"Apologists Who Concede Nothing"

[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.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: "Apologists Who Concede Nothing"