Orthodoxy: Ecumenicity, Receptionism and the Councils

[Cavaradossi]

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.

No, I actually have no fear of that. At most, you have been quoting authors on administrative issues in America (especially true of Schmemann). But what you evidently do not know or perhaps refuse to acknowledge (after all acknowledging the plain fact that things are better now would severely defang your argument that things could never possibly be fixed in Orthodoxy) is that the situation for Orthodoxy in America now is much better than the chaotic times when Schmemann wrote his remarks on the jurisdictional mess we had in America. The ecclesiological consciousness is that the old calendarists have cut themselves off from the church by schism, and that one should only seek the ministrations of a canonical bishop, which would be a bishop whose own archbishop or patriarch is commemorated by the other patriarchs and archbishops. Thus, if I should wish to know if the people at say St. Jonah Russian Orthodox Church are part of canonical Orthodoxy, I need only to listen to whom they commemorate during the services. The minute I hear Patriarch Kirill or Metropolitan Hilarion, I know that they are canonical, as Patriarch Kirill commemorates the Ecumenical Patriarch, within whose patriarchate my own bishop serves.

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?

That is a bit like asking when did I stop beating my wife. I do not believe there is a lack of authentic authority in Orthodoxy. You may not believe in the authority of the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils and local synods, and if the episcopate as a whole, but that is simply not my problem. As from the beginning, I contend that your questions on this matter do not actually deal with questions of authority, but questions on epistemology.

I didn’t misrepresent Soloviev last year.

No, and I never accused you of such. But given that Solovyov had heretical views on theological progress, I simply never could and still cannot see the importance people give his remarks. He needed a papacy to ground his system of theological progress, in a similar fashion to how Mormons seemingly ground their doctrine of continuous revelation in the person of the Mormon president.

I didn’t misquote +Schmemann, +Ware, +Cleenwerck,

But you certainly did misrepresent them.

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.

Perhaps then you take things too personally. Saying that somebody’s methodology is flawed is not an ad hominem argument. I in fact do not even need to know the name of the person who argues for some conclusion in order to find methodological flaws in his study.

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.

But the problem is that you seem to have received a bunch of these quotations from apologetic sources instead of scholarly ones. Apologists are not normally held to any standards of academic rigor and as such you cannot trust that they have quoted these scholars accurately. That is certainly the case with Schmemann whose essay on primacy gets twisted into saying the opposite of what it says through the use of selective excerpting.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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?

I have often dealt with the material. It is, I must say, rather ironic that you should lament becoming the target of remarks on your character only to start the next sentence with “for once, can’t you just…”

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.

On the issue of unity, nothing short of having a papacy will satisfy you, I think, even though functionally, the Roman Church seems just as beset by factionalism.

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.

That only betrays your unfamiliarity with Orthodoxy in America. The OCA is a small Orthodox jurisdiction in America which for years has been plagued by administrative issues. You write as if administrative issues are somehow unique to Orthodoxy, as if your own church has never been afflicted by severe administrative issues. Because I do not wish to be so rude in a forum where I am essentially a guest so as to expose your fathers’ nakedness by discussing the many issues which plague contemporary Roman Catholicism in America I can only suggest that perhaps you should tend to the beam in your own eye, rather than looking for the mote in the eyes of others.

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]

Coming from the person who once told me that he knew what God would say to me on the day of judgment and who accused me of ignorance of the scriptures simply because I correctly look to the fathers to learn how to interpret the Scriptures (unlike those who do not, simply making up their interpretation as they go along), I am simply not sure what to make of that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

To the contrary, the primary reason that I posted Schmemann was for the reason you claim I retreated to. I don’t know how else to defend by self from a false assumption about my motives.

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.

Desperate?

Did I misrepresent the author of #96 as an Orthodox authority? :nope:

The reason I posted #96 was to ILLUSTRATE that Orthodox Christians posting on Orthodox forums are struggling with the very concepts I was pointing out here. I posted #1 and #96…does the gap in between not suggest that I found #96 later and realized that the poor soul who was eventually run off the Orthodox board was saying the same things that I said in posting the OP?

Good to see finally an admission that you have an axe to grind.

Only the one you put into my hand.

Will you be making a similarly honest admission of YOUR motivations for posting here. I checked, Cav, just to be sure that my impressions were correct, and I was right: do you know how many times you have posted in the Apologetics forum in the last six months? Hmmm? Three. And all of those posts were in threads about Orthodoxy.

See, here’s the thing: If you were honestly interested in engaging non-Orthodox Christians about the truth of Orthodoxy, you would be all over the Baptists, Anglicans and non-denoms in the apologetics forum explaining to them why we have seven sacraments instead of two, why Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, why apostolic succession matters, etc. But you don’t. Why?

I think it’s because the REAL reason you are here is because of your own fixation with Catholicism. And that, you will recall, is why I referenced the “little brother syndrome” last year.

It’s okay, Cav…sometimes those who put up the biggest fights eventually become the strongest converts.

Yes quite the dust up. If I recall, you were suspended.

Indeed. Others were banned. Catherine asked me not to post in the Eastern Catholic forums, and I honored her “request”. However, my suspension was from the Eastern Catholic forum, only. Not from CAF overall. But undoubtedly, you may have noticed that Eric permits a bit more “disagreement” in the Non-Catholics forum than Catherine does in Eastern Catholicism. I note that everyone has moved here for that reason.

Eric simply asks that we be polite. I’m smiling. Are you?

Great, so you have reinvented the wheel as far as internet polemics goes.

If I understood what that means, I might respond.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, I actually have no fear of that. At most, you have been quoting authors on administrative issues in America (especially true of Schmemann). But what you evidently do not know or perhaps refuse to acknowledge (after all acknowledging the plain fact that things are better now would severely defang your argument that things could never possibly be fixed in Orthodoxy) is that the situation for Orthodoxy in America now is much better than the chaotic times when Schmemann wrote his remarks on the jurisdictional mess we had in America. The ecclesiological consciousness is that the old calendarists have cut themselves off from the church by schism, and that one should only seek the ministrations of a canonical bishop, which would be a bishop whose own archbishop or patriarch is commemorated by the other patriarchs and archbishops. Thus, if I should wish to know if the people at say St. Jonah Russian Orthodox Church are part of canonical Orthodoxy, I need only to listen to whom they commemorate during the services. The minute I hear Patriarch Kirill or Metropolitan Hilarion, I know that they are canonical, as Patriarch Kirill commemorates the Ecumenical Patriarch, within whose patriarchate my own bishop serves.

There is a Pan-Orthodox Council tentatively scheduled for 2016. I hope things go well. However, you may recall that in addition to quoting +Schmemann (you do prefer the +, right?), I also quoted Fr. Cyril Hovorun highlighting the same things that +Schmemann said 50 years ago. Guffaws and laughter all around. So, then I go and find even more material concerning +Jonah and on and on and on. Things are better now? Great. It must have been pretty bad before.

That is a bit like asking when did I stop beating my wife. I do not believe there is a lack of authentic authority in Orthodoxy. You may not believe in the authority of the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils and local synods, and if the episcopate as a whole, but that is simply not my problem. As from the beginning, I contend that your questions on this matter do not actually deal with questions of authority, but questions on epistemology.

“You may not believe in the authority of the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils and local synods, and if the episcopate as a whole, but that is simply not my problem.”

Where did you get that idea?

No, and I never accused you of such. But given that Solovyov had heretical views on theological progress, I simply never could and still cannot see the importance people give his remarks. He needed a papacy to ground his system of theological progress, in a similar fashion to how Mormons seemingly ground their doctrine of continuous revelation in the person of the Mormon president.

Ah. I did not mis-represent Soloviev. Well, there’s one.

I mentioned him only to illustrate that the list of folks who have said things very similar to what I have been saying is both long and illustrious. Well, long any way.

But you certainly did misrepresent them.

Okay, Cav. If you say so.

Perhaps then you take things too personally. Saying that somebody’s methodology is flawed is not an ad hominem argument. I in fact do not even need to know the name of the person who argues for some conclusion in order to find methodological flaws in his study.

Fair enough. You are correct on this point.

But the problem is that you seem to have received a bunch of these quotations from apologetic sources instead of scholarly ones.

If I got them off the side of a bus, would that make them less true?

Apologists are not normally held to any standards of academic rigor and as such you cannot trust that they have quoted these scholars accurately. That is certainly the case with Schmemann whose essay on primacy gets twisted into saying the opposite of what it says through the use of selective excerpting.

Doesn’t it really depend on the apologist? If I say something stupid or quote a Father out of context, I look silly. No big deal. If Dave Armstrong or Jimmy Akin makes a similar blunder, their entire career could be jeopardized…especially if the misrepresentation was intentional.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Coming from the person who once told me that he knew what God would say to me on the day of judgment and who accused me of ignorance of the scriptures simply because I correctly look to the fathers to learn how to interpret the Scriptures (unlike those who do not, simply making up their interpretation as they go along), I am simply not sure what to make of that.

What I actually wrote on September 13, 2013 was:

I’m enjoying your interaction with LionHeart777 and SanctusPeccator…kinda like a weekend duffer enjoys watching Tiger and Phil tee it up at Augusta, you know? You’re playing at a different level, and I am awed by your knowledge of historical events. Truly, I am.

I’m just an amateur apologist and a simple guy, so I’m glad that these other folks have been able to provide better discussion for you than I ever could. However, I do have a couple of simple questions for you.

First, in the seventeenth chapter of John, Jesus prays for His disciples:

I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me (John 17:20-23).

Based on this passage, I believe that the unity of Christians was supposed to testify powerfully to unbelievers that the Gospel message is true. As a result of the schism that separates our two churches, Cavaradossi, some of the efficacy of that witness has been diminished and souls are lost as a result. Now, in light of Jesus’ desire for unity, what will you say to Him on your particular day of judgment when He asks you why you were separated from your (Roman) Catholic brothers and sisters? Will you really attempt to argue the case against Vigilius to Him?

My second question hinges upon the first: if you would not cite these canons and councils in your defense before God, then what is the real, bedrock, all-other-things-aside, this is non-negotiable reason that you, as a member of an Orthodox Church cannot be fully and formally re-united with and subject to the Roman Pontiff? You are obviously arguing vigorously in a thread on Universal Jursidiction, but is that really the line that cannot be crossed for you?

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful reply.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11207890#post11207890​

Needless to say, I think your conversation is going to be about much more than your separation from Rome…though I don’t doubt that it could come up. And be honest, I made no assumptions about the outcome of that discussion, did I?

I wish you and all Orthodox safe passage into Our Father’s presence.

+++

Now, is there any chance that you might take a few moments and address each of the six sentences I wrote in post #233 with thoughtful reasons as to why any or all of them are erroneous? Thanks.

 

[Cavaradossi]

To the contrary, the primary reason that I posted Schmemann was for the reason you claim I retreated to. I don’t know how else to defend by self from a false assumption about my motives.

So is it a good thing now for a system of thought to be the logical conclusion of a false premise? Suppose if I were to make an elaborate and logically consistent system of thought based on the premise that the sky were pink, would this system be any less false for its logical consistency?

Desperate?

Yes, rather. Quoting confused laymen or inquirers is in fact a rather desperate measure. Just think of all the confused laymen who post on this board, for instance. The fact that you do not seem to like the answers you get, insofar as I have told you time and time again that knowing something with absolute certainty is an epistemological fool’s errand, does not mean that Orthodoxy has no answer on this matter.

Only the one you put into my hand.

So not only is it an animus, but it is a personal animus. How dignified.

Will you be making a similarly honest admission of YOUR motivations for posting here. I checked, Cav, just to be sure that my impressions were correct, and I was right: do you know how many times you have posted in the Apologetics forum in the last six months? Hmmm? Three. And all of those posts were in threads about Orthodoxy.

Let’s see. Perhaps that is because apologetics do not, and have never interested me. My interests lie mainly with Christianity (obviously), a bit of Neoplatonism (including the ties of the Dionysian corpus to Neoplatonism, and how that later gets appropriated by figures like St. Maximus the Confessor and Eriugena), a little bit of Scholasticism (in particular Scotism), and how all of these philosophical movements have interacted with Christianity in the past. Mainly I get tangled in threads like this simply because I very much dislike it when people misrepresent Orthodoxy or take cheap shots at Orthodoxy. Without having read the great theologians of Orthodoxy, having lived the liturgical cycle, having really read the history of Orthodoxy, etc., how anybody could really be comfortable claiming to know Orthodoxy, I know not.

See, here’s the thing: If you were honestly interested in engaging non-Orthodox Christians about the truth of Orthodoxy, you would be all over the Baptists, Anglicans and non-denoms in the apologetics forum explaining to them why we have seven sacraments instead of two, why Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, why apostolic succession matters, etc. But you don’t. Why?

Perhaps it is because I do not like apologetics. Were it not for the fact that Orthodoxy so often gets misrepresented, I would not get involved in these threads at all, to be frank. It is just so frustrating to me to see that you present Orthodox scholars disagreeing on certain matters, or saying that certain matters have not yet been decided as evidence of problems in Orthodoxy.

Are you not aware that Roman Catholic scholars often disagree on issues of a doctrinal nature, but that they are nevertheless free to do so, because neither position is clearly heretical? This is true, for example, of original sin. As far as fidelity to Trent goes, all who subscribe to the council are free to believe that the guilt of original sin is a product of man’s solidarity in will with Adam, a product of sin being transmitted through propagation, etc. They simply must reject the ideas that original sin is not sin and that original sin is the product of imputation. In fact, a Roman Catholic friend of mine who has a Master’s in Theology often tells me that he sees that as a particular strength of Roman Catholicism, insofar as doctrinal formulations are more considered with excluding heretical ideas than creating a uniformity of thought.

I think it’s because the REAL reason you are here is because of your own fixation with Catholicism. And that, you will recall, is why I referenced the “little brother syndrome” last year.

Oh, I see how it is. “The topic, not each other”—unless you wish to try and psychoanalyze other posters, then go to town. I post here because every once in a while, I have a fruitful exchange with other posters or an exchange which results in a nice book recommendation. Of course, after these long, boring, and fruitless exchanges I’ve had recently, perhaps you are right in pointing out that I seemingly now have no good reason to post here. It is something that I shall have to consider further.

As for having a “fixation” with Roman Catholicism. I am afraid that I must inform you that I do not. Outside of philosophical exchanges with my Roman Catholic friends (most of which are excellent and quite fun) Roman Catholicism has very little impact upon my spiritual life. I don’t have to believe that Scotus, Plotinus, Thomas Aquinas, etc., were right on everything to enjoy reading them and interacting with their thought.

It’s okay, Cav…sometimes those who put up the biggest fights eventually become the strongest converts.

That’s really no way to speak to others. Being patronizing is usually considered quite rude.

 

[Cavaradossi]

There is a Pan-Orthodox Council tentatively scheduled for 2016. I hope things go well. However, you may recall that in addition to quoting +Schmemann (you do prefer the +, right?)

Normally, I don’t think + is put before the name of a priest.

I also quoted Fr. Cyril Hovorun highlighting the same things that +Schmemann said 50 years ago. Guffaws and laughter all around.

Fr. Cyril and Fr. Schmemann are addressing two very different concerns. It seems to me that when Fr. Schmemann was talking about there being a bunch of jurisdictions, he was probably thinking of the old calendarist schisms. But especially now with the reconciliation between ROCOR and the Russian Orthodox Church, the old calendarist issue has passed, and it’s very apparent who is an old calendarist (whom we consider to be schismatic) and who is not. What Fr. Cyril is talking about is frankly small beans compared to some of the greater challenges which faced the Church in the past (even the reign of Andronicus II or the Meletian Schism in the 4th century saw the church in a far worse state).

So, then I go and find even more material concerning +Jonah and on and on and on. Things are better now? Great. It must have been pretty bad before.

It wouldn’t be the first time a bishop has controversially been deposed. A lot of popes met even worse fates at the hand of their synod than Metropolitan Jonah.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So is it a good thing now for a system of thought to be the logical conclusion of a false premise? Suppose if I were to make an elaborate and logically consistent system of thought based on the premise that the sky were pink, would this system be any less false for its logical consistency?

Schmemann acknowledged that Catholicism is logical and consistent. I never claimed he agreed with Catholicism; obviously, he was Orthodox for a reason. But he recognized that the efforts of Catholic scholars and theologians made sense. I also provided not one but two sources where Catholic authors quoted that passage from Schmemann - one in extensive context.

Say what you want about me, Cav, but apparently at least a few folks seem to think that what he was saying about Catholicism was helpful to Rome’s cause in some way.

Yes, rather. Quoting confused laymen or inquirers is in fact a rather desperate measure. Just think of all the confused laymen who post on this board, for instance. The fact that you do not seem to like the answers you get, insofar as I have told you time and time again that knowing something with absolute certainty is an epistemological fool’s errand, does not mean that Orthodoxy has no answer on this matter.

But that’s not desperation on my apart; it’s just an observation that even Orthodox are trying to wrap their heads around the problem.

Why not settle it once and for all? For the benefit of all those Catholics and Orthodox lurking on this thread. Post #233. Six sentences.

So not only is it an animus, but it is a personal animus. How dignified.

Yes and no. Don’t pretend that other Orthodox here don’t look up to you as the heavyweight defender of Orthodoxy, Cav. As such, you (and a few others) have made it your personal mission to take me on. I was not looking to go mano-a-mano with you.

Let’s see. Perhaps that is because apologetics do not, and have never interested me. My interests lie mainly with Christianity (obviously), a bit of Neoplatonism (including the ties of the Dionysian corpus to Neoplatonism, and how that later gets appropriated by figures like St. Maximus the Confessor and Eriugena), a little bit of Scholasticism (in particular Scotism), and how all of these philosophical movements have interacted with Christianity in the past. Mainly I get tangled in threads like this simply because I very much dislike it when people misrepresent Orthodoxy or take cheap shots at Orthodoxy. Without having read the great theologians of Orthodoxy, having lived the liturgical cycle, having really read the history of Orthodoxy, etc., how anybody could really be comfortable claiming to know Orthodoxy, I know not.

But your posts reveal something different, Cav. Just since September, you’ve only posted three times on non-Orthodox topics.

Perhaps it is because I do not like apologetics. Were it not for the fact that Orthodoxy so often gets misrepresented, I would not get involved in these threads at all, to be frank. It is just so frustrating to me to see that you present Orthodox scholars disagreeing on certain matters, or saying that certain matters have not yet been decided as evidence of problems in Orthodoxy.

What you seem to be missing is the fact that it is these are Orthodox who are highlighting the problems. I’m citing their honest assessments simply to counter some of the false claims of unity put forth by EO in this forum.

Are you not aware that Roman Catholic scholars often disagree on issues of a doctrinal nature, but that they are nevertheless free to do so, because neither position is clearly heretical? This is true, for example, of original sin. As far as fidelity to Trent goes, all who subscribe to the council are free to believe that the guilt of original sin is a product of man’s solidarity in will with Adam, a product of sin being transmitted through propagation, etc. They simply must reject the ideas that original sin is not sin and that original sin is the product of imputation. In fact, a Roman Catholic friend of mine who has a Master’s in Theology often tells me that he sees that as a particular strength of Roman Catholicism, insofar as doctrinal formulations are more considered with excluding heretical ideas than creating a uniformity of thought.

Yes, I am aware of that. Are you aware that once Rome has settled the matter, that ends the discussion?

Oh, I see how it is. “The topic, not each other”—unless you wish to try and psychoanalyze other posters, then go to town. I post here because every once in a while, I have a fruitful exchange with other posters or an exchange which results in a nice book recommendation. Of course, after these long, boring, and fruitless exchanges I’ve had recently, perhaps you are right in pointing out that I seemingly now have no good reason to post here. It is something that I shall have to consider further.

Suit yourself.

As for having a “fixation” with Roman Catholicism. I am afraid that I must inform you that I do not. Outside of philosophical exchanges with my Roman Catholic friends (most of which are excellent and quite fun) Roman Catholicism has very little impact upon my spiritual life. I don’t have to believe that Scotus, Plotinus, Thomas Aquinas, etc., were right on everything to enjoy reading them and interacting with their thought.

That makes sense. It’s safe for you. However, if you were interacting with any of them in person, they would be challenging your separation from Rome. Well, two of them, anyway.

 

[wynd]

See, here’s the thing: If you were honestly interested in engaging non-Orthodox Christians about the truth of Orthodoxy, you would be all over the Baptists, Anglicans and non-denoms in the apologetics forum explaining to them why we have seven sacraments instead of two, why Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, why apostolic succession matters, etc. But you don’t. Why?

I think it’s because the REAL reason you are here is because of your own fixation with Catholicism. And that, you will recall, is why I referenced the “little brother syndrome” last year.

The real reason is probably because this site is called Catholic Answers. You can visit any number of Orthodox forums and see Orthodox posters defending their faith against Protestants.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The real reason is probably because this site is called Catholic Answers. You can visit any number of Orthodox forums and see Orthodox posters defending their faith against Protestants.

Thank you for that observation, wynd.

What puzzles me, then, is why Orthodox would come to the largest Catholic forum in the world if not to engage in exchanges with Catholics?

If not for the presence of just a handful of Orthodox members, Orthodox threads would rarely if ever be posted…we have our hands full with all the non-denominational and mainline Protestants (not to mention the Mormons, the JW’s, the Baha’i, the atheists, etc, etc).

Please don’t misunderstand. I’m NOT saying that y’all should leave; I’m simply saying that any Orthodox who comes to Catholic Answers and does not engage all the other non-Catholics here must be here for one reason only: to chat with Catholics about Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

If I really wanted to tangle with EO, I could go to your forums and mix it up. But I’m here defending what I believe to the be one, true church from a false claimant.

So, why are Orthodox here if not because of their fascination with Rome?

 

[prodromos]

I think it’s because the REAL reason you are here is because of your own fixation with Catholicism. And that, you will recall, is why I referenced the “little brother syndrome” last year.

The only reason we are here is to keep you guys honest. When I first came to CAF years ago, the blatant misrepresentation of Orthodoxy was appalling.

It’s okay, Cav…sometimes those who put up the biggest fights eventually become the strongest converts.

Ain’t that the truth. Do you remember gurneyhalleck1?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The only reason we are here is to keep you guys honest. When I first came to CAF years ago, the blatant misrepresentation of Orthodoxy was appalling.

Ain’t that the truth. Do you remember gurneyhalleck1?

No. His last post was in June 2011, and he has no Religion specified.

Why? Did you pick up a new member?

 

[GaryTaylor]

They have to come here, Randy is like a magnet. No really, don’t you think dialogue has been lacking for 1000 years? How could we possibly forgot who you were, after all we been through together? Heck man. we are family.

 

[prodromos]

No. His last post was in June 2011, and he has no Religion specified.

Why? Did you pick up a new member?

He was a convert to Catholicism and a really passionate defendor of the papacy.
He is now Orthodox.

 

[Seraphim73]

It wouldn’t be the first time a bishop has controversially been deposed. A lot of popes met even worse fates at the hand of their synod than Metropolitan Jonah.

Lest we forget.

http://s30.postimg.org/3n98znxoh/Jean_Paul_Laurens_Le_Pape_Formose_et_Etienne_VII.jpg

http://s28.postimg.org/mfj9xy0xp/2000px_Western_schism_1378_1417_svg.png

 

[Randy_Carson]

He was a convert to Catholicism and a really passionate defendor of the papacy.
He is now Orthodox.

Is the story of his conversion available anywhere online?

 

[wynd]

Thank you for that observation, wynd.

What puzzles me, then, is why Orthodox would come to the largest Catholic forum in the world if not to engage in exchanges with Catholics?

That’s my point. We’re here to engage Catholics, not non-Catholics. Maybe I missed the sarcasm in your post but I recall you asking why we weren’t getting into debates with Protestants in the other forums.

I myself used to be Catholic and became Orthodox after joining CAF, which is why I’m here. Can’t seem to stay away!

If not for the presence of just a handful of Orthodox members, Orthodox threads would rarely if ever be posted…we have our hands full with all the non-denominational and mainline Protestants (not to mention the Mormons, the JW’s, the Baha’i, the atheists, etc, etc).

Please don’t misunderstand. I’m NOT saying that y’all should leave; I’m simply saying that any Orthodox who comes to Catholic Answers and does not engage all the other non-Catholics here must be here for one reason only: to chat with Catholics about Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

If I really wanted to tangle with EO, I could go to your forums and mix it up. But I’m here defending what I believe to the be one, true church from a false claimant.

So, why are Orthodox here if not because of their fascination with Rome?

I think “fascination” might be an exaggeration. If you joined an Orthodox forum, would you say you had a fascination or fixation with Orthodoxy?

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s my point. We’re here to engage Catholics, not non-Catholics. Maybe I missed the sarcasm in your post but I recall you asking why we weren’t getting into debates with Protestants in the other forums.

I asked to illustrate the point that Orthodox don’t come here to chat with other Christians who need to know the truth of Orthodoxy. They come here because of their own fascination with Catholicism.

I myself used to be Catholic and became Orthodox after joining CAF, which is why I’m here. Can’t seem to stay away!

Well, does that kind prove what I guess we’re both saying?

Of course, I’d like to think that it’s just because of the scintillating conversation.

Just out of curiosity, what was the reason for your conversion?

I think “fascination” might be an exaggeration. If you joined an Orthodox forum, would you say you had a fascination or fixation with Orthodoxy?

Well, yeah. If I join a forum dedicated to scuba diving, presumably it’s because I have some interest in scuba diving.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hmmm. I don’t know. I know the Orthodox come here for many reasons. Their posts can be read in relation to many other faiths. Not sure we can paint with too wide of a brush or question others integrity or motives. Just saying.

 

[Randy_Carson]

npatrol: