Catholic-Orthodox Timeline: Bonocore Responds

[prodromos]

Personally, I think I should get extra credit for turning in my assignment so quickly.

You certainly wouldn’t get credit for handing in someone else’s work.

 

[jimmy]

If others have already plowed the field, why do I not benefit from their efforts?

Because by actually reading Gregory himself you might get something different than what others tell you be said. There are differing opinions on Gregory’s theology. You might find that he isn’t what others tell you be is.

I have gained my own perspective on the fathers through reading them.

What you do is like reading reviews about the Brothers Karamazov, and then quoting that review as if you knew the actual book.

 

[LionHeart777]

Seems you are not reading Pope Gregory so much as reading Catholic apologetics on Pope Gregory.

To be fair, that is not a peculiarly Catholic view of Pope St. Gregory (if that’s a point you were trying to make?) For example, you can check his entry in the Anglican historian J.N.D. Kelly’s A Dictionary of Popes

 

[jimmy]

To be fair, that is not a peculiarly Catholic view of Pope St. Gregory (if that’s a point you were trying to make?) For example, you can check his entry in the Anglican historian J.N.D. Kelly’s Oxford Dictionary of Popes

That is irrelevant. The point is that you should read it for yourself, rather than read other people’s assessments of it. It is fine to read a book about Gregory, but you should also read his writings for yourself. No professor would ever accept an explanation of Gregory’s theology that didn’t even take into account the original sources. If I quoted biographies in my papers and ignored the homilies and other writings, I wouldn’t get a good grade. Primary sources are number 1.

I don’t read Randy’s posts or some other posters because all they do is quote catholic answers or other apologetic sites. They never read the fathers writings for themselves. If they did they might get a different perspective, or appreciate the Orthodox perspective more. I know some of the best catholic theologians of the 20th century like Yves Congar and Von Balthasar had an appreciation for the eastern approach.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You certainly wouldn’t get credit for handing in someone else’s work.

Well, I never claimed it was my own original work, but I did my research, found the answers and turned it in.

But none of this really addresses the CONTENT of Gregory’s quotes, does it?

I mean, he was thrown at me as if he believed that there are three sees of Peter…but that’s not really the whole story, is it?

So, I’m being chastised for cutting and pasting quotes but at least my quotes are truly representative of Gregory’s thought.

I don’t think we can say that about EVERYONE who has quoted Gregory tonight, can we? :nope:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Because by actually reading Gregory himself you might get something different than what others tell you be said. There are differing opinions on Gregory’s theology. You might find that he isn’t what others tell you be is.

I have gained my own perspective on the fathers through reading them.

What you do is like reading reviews about the Brothers Karamazov, and then quoting that review as if you knew the actual book.

You’re right.

But I can learn enough from the Reader’s Digest Condensed version to know when someone is blowing smoke.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is irrelevant. The point is that you should read it for yourself, rather than read other people’s assessments of it. It is fine to read a book about Gregory, but you should also read his writings for yourself. No professor would ever accept an explanation of Gregory’s theology that didn’t even take into account the original sources. If I quoted biographies in my papers and ignored the homilies and other writings, I wouldn’t get a good grade. Primary sources are number 1.

I don’t read Randy’s posts or some other posters because all they do is quote catholic answers or other apologetic sites. They never read the fathers writings for themselves. If they did they might get a different perspective, or appreciate the Orthodox perspective more. I know some of the best catholic theologians of the 20th century like Yves Congar and Von Balthasar had an appreciation for the eastern approach.

Well, you’re right again, Jimmy.

I should log off, enroll in a Master’s program somewhere, then get my PhD. Then I could spend 20 or 30 years teaching at an accredited college, writing peer-reviewed papers, and publishing books…just so you will read my posts.

Or, and I’m just spit-balling here, maybe I can read what those folks have already done (or even what other folks like me have done) and boil it down to the bare bones for the average forum member.

Hmmm…coin toss.

 

[jimmy]

You’re right.

But I can learn enough from the Reader’s Digest Condensed version to know when someone is blowing smoke.

You have no idea when someone is blowing smoke because you have never actually read the fathers. You read a distorted perspective of the fathers and then proclaim it as the truth. You refuse to read the real thing.

I would rather have 1 page of Gregory the Great than ten thousand pages of catholic answers apologetics.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You have no idea when someone is blowing smoke because you have never actually read the fathers. You read a distorted perspective of the fathers and then proclaim it as the truth. You refuse to read the real thing.

I would rather have 1 page of Gregory the Great than ten thousand pages of catholic answers apologetics.

Response deleted.

Goodnight, Jimmy. Sleep well.

 

[jimmy]

Well, you’re right again, Jimmy.

I should log off, enroll in a Master’s program somewhere, then get my PhD. Then I could spend 20 or 30 years teaching at an accredited college, writing peer-reviewed papers, and publishing books…just so you will read my posts.

Or, and I’m just spit-balling here, maybe I can read what those folks have already done (or even what other folks like me have done) and boil it down to the bare bones for the average forum member.

Hmmm…coin toss.

So you are a tertiary source. You will boil down secondary sources (not even good ones, atleast you could look to Congar or Ratzinger/P. Benedict or another good source). On the other hand there are posters like dzheremi and Cavaradossi who have read the original sources. Who should someone trust in a debate?

It doesn’t take a masters degree or a lot of money to read the original sources. They are all free online. And the fathers are far better than any apologist. You don’t have to impress me or anyone else. Read them for your own benefit.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So you are a tertiary source. You will boil down secondary sources (not even good ones, atleast you could look to Congar or Ratzinger/P. Benedict or another good source). On the other hand there are posters like dzheremi and Cavaradossi who have read the original sources. Who should someone trust in a debate?

It doesn’t take a masters degree or a lot of money to read the original sources. They are all free online. And the fathers are far better than any apologist. You don’t have to impress me or anyone else. Read them for your own benefit.

Jimmy-

Final comments…Just so you know…I am aware of the fact that the writings of the Fathers are available online. I actually have a lot of them printed out and stored in loose-leaf binders on my shelf because I do read them from time to time (and I’m old-school…I like to read books in my hand and not online).

I also have quite a few books on the ECF’s - Catholic authors, of course, but faithful to what the Fathers actually said.

So, while I appreciate the exhortation, the fact is that you have no idea what I read.

Goodnight.

 

[Nine_Two]

If others have already plowed the field, why do I not benefit from their efforts?

Are we to take Edward Gibbon’s seminal (yet anti-Christian) work on the Fall of the Roman Empire as the final word on that subject? After all since the field has been plowed why can’t we just benefit from their efforts?

Of course his work would not be seminal if there were not many others who followed up. Some agreeing, some disagreeing with his thesis.

Even the finest works on a subject are not the final word. And the stuff you find on internet blogs and personal websites are far from the finest works on the subject (this website, this thread, and this very post included).

 

[dzheremi]

I also have quite a few books on the ECF’s - Catholic authors, of course, but faithful to what the Fathers actually said.

Are these books of the Fathers’ writings or sayings, or the authors’ interpretations of what the Fathers wrote or said (or meant)? I have both kinds of books, but wouldn’t treat them in the same way. Having a book by a Catholic (or for that matter Orthodox) author about the Fathers is not at all the same as having a book of the Fathers’ own wisdom.

So, while I appreciate the exhortation, the fact is that you have no idea what I read.

From what I have gathered from your posts in this thread, you have folders of various quotes from the Fathers, organized according to how you will use them in apologetic arguments. This is…well, slightly odd. It seems to reduce the Fathers to individual quotes, and those quotes to being primarily useful as ammunition, and not as guidance. It is interesting for me to note in looking through my own modest library of secondary source/interpretive works that I see many Oriental Orthodox authors who quote liberally from non-OO sources, such as the Chalcedonian saints of the Slavic tradition in the work of famous Coptic monk Matta El-Meskeen. This could be puzzling to the outsider, as we do not officially consider such people saints in our communion, but a moment’s reflection shows the practice to be very much in line with the historical mindset of our Fathers - St. Cyril who accepted John of Antioch despite previous disputes, St. Dioscorus who (together with the others gathered at Ephesus) reinstated Eutyches on the basis of his good confession, etc. It is precisely because don’t share this tendency to look for “proofs” based on selective reading, or store up writings and quotes as apologetic fodder, that we can be as truly ‘catholic’ as our communion has always been. Knowing firmly where my church stands on what divides us, I comfortable reading a collection of the elders of Optina and taking it as it is, for what benefit I can get out of it and not looking for holes in the EO Church or things that I can seize upon to beat the Chalcedonians with (metaphorically, of course!), particularly as I know already the folly of thinking that anything I would find would necessarily be understood by them as I’ve understood it.

Honestly, I think the tendency to turn everything into apologetics is the sign of an unsure faith. You miss a lot that way - a lot that could strengthen you. Not everything is “evidence” that some blown out of all proportion “other side” refuses to recognize out of anti-whatever-you-are-ism. Many things come down to competing historical narratives and competing traditions, but you’ll never get a sense of how to process that effectively (i.e., how to be a good apologist) if you are filing away individual quotes to spring on everybody, and relying on only authors who already fit your preconceived notions of what is correct. Why not read to gain a wider perspective instead, and to take what knowledge you can while remaining faithful to your principles? Isn’t that what being truly ‘catholic’ is all about?

 

[jimmy]

Are these books of the Fathers’ writings or sayings, or the authors’ interpretations of what the Fathers wrote or said (or meant)? I have both kinds of books, but wouldn’t treat them in the same way. Having a book by a Catholic (or for that matter Orthodox) author about the Fathers is not at all the same as having a book of the Fathers’ own wisdom.

From what I have gathered from your posts in this thread, you have folders of various quotes from the Fathers, organized according to how you will use them in apologetic arguments. This is…well, slightly odd. It seems to reduce the Fathers to individual quotes, and those quotes to being primarily useful as ammunition, and not as guidance. It is interesting for me to note in looking through my own modest library of secondary source/interpretive works that I see many Oriental Orthodox authors who quote liberally from non-OO sources, such as the Chalcedonian saints of the Slavic tradition in the work of famous Coptic monk Matta El-Meskeen. This could be puzzling to the outsider, as we do not officially consider such people saints in our communion, but a moment’s reflection shows the practice to be very much in line with the historical mindset of our Fathers - St. Cyril who accepted John of Antioch despite previous disputes, St. Dioscorus who (together with the others gathered at Ephesus) reinstated Eutyches on the basis of his good confession, etc. It is precisely because don’t share this tendency to look for “proofs” based on selective reading, or store up writings and quotes as apologetic fodder, that we can be as truly ‘catholic’ as our communion has always been. Knowing firmly where my church stands on what divides us, I comfortable reading a collection of the elders of Optina and taking it as it is, for what benefit I can get out of it and not looking for holes in the EO Church or things that I can seize upon to beat the Chalcedonians with (metaphorically, of course!), particularly as I know already the folly of thinking that anything I would find would necessarily be understood by them as I’ve understood it.

Honestly, I think the tendency to turn everything into apologetics is the sign of an unsure faith. You miss a lot that way - a lot that could strengthen you. Not everything is “evidence” that some blown out of all proportion “other side” refuses to recognize out of anti-whatever-you-are-ism. Many things come down to competing historical narratives and competing traditions, but you’ll never get a sense of how to process that effectively (i.e., how to be a good apologist) if you are filing away individual quotes to spring on everybody, and relying on only authors who already fit your preconceived notions of what is correct. Why not read to gain a wider perspective instead, and to take what knowledge you can while remaining faithful to your principles? Isn’t that what being truly ‘catholic’ is all about?

For that reason, among others, I hate apologetics. It reduces the whole of Christianity to confrontational arguments and proof texts. In the end it distorts the texts it is quoting because it takes them out of their theological/spiritual context and reduces them to a tool against others. It is better to read the fathers with the intent of gaining understanding than seeking proof texts.

 

[dzheremi]

Don’t get me wrong; I think apologetics have their place, but that place is not an internet message board.

 

[Michael_Francis]

***Thread closed pending review by moderator Eric Hilbert. ***