R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You’re right. Let’s turn this around now.
Please begin by thoughtfully addressing each of the six statements presented in post #233.
Thanks.
- Status
Please begin by thoughtfully addressing each of the six statements presented in post #233.
Thanks.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
The argument is silly. You can’t even know what papal statements were infallible without exercising private judgment (because there is no set form for an ex-cathedra statement). Even if a pope were to pronounce ex-cathedra on what statements were infallible, another pope would have to pronounce ex-cathedra that his predecessor had made the pronouncement infallibly and so on forth. The attempt to provide a sort of Grund for your epistemology fails in this way, because the reference to a singular authority fails insofar as there is no certain way of knowing when this authority has proclaimed something with absolute certainty. When you can produce a list of sufficient and knowable conditions for a council to be ecumenical or for a papal statement to be infallible, then we can actually take your otherwise self-implicating criticisms seriously.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Please begin by thoughtfully addressing each of the six statements presented in post #233.
Thanks.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
“True doctrine is revealed in Holy Scripture and this is discerned by the operation of the Holy Spirit in the life of the people of God, which is those who participate in the life of the Church. When a controversy occurs, the truth is discerned by a network or community, the wider and deeper (historically) the better. Once a Council takes place (e.g. Nicea in 325) it may take many years (or centuries) for the common union of Churches to function as a network of sensors that will harmonize and stabilize.”
Rev. Pr. Laurent Cleenewerck
orthodoxanswers.org/media/documents/frbrianharrisonwhynotconverttoeasternorthodoxycatholic.pdf
This confirms what I posted in the OP:
An ecclesiological theory which has been popular since the time of the Slavophile philosopher Alexis Khomiakov first defined it is that ecumenicity—the idea that a particular council is of universal, infallible significance for the Church—is determined by the reception of the whole body of the Church.
And here:
The idea that one could wait for decades or even centuries to know whether a council was truly ecumenical would have radically changed the character of such a council.
However, as is often the case, one Orthodox authority disagrees with another:
Theologians such as Fr. John S. Romanides have argued, however, that **the councils universally regarded as ecumenical within the Orthodox Church seemed of themselves to have no sense of requiring a reception by the Church before they went into effect. **Their texts do indeed include self-declarations of their ecumenicity, and in most cases, their decrees immediately were written into Roman imperial law. No condition of later reception is reflected in the councils’ texts.
Rev. Pr. Laurent Cleenewerck
orthodoxanswers.org/media/documents/frbrianharrisonwhynotconverttoeasternorthodoxycatholic.pdf
This confirms what I posted in the OP:
An ecclesiological theory which has been popular since the time of the Slavophile philosopher Alexis Khomiakov first defined it is that ecumenicity—the idea that a particular council is of universal, infallible significance for the Church—is determined by the reception of the whole body of the Church.
And here:
The idea that one could wait for decades or even centuries to know whether a council was truly ecumenical would have radically changed the character of such a council.
However, as is often the case, one Orthodox authority disagrees with another:
Theologians such as Fr. John S. Romanides have argued, however, that **the councils universally regarded as ecumenical within the Orthodox Church seemed of themselves to have no sense of requiring a reception by the Church before they went into effect. **Their texts do indeed include self-declarations of their ecumenicity, and in most cases, their decrees immediately were written into Roman imperial law. No condition of later reception is reflected in the councils’ texts.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The difference being that while I’m happy to acknowledge what we agree on and look forward to your eventual (and inevitable) re-unification under the headship of the Bishop of Rome, CARM will not extend such a welcome to you or me.
If you want to get up to speed, posts #1, #96 and provide the background from Orthodox sites while #233 lays out my summation of the argument to which I hope to get a thoughtful response.
P
prodromos
Guest
I think the only thing that is inevitable, is Orthodox members of CAF will put a certain person on ignore due to that persons continued rude and condescending demands. Just my not so humble opinion
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And why not? They have been ignoring Catholics for a thousand years.I think the only thing that is inevitable, is Orthodox members of CAF will put a certain person on ignore due to that persons continued rude and condescending demands. Just my not so humble opinion
J
Jon_Mallory
Guest
I think this animated face expresses what’s happened here nicely :banghead:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Canon 28 and Eastern Papalism: Cause or Effect?
By: George C. Michalopulos
monomakhos.com/essay-bin/canon-28-and-eastern-papalism-cause-or-effect/
:coolinoff:
By: George C. Michalopulos
monomakhos.com/essay-bin/canon-28-and-eastern-papalism-cause-or-effect/
:coolinoff:
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I am not Orthodox. If/when I am Orthodox my profile will show it. For the time being, it is very amusing to see some posters inability to treat the subject away from forum fields. As if that made any difference other than to offer a “canned” response.
As for a welcome, I am sad to say that “welcome” is not a word that has come to mind in my exchanges with you, in regards to our Orthodox brothers. And for a non-Orthodox christian, that is significant.
A thoughtful dialogue requires both parties truthfulness and willingness to understand and listen to the other party’s position. Quoting quotes without even reading the “cliffnotes” is not only inconsiderate but not thoughtful. I have taken the time and the effort to probably have read the same material you have. I don’t take someone else’s opinion and then “can” in into a response. I either take the time to read the link and/or find free online resources to read the material and if money permits, I buy the book and read it - if I do in fact desire to have a better understanding of the subject. It is my way of showing respect and consideration to the person I am conducting the exchange with.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You have changed your “Religion” at least three times in the past three months, catolico, discerning and now Acts…
However, in your arguments, you tend toward an Orthodox interpretation of things.
Othodoxy claims to be the one, true Church, the continuation of the Church founded by Jesus upon Peter (his confession, not the man). This is false and must be opposed.
Um…okay.
I have visited Orthodox websites and forums in order to be as certain as I can that what I post is an accurate depiction of Orthodox thought. Since posts #1 and #96 are taken verbatim from Orthodox sources, I’m not sure what your complaint is. Post #233 represents my attempt and expressing the fundamental flaw of Orthodoxy in the 999 characters to which my signature was limited. I expanded it for Seraphim’s ease of response.
No one has even attempted to explain charitably or otherwise why the ideas expressed in those six simple sentences are incorrect.
Not you. Not Cavaradossi. Not Seraphim73. Not prodromos.
I’m beginning to believe that no one can.
Private judgment was asserted as an absolute right by the Protestant reformers once they had thrown out the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and the result is chaos. Haven’t you done the same with the same result?
Last year, I got into a lengthy discussion with Cavaradossi, Fr. John, Novocastrian and a boatload of others. RyanBlack was there.
In the course of that discussion I made what I thought was an intuitively obvious argument: the Orthodox Church cannot be the one, true Church because it has not fulfilled the Great Commission. I was mocked for a fallacious appeal to “numbers”. But that was only part of my argument which also asserted that Orthodoxy is ethnically and nationally circumscribed in such a manner that it has great difficulty evangelizing outside of those impenetrable boundaries. Lots of folks (non-Orthodox) chimed in with their tales of being treated rudely when they visited an Orthodox Church.
Well, after taking roughly a year off from those discussions, I entered the ring again. And you know what? I think I have been vindicated overwhelmingly by the material found in critical self-assessments from +Schmemann, +Ware, and others. It seems the vaunted unity of the East is vastly overstated.
At best, Orthodoxy is a loose collection of fractured, squabbling, ethnocentristic “churches” that seem more intent upon protecting their “turf” from other Orthodox than they are in proclaiming the Gospel to non-believers.
Frankly, if I had known from the beginning how bad things really are, I might have gone a little easier on you all. You’re doing such a good job of beating each other up, I certainly don’t need to add anything more.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Just wait until you see what prominent Latin scholars and historians have to say about the Roman church. You might just stop believing in Christ altogether. Frankly your love of taking cheap shots like that seems to be reflective of some sort of intellectual cowardice, where you cannot try to deal with things as they stand in principle, so you try to attack how things stand in principle by pointing out the flaws of how those principles are implemented by flawed humans. Your approach to apologetics is woefully dependent upon the material circumstances of your times. What would you have said when your pope was a Theophylact or Borgia? What would you have said when your popes were approving of the widespread abuse of Christians in the East by the crusaders, who established rival Latin patriarchates, essentially refusing to recognize the local patriarchs in the East as being legitimate bishops. What would you have said when Europe had two or even three claimants to the see of Rome? What would you have said when the Nestorians had evangelized more of the world than any Christian body? What would you have said when there were two rival councils, one in Florence and the other in Basel?
You play exceedingly dirty (including ripping quotations straight out of context), when nobody else really is willing to, because it’s a rather degrading way to carry oneself. Seriously, do I need to dredge up the numerous disagreements among Roman Catholic historians and theologians over how many ex-cathedra statements there are or the rather embarrassing concessions made by some scholars who have conceded that papal infallibility was a late development, coming about at the end of the middle ages or that a modern-style supremacy of the pope was never recognized in the pre-schism East in order to get you to realize that ripping introspective self-criticism by scholars and influential figures out of context and using them polemically is an unethical thing to do?
J
Jon_Mallory
Guest
Would you be willing to start a new thread about what certain Latin scholars have said about the CC that undermine their important doctrines? Perhaps then some of the posters here would engage in real scholarship instead of looking to the nearest wiki article or google books
M
MonsterOfThomas
Guest
Do you honestly believe this?
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Well, let’s see, since Islam has no Holy Trinity to deal with, no belief in an immaterial and omnipresent God becoming circumscribed by human nature and coming to have a local extension into space while remaining nevertheless immaterial and omnipresent (not to mention remaining not subject to change or passion while seemingly changing by assuming human nature), no belief in any real sort of free will (i.e., resolving the tension between the fact of God’s foreordaining all things and the seeming fact that all human beings are endowed with a truly free will in favor of hard determinism), and also a handy rule for understanding any passages of scripture which might seem to contradict (Naskh or abrogation), yes, I would say that Islam is a rather logically cohesive system. Is it entirely free of any self-contradictions or specious arguments? No, but then neither is any other system of thought.
As for Calvinism, it simply suffices to say, I should think, that it was the product of the mind of a lawyer.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
And with that I’ll be heading for coffee.
The logical simplicity of Islam had to be there from the on-set for it expand.Peace
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Cavaradossi-
Prove it.
You have accused me on more than one occasion of taking +Schmemann out of context, but you have not actually PROVEN that I have done so DESPITE assuring everyone that you would once you returned home to access your library. Well, it’s been more than a week, Thanksgiving is behind us, but your accusation still hangs in the air. What about it, Cav? Do you have the goods or not?
Additionally, you have mocked me incessantly for arguments that you think have little or no merit, but then I find ORTHODOX authors and websites making some of the same points that I first made last year.
I didn’t begin this crusade by going out looking for dirt and then posting it as part of some personal campaign against you or the Orthodox Church. I began innocently enough last year by assuming (as most Catholics do I think), that chatting with some of my Eastern brothers would be a refreshing change after so many Protestant entanglements in the Apologetics subforum. So, I entered the Eastern Catholicism subforum for what may have been the first time in my 8 years as a member of CAF. You may recall that that was a more robust hub of discussion at that time.
Silly me, I naively believed that that cordial words I find in the Catechism regarding the Orthodox would be mutually felt. Little did I know that was coming face to face with folks who considered themselves to the only true Church on the planet, and that I was a heretic or schismatic, etc. Needless to say, that was a bit of a shock, and given that this IS a Catholic apologetics forum wherein we explain and DEFEND the Catholic faith, I went to work.
That was a much bigger dust-up wasn’t it? Lots of people involved…many now banned. But eventually things died down, and a year passed. Recently, I wandered into the Non-Catholic subforum and discovered that this is the new home of East-West “dialogue”. And here we are. Still hashing out the same issues that have been argued for 1,000 years. Only this time, I know a bit more and I was determined to cite Orthodox sites and authors in defense of what I believe to be my accurate assessments of Orthodoxy. I’m not trying to blow my own horn, but little by little, I pieced together the same arguments that others have said long before me. Just last night, I discovered that my post #233 is the same argument made by Fr. Harrison here.
So frankly, I’m no longer really interested in endless discussions about the "Filioque’ or some fifth century council that most Catholics couldn’t care less about. I’m now focused on the structural problems of Orthodoxy which I believe you cannot and will not ever solve. I think you secretly fear the same thing.
THAT’s what this thread is about. That’s what the OrthodoxWiki quote in post #1 lays out. That’s what the Orthodox author of post #96 was grappling with. That’s what I have summarized in as few words as possible in post #233. That’s what YOU have to deal with if you want to be honest with yourself. How do YOU deal with the lack of authentic authority in your church?
I didn’t misrepresent Soloviev last year. I didn’t misquote +Schmemann, +Ware, +Cleenwerck, Likoudis (now Catholic) or any of the other sources that you have driven me to find. You don’t like what I’m saying, but rather than deal with the message, you attack me personally. My research, my methodology, my scholarship. I claim no scholarship for I am not a scholar. But I can read and summarize those that are, and I can form opinions and arguments based on what they have said.
It’s not about me, Cav. As Peter_J has pointed out more than once, every Orthodox thread seems to become a referendum on Randy Carson. But that’s because it’s easier for you to shoot the messenger than to hear the message.
For once, can’t you just deal with the material? Can’t you just prove me wrong with the strength of your own arguments? You and the other Orthodox members of this forum can just chuckle amongst yourselves and say that I’m not worth responding to, blah, blah, blah. But I think that’s really nervous laughter, and the reason none of you has written a coherent response to my OP and to post #233, is because none of you can. I’ve stumbled upon the very issue that is boiling just below the thin veneer of Orthodox unity.
Private judgment has destroyed Protestantism, and from the accounts I’m reading about +Jonah and other current events in the OCA, things are not looking so good for Orthodoxy in America, either, for the exact same reason.
In the end, Cav, I’m telling you and everyone else, that Orthodoxy is NOT what Jesus intended when He promised to build a single Church upon Cephas. You can be mad at me all you want, but I’m not your real problem.
Now, as our very patient moderator, Eric, is fond of saying:
[SIGN]The topic and not each other.[/SIGN]
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And by the way, I would like to address the point quoted above.
Cav, I spend MOST of my time in the apologetics forum where on any given day I may be explaining Marian doctrines to Bible only Christians who are so ignorant of Church history that they don’t realize their heresies were laid to rest by the earliest Church councils, working through the problems caused by the so-called pedophile scandal in the priesthood with a former Catholic who has left the Church, showing a five-point Calvinist why eternal security is not biblical, or demonstrating the logical fallacy of sola scriptura to any and all for the one millionth time. Setting the record straight regarding the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Irish children’s homes is just another day in the life of the Catholic apologist.
In the course of those discussions, you can bet that I have had just about every scandal imaginable thrown in my face by folks who are easily just as eager as you are to prove Catholicism wrong. Do you honestly think you’re going to be able to rattle my cage with a quote from Fr. Charles Curran or Hans Kung or some other dissident priest, nun or bishop?
I don’t think so.
:compcoff:
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I already showed it. Or have you simply forgotten how I posted an excerpt from Schmemann’s conclusion where he refers to universal ecclesiology as poison? Indeed, when it was pointed out to you that you were ripping Schmemann out of context, I recall that you then retreated upon the most pathetic defense that Schmemann was conceding that the papal system was logically consistent. Of course, since he is using the entire paper to argue against universal ecclesiology, he is actually saying that the papal system is logically consistent with a false premise—not much of a concession in your favor.
Let’s be honest about how desperate your mode of argumentation has become. You even quote random inquirers on Orthodox forums as if they were Orthodox authors or thinkers of authority and import, so your standard is evidently quite low.
Good to see finally an admission that you have an axe to grind.
Yes quite the dust up. If I recall, you were suspended.
Great, so you have reinvented the wheel as far as internet polemics goes.
- Status