The issue here is “reject”. As I read above, I see no rejection at all. Perhaps you might prefer another expression, or there may be certain qualifiers, certain philosophical understandings required to get there, etc., etc. But without rejection, you lead right into the 2 lung metaphor - which is a wonderful thing.
Thank you. I don’t reject the laws of physics… (one wonders if I could just float away if I did!) …but I don’t know or understand a lot of them either. I am just a simple social sciences man.
Too often, I fear these “hot button issues” which are loaded with polemic potential are brought up with a goal of either getting us Eastern Catholics to
- come right out and reject a Latin teaching
- come right out and offer the Latin teaching by the Latin books, chapter and verse
The former option scores polemic points for those who would wish to turn around and say *“See, you know they are in error, and you are in communion with those in error!” *the latter begs for the same to turn around and say
“See you are just Latins in Greek vestments!”
Alternately, great effort -which would please few - could be made to speak in learned theological terms to demonstrate how a synthesis in understanding can be achieved… This is the most satisfying possibility. But if we are to actually be honest, such an effort is a little above the paygrade of most of us here. And again, I have never seen such end debate anyway!
Invariably, it seems that the heart of the matter is 1) is Rome capable and competent to teach on such things and 2) all things being equal, the lack of a clearly recognized authority in interpreting Eastern Theology definatively and ending discussion makes much of this an excercise in who can make the most convincing argument for their own personal (often polemic) “take” on the issue.
I don’t mean to be persnickity here, but these sorts of debates sometimes remind me of “polemic trips down memory lane” where non-Greek Catholics or ex-Greek Catholics want to begin discussions on some of the issues in our tumultuous past. The end goal can only seem to be, at times to get us to say
- Everything was peferectly fine
- or “Boy you are right, we sure get treated like %%^&!” (Implicitly demonstrating we must be total fools who are just gluttons for punishment!)
So on these matters, I sometimes resolve to not have argument. Sometimes I just don’t presume to have debate, make argument or defend each “hot button” issue which often just seem like “backdoor” approaches to seweing doubt by circumnavigating the key issue - the Papacy.
If the Papacy as understood and taught by Rome is in error, than no defense of most of these “pet issues” of polemic is warranted or viable. If it is correct, none is needed.
