I’ve only seen it happen when the non-Catholic doesn’t give any reason for rejecting the explanation, but only applies a few choice adjectives, with no further adieu. If they can provide the rational reason for rejecting the explanation, I’m sure there would be no problems. But such reasons are never given.
I too am a proud Uniate…I never understood why so many of us find it offensive.
Sometimes the non-Catholic gives reasons, but the Catholic does not accept those reasons as valid. Such is life (and let me be more precise this time - Such is life on an internet forum).I’ve only seen it happen when the non-Catholic doesn’t give any reason for rejecting the explanation, but only applies a few choice adjectives, with no further adieu. If they can provide the rational reason for rejecting the explanation, I’m sure there would be no problems. But such reasons are never given.
Such is life? I hope not. Life without the use of God-given reason would be pretty chaotic.
Blessings,
Marduk
I do not know about that. It seems that some have an idealized vision as to what the Orthodox Churches are today. It is a fact that the Orthodox have embraced Latinizations. I know of many where they kneel during the Divine Liturgy and some that us organs and other musical instruments.
That is the dream but I do not think it will put an end to Latinizations.
Does the Catholic offer an explanation why he believes those reasons are not valid? And does the non-Catholic offer a like, respectful rational response for the sake of dialogue? I’ve yet to see the latter (though if you have seen it, I’ll take your word for it). For the sake of discussion and understanding (and to dispel my own ignorance, since I have never seen what you claim above), can you offer an example off-hand to demonstrate your statement? Two brief examples will do.
. OK.Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. Alas, sometimes the Catholic is too busy paying attention to his own theories to even read the comments of his interlocutor.
Again: sometimes yes, and sometimes no. Sadly there are times when the non-Catholic has to defend himself from accusations of ignorance made against him personally simply because he rejects the explanation given by his Catholic discussion partner.
I would simply point you to your own discussions with dzheremi.
Of course I know it’s offensive - I was being sarcastic. I was reading an article on orthodoxinfo.org that kept mentioning the “Uniate menace” earlier and frankly the most appropriate response to language like that is make fun of it.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a discussion with Dzheremi on a SPECIFIC point of doctrine except on 2 issues -
Yes, I thought you might have meant it humorously, which is why I edited my post to say I didn’t think you meant it offensively.
Fine. Then why should any of us care what you (or anyone else) thinks about pews?
I can agree with this. Lurking in the Apologetics forum, I’ve seen this happen a few times.
It would seem the best way for the non-Catholic to absolutely refute the accusation of ignorance is to give a reasoned response to the Catholic explanation, instead of dismissing it with a few choice adjectives.
But even then, Marduk, is your understanding of purgatorial fire the same as the Latin belief in purgatorial fire? Ever since the scientific revolution no Catholic layman Latin or otherwise would ever have been so silly as to believe in purgatorial combustion - it’s an image, like hell-fire, used to describe the pain of sense and the pain of deprivation both present in the purification process.
Hello milidrag and greetings,
I do not hold it against dzheremi for saying what he has about the Catholic Church and Islam, because Vatican II is equivocal on the matter. I have read interpretations of Vatican II documents that say that the God of Islam is the God of Christians, and I have seen things written by more traditionalist Catholics who dispute that idea. It is not dzheremi’s fault that Catholics say both things, and that the present Catholic position is hard to pin down.I don’t think I’ve ever had a discussion with Dzheremi on a SPECIFIC point of doctrine except on 2 issues -
(1) Of whether the God of Muslims is equivalent to the God of Christians. He accuses the Catholic Church of teaching that, but he’s never been able to back up that claim with documentary evidence.
(2) He once accused the Catholic Church of “caving in” to Nestorianism because of the Christological agreement with the ACOE. When I showed him the text of the Christological Agreement, he admitted he could not find anything in it that was unorthodox.
Otherwise, Brother Dzheremi doesn’t really seem willing to discuss particular points of doctrine, but deals in generalizations.
Can you provide any other examples (2 will do)? If you don’t want to, you don’t have to respond.
Blessings,
Marduk
Just look at your most recent responses to dzheremi (i.e., in the last couple of days).
On the other hand, an ACOE priest recently told me “we’re not Nestorian and never rejected Chalcedon, we just never bothered with the Council of Chalcedon because we never participated in it way over here and consequently regarded it as an affair of the Roman Empire rather than any of our business”.
But the Catholic position can be pinned down because the Magisterium has already given a statement on it at Vatican 2, which is reflected in the CCC. The Magisterial teaching is that we share a belief in God on 5 points, and 5 points ONLY:
My only point is that there is nothing unorthodox about the Christological agreement with the ACOE. So the Catholic Church did not “cave in” to anything, as brother Dzheremi accused her of doing. There is obviously more to discuss with the ACOE before full communion is established, and it is rash to criticize the Catholic Church AS IF she already had full communion with her simply because of the Christological Agreement, a Christological Agreement that is wholly orthodox (notwithstanding that there might be OTHER points of Christology on which the ACOE is heterodox - whatever those pionts might be, the CC has not agreed with them in the least).
It is a little more compicated than simply accepting the term theotokos. One must also accept what was taught by St. Cyril in his letters (including the anathemas), which were approved at the Council of Ephesus, and what was taught in the canons at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and in particular canon seven at that synod.
No, my dear friend, it is your position that can be pinned down, but I never confuse your schemas with the actual doctrine of the Church, and if I did I would probably have to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.
We haven’t discussed ANY particular points of doctrine. So I really don’t know what you are referring to.
I suggest you re-read your recent posts that involved interaction with dzheremi.