a number of dogmas of Latin Catholicism which are not shared by the Orthodox Church, like propitiation in soteriology, storehouses of merit, sin as demerit which has to be "paid back," purgatory as a paying off of one's sins, indulgences, and so on. These from our perspective are not "universal" beliefs of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church (these are just examples, not meant to be comprehensive, and of course there will be different "slants" on all of these things ad infinitum).

Orthodox Christians affirm one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" -that Church for us is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church, which is in schism and regards all who affirm papal infallibility is not true or reasonable are excommunicated (from the Roman Catholic side). This type of perspective seems to "offend" some Roman Catholics, but it is not meant to offend anyone but to express Orthodox Christian belief.

I think Fr. Ambrose's reticence indicates that he, at least, understood my post to be a joke.

[Irish Hermit]

The blog post's point is, of course, that the fact that such a small thing as the presence or absence of yeast in bread is cited as an important reason behind the schism shows the cunning power of evil.

The age old battle continues ..... Azymites (Armenians, the unleavened ones) slug it out with Prozymites (Greeks, the leavened ones) in Jerusalem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_E4haW1upw

[Irish Hermit]

So what's the problem I had with your comments? Simply this: you show no fairness when describing the history of our Churches and the schism. When I asked for some reasonable balance on conceding that there was pride and sins on the Orthodox side as well as the Catholic side, neither you or Fr. Ambrose acknowledged this

If you care to mention the sins of the Orthodox on this forum perhaps we can address them.  You'll find messages here which speak of the pre-schism Eastern Catholic atrocities against Venetians and Genoese in Constantinople.

But the anti-Orthodox tone on your blog became increasingly pronounced.  Your comments against the Orthodox encouraged other Catholics to join in with sly and derogatory remarks.

So before the schism you were Catholic but after you were Orthodox?

Heri et hodie idem, et in saecula! 

[Deacon Lance]

Hello everyone! Yay, my registration finally went through on this forum.

The blog post's point is, of course, that the fact that such a small thing as the presence or absence of yeast in bread is cited as an important reason behind the schism shows the cunning power of evil.
 

History, dear boy, history!   Young apologists must bone up on history to achieve credibility.  We are all conditioned by our history and what took place long ago.

The Orthodox prohibition on unleavened bread stems from the early centuries when it was discovered that Armenia was using unleavened bread as a concrete symbol of what was heresy in the eyes of the Orthodox, the monophysite teaching of only one nature in Christ.  A bitter dispute ensued.   Since that time unleavened bread has carried this taint of heresy for our Orthodox Churches.  So when the Eastern Catholics discovered that the Western Catholics had started using unleavened bread, immediately the spectre of the old heresy loomed in their minds.

Btw, love "mountains-out-of-molehills-a-demons-delight".  A great piece of witty writing.

The Armenians were using unleavened bread before Chalcedon and weren't using it a symbol of one nature but of purity.  The same for the unmixed chalice.  They associated the leaven with the impure leaven of the Pharisees Christ warned about and a mixed chalice with impure watered down wine.  The other Miaphysites use leavened bread and a mixed chalice just as we do but they don't see a conflict with their miaphysite theology.

[Irish Hermit]

Hello everyone! Yay, my registration finally went through on this forum.

The blog post's point is, of course, that the fact that such a small thing as the presence or absence of yeast in bread is cited as an important reason behind the schism shows the cunning power of evil.
 

History, dear boy, history!   Young apologists must bone up on history to achieve credibility.  We are all conditioned by our history and what took place long ago.

The Orthodox prohibition on unleavened bread stems from the early centuries when it was discovered that Armenia was using unleavened bread as a concrete symbol of what was heresy in the eyes of the Orthodox, the monophysite teaching of only one nature in Christ.  A bitter dispute ensued.   Since that time unleavened bread has carried this taint of heresy for our Orthodox Churches.  So when the Eastern Catholics discovered that the Western Catholics had started using unleavened bread, immediately the spectre of the old heresy loomed in their minds.

Btw, love "mountains-out-of-molehills-a-demons-delight".  A great piece of witty writing.

The Armenians were using unleavened bread before Chalcedon and weren't using it a symbol of one nature but of purity.  The same for the unmixed chalice.  They associated the leaven with the impure leaven of the Pharisees Christ warned about and a mixed chalice with impure watered down wine.  The other Miaphysites use leavened bread and a mixed chalice just as we do but they don't see a conflict with their miaphysite theology.

Father Deacon,

We share different histories.  Perhaps they can be reconciled?

Something interesting from  Fr John H Erickson, Dean of Saint Vladimir's Seminary

"Unleavened Bread and the Armenians"

http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/John-Erickson/articles/beyond-dialogue.html/

"...... Particularly instructive are the ways in which certain distinctive Armenian liturgical practices, such as the use of azymes (unleavened bread) and a chalice unmixed with water in the eucharist, come to be linked to Christological doctrine.  The origins of these practices are unknown, but they certainly antedate any division of the churches.  By late sixth century, however, they were becoming symbols of Armenian identity vis-a-vis the Greeks, who used leavened bread and wine mixed with warm water in the eucharist. 

"Refusing an invitation from Emperor Maurice to come to Constantinople to discuss reunion, Catholicos Movses II in 591 declared:  “I will not cross the River Azat nor will I eat the baked bread of the Greeks or drink their hot water.” [9]   

"By the late seventh century these distinctive liturgical practices, already symbols of national identity, have become even more potent symbols of Christological doctrine.  Reflecting the aphthartodocetism of Julian of Halicarnassus, which was then in the ascendency in the Armenian Church, Catholicos Sahak III (d. 703) writes:  “Now we profess the body of Christ [to be] incorrupt and all-powerful always and constantly from [the moment of] the union of the Logos.  This is why we take azymes [unleavened bread] for the bread of holiness with which we offer the salvific sacrifice, which signifies incorruptibility.” [10]   Then, after a barrage of typological and moral arguments supporting the use of unleavened bread, Sahak goes on in like manner to associate the unmixed chalice, free from the adulteration of added water, with the incorruptible blood of Christ. 

"The Byzantine Church quickly enough responded in kind.  The Synod in Trullo (691-92) almost certainly had Sahak’s treatise in mind when it decreed that any bishop or presbyter who does not mix water with the wine in the eucharist is to be deposed, on the grounds that he thus “proclaims the mystery incompletely and tampers with tradition” (canon 32). [11]   Very possibly Trullo also had Armenian liturgical practice in mind when it decreed “Let no man eat the unleavened bread of the Jews...” (canon 11).  In any case, in subsequent  polemical literature the issue of the bread and wine of the eucharist figures prominently, frequently to the exclusion of deeper theological reflection. 

"Thus, despite their common rejection of Chalcedon and the generally Severan orientation of their shared Christology,  the Armenian and Syrian churches in the Middle Ages sometimes attacked each other precisely because of such liturgical differences.  So also, as schism yawned between the Byzantine and Latin churches in the eleventh century, Byzantine polemicists transferred their anti-azyme arguments from the Armenians to the Latins, notwithstanding the latters’ manifestly Chalcedonian Christology.  Use of leavened bread and mingled wine, or conversely of unleavened bread and pure wine, immediately marked a community as either heretic or orthodox, no matter what Christological doctrine the community in question actually held!"

[DevinRose]

Isa, Irish Hermit, esteemed people,

Isa, firstly thank you for conceding that pride etc. existed with leaders on the Orthodox side. That is all I was hoping for from you and Fr. Ambrose, but I never heard it, and instead it was always blaming Catholics (Cardinal Humbert et. al.) for being the bad guys.

(To Irish): Secondly, to my knowledge Perry Robinson and Nicholas Myra have never conceded any doctrinal points, and so it is not a "condition" of my blog that Orthodox Christians do so. But I do ask for some balance, some fairness, since sin is a problem that afflicts Catholic and Orthodox without discriminating. Isa has, for the first time I have seen, done that here.

I certainly don't want my blog to have an "anti-Orthodox" tone. If you read it that way, I apologize. It was not the intent. Rather, the intent of the post, a la Screwtape Letters, is to show how the schism was a delight to demons, who hate Catholics and Orthodox both and are only happy that they could drive a wedge between us.

[J Michael]

Isa, Irish Hermit, esteemed people,

Isa, firstly thank you for conceding that pride etc. existed with leaders on the Orthodox side. That is all I was hoping for from you and Fr. Ambrose, but I never heard it, and instead it was always blaming Catholics (Cardinal Humbert et. al.) for being the bad guys.

(To Irish): Secondly, to my knowledge Perry Robinson and Nicholas Myra have never conceded any doctrinal points, and so it is not a "condition" of my blog that Orthodox Christians do so. But I do ask for some balance, some fairness, since sin is a problem that afflicts Catholic and Orthodox without discriminating. Isa has, for the first time I have seen, done that here.

I certainly don't want my blog to have an "anti-Orthodox" tone. If you read it that way, I apologize. It was not the intent. Rather, the intent of the post, a la Screwtape Letters, is to show how the schism was a delight to demons, who hate Catholics and Orthodox both and are only happy that they could drive a wedge between us.

Good points, Devin.  The demons you speak of only drive that wedge between us because we, Catholic and Orthodox, *let* them when we abandon reason, humility, charity, and, most of all, love.

[NicholasMyra]

Isa, firstly thank you for conceding that pride etc. existed with leaders on the Orthodox side. That is all I was hoping for from you and Fr. Ambrose, but I never heard it, and instead it was always blaming Catholics (Cardinal Humbert et. al.) for being the bad guys.

I think there was a communication disconnect.

From my perspective, Isa and Fr. Ambrose were not too concerned with the moral uprightness of Cardinal Humbert or Patriarch Michael. They were more concerned with the doctrinal and ecclesiastical conflicts themselves. They did not "admit there was pride on both sides" because such a statement seemed far from the issues at hand.

Almost everyone's got pride, after all. It's a bit of a given that it's in play where humans are involved.

[Jack Bauer]

Are y'all talking about the same Fr. Ambrose from CAF a few hears back?  Loved chatting with him.  I even agreed with much of what he said.   

[Irish Hermit]

Are y'all talking about the same Fr. Ambrose from CAF a few hears back?  Loved chatting with him.  I even agreed with much of what he said.  

Jack,  you are balm on an old man's soul!    Yes,  it's one and the same.  I'm "Irish Hermit" here.   Signed up under that name many years ago but never used the account.  That was the time of the busy days on CAF.  Serendipity days, when God brought about 30 CAF people into Orthodoxy.  We know it was God's working since we weren't there with the intention of proselytizing.  

please refrain from delving into the CAF situation =username! section moderator

[Papist]

Are y'all talking about the same Fr. Ambrose from CAF a few hears back?  Loved chatting with him.  I even agreed with much of what he said.  

Jack,  you are balm on an old man's soul!    Yes,  it's one and the same.  I'm "Irish Hermit" here.   Signed up under that name many years ago but never used the account.  That was the time of the busy days on CAF.  Serendipity days, when God brought about 30 CAF people into Orthodoxy.  We know it was God's working since we weren't there with the intention of proselytizing.  

Nothing about that statement is even remotely true. I remember whole threads being opened to celebrate Catholics who went into schism to join the Eastern Orthodox Church.
please refrain from discussing the caf situation that occurred years ago, further commentary upon your part will result in further moderatorial action -username! section moderator

[Papist]

Isa, Irish Hermit, esteemed people,

Isa, firstly thank you for conceding that pride etc. existed with leaders on the Orthodox side. That is all I was hoping for from you and Fr. Ambrose, but I never heard it, and instead it was always blaming Catholics (Cardinal Humbert et. al.) for being the bad guys.

(To Irish): Secondly, to my knowledge Perry Robinson and Nicholas Myra have never conceded any doctrinal points, and so it is not a "condition" of my blog that Orthodox Christians do so. But I do ask for some balance, some fairness, since sin is a problem that afflicts Catholic and Orthodox without discriminating. Isa has, for the first time I have seen, done that here.

I certainly don't want my blog to have an "anti-Orthodox" tone. If you read it that way, I apologize. It was not the intent. Rather, the intent of the post, a la Screwtape Letters, is to show how the schism was a delight to demons, who hate Catholics and Orthodox both and are only happy that they could drive a wedge between us.

Good points, Devin.  The demons you speak of only drive that wedge between us because we, Catholic and Orthodox, *let* them when we abandon reason, humility, charity, and, most of all, love.

You are from the Diocese of Santa Fe as well? Fantastic!!! Which parish do you attend?

[Irish Hermit]

Are y'all talking about the same Fr. Ambrose from CAF a few hears back?  Loved chatting with him.  I even agreed with much of what he said.  

Jack,  you are balm on an old man's soul!    Yes,  it's one and the same.  I'm "Irish Hermit" here.   Signed up under that name many years ago but never used the account.  That was the time of the busy days on CAF.  Serendipity days, when God brought about 30 CAF people into Orthodoxy.  We know it was God's working since we weren't there with the intention of proselytizing.  

Nothing about that statement is even remotely true. I remember whole threads being opened to celebrate Catholics who went into schism to join the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Thy memory doth fail thee.  I do not recall "whole threads" celebrating Catholic conversion to the big O's.   I recall one such thread and the Orthodox response made it clear that they found it distasteful.  I further recall that the section moderator Joe Monahan made a ruling that such a thread would not be tolerated, on either side.

[Irish Hermit]

Nothing about that statement is even remotely true. I remember whole threads being opened to celebrate Catholics who went into schism to join the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I am not sure that the Catholics see it as "going into schism" these days.  We have two Catholic married couples in the parish who converted with the approval of the Catholic Church.

[DevinRose]

Hi Papist!

I would rather not publicly divulge my parish (since it gives an idea of where I live), but feel free to email me from the link on this page: http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/about/  and I would be happy to share it with you.

[Deacon Lance]

"Unleavened Bread and the Armenians"

http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/John-Erickson/articles/beyond-dialogue.html/

"...... Particularly instructive are the ways in which certain distinctive Armenian liturgical practices, such as the use of azymes (unleavened bread) and a chalice unmixed with water in the eucharist, come to be linked to Christological doctrine.  The origins of these practices are unknown, but they certainly antedate any division of the churches.   By late sixth century, however, they were becoming symbols of Armenian identity vis-a-vis the Greeks, who used leavened bread and wine mixed with warm water in the eucharist. 

"Refusing an invitation from Emperor Maurice to come to Constantinople to discuss reunion, Catholicos Movses II in 591 declared:  “I will not cross the River Azat nor will I eat the baked bread of the Greeks or drink their hot water.” [9]   

"By the late seventh century these distinctive liturgical practices, already symbols of national identity, have become even more potent symbols of Christological doctrine.  Reflecting the aphthartodocetism of Julian of Halicarnassus, which was then in the ascendency in the Armenian Church, Catholicos Sahak III (d. 703) writes:  “Now we profess the body of Christ [to be] incorrupt and all-powerful always and constantly from [the moment of] the union of the Logos.  This is why we take azymes [unleavened bread] for the bread of holiness with which we offer the salvific sacrifice, which signifies incorruptibility.” [10]   Then, after a barrage of typological and moral arguments supporting the use of unleavened bread, Sahak goes on in like manner to associate the unmixed chalice, free from the adulteration of added water, with the incorruptible blood of Christ. " 

Like I said.

[WetCatechumen]

Hi Papist!

I would rather not publicly divulge my parish (since it gives an idea of where I live), but feel free to email me from the link on this page: http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/about/  and I would be happy to share it with you.

Or I can tell him. :p

Papist and I are real life friends - I love how all three of us found this site independently but are all really close to one another.

[Irish Hermit]

"Unleavened Bread and the Armenians"

http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/John-Erickson/articles/beyond-dialogue.html/

"...... Particularly instructive are the ways in which certain distinctive Armenian liturgical practices, such as the use of azymes (unleavened bread) and a chalice unmixed with water in the eucharist, come to be linked to Christological doctrine.  The origins of these practices are unknown, but they certainly antedate any division of the churches.  By late sixth century, however, they were becoming symbols of Armenian identity vis-a-vis the Greeks, who used leavened bread and wine mixed with warm water in the eucharist.  

"Refusing an invitation from Emperor Maurice to come to Constantinople to discuss reunion, Catholicos Movses II in 591 declared:  “I will not cross the River Azat nor will I eat the baked bread of the Greeks or drink their hot water.” [9]  

"By the late seventh century these distinctive liturgical practices, already symbols of national identity, have become even more potent symbols of Christological doctrine.  Reflecting the aphthartodocetism of Julian of Halicarnassus, which was then in the ascendency in the Armenian Church, Catholicos Sahak III (d. 703) writes:  “Now we profess the body of Christ [to be] incorrupt and all-powerful always and constantly from [the moment of] the union of the Logos.  This is why we take azymes [unleavened bread] for the bread of holiness with which we offer the salvific sacrifice, which signifies incorruptibility.” [10]   Then, after a barrage of typological and moral arguments supporting the use of unleavened bread, Sahak goes on in like manner to associate the unmixed chalice, free from the adulteration of added water, with the incorruptible blood of Christ. "  

Like I said.

You have not seen my point, Father deacon.   It is that the centuries long association of unleavened bread with heresy caused a negative reaction when the Western Catholics were found to be adopting it.   As we know it was a medieval change in the Church of Rome, commencing from its northern Norman territories and Rome was probably the last centre of the West to adopt unleavened bread.

[Irish Hermit]

I was just looking at the comments posted on Devin's "Mountains out of Molehills" blog entry and frankly I am saddened.   The Catholic comments exhibit much insularity and if this is the manner of the Catholic approach to dialogue with the Orthodox, then it isn't going to go anywhere.

We are crudely accused of "not getting it"  and even  "deliberately not getting it."  

Really, does it never cross the minds of such narrow commentators that we do indeed "get it"  but we have our own viewpoint, our own theology and we do not agree with the Catholic position.   If we can understand the differences between our positions, why can't the Catholic commentators?    Apparently "getting it" means agreeing with the Catholic position.  What can I say?  If this is the quality of the dialogue between us, it's doomed.

Let us pray that the Catholics will take us more seriously and the dialogue will bear fruit.

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/11/30/mountains-out-of-molehills-a-demons-delight/

[Deacon Lance]

But Father my point is that it was a Byzantine projection unto the Armenians, not founded on the Armenians own teachings.  And notice that the Armenians and Latins are condemned for using azymes for completely different reasons.  

[xariskai]

I was just looking at the comments posted on Devin's "Mountains out of Molehills" blog entry and frankly I am saddened.   The Catholic comments exhibit much insularity and if this is the manner of the Catholic approach to dialogue with the Orthodox, then it isn't going to go anywhere.

We are crudely accused of "not getting it"  and even  "deliberately not getting it."  

Really, does it never cross the minds of such narrow commentators that we do indeed "get it"  but we have our own viewpoint, our own theology and we do not agree with the Catholic position.   If we can understand the differences between our positions, why can't the Catholic commentators?    Apparently "getting it" means agreeing with the Catholic position.  What can I say?  If this is the quality of the dialogue between us, it's doomed.

+1

[elijahmaria]

I was just looking at the comments posted on Devin's "Mountains out of Molehills" blog entry and frankly I am saddened.   The Catholic comments exhibit much insularity and if this is the manner of the Catholic approach to dialogue with the Orthodox, then it isn't going to go anywhere.

We are crudely accused of "not getting it"  and even  "deliberately not getting it."  

Really, does it never cross the minds of such narrow commentators that we do indeed "get it"  but we have our own viewpoint, our own theology and we do not agree with the Catholic position.   If we can understand the differences between our positions, why can't the Catholic commentators?    Apparently "getting it" means agreeing with the Catholic position.  What can I say?  If this is the quality of the dialogue between us, it's doomed.

+1

In my understanding after nearly 17 years of Internet communication with Orthodox faithful and reading Orthodox saints and theologians that "getting it" means understanding what the Catholic Church means in her teachings, actually re-presenting the teachings with sensitivity to Catholic meaning and not some sort of Orthodox over-lay, which omits some things and adds things that are not there...THAT is what I would say is NOT "getting it"...and after 17 years and repeated corrections, I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

M.

[J Michael]

I was just looking at the comments posted on Devin's "Mountains out of Molehills" blog entry and frankly I am saddened.   The Catholic comments exhibit much insularity and if this is the manner of the Catholic approach to dialogue with the Orthodox, then it isn't going to go anywhere.

We are crudely accused of "not getting it"  and even  "deliberately not getting it."  

Really, does it never cross the minds of such narrow commentators that we do indeed "get it"  but we have our own viewpoint, our own theology and we do not agree with the Catholic position.   If we can understand the differences between our positions, why can't the Catholic commentators?    Apparently "getting it" means agreeing with the Catholic position.  What can I say?  If this is the quality of the dialogue between us, it's doomed.

+1

In my understanding after nearly 17 years of Internet communication with Orthodox faithful and reading Orthodox saints and theologians that "getting it" means understanding what the Catholic Church means in her teachings, actually re-presenting the teachings with sensitivity to Catholic meaning and not some sort of Orthodox over-lay, which omits some things and adds things that are not there...THAT is what I would say is NOT "getting it"...and after 17 years and repeated corrections, I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

M.

+1

[FormerReformer]

I was just looking at the comments posted on Devin's "Mountains out of Molehills" blog entry and frankly I am saddened.   The Catholic comments exhibit much insularity and if this is the manner of the Catholic approach to dialogue with the Orthodox, then it isn't going to go anywhere.

We are crudely accused of "not getting it"  and even  "deliberately not getting it."   

Really, does it never cross the minds of such narrow commentators that we do indeed "get it"  but we have our own viewpoint, our own theology and we do not agree with the Catholic position.   If we can understand the differences between our positions, why can't the Catholic commentators?    Apparently "getting it" means agreeing with the Catholic position.  What can I say?  If this is the quality of the dialogue between us, it's doomed.

+1

In my understanding after nearly 17 years of Internet communication with Orthodox faithful and reading Orthodox saints and theologians that "getting it" means understanding what the Catholic Church means in her teachings, actually re-presenting the teachings with sensitivity to Catholic meaning and not some sort of Orthodox over-lay, which omits some things and adds things that are not there...THAT is what I would say is NOT "getting it"...and after 17 years and repeated corrections, I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

M.

EM- perhaps part of the problem is something I often see the Orthodox accused of- we have a very hard time determining, either on the basis of our own research or by talking to Roman Catholics, exactly WHAT the Roman Catholic Church means in her teachings- its something that shifts based on each and every Roman Catholic we talk to, or at the very least flavor (liberal, traditional, neoconservative, etc) of Roman Catholic. If we produce something actually written by a Roman Catholic theologian (or several) that says something that certain other people disagree with we are told that "this is not the official teaching of the Roman Church". If we produce something (like say a Catechism) that represents itself as an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and it disagrees we are told that this is not an official teaching. If we produce papal pronouncements that disagree we are told "this is not an ex cathedra statement". When we ask which statements are ex cathedra we are told that we shouldn't ask for lists of such things, or are given wildly different lists.

Many of us here do try to understand the Roman Catholic position, only to have the rug pulled out from under us ever five seconds.

[elijahmaria]

I was just looking at the comments posted on Devin's "Mountains out of Molehills" blog entry and frankly I am saddened.   The Catholic comments exhibit much insularity and if this is the manner of the Catholic approach to dialogue with the Orthodox, then it isn't going to go anywhere.

We are crudely accused of "not getting it"  and even  "deliberately not getting it."   

Really, does it never cross the minds of such narrow commentators that we do indeed "get it"  but we have our own viewpoint, our own theology and we do not agree with the Catholic position.   If we can understand the differences between our positions, why can't the Catholic commentators?    Apparently "getting it" means agreeing with the Catholic position.  What can I say?  If this is the quality of the dialogue between us, it's doomed.

+1

In my understanding after nearly 17 years of Internet communication with Orthodox faithful and reading Orthodox saints and theologians that "getting it" means understanding what the Catholic Church means in her teachings, actually re-presenting the teachings with sensitivity to Catholic meaning and not some sort of Orthodox over-lay, which omits some things and adds things that are not there...THAT is what I would say is NOT "getting it"...and after 17 years and repeated corrections, I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

M.

EM- perhaps part of the problem is something I often see the Orthodox accused of- we have a very hard time determining, either on the basis of our own research or by talking to Roman Catholics, exactly WHAT the Roman Catholic Church means in her teachings- its something that shifts based on each and every Roman Catholic we talk to, or at the very least flavor (liberal, traditional, neoconservative, etc) of Roman Catholic. If we produce something actually written by a Roman Catholic theologian (or several) that says something that certain other people disagree with we are told that "this is not the official teaching of the Roman Church". If we produce something (like say a Catechism) that represents itself as an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and it disagrees we are told that this is not an official teaching. If we produce papal pronouncements that disagree we are told "this is not an ex cathedra statement". When we ask which statements are ex cathedra we are told that we shouldn't ask for lists of such things, or are given wildly different lists.

Many of us here do try to understand the Roman Catholic position, only to have the rug pulled out from under us ever five seconds.

Granted!!

But there are some to whom I will not offer that benefit of the doubt; the same way that there are Catholics who are constitutionally incapable of having one shred of empathy or understanding for Orthodoxy.  Some of them are active on the Internet.  Others are authors of texts who can, should and often do know better...both sides.

In any event, it is good that our theological discussions are not resolved by asking the un and under-informed and hostile on either side!!

M.

[elijahmaria]

I was just looking at the comments posted on Devin's "Mountains out of Molehills" blog entry and frankly I am saddened.   The Catholic comments exhibit much insularity and if this is the manner of the Catholic approach to dialogue with the Orthodox, then it isn't going to go anywhere.

We are crudely accused of "not getting it"  and even  "deliberately not getting it."   

Really, does it never cross the minds of such narrow commentators that we do indeed "get it"  but we have our own viewpoint, our own theology and we do not agree with the Catholic position.   If we can understand the differences between our positions, why can't the Catholic commentators?    Apparently "getting it" means agreeing with the Catholic position.  What can I say?  If this is the quality of the dialogue between us, it's doomed.

+1

In my understanding after nearly 17 years of Internet communication with Orthodox faithful and reading Orthodox saints and theologians that "getting it" means understanding what the Catholic Church means in her teachings, actually re-presenting the teachings with sensitivity to Catholic meaning and not some sort of Orthodox over-lay, which omits some things and adds things that are not there...THAT is what I would say is NOT "getting it"...and after 17 years and repeated corrections, I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

M.

EM- perhaps part of the problem is something I often see the Orthodox accused of- we have a very hard time determining, either on the basis of our own research or by talking to Roman Catholics, exactly WHAT the Roman Catholic Church means in her teachings- its something that shifts based on each and every Roman Catholic we talk to, or at the very least flavor (liberal, traditional, neoconservative, etc) of Roman Catholic. If we produce something actually written by a Roman Catholic theologian (or several) that says something that certain other people disagree with we are told that "this is not the official teaching of the Roman Church". If we produce something (like say a Catechism) that represents itself as an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and it disagrees we are told that this is not an official teaching. If we produce papal pronouncements that disagree we are told "this is not an ex cathedra statement". When we ask which statements are ex cathedra we are told that we shouldn't ask for lists of such things, or are given wildly different lists.

Many of us here do try to understand the Roman Catholic position, only to have the rug pulled out from under us ever five seconds.

One more thing:  I have pushed the following thought hard on several threads this morning.  Very often the confusion resolves itself in "meaning" rather than what appears to be so in black and white.    That makes it difficult for the genuinely open minds on both sides because it can and is so easily manipulated by those who have an agenda to stop any and all agreement or mutual understanding.

M.

[Papist]

I was just looking at the comments posted on Devin's "Mountains out of Molehills" blog entry and frankly I am saddened.   The Catholic comments exhibit much insularity and if this is the manner of the Catholic approach to dialogue with the Orthodox, then it isn't going to go anywhere.

We are crudely accused of "not getting it"  and even  "deliberately not getting it."   

Really, does it never cross the minds of such narrow commentators that we do indeed "get it"  but we have our own viewpoint, our own theology and we do not agree with the Catholic position.   If we can understand the differences between our positions, why can't the Catholic commentators?    Apparently "getting it" means agreeing with the Catholic position.  What can I say?  If this is the quality of the dialogue between us, it's doomed.

+1

In my understanding after nearly 17 years of Internet communication with Orthodox faithful and reading Orthodox saints and theologians that "getting it" means understanding what the Catholic Church means in her teachings, actually re-presenting the teachings with sensitivity to Catholic meaning and not some sort of Orthodox over-lay, which omits some things and adds things that are not there...THAT is what I would say is NOT "getting it"...and after 17 years and repeated corrections, I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

M.

EM- perhaps part of the problem is something I often see the Orthodox accused of- we have a very hard time determining, either on the basis of our own research or by talking to Roman Catholics, exactly WHAT the Roman Catholic Church means in her teachings- its something that shifts based on each and every Roman Catholic we talk to, or at the very least flavor (liberal, traditional, neoconservative, etc) of Roman Catholic. If we produce something actually written by a Roman Catholic theologian (or several) that says something that certain other people disagree with we are told that "this is not the official teaching of the Roman Church". If we produce something (like say a Catechism) that represents itself as an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and it disagrees we are told that this is not an official teaching. If we produce papal pronouncements that disagree we are told "this is not an ex cathedra statement". When we ask which statements are ex cathedra we are told that we shouldn't ask for lists of such things, or are given wildly different lists.

Many of us here do try to understand the Roman Catholic position, only to have the rug pulled out from under us ever five seconds.

This is no different with EOs. If you read documents like the council of Jerusalem, ya'll were basically Latins at one time. However, those teachings are now out of vogue in the EO Church because anti-westernism is on the rise. Then if you try to have a conversation with an EO, they describe an EO teaching in exactly the same way that a Catholic does, until the Catholic says, "hey, that's what we believe." Then, in order to not sound too Latin the EO will retreat into pelegianism, or a Lutheran view of the Eucharist. Strange stuff. Shifting sands are not only found in the west.

[biro]

This is no different with EOs. If you read documents like the council of Jerusalem, ya'll were basically Latins at one time. However, those teachings are now out of vogue in the EO Church because anti-westernism is on the rise. Then if you try to have a conversation with an EO, they describe an EO teaching in exactly the same way that a Catholic does, until the Catholic says, "hey, that's what we believe." Then, in order to not sound too Latin the EO will retreat into pelegianism, or a Lutheran view of the Eucharist. Strange stuff. Shifting sands are not only found in the west.

Without that, half the board would come to a screeching halt. 

[Wyatt]

This is no different with EOs. If you read documents like the council of Jerusalem, ya'll were basically Latins at one time. However, those teachings are now out of vogue in the EO Church because anti-westernism is on the rise. Then if you try to have a conversation with an EO, they describe an EO teaching in exactly the same way that a Catholic does, until the Catholic says, "hey, that's what we believe." Then, in order to not sound too Latin the EO will retreat into pelegianism, or a Lutheran view of the Eucharist. Strange stuff. Shifting sands are not only found in the west.

QFT. I still don't know what the difference is (or if there even is a difference) between original sin and ancestral sin.

[Irish Hermit]

I was just looking at the comments posted on Devin's "Mountains out of Molehills" blog entry and frankly I am saddened.   The Catholic comments exhibit much insularity and if this is the manner of the Catholic approach to dialogue with the Orthodox, then it isn't going to go anywhere.

We are crudely accused of "not getting it"  and even  "deliberately not getting it."  

Really, does it never cross the minds of such narrow commentators that we do indeed "get it"  but we have our own viewpoint, our own theology and we do not agree with the Catholic position.   If we can understand the differences between our positions, why can't the Catholic commentators?    Apparently "getting it" means agreeing with the Catholic position.  What can I say?  If this is the quality of the dialogue between us, it's doomed.

+1

In my understanding after nearly 17 years of Internet communication with Orthodox faithful and reading Orthodox saints and theologians that "getting it" means understanding what the Catholic Church means in her teachings, actually re-presenting the teachings with sensitivity to Catholic meaning and not some sort of Orthodox over-lay, which omits some things and adds things that are not there...THAT is what I would say is NOT "getting it"...and after 17 years and repeated corrections, I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

M.

If you take a look at the thread we are being accused of being deliberately obtuse (not "getting it") about the Roman Catholic teaching on the procession of the Spirit.   The attitude towards us is contemptuous.  See for yourself.

[Irish Hermit]

I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

-10

[elijahmaria]

I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

-10

I don't think so Father Ambrose.  In fact I am certain that what I say has merit as a sad reality.

[elijahmaria]

I was just looking at the comments posted on Devin's "Mountains out of Molehills" blog entry and frankly I am saddened.   The Catholic comments exhibit much insularity and if this is the manner of the Catholic approach to dialogue with the Orthodox, then it isn't going to go anywhere.

We are crudely accused of "not getting it"  and even  "deliberately not getting it."  

Really, does it never cross the minds of such narrow commentators that we do indeed "get it"  but we have our own viewpoint, our own theology and we do not agree with the Catholic position.   If we can understand the differences between our positions, why can't the Catholic commentators?    Apparently "getting it" means agreeing with the Catholic position.  What can I say?  If this is the quality of the dialogue between us, it's doomed.

+1

In my understanding after nearly 17 years of Internet communication with Orthodox faithful and reading Orthodox saints and theologians that "getting it" means understanding what the Catholic Church means in her teachings, actually re-presenting the teachings with sensitivity to Catholic meaning and not some sort of Orthodox over-lay, which omits some things and adds things that are not there...THAT is what I would say is NOT "getting it"...and after 17 years and repeated corrections, I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

M.

If you take a look at the thread we are being accused of being deliberately obtuse (not "getting it") about the Roman Catholic teaching on the procession of the Spirit.   The attitude towards us is contemptuous.  See for yourself.

Seems to me that for those of you there who are active here there should be no difficulty at all mocking and grinding those detractors right into the ground.  Professor Cut'n Paste is there so all's well for the Home Team!!

[Irish Hermit]

I was just looking at the comments posted on Devin's "Mountains out of Molehills" blog entry and frankly I am saddened.   The Catholic comments exhibit much insularity and if this is the manner of the Catholic approach to dialogue with the Orthodox, then it isn't going to go anywhere.

We are crudely accused of "not getting it"  and even  "deliberately not getting it."   

Really, does it never cross the minds of such narrow commentators that we do indeed "get it"  but we have our own viewpoint, our own theology and we do not agree with the Catholic position.   If we can understand the differences between our positions, why can't the Catholic commentators?    Apparently "getting it" means agreeing with the Catholic position.  What can I say?  If this is the quality of the dialogue between us, it's doomed.

+1

In my understanding after nearly 17 years of Internet communication with Orthodox faithful and reading Orthodox saints and theologians that "getting it" means understanding what the Catholic Church means in her teachings, actually re-presenting the teachings with sensitivity to Catholic meaning and not some sort of Orthodox over-lay, which omits some things and adds things that are not there...THAT is what I would say is NOT "getting it"...and after 17 years and repeated corrections, I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

M.

EM- perhaps part of the problem is something I often see the Orthodox accused of- we have a very hard time determining, either on the basis of our own research or by talking to Roman Catholics, exactly WHAT the Roman Catholic Church means in her teachings- its something that shifts based on each and every Roman Catholic we talk to, or at the very least flavor (liberal, traditional, neoconservative, etc) of Roman Catholic. If we produce something actually written by a Roman Catholic theologian (or several) that says something that certain other people disagree with we are told that "this is not the official teaching of the Roman Church". If we produce something (like say a Catechism) that represents itself as an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and it disagrees we are told that this is not an official teaching. If we produce papal pronouncements that disagree we are told "this is not an ex cathedra statement". When we ask which statements are ex cathedra we are told that we shouldn't ask for lists of such things, or are given wildly different lists.

Many of us here do try to understand the Roman Catholic position, only to have the rug pulled out from under us ever five seconds.

One more thing:  I have pushed the following thought hard on several threads this morning.  Very often the confusion resolves itself in "meaning" rather than what appears to be so in black and white.    That makes it difficult for the genuinely open minds on both sides because it can and is so easily manipulated by those who have an agenda to stop any and all agreement or mutual understanding.

M.

We have seen on Devin's blog that there is a very condescending attitude to the Orthodox.  Thery write as if we are obtuse and wayward children who refuse to "get it" and acknowledge the superiority of Roman Catholic thought.

[FormerReformer]

I was just looking at the comments posted on Devin's "Mountains out of Molehills" blog entry and frankly I am saddened.   The Catholic comments exhibit much insularity and if this is the manner of the Catholic approach to dialogue with the Orthodox, then it isn't going to go anywhere.

We are crudely accused of "not getting it"  and even  "deliberately not getting it."   

Really, does it never cross the minds of such narrow commentators that we do indeed "get it"  but we have our own viewpoint, our own theology and we do not agree with the Catholic position.   If we can understand the differences between our positions, why can't the Catholic commentators?    Apparently "getting it" means agreeing with the Catholic position.  What can I say?  If this is the quality of the dialogue between us, it's doomed.

+1

In my understanding after nearly 17 years of Internet communication with Orthodox faithful and reading Orthodox saints and theologians that "getting it" means understanding what the Catholic Church means in her teachings, actually re-presenting the teachings with sensitivity to Catholic meaning and not some sort of Orthodox over-lay, which omits some things and adds things that are not there...THAT is what I would say is NOT "getting it"...and after 17 years and repeated corrections, I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

M.

EM- perhaps part of the problem is something I often see the Orthodox accused of- we have a very hard time determining, either on the basis of our own research or by talking to Roman Catholics, exactly WHAT the Roman Catholic Church means in her teachings- its something that shifts based on each and every Roman Catholic we talk to, or at the very least flavor (liberal, traditional, neoconservative, etc) of Roman Catholic. If we produce something actually written by a Roman Catholic theologian (or several) that says something that certain other people disagree with we are told that "this is not the official teaching of the Roman Church". If we produce something (like say a Catechism) that represents itself as an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and it disagrees we are told that this is not an official teaching. If we produce papal pronouncements that disagree we are told "this is not an ex cathedra statement". When we ask which statements are ex cathedra we are told that we shouldn't ask for lists of such things, or are given wildly different lists.

Many of us here do try to understand the Roman Catholic position, only to have the rug pulled out from under us ever five seconds.

This is no different with EOs....

I'm sorry, I thought my first sentence made clear that I already recognized this (or at lest that the perception is there). I'm not accusing Roman Catholics of anything, just noting why it seems so difficult for our two sides to communicate clearly. The only time I object to RC criticism in this regard is when it is used (as it was on some other forum-referenced blog a month or two ago) as an example of why the Orthodox need the Pope. In fact, the main difference between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics in this area is that we sort of luxuriate in our muddled paradox (which the Roman Catholics used to do- its on just about every page of Chesterton) while many Roman Catholics seem to think they have some sort of "official" seal on their divergent beliefs (note- most of the Orthodox who believe they have the one true Orthodox teaching aren't in communion with anyone!). As often gets said in these Orthodox-Catholic Forum debates- "You need to get your own house in order" where "you" means "both of us". We can't argue about a thing until both sides have their definitions clearly laid out- well, we CAN argue, but its fairly pointless.

[Irish Hermit]

This is no different with EOs. If you read documents like the council of Jerusalem, ya'll were basically Latins at one time. However, those teachings are now out of vogue in the EO Church because anti-westernism is on the rise. Then if you try to have a conversation with an EO, they describe an EO teaching in exactly the same way that a Catholic does, until the Catholic says, "hey, that's what we believe." Then, in order to not sound too Latin the EO will retreat into pelegianism, or a Lutheran view of the Eucharist. Strange stuff. Shifting sands are not only found in the west.

QFT. I still don't know what the difference is (or if there even is a difference) between original sin and ancestral sin.

The problem is that some of Catholicism's theology is in a state of flux and there are divergent teachings. So Catholics may use one argument one day and the next day use another if it is more appropriate.

For a post about the confusing reductionism and reconstruction which is at work in contemporary Catholicism please see this message

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg306110.html#msg306110

Original sin?   The wiser among us have realised long ago that there is very little an Orthodox Christian can say meaningfully about the Catholic teaching on original sin.

I have watched the exploration of the Catholic teaching on original sin for many years on Catholic forums. I have seen the fierce inter-Catholic disagreement on this.

The doctrine is in a state of transition and trying to get a handle on it, especially for an Orthodox outsider, is impossible and it is not a topic in which I involve myself.

"Current Roman Catholic theology of original sin is undergoing a radical transition and is marked by considerable pluralism..."

"Systematic theology: Roman Catholic perspectives"
By Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, John P. Galvin

http://tinyurl.com/26vkexv

[Irish Hermit]

I was just looking at the comments posted on Devin's "Mountains out of Molehills" blog entry and frankly I am saddened.   The Catholic comments exhibit much insularity and if this is the manner of the Catholic approach to dialogue with the Orthodox, then it isn't going to go anywhere.

We are crudely accused of "not getting it"  and even  "deliberately not getting it."  

Really, does it never cross the minds of such narrow commentators that we do indeed "get it"  but we have our own viewpoint, our own theology and we do not agree with the Catholic position.   If we can understand the differences between our positions, why can't the Catholic commentators?    Apparently "getting it" means agreeing with the Catholic position.  What can I say?  If this is the quality of the dialogue between us, it's doomed.

+1

In my understanding after nearly 17 years of Internet communication with Orthodox faithful and reading Orthodox saints and theologians that "getting it" means understanding what the Catholic Church means in her teachings, actually re-presenting the teachings with sensitivity to Catholic meaning and not some sort of Orthodox over-lay, which omits some things and adds things that are not there...THAT is what I would say is NOT "getting it"...and after 17 years and repeated corrections, I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

M.

If you take a look at the thread we are being accused of being deliberately obtuse (not "getting it") about the Roman Catholic teaching on the procession of the Spirit.   The attitude towards us is contemptuous.  See for yourself.

Seems to me that for those of you there who are active here there should be no difficulty at all mocking and grinding those detractors right into the ground.  Professor Cut'n Paste is there so all's well for the Home Team!!

And yet that is NOT happening!  None of the Orthodox are mocking and grinding.   Instead, as we see, this is what the Roman Catholics are doing.

[Papist]

I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

-10

+20

So, -10 + 20 = 10

[Irish Hermit]

 I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

-10

+20

So, -10 + 20 = 10

I do not think it is unfair to say that if we asked for examples of Orthodox purposefully falsifying Roman Catholic doctrines we would be met by silence.

[J Michael]

I was just looking at the comments posted on Devin's "Mountains out of Molehills" blog entry and frankly I am saddened.   The Catholic comments exhibit much insularity and if this is the manner of the Catholic approach to dialogue with the Orthodox, then it isn't going to go anywhere.

We are crudely accused of "not getting it"  and even  "deliberately not getting it."  

Really, does it never cross the minds of such narrow commentators that we do indeed "get it"  but we have our own viewpoint, our own theology and we do not agree with the Catholic position.   If we can understand the differences between our positions, why can't the Catholic commentators?    Apparently "getting it" means agreeing with the Catholic position.  What can I say?  If this is the quality of the dialogue between us, it's doomed.

+1

In my understanding after nearly 17 years of Internet communication with Orthodox faithful and reading Orthodox saints and theologians that "getting it" means understanding what the Catholic Church means in her teachings, actually re-presenting the teachings with sensitivity to Catholic meaning and not some sort of Orthodox over-lay, which omits some things and adds things that are not there...THAT is what I would say is NOT "getting it"...and after 17 years and repeated corrections, I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

M.

If you take a look at the thread we are being accused of being deliberately obtuse (not "getting it") about the Roman Catholic teaching on the procession of the Spirit.   The attitude towards us is contemptuous.  See for yourself.

Seems to me that for those of you there who are active here there should be no difficulty at all mocking and grinding those detractors right into the ground.  Professor Cut'n Paste is there so all's well for the Home Team!!

And yet that is NOT happening!  None of the Orthodox are mocking and grinding.   Instead, as we see, this is what the Roman Catholics are doing.

Dearest Fr. Ambrose,
Having read your comments, I have to say that your complaint rings a little hollow.  You will probably note that not all Orthodox are painted with that same brush, though you could choose, incorrectly I would say, to interpret it that way.

From what I read there (Devin's website), that is absolutely nothing compared with some of the comments on this website disparaging, denigrating, and insulting Catholics, the Catholic Church, Catholic theology and teaching, the Pope, and the Vatican.  I find I must ask you, where were you in complaining about that over the years?  I most certainly am not accusing you, of course, but your silence about it does imply some degree of complicity or agreement.  That, to me, indicates that perhaps you hold Catholics to a higher standard than Orthodox.  I hope that I'm wrong about that, but it sure seems that way from what you write and what you have not written.

There are some on this board who are nothing if not contemptuous of Catholics or things Catholic, but I don't see you censuring them.  Why is that? 

"Mocking and grinding"?  Do you read some of the posts on this board by Orthodox "Christians" directed towards Catholics? 

[biro]

J Michael- although I can agree with you that there are sometimes issues about respect, there have been times when people are given warnings (note the green dots that may appear by someone's name). Posters are allowed a lot of freedom here; they generally don't stop people for having a difference of opinion, even a strong one. However, if there's a post that you think breaks forum rules, you can use the report button. Somebody will take a look at it then. So, it's not as if Orthodox on the board always skate away free just because they're Orthodox.

Let's everybody take a deep breath, eh?  The Nativity of Our Savior fast approaches. Rejoice. 

[Irish Hermit]

I was just looking at the comments posted on Devin's "Mountains out of Molehills" blog entry and frankly I am saddened.   The Catholic comments exhibit much insularity and if this is the manner of the Catholic approach to dialogue with the Orthodox, then it isn't going to go anywhere.

We are crudely accused of "not getting it"  and even  "deliberately not getting it."  

Really, does it never cross the minds of such narrow commentators that we do indeed "get it"  but we have our own viewpoint, our own theology and we do not agree with the Catholic position.   If we can understand the differences between our positions, why can't the Catholic commentators?    Apparently "getting it" means agreeing with the Catholic position.  What can I say?  If this is the quality of the dialogue between us, it's doomed.

+1

In my understanding after nearly 17 years of Internet communication with Orthodox faithful and reading Orthodox saints and theologians that "getting it" means understanding what the Catholic Church means in her teachings, actually re-presenting the teachings with sensitivity to Catholic meaning and not some sort of Orthodox over-lay, which omits some things and adds things that are not there...THAT is what I would say is NOT "getting it"...and after 17 years and repeated corrections, I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

M.

If you take a look at the thread we are being accused of being deliberately obtuse (not "getting it") about the Roman Catholic teaching on the procession of the Spirit.   The attitude towards us is contemptuous.  See for yourself.

Seems to me that for those of you there who are active here there should be no difficulty at all mocking and grinding those detractors right into the ground.  Professor Cut'n Paste is there so all's well for the Home Team!!

And yet that is NOT happening!  None of the Orthodox are mocking and grinding.   Instead, as we see, this is what the Roman Catholics are doing.

Dearest Fr. Ambrose,
Having read your comments, I have to say that your complaint rings a little hollow.  You will probably note that not all Orthodox are painted with that same brush, though you could choose, incorrectly I would say, to interpret it that way.

From what I read there (Devin's website), that is absolutely nothing compared with some of the comments on this website disparaging, denigrating, and insulting Catholics, the Catholic Church, Catholic theology and teaching, the Pope, and the Vatican.  I find I must ask you, where were you in complaining about that over the years?  I most certainly am not accusing you, of course, but your silence about it does imply some degree of complicity or agreement.  That, to me, indicates that perhaps you hold Catholics to a higher standard than Orthodox.  I hope that I'm wrong about that, but it sure seems that way from what you write and what you have not written.

There are some on this board who are nothing if not contemptuous of Catholics or things Catholic, but I don't see you censuring them.  Why is that? 

"Mocking and grinding"?  Do you read some of the posts on this board by Orthodox "Christians" directed towards Catholics? 

This thread is about Devin's blog and the Orthodox participants.  Mary was speaking of that and so was I.  I challenge you to read the blog posts and point to any instance where I was rude to Roman Catholics.

[J Michael]

I was just looking at the comments posted on Devin's "Mountains out of Molehills" blog entry and frankly I am saddened.   The Catholic comments exhibit much insularity and if this is the manner of the Catholic approach to dialogue with the Orthodox, then it isn't going to go anywhere.

We are crudely accused of "not getting it"  and even  "deliberately not getting it."  

Really, does it never cross the minds of such narrow commentators that we do indeed "get it"  but we have our own viewpoint, our own theology and we do not agree with the Catholic position.   If we can understand the differences between our positions, why can't the Catholic commentators?    Apparently "getting it" means agreeing with the Catholic position.  What can I say?  If this is the quality of the dialogue between us, it's doomed.

+1

In my understanding after nearly 17 years of Internet communication with Orthodox faithful and reading Orthodox saints and theologians that "getting it" means understanding what the Catholic Church means in her teachings, actually re-presenting the teachings with sensitivity to Catholic meaning and not some sort of Orthodox over-lay, which omits some things and adds things that are not there...THAT is what I would say is NOT "getting it"...and after 17 years and repeated corrections, I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

M.

If you take a look at the thread we are being accused of being deliberately obtuse (not "getting it") about the Roman Catholic teaching on the procession of the Spirit.   The attitude towards us is contemptuous.  See for yourself.

Seems to me that for those of you there who are active here there should be no difficulty at all mocking and grinding those detractors right into the ground.  Professor Cut'n Paste is there so all's well for the Home Team!!

And yet that is NOT happening!  None of the Orthodox are mocking and grinding.   Instead, as we see, this is what the Roman Catholics are doing.

Dearest Fr. Ambrose,
Having read your comments, I have to say that your complaint rings a little hollow.  You will probably note that not all Orthodox are painted with that same brush, though you could choose, incorrectly I would say, to interpret it that way.

From what I read there (Devin's website), that is absolutely nothing compared with some of the comments on this website disparaging, denigrating, and insulting Catholics, the Catholic Church, Catholic theology and teaching, the Pope, and the Vatican.  I find I must ask you, where were you in complaining about that over the years?  I most certainly am not accusing you, of course, but your silence about it does imply some degree of complicity or agreement.  That, to me, indicates that perhaps you hold Catholics to a higher standard than Orthodox.  I hope that I'm wrong about that, but it sure seems that way from what you write and what you have not written.

There are some on this board who are nothing if not contemptuous of Catholics or things Catholic, but I don't see you censuring them.  Why is that? 

"Mocking and grinding"?  Do you read some of the posts on this board by Orthodox "Christians" directed towards Catholics? 

This thread is about Devin's blog and the Orthodox participants.  Mary was speaking of that and so was I.  I challenge you to read the blog posts and point to any instance where I was rude to Roman Catholics.

I'll second Biro's post above--I'm going to log-off and breathe----deeply .  Before I go, however, I never said that you, Fr. Ambrose, were rude.  If you see somewhere that I did, you have misread what I wrote.

Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

[Papist]

 I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

-10

+20

So, -10 + 20 = 10

I do not think it is unfair to say that if we asked for examples of Orthodox purposefully falsifying Roman Catholic doctrines we would be met by silence.

My evidence: every post that you have posted about the Catholic church, on any forum, anywhere in the world, in real and probably dimensions, along any actualy or possible timeline.

[Riddikulus]

J Michael- although I can agree with you that there are sometimes issues about respect, there have been times when people are given warnings (note the green dots that may appear by someone's name). Posters are allowed a lot of freedom here; they generally don't stop people for having a difference of opinion, even a strong one. However, if there's a post that you think breaks forum rules, you can use the report button. Somebody will take a look at it then. So, it's not as if Orthodox on the board always skate away free just because they're Orthodox.

Let's everybody take a deep breath, eh?  The Nativity of Our Savior fast approaches. Rejoice. 

Triumphalism has always soured the beauty of our faith, biro. Our reluctance to agree to disagree has become a *divine calling* that trumps Love every time. The more I see of Christians of all stripes, the less I like us. Lord, have mercy.

[Irish Hermit]

 I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

-10

+20

So, -10 + 20 = 10

I do not think it is unfair to say that if we asked for examples of Orthodox purposefully falsifying Roman Catholic doctrines we would be met by silence.

My evidence: every post that you have posted about the Catholic church, on any forum, anywhere in the world, in real and probably dimensions, along any actualy or possible timeline.

I have a great love for many many individual Catholics but I fear and distrust the institution.

My attitude to your Church qua institution could be summed up in two things....

1.  This drawing from 30 Giorni, one of Italy's leading Catholic magazines, the Catholic desire to conquer Orthodoxy



2. The words of warning from Metropolitan Anthony Bloom, Russian archbishop of London.

 What he said is worth noting since he was a Russian hierarch who had actively participated for decades in the ecumenical dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholics. 

He was unable to attend the annual Synod in Moscow in 1997 and he made a written report to the Patriarch and Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church and in part his report reads:

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."

The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:
Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All
Russia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.

[elijahmaria]

This is no different with EOs. If you read documents like the council of Jerusalem, ya'll were basically Latins at one time. However, those teachings are now out of vogue in the EO Church because anti-westernism is on the rise. Then if you try to have a conversation with an EO, they describe an EO teaching in exactly the same way that a Catholic does, until the Catholic says, "hey, that's what we believe." Then, in order to not sound too Latin the EO will retreat into pelegianism, or a Lutheran view of the Eucharist. Strange stuff. Shifting sands are not only found in the west.

QFT. I still don't know what the difference is (or if there even is a difference) between original sin and ancestral sin.

The problem is that some of Catholicism's theology is in a state of flux and there are divergent teachings. So Catholics may use one argument one day and the next day use another if it is more appropriate.

This is precisely one of those issues where you, personally, spread falsehood about the Catholic Church.  Right here. 

You snort down ever dissenting Catholic you can find on the issue and crow as loudly as you can in places where you know you can get away with it.

This is JUNK, Father Ambrose...False junk, with reference to Catholic teaching on original sin.

BS...unadulterated.

M.

[elijahmaria]

 I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

-10

+20

So, -10 + 20 = 10

I do not think it is unfair to say that if we asked for examples of Orthodox purposefully falsifying Roman Catholic doctrines we would be met by silence.

My evidence: every post that you have posted about the Catholic church, on any forum, anywhere in the world, in real and probably dimensions, along any actualy or possible timeline.

I have a great love for many many individual Catholics but I fear and distrust the institution.

That is your personal problem and does NOT give you the right to press false information about the Catholic Church...ESPECIALLY...to weakly catechized Catholics.  You do it.  You do it with impunity.  And you do a grave disservice to souls by doing so...even the ones you manage to coax into Orthodoxy.  NOTHING good comes out of a lie.

[William]

 I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

-10

+20

So, -10 + 20 = 10

I do not think it is unfair to say that if we asked for examples of Orthodox purposefully falsifying Roman Catholic doctrines we would be met by silence.

My evidence: every post that you have posted about the Catholic church, on any forum, anywhere in the world, in real and probably dimensions, along any actualy or possible timeline.

Kind of like how you falsified Orthodox beliefs by calling them Pelagian and Lutheran?

[Irish Hermit]

This is no different with EOs. If you read documents like the council of Jerusalem, ya'll were basically Latins at one time. However, those teachings are now out of vogue in the EO Church because anti-westernism is on the rise. Then if you try to have a conversation with an EO, they describe an EO teaching in exactly the same way that a Catholic does, until the Catholic says, "hey, that's what we believe." Then, in order to not sound too Latin the EO will retreat into pelegianism, or a Lutheran view of the Eucharist. Strange stuff. Shifting sands are not only found in the west.

QFT. I still don't know what the difference is (or if there even is a difference) between original sin and ancestral sin.

The problem is that some of Catholicism's theology is in a state of flux and there are divergent teachings. So Catholics may use one argument one day and the next day use another if it is more appropriate.

This is precisely one of those issues where you, personally, spread falsehood about the Catholic Church.  Right here.  

You snort down ever dissenting Catholic you can find on the issue and crow as loudly as you can in places where you know you can get away with it.

This is JUNK, Father Ambrose...False junk, with reference to Catholic teaching on original sin.

BS...unadulterated.

M.

You are grossly unfair to me.  You are not recognising, or are not aware of, the diversity of belief in modern Catholicism.

"Current Roman Catholic theology of original sin is undergoing a radical transition and is marked by considerable pluralism..."

"Systematic theology: Roman Catholic perspectives"
By Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, John P. Galvin

http://tinyurl.com/26vkexv

[Irish Hermit]

 I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

-10

+20

So, -10 + 20 = 10

I do not think it is unfair to say that if we asked for examples of Orthodox purposefully falsifying Roman Catholic doctrines we would be met by silence.

My evidence: every post that you have posted about the Catholic church, on any forum, anywhere in the world, in real and probably dimensions, along any actualy or possible timeline.

I have a great love for many many individual Catholics but I fear and distrust the institution.

That is your personal problem and does NOT give you the right to press false information about the Catholic Church...ESPECIALLY...to weakly catechized Catholics.  You do it.  You do it with impunity.  And you do a grave disservice to souls by doing so...even the ones you manage to coax into Orthodoxy.  NOTHING good comes out of a lie.

If you desire to destroy my good name by accusing me of "pressing false information about the Catholic Church"  I ask you to substantiate your allegation or retract.

[elijahmaria]

This is no different with EOs. If you read documents like the council of Jerusalem, ya'll were basically Latins at one time. However, those teachings are now out of vogue in the EO Church because anti-westernism is on the rise. Then if you try to have a conversation with an EO, they describe an EO teaching in exactly the same way that a Catholic does, until the Catholic says, "hey, that's what we believe." Then, in order to not sound too Latin the EO will retreat into pelegianism, or a Lutheran view of the Eucharist. Strange stuff. Shifting sands are not only found in the west.

QFT. I still don't know what the difference is (or if there even is a difference) between original sin and ancestral sin.

The problem is that some of Catholicism's theology is in a state of flux and there are divergent teachings. So Catholics may use one argument one day and the next day use another if it is more appropriate.

This is precisely one of those issues where you, personally, spread falsehood about the Catholic Church.  Right here. 

You snort down ever dissenting Catholic you can find on the issue and crow as loudly as you can in places where you know you can get away with it.

This is JUNK, Father Ambrose...False junk, with reference to Catholic teaching on original sin.

BS...unadulterated.

M.

You are grossly unfair to me.  You are not recognising the diversity of belief in modern Catholicism.

YOU are refusing to recognize the long line of historical teaching this is now and was then the core of Catholic teaching on original sin.

I don't give a rat's rump what some dissenting theologian says to the contrary.

As I said you snort and snuffle around all the dissenting Catholics you can find, in order to prove your point...

BS, Father Ambrose...last time, this time and the next time you do it.

M.

 You are being placed on official warning status for 30 days.
The reason is the bickering back and forth.  Also saying BS to a priest is very disrespectful.  An apology should be sent via private message to Father Ambrose for saying BS to him and BCC/CC it to me as well withing 24 hours or you will be placed on 30 days of post moderation. If feel this is done in error please contact our administrator, Fr. Chris. -username! orthodox-catholic section moderator

[elijahmaria]

 I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

-10

+20

So, -10 + 20 = 10

I do not think it is unfair to say that if we asked for examples of Orthodox purposefully falsifying Roman Catholic doctrines we would be met by silence.

My evidence: every post that you have posted about the Catholic church, on any forum, anywhere in the world, in real and probably dimensions, along any actualy or possible timeline.

I have a great love for many many individual Catholics but I fear and distrust the institution.

That is your personal problem and does NOT give you the right to press false information about the Catholic Church...ESPECIALLY...to weakly catechized Catholics.  You do it.  You do it with impunity.  And you do a grave disservice to souls by doing so...even the ones you manage to coax into Orthodoxy.  NOTHING good comes out of a lie.

If you desire to destroy my good name by accusing me of "pressing false information about the Catholic Church"  I ask you to substantiate your allegation or retract.

I will never retract this.  It's tripe what you tell people about Catholic teaching and original sin.

It is nonsense and you do in fact know better...I have NO doubt.

[Irish Hermit]

This is no different with EOs. If you read documents like the council of Jerusalem, ya'll were basically Latins at one time. However, those teachings are now out of vogue in the EO Church because anti-westernism is on the rise. Then if you try to have a conversation with an EO, they describe an EO teaching in exactly the same way that a Catholic does, until the Catholic says, "hey, that's what we believe." Then, in order to not sound too Latin the EO will retreat into pelegianism, or a Lutheran view of the Eucharist. Strange stuff. Shifting sands are not only found in the west.

QFT. I still don't know what the difference is (or if there even is a difference) between original sin and ancestral sin.

The problem is that some of Catholicism's theology is in a state of flux and there are divergent teachings. So Catholics may use one argument one day and the next day use another if it is more appropriate.

This is precisely one of those issues where you, personally, spread falsehood about the Catholic Church.  Right here. 

You snort down ever dissenting Catholic you can find on the issue and crow as loudly as you can in places where you know you can get away with it.

This is JUNK, Father Ambrose...False junk, with reference to Catholic teaching on original sin.

BS...unadulterated.

M.

You are grossly unfair to me.  You are not recognising the diversity of belief in modern Catholicism.

YOU are refusing to recognize the long line of historical teaching this is now and was then the core of Catholic teaching on original sin.

I don't give a rat's rump what some dissenting theologian says to the contrary.

As I said you snort and snuffle around all the dissenting Catholics you can find, in order to prove your point...

BS, Father Ambrose...last time, this time and the next time you do it.

I don't think I have much appreciation of your ability to sort the dissenting theologians from the solid ones.  Apotheoun has given quotes from about 22 reputable theologians and you have simply brushed them off.

[Riddikulus]

<group hug>, guys! Let love overcome all things! None of our differences matter diddly if we face our Maker lacking in love.

[Irish Hermit]

 I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

-10

+20

So, -10 + 20 = 10

I do not think it is unfair to say that if we asked for examples of Orthodox purposefully falsifying Roman Catholic doctrines we would be met by silence.

My evidence: every post that you have posted about the Catholic church, on any forum, anywhere in the world, in real and probably dimensions, along any actualy or possible timeline.

I have a great love for many many individual Catholics but I fear and distrust the institution.

That is your personal problem and does NOT give you the right to press false information about the Catholic Church...ESPECIALLY...to weakly catechized Catholics.  You do it.  You do it with impunity.  And you do a grave disservice to souls by doing so...even the ones you manage to coax into Orthodoxy.  NOTHING good comes out of a lie.

If you desire to destroy my good name by accusing me of "pressing false information about the Catholic Church"  I ask you to substantiate your allegation or retract.

I will never retract this.  It's tripe what you tell people about Catholic teaching and original sin.

It is nonsense and you do in fact know better...I have NO doubt.

Do I know better?  You may review the years of participation in many threads on CAF where modern Catholics shouted down my understanding of Catholic original sin.  I was told over and over again that I was peddling out-moded pre-Vatican II teaching.

[Papist]

 I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

-10

+20

So, -10 + 20 = 10

I do not think it is unfair to say that if we asked for examples of Orthodox purposefully falsifying Roman Catholic doctrines we would be met by silence.

My evidence: every post that you have posted about the Catholic church, on any forum, anywhere in the world, in real and probably dimensions, along any actualy or possible timeline.

Kind of like how you falsified Orthodox beliefs by calling them Pelagian and Lutheran?

Nope. I never said that Eastern Orthodoxy is pelegian or lutheran. What I did say is that some EO Christians will describe the Eastern Orthodox faith in a pelegian or lutheran manner to avoid agreeing with Catholics. I recognize that there is a difference between what the EO Church teaches, and the rantings of some of the anti-Catholics on this forum.

[Papist]

 I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

-10

+20

So, -10 + 20 = 10

I do not think it is unfair to say that if we asked for examples of Orthodox purposefully falsifying Roman Catholic doctrines we would be met by silence.

My evidence: every post that you have posted about the Catholic church, on any forum, anywhere in the world, in real and probably dimensions, along any actualy or possible timeline.

I have a great love for many many individual Catholics but I fear and distrust the institution.

That is your personal problem and does NOT give you the right to press false information about the Catholic Church...ESPECIALLY...to weakly catechized Catholics.  You do it.  You do it with impunity.  And you do a grave disservice to souls by doing so...even the ones you manage to coax into Orthodoxy.  NOTHING good comes out of a lie.

If you desire to destroy my good name by accusing me of "pressing false information about the Catholic Church"  I ask you to substantiate your allegation or retract.

I will never retract this.  It's tripe what you tell people about Catholic teaching and original sin.

It is nonsense and you do in fact know better...I have NO doubt.

Do I know better?  You may review the years of participation in many threads on CAF where modern Catholics shouted down my understanding of Catholic original sin.  I was told over and over again that I was peddling out-moded pre-Vatican II teaching.

The problem Fr. Ambrose, is that you always use half truths to distort reality. You either present Catholic teaching in the mose unfavorable light possible, entirely ignore context, or purposely present a truth in a certain light so that anyone who does not know better will misunderstand. I don't know if you do this consciously, so I am not accusing you of sin, but this is how you debate.

[Paisius]

Do I know better?  You may review the years of participation in many threads on CAF where modern Catholics shouted down my understanding of Catholic original sin.  I was told over and over again that I was peddling out-moded pre-Vatican II teaching.

And if you mosey over to a website such as Fisheaters you'll get a view radically different from what get here and on CAF. Frankly I was astonished and a little vindicated. Almost all of my knowledge of Catholic theology has come from Orthodox sources including their position on Original Sin. Just like you I was criticized, mocked and patronized for my clearly bigoted Orthodox understanding of Catholic theology. Turns out our understanding of their teaching is actually in line with over four centuries Tridentine Catholic theology and their understanding is actually a rather recent innovation of the last forty years or so.

[Shiny]

On a sidenote, did Ayn Rand really say that quote?

[ialmisry]

I was just looking at the comments posted on Devin's "Mountains out of Molehills" blog entry and frankly I am saddened.   The Catholic comments exhibit much insularity and if this is the manner of the Catholic approach to dialogue with the Orthodox, then it isn't going to go anywhere.

We are crudely accused of "not getting it"  and even  "deliberately not getting it."  

Really, does it never cross the minds of such narrow commentators that we do indeed "get it"  but we have our own viewpoint, our own theology and we do not agree with the Catholic position.   If we can understand the differences between our positions, why can't the Catholic commentators?    Apparently "getting it" means agreeing with the Catholic position.  What can I say?  If this is the quality of the dialogue between us, it's doomed.

+1

In my understanding after nearly 17 years of Internet communication with Orthodox faithful and reading Orthodox saints and theologians that "getting it" means understanding what the Catholic Church means in her teachings, actually re-presenting the teachings with sensitivity to Catholic meaning and not some sort of Orthodox over-lay, which omits some things and adds things that are not there...THAT is what I would say is NOT "getting it"...and after 17 years and repeated corrections, I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

M.

If you take a look at the thread we are being accused of being deliberately obtuse (not "getting it") about the Roman Catholic teaching on the procession of the Spirit.   The attitude towards us is contemptuous.  See for yourself.

Seems to me that for those of you there who are active here there should be no difficulty at all mocking and grinding those detractors right into the ground.  Professor Cut'n Paste is there so all's well for the Home Team!!

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/11/30/mountains-out-of-molehills-a-demons-delight/#comments

Peter Sean Bradley says:
December 1, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Concerning the Filioque, that is an example of a truly pointless division. I think that St. Thomas Aquinas nailed the basis of the dispute as “ignorance or obstinacy,” but the accent really has to be laid on “obstinacy”:

“Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit “of the Son”; and that He is from the Father “through the Son.” Some of them are said also to concede that “He is from the Son”; or that “He flows from the Son,” but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.”

ST I, 36, 2.

You can almost hear St. Thomas slapping his forehead in that response.

Peter Sean Bradley says:
December 1, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Thanks. I’m in a group that is slowly making its way through the Summa. After 9 years we are now in Part II, I.

When I read that quote I busted a gut laughing.

You don’t tend to find the ever-patient saint telling people, “you are just trying not to get it.”

Don't have to try.  We get it. And that's why we reject it.  Unlike Aquinas, many of us can read Greek, and thus do not have to depend on the conflated mess of translations of the Fathers (not to mention the translations Aquinas had a hand in guilding to his way of thinking) on which Aquinas depends in this section.

phil says
I read a really great defense of the Filioque recently. It argued that today one of the major dangers facing the church is paganism and this is seen in many churches when they talk as if they have direct access to the Holy Spirit independent of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Confessing that the Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son helps to resist this tendency. Here is the post:

http://www.faith-theology.com/2009/10/why-i-still-confess-filioque.html

The link contains this absurd observation:

Karl Barth's defence of the filioque was partly motivated by this kind of concern. He wondered whether the Eastern church's refusal of the filioque is "a reflection of the very mystically oriented piety of the East, which, bypassing the revelation in the Son, would relate human beings directly to the original

No, just the piety of the East taking the Lord at His word "proceeds from the Father."  So much for a "great defense" of the indefensible.

[ialmisry]

I was just looking at the comments posted on Devin's "Mountains out of Molehills" blog entry and frankly I am saddened.   The Catholic comments exhibit much insularity and if this is the manner of the Catholic approach to dialogue with the Orthodox, then it isn't going to go anywhere.

We are crudely accused of "not getting it"  and even  "deliberately not getting it."  

Really, does it never cross the minds of such narrow commentators that we do indeed "get it"  but we have our own viewpoint, our own theology and we do not agree with the Catholic position.   If we can understand the differences between our positions, why can't the Catholic commentators?    Apparently "getting it" means agreeing with the Catholic position.  What can I say?  If this is the quality of the dialogue between us, it's doomed.

+1

In my understanding after nearly 17 years of Internet communication with Orthodox faithful and reading Orthodox saints and theologians that "getting it" means understanding what the Catholic Church means in her teachings, actually re-presenting the teachings with sensitivity to Catholic meaning and not some sort of Orthodox over-lay, which omits some things and adds things that are not there...THAT is what I would say is NOT "getting it"...and after 17 years and repeated corrections, I do not think it is unfair to say that some of the falsifying of Catholic teaching is purposeful on the part of some Orthodox communicants and believers.

Ah, so long on the allegations of falsifying of Catholic dogma and Vatican teaching, so short on any examples.

We understaning Vatican teaching, and what the Catholic Church means in her teachings, and do not confuse the two.

You take it as self evident that rejection means ignorance.  It is nothing of the sort.

[PeterTheAleut]

The bickering on this thread has become quite personal, so I'm locking it until username! has a chance to review it and determine whether it should be reopened.

[username!]

" Bickering Watch . The OC.net Moderatorial Service has declared a Bickering Watch for this thread. Conditions are right for the formation of a stream of bickering, pointlessly reviewing the same topics ad nauseum that have derailed and poisoned past threads. Repeat, there is a Bickering Watch over this thread; any posters interested in actually learning anything are advised to stay away from this potential bickering activity and seek refuge in polite discourse within the topics originally presented in this thread."


I am keeping this thread locked until tomorrow evening for a cool down period.  There has been too much personal bickering in multiple threads as of late on Orthodox-Catholic Forum, it will not be tolerated.  Appropriate actions will be considered for those who continue to bicker and attack each other on a personal level.  Let's get back to good discussion. -username! orthodox catholic secton moderator