"Apologists Who Concede Nothing"

[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

[Tags:]

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