The Myth of Schism

[JRKH]

I don’t care what you guys say. I’m not offended by any of it.

There’s nothing uncharitable about calling things as you see them. In fact, there’s too little of that nowadays. Love equals neither nice nor polite. That’s why we have different words for those things. For Catholics, unity with all Christians is a goal. For the Orthodox not so much, apparently. But these issues have to be discussed in the raw, or we’ll never get anywhere. I don’t decide anything about the rules of this forum, but I presume that we’re supposed to be doing something other than conducting a comparative religions seminar here.

In my view tribalism is a very exact description of a pervading attitude in Orthodox polemics. If you think I am wrong, say so, and explain why. If the only response someone has to a point made is that they are offended, or that they think that the poster is rude, some might take that as conceding the point.

Jack - Just poking my nose in for a moment here…
You make some good points above, but I question whether the kind of bluntness, or “calling them as you see them” is always appropriate.
I certainly see where those charged by the Church and their counterparts in the EO need to take some solid, unvarnished looks and have some straight up “no holds barred” discussions, to dig out the very real and substantial problems, and seek possible ways forward.
I see less advantage to that kind of discussion in a forum such as this where we should be seeking to build good communication and tolerance etc at the grass roots level.
Certainly plain speaking and “tough Love”, as it is called, is a good thing but there is also a lot to be said for diplomacy and charity for the other persons position when what should be seeking is consensus building.

Peace
James

 

[JackQ]

Yes, I do not, but that’s not what I was getting at. I mean what each Church takes as being important or up for discussion is indicative of different underlying mindsets. Things that Catholics have dogmatically defined are often considered unnecessary at best by Orthodox for that very reason.

Some of them probably can, some of them probably can’t. It depends on what we’re talking about, exactly. But this misses the point, in that I’m talking about the different mindsets that make this or that dogmatic development or stance seem necessary (or not) in the first place. It is at this level that we are ontologically different.

Not really. Until I read an Oriental Orthodox source that calls Catholics heretics, full stop, then I would most definitely not use such strong language. As far as everyone being schismatics, that was the good (Catholic) Archbishop Elias Zoghby’s take on the whole situation some years ago, and it’s one that I personally agree with, as I did when I was still RC, though it has less immediate application to me now as an Oriental inquirer. Perhaps it would do you well to read what he was all about here, or try to find some of his writings at some point.

I won’t pretend to know the mind of the good Patriarch. His warm relations with the current Roman Pope make me doubt that he would personally hold such a black and white view, though I also believe that he and many others would agree that there are many on all sides who would rather it be as you describe. At any rate, I do not believe that it was any sort of cop out or softening of language. It just requires a bit of reflection to see why he might have used a particular phrase. He’s not an island unto himself, nor an ideologue (or at least not any more than his Catholic counterparts in the Ecumenical dialogue that is his work).

I do not see this as the case. From where I am sitting, it is Rome who is beating a hasty path toward reunion with various ill-considered overtures that cause many Orthodox to question exactly what union with Rome would look like, and why it should be desirable to the current state of staying apart until or unless things are worked out to both sides’ satisfaction.

Actually, I didn’t understand that you were going the Oriental Orthodox route, and much of what I’ve said here applies primarily, if not entirely, to the Eastern Orthodox. But, please understand, if you simply say that we have different mindsets, without explaining how our mindsets differ, you do not give the impression of someone who is trying to communicate.

 

[dzheremi]

Actually, I didn’t understand that you were going the Oriental Orthodox route, and much of what I’ve said here applies primarily, if not entirely, to the Eastern Orthodox. But, please understand, if you simply say that we have different mindsets, without explaining how our mindsets differ, you do not give the impression of someone who is trying to communicate.

I addressed this in post #30. Is there something particular you’re looking for?

 

[JackQ]

Jack - Just poking my nose in for a moment here…
You make some good points above, but I question whether the kind of bluntness, or “calling them as you see them” is always appropriate.
I certainly see where those charged by the Church and their counterparts in the EO need to take some solid, unvarnished looks and have some straight up “no holds barred” discussions, to dig out the very real and substantial problems, and seek possible ways forward.
I see less advantage to that kind of discussion in a forum such as this where we should be seeking to build good communication and tolerance etc at the grass roots level.
Certainly plain speaking and “tough Love”, as it is called, is a good thing but there is also a lot to be said for diplomacy and charity for the other persons position when what should be seeking is consensus building.

Peace
James

Charity and truth are not in conflict. Ambiguity and evasion are not communication. True tolerance is tolerating what people actually are, not what we pretend them to be. True consensus can only be achieved when everybody’s real views are out on the table. This is largely an academic exercise in any event. The Church isn’t going to act on anything we write here. But thank you for your suggestions.

 

[JackQ]

I addressed this in post #30. Is there something particular you’re looking for?

Well, what I’ll so is go back to your post #30, and answer your question on a point by point basis.

 

[JackQ]

I don’t see it as mysterious or opaque at all. I directed you to the good Patriarch’s words because that is where I first encountered that argument (after coming to much the same conclusion on my own), and I certainly can’t put it any better than is found there. As ontology is the study of being, I take the ultimate point to mean that we have fundamentally different ways of being religious communities.

What do you mean “fundamentally different ways of being religious communities”? How are they different? For all I can see, you could be referring to hat styles.

Our realities are different.

Our realities are different? Do I see an ostrich where you see a chair? Is there an interdimensional aspect to this?

Being Orthodox or Catholic are simply not the same experiences; they do not involve the same way of being Christian, not just as a means of describing theological focus or praxis, but more in the underlying mindsets that produce such differences in the first place.

What’s different about our experiences? What’s different about our mindsets? I’m not even sure I have a mindset.

I know that for myself personally, this is why I have ultimately come to reject Catholicism even as it contains Eastern and Oriental rites within it that are to varying degrees similar to what can be found in the Orthodox church. Ultimately, I did not reject a given form or a given theological stance or what have you, but rather the entire trajectory on which Western Christianity operates.

What is “Western Christianity’s” trajectory? Where is it headed. What don’t you like about it?

I know that’s hard to understand, and probably seems like just so much philosophical BS, but that’s the truth, and the fact that it may not seem to be so is further evidence of how ontologically different we truly are.

Actually, thus far it’s been incomprehensible to me. You suggest that it may be because I’m too Western to get it. But, tell me: what kind of Christianity is incomprehensible to a significant portion of the world’s population?

The West, through Catholicism and Protestantism, sees fit to concern itself with various divisions and points that do not even materialize outside of its own reality, precisely because they would not be thought of otherwise.

There you go with the reality again. How is our reality different? What divisions and points are we concerned with, and what is it about our reality that makes them materialize?

We may have shared ~500/~1000 years in communion, but to be of one mind is so tough a goal that it is already the focus of many Biblical passages, before any such East/West division (Christianity was in such a nascent state then, and the world so different at that time, that it would extremely anachronistic to project such a division into the Biblical exhortations).

Well, being of one mind, might be attainable if we…you know…try, as opposed to just going off and being a separate religion. I don’t think I understand your other points in this paragraph.

 

[Aramis]

What does that mean, “ontologically different”? Have we become different sorts of beings? Who are the humans?

Ontological change is a permanent change to the fundamental nature of something.

And if we are truly experiencing the Christian Illumination of the presence of the Holy Spirit, we are changed fundamentally in Baptism, and again in Chrismation, and again in the receipt of Major Holy Orders (deacon, priest, bishop). It’s been argued that Tonsure into religious or clerical life also imparts ontological change; it’s not accepted widely, tho’. It’s more widely believed that solemn profession of religious to perpetual vows is ontological change, tho’ not as profound a one a batism, chrismation, or major orders.

The whole purpose of sacraments and sacramentals is ontological change, specifically theosis/divinization… making our very nature more Christ-like.

 

[dzheremi]

Oops. I somehow lost track of your reply, JackQ, until I received the notices about the newest replies. My apologies.

What do you mean “fundamentally different ways of being religious communities”? How are they different? For all I can see, you could be referring to hat styles.

Well, there is that…

No, really, I mean that the experience of being Orthodox and the experience of being Catholic are fundamentally different. Those who have been Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy could explain the details much better than I could (sadly, it looks like most are currently on sabbatical or banned), as I have not “swam the Nile” yet, as it were (though I suppose none of them did, either). Still, even from where I am now compared to where I was then, there has been a lot of change. I wouldn’t say a 180-degree change or anything (as I was always open to the East and the Orient; my RC confirmation saints were Sts. Cyril and Methodius), but whereas before I was looking at a church with apostolic roots, with Orthodoxy it seems more like finding the apostolic faith itself, which the church naturally grows by.

Our realities are different? Do I see an ostrich where you see a chair? Is there an interdimensional aspect to this?

No. I am not sure, but it seems like you’re looking at things from a worldly perspective. My point is that Catholics and Orthodox look at things very differently. Their approaches to the faith are very different. For instance, whereas Catholics see the church as built upon the person of St. Peter, Orthodoxy sees the church as built upon Peter’s confession of faith. This has profound implications on how the people relate to the church.

What’s different about our experiences? What’s different about our mindsets? I’m not even sure I have a mindset.

Everyone’s got a mindset, my friend. I quoted here on CAF some months ago a passage from a book I like in which a Coptic monk in the desert gives a word to a Catholic monk who is visiting the monasteries and trying to understand the Orthodox faith. The monk says: “In the ancient tongue, alpha means ‘eagle.’ It is the bird of heaven, that which represents God – transcendent, over all. Beta is the Hebrew word; we hear it in the name ‘Bethel.’ It means ‘house, home’, the place in which we are familiar, comfortable, in control, the place where we live our lives day to day. But these two words, so opposite, have been conjoined: ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’, because in Christ Jesus, heaven is wedded to earth. Christ is the Word made flesh to dwell among us, to pitch His tent in our midst. We are not estranged any longer. This is easy; this is simple. Every child knows the alphabet, and so any heart can accept our Faith.”

I should note that when I posted this (in the context of a thread that asked why the Catholic church has so many doctrines, if I remember correctly), the only reply I got was decidedly negative, from people who disagreed with this idea that the faith is simple. I rather agree with the monk. I don’t have a monk’s mindset, but I have a mindset that would agree with a nameless monk over the Pope and the millions of reams of Catholic official documents that try to explain and categorize and define this very simple thing.

What is “Western Christianity’s” trajectory? Where is it headed. What don’t you like about it?

See above.

Actually, thus far it’s been incomprehensible to me. You suggest that it may be because I’m too Western to get it.

I don’t think I said anything about you specifically, or if I did I was in error, as I don’t mean anything towards you particularly, or Westerners as a general category. I too am a Westerner, through and through. It’s not about some sort of silly East v. West dichotomy. Orthodoxy is where orthodoxy is, and heterodoxy is where heterodoxy is.

But, tell me: what kind of Christianity is incomprehensible to a significant portion of the world’s population?

I’m not sure what you mean by “what kind”. Christianity itself is incomprehensible to an ever-growing number of people in many parts of the world, it seems. I suppose it always has been, to some degree. Our Lord told us it would be that way. But we know, no matter what church we’re in, that it is not actually incomprehensible so much as not a worldly philosophy, and so it does not make sense to many. I would go one step further and say that any kind of Christianity that seems to be in accord with the world has likely obscured elemental truths of the faith, and as such is to be discarded.

There you go with the reality again. How is our reality different? What divisions and points are we concerned with, and what is it about our reality that makes them materialize?

Many of the particular points of doctrine or dogma that are found in the West don’t even seem like reasonable things to think about outside of that tradition. For instance, transubstantiation. I have not yet met any Eastern or Oriental Christian who cares for this idea either way. Why label and classify a mystery, they ask. Sort of like the Ethiopians’ reaction to finding out that the rest of the Christian world does not consider Pontius Pilate a saint. “Really? Why not?”

Well, being of one mind, might be attainable if we…you know…try, as opposed to just going off and being a separate religion. I don’t think I understand your other points in this paragraph.

Well, I think that’s what all of the ecumenical dialogues are all about. Trying to understand each other and see if there is any greater unity to be had. We can’t just not try. As far as being a separate religion, I think that is what people on all sides are afraid of…how far apart is too far, y’know? I don’t know. All we can do is pray.

 

[JackQ]

Oops. I somehow lost track of your reply, JackQ, until I received the notices about the newest replies. My apologies.

Not a problem. I appreciate your coming back to reply. You’d be amazed how many threads there are where mine is the last post. Sometimes I think everyone else has sent private messages to one another, agreeing to go start another thread to continue the conversation without me. At least that’s the sort of thing that happens to me in real life.

Well, there is that…

No, really, I mean that the experience of being Orthodox and the experience of being Catholic are fundamentally different. Those who have been Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy could explain the details much better than I could (sadly, it looks like most are currently on sabbatical or banned), as I have not “swam the Nile” yet, as it were (though I suppose none of them did, either). Still, even from where I am now compared to where I was then, there has been a lot of change. I wouldn’t say a 180-degree change or anything (as I was always open to the East and the Orient; my RC confirmation saints were Sts. Cyril and Methodius), but whereas before I was looking at a church with apostolic roots, with Orthodoxy it seems more like finding the apostolic faith itself, which the church naturally grows by.

Sorry, I’m still not getting it. It sounds like you’re saying that you agree with Oriental Orthodoxy (hereinafter “OO”) more than you do with Catholicism (hereinafter “CC”). If I’m interpreting you correctly, what are the particular things about CC that you disagree with? What is about OO that you agree with that you don’t find in CC?

No. I am not sure, but it seems like you’re looking at things from a worldly perspective. My point is that Catholics and Orthodox look at things very differently. Their approaches to the faith are very different. For instance, whereas Catholics see the church as built upon the person of St. Peter, Orthodoxy sees the church as built upon Peter’s confession of faith. This has profound implications on how the people relate to the church.

I’m still trying to figure out what my perspective should be in this conversation. But now you’re starting to be clear. You don’t agree with having a Pope in the Catholic sense, although you’ll be having Pope Shenouda in OO (I know that’s not the same thing). You can find Fathers who interpret Matthew 16 both ways. I think it probably means both things. But I honestly don’t see how anyone can get around the plain meaning of Matthew 16 without bending both language and logic.

Everyone’s got a mindset, my friend.

Thank you. You give me too much credit.

I quoted here on CAF some months ago a passage from a book I like in which a Coptic monk in the desert gives a word to a Catholic monk who is visiting the monasteries and trying to understand the Orthodox faith. The monk says: “In the ancient tongue, alpha means ‘eagle.’ It is the bird of heaven, that which represents God – transcendent, over all. Beta is the Hebrew word; we hear it in the name ‘Bethel.’ It means ‘house, home’, the place in which we are familiar, comfortable, in control, the place where we live our lives day to day. But these two words, so opposite, have been conjoined: ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’, because in Christ Jesus, heaven is wedded to earth. Christ is the Word made flesh to dwell among us, to pitch His tent in our midst. We are not estranged any longer. This is easy; this is simple. Every child knows the alphabet, and so any heart can accept our Faith.”

I should note that when I posted this (in the context of a thread that asked why the Catholic church has so many doctrines, if I remember correctly), the only reply I got was decidedly negative, from people who disagreed with this idea that the faith is simple. I rather agree with the monk. I don’t have a monk’s mindset, but I have a mindset that would agree with a nameless monk over the Pope and the millions of reams of Catholic official documents that try to explain and categorize and define this very simple thing.

I don’t know why you would get basted over that, although I don’t know the original context. Faith is simple. And CC does involve the uniting of heaven and earth. That’s the Incarnation, for heaven’s sake! That’s what happens at the Eucharist! So…why are you leaving the Church again?

The reams of documents you complain of came about for a number of reasons, usually to answer questions that came up over the years. They do tend to pile up after 20 centuries, I’ll admit. But I’ll bet the U.S. Federal Government puts out as much in a year. Besides, you don’t have to read all of them to be a Catholic, anymore than you have to subscribe to the Federal Register to be a U.S. citizen. And of course all of those documents would be in Rome; that’s where such business gets done. To say that you’re going to separate from Rome in order to rid yourself of these documents is a little like getting rid of your car so you won’t have to drive to work.

I don’t think I said anything about you specifically, or if I did I was in error, as I don’t mean anything towards you particularly, or Westerners as a general category. I too am a Westerner, through and through. It’s not about some sort of silly East v. West dichotomy. Orthodoxy is where orthodoxy is, and heterodoxy is where heterodoxy is.

I didn’t take you personally. I was just using myself as an exemplar of a Westerner.

One of these days someone’s going to have to explain to me the difference between heterodoxy and heresy. [continued in the next post]

 

[JackQ]

I’m not sure what you mean by “what kind”. Christianity itself is incomprehensible to an ever-growing number of people in many parts of the world, it seems. I suppose it always has been, to some degree. Our Lord told us it would be that way. But we know, no matter what church we’re in, that it is not actually incomprehensible so much as not a worldly philosophy, and so it does not make sense to many. I would go one step further and say that any kind of Christianity that seems to be in accord with the world has likely obscured elemental truths of the faith, and as such is to be discarded.

Here I might have misunderstood you. Many Eastern Orthodox posters retreat to the ‘you can’t understand what I’m saying because you’re not Orthodox’ position, thus eliminating any possibility of a meaningful discussion, and I might have unfairly assumed you were doing the same thing. The Gospel, I maintain, is simple enough for anyone to understand, and I think you agree with me.

Many of the particular points of doctrine or dogma that are found in the West don’t even seem like reasonable things to think about outside of that tradition. For instance, transubstantiation. I have not yet met any Eastern or Oriental Christian who cares for this idea either way. Why label and classify a mystery, they ask. Sort of like the Ethiopians’ reaction to finding out that the rest of the Christian world does not consider Pontius Pilate a saint. “Really? Why not?”

Transubstantiation is kind of a benchmark. All it really means is that there are what things look like and what they are. To say that the substance is Christ although the accidents are bread and wine is simply a way of describing it in Aristotelian, and, hence, Thomistic terms. Anyone who agrees that the bread and wine really become the Body and Blood of the Lord, and not just in symbol, agrees with Transubstantiation. It doesn’t commit one to accept Aristotelian metaphysics. The eastern Churches don’t have a doctrine like Transubstantiation because they never had to deal with Protestants. That fact hardly means that the Eastern Churches are somehow more attuned to truth.

Well, I think that’s what all of the ecumenical dialogues are all about. Trying to understand each other and see if there is any greater unity to be had. We can’t just not try. As far as being a separate religion, I think that is what people on all sides are afraid of…how far apart is too far, y’know? I don’t know. All we can do is pray.

Too far is when you won’t share communion. By leaving the Catholic Church you are saying that you will no longer share communion with other Catholics. Too far is when you separate yourself from the rock on which the Church is built: Peter and his successors.

 

[aeolusm]

super viagra
http://viagrasuperpills.com/Viagra_Super_Active_files/viagra_super_active.jpg
Viagra Super Active (SILDENAFIL) is a new therapy for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. This super-active formulation gives the pill the quickest level of absorption, most intense effect on chemical messengers within the tissues of the penis and a fail-safe response of the nervous system. It may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.

 

[beng]

Sorry to interrupt, but I just post because I see the name “David Bentley Hart.”

I’ve read his book “Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies.”

He denies the eternity of hell. He also thinks that the ancient Church is gravely in error because she allowed, or at least kept her silence about, slavery. He seem to thinks that slavery is intrinsically evil, without distinction.

 

[dzheremi]

Well, yes, I do find myself more in agreement with the OO (and the EO, when the two aren’t in conflict) than the CC when it comes to particular issues, but I was approaching it from the point of view of an inquirer, not an active Catholic. When you are inquiring into a certain church tradition, there might be some particular questions that you have based on your experiences in your old church, but generally part of converting is accepting that things are different for their own reasons, not necessarily related to Rome. This is especially the case with the OO, since they separated so long before the EO and the RC eventually split. So I am talking more about the general approach of the different churches (which I also prefer the OO to the CC).

I’m still trying to figure out what my perspective should be in this conversation. But now you’re starting to be clear. You don’t agree with having a Pope in the Catholic sense, although you’ll be having Pope Shenouda in OO (I know that’s not the same thing).

Yes, I don’t believe that the title of the Pope confers the particular powers that the Roman Pope claims for himself in the exercise of his office. The OO believe similarly, and as the title of “Pope” was first used in Alexandria, not Rome, I do see the Roman position as something of a novelty/invention, tied to very specific claims related to that particular See, which are by no means accepted outside of it.

You can find Fathers who interpret Matthew 16 both ways. I think it probably means both things. But I honestly don’t see how anyone can get around the plain meaning of Matthew 16 without bending both language and logic.

I was never really hung up on Matthew 16, then or now. It is enough for me that my own study into the relevant explanations of the Fathers show the “Rock = the person of Peter” is the minority opinion. This, like many things, could be acceptable if it were allowed to be a matter of pious opinion (as the Fathers obviously had no trouble disagreeing with one another), and didn’t have all kinds of particular claims attached to it, but that is not the reality in which we find ourselves today.

I don’t know why you would get basted over that, although I don’t know the original context. Faith is simple. And CC does involve the uniting of heaven and earth. That’s the Incarnation, for heaven’s sake! That’s what happens at the Eucharist! So…why are you leaving the Church again?

I don’t believe that the Catholic Church headquartered in Rome has preserved the apostolic faith. From what I’ve had occasion to learn, it seems Alexandria has.

The reams of documents you complain of came about for a number of reasons, usually to answer questions that came up over the years. They do tend to pile up after 20 centuries, I’ll admit. But I’ll bet the U.S. Federal Government puts out as much in a year.

Other churches of similar antiquity also have tons and tons of documents, but have not gone through such evolutions in their theology or doctrine.

Besides, you don’t have to read all of them to be a Catholic, anymore than you have to subscribe to the Federal Register to be a U.S. citizen. And of course all of those documents would be in Rome; that’s where such business gets done. To say that you’re going to separate from Rome in order to rid yourself of these documents is a little like getting rid of your car so you won’t have to drive to work.

Yeah, it would be but that’s not my position. Again, I do not believe that the Catholic Church has preserved the apostolic faith. This would be just as true if the Catechism were (somehow) a 50-page pamphlet.

One of these days someone’s going to have to explain to me the difference between heterodoxy and heresy.

Haha. Good point. I think it is more a matter of manners and keeping the conversation going than anything else. Call someone a “heretic” and they’re likely to shut down. Explain that their church “heterodox” and at least they might wonder how far away from the orthodox position they are, and if they could get back to it somehow. But I don’t know, really. I think of the RC as “heterodox” rather than “heretical” because it is generally off-base as a result of its evolution, rather than being able to point to a specific time at which it went off the rails (I’ll leave others to argue over that, if they want to). If you think about it, this kind of distinction makes sense, as there was quite a long time before the final separation in when the Western and Eastern churches were already very distinct, but no one on either side was excommunicating anyone over it.

 

[dzheremi]

Here I might have misunderstood you. Many Eastern Orthodox posters retreat to the ‘you can’t understand what I’m saying because you’re not Orthodox’ position, thus eliminating any possibility of a meaningful discussion, and I might have unfairly assumed you were doing the same thing. The Gospel, I maintain, is simple enough for anyone to understand, and I think you agree with me.

Well, I think there are certain things that you can’t understand if you’re not Orthodox (I know there are probably lots of things that I don’t understand because I haven’t attended the liturgy yet). But I wouldn’t use that as a reason to shut down any conversation. I didn’t really understand the Western tradition of monasticism, either, until I visited a Benadictine monastery with my old FOC.

Transubstantiation is kind of a benchmark. All it really means is that there are what things look like and what they are. To say that the substance is Christ although the accidents are bread and wine is simply a way of describing it in Aristotelian, and, hence, Thomistic terms.

Oh, I know. I’m just using that as an example of something that the East never bothered to define.

Too far is when you won’t share communion.

I would share communion if the Catholic Church shared the same orthodox faith.

By leaving the Catholic Church you are saying that you will no longer share communion with other Catholics. Too far is when you separate yourself from the rock on which the Church is built: Peter and his successors.

I have not separated myself from St. Peter or his successors. I have separated myself willingly from Rome as a result of my inability to assent to her doctrines. I did this not to disparage Rome in any way, but out of respect for the integrity of her communion and out of concern for my own soul and spiritual livelihood.

 

[Hesychios]

One of these days someone’s going to have to explain to me the difference between heterodoxy and heresy.

orthodox ~ correct opinion

heterodox ~ variant opinion

heresy ~ choice, or perhaps selection

 

[dvdjs]

Dzheremi, with all due respect:

No, really, I mean that the experience of being Orthodox and the experience of being Catholic are fundamentally different.

 

[dzheremi]

That may be **your **experience. It is not mine.

Um. Okay. So I should defer to your experience instead of mine? Sorry, I don’t see how this is any sort of meaningful statement. Of course your experience is your own, and my experience is my experience, and everyone’s experience is their own experience.

It may be the experience of the netodox that you recall in your post, I have a different sense of it from the people in the parishes.

Okay. I am only referring to people here because…well, they’re here, and they can provide their own much more comprehensive sense of what the differences are as they are not currently in transition as I am. Making a distinction between the “netodox” and the people in the parishes, as you have, only makes sense in so far as the parishioners you know would have different experiences (see previous paragraph), but I don’t think that this means any CAF poster’s experience ought to be valued any less. After all, you may call them internet Orthodox or what have you, but surely they have their own parishes in the world, so they are “the people in the parishes”. I think this gets back to a previous discussion we’ve had about being “polemical”. If you see the people here on CAF as making distinctions that “non-netodox” do not make, there are two conclusions that you can draw, both of which are equally valid: 1) There is in a sense of argumentativeness here, perhaps spurred on by the format; and 2) you perhaps aren’t treating people on the internet as you would “real” people. For me, the fact that people here who are Orthodox are making these distinctions means that these are distinctions that people make, based on their own experiences. Whether they reflect what you find in your own life is another matter, but by pointing out that they don’t you’re essentially in the same boat as me: relying on some specific experiences from which to generalize about the character of a given community. ’

It is an interesting question to ask yourself: why was your experience in the two churches different;

Probably because they are different churches.

and, what aspect of that difference is really about you?

I don’t know…a lot of it? If I could be someone else I would, if only to see how another person might fair in similar circumstances…

Faith? The distinctions in faith between the CC and EO are modest if one looks across the spectrum of Christianity.

Yes, and if we look across the spectrum of animals, we humans are all nearly chimps. Sometimes “modest” differences are, in fact, quite profound and meaningful.

With the OOs there is a bigger gap. I think you are confusing something else with “faith”.

I may be, but this is nonetheless the impression that I have formed from several years of being Catholic, and now nearly two years of inquiry into Orthodoxy. Chances are that as time goes on, my perspective will change. To what degree, I don’t know.

I can’t agree with this at all. …] Is not the significance of the person of Peter clear to you from scripture and patristics that inform both East and West? Is it not also clear that that significance is founded upon his confession of faith?

I’m not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with. Yes, I see the significance of Peter, and his confession of faith. Did I somewhere imply otherwise?

is this kerygma enough? Is the focus on dwelling among us without a word about the resurrection sufficient?

“Enough” what? Is it supposed to be?

Does this help you resolve Chalcedon?

Is it supposed to?

You may think that these questions are vexing and therefore should not be asked. I wouldn’t disagree. But you are probably wrong to think that what you are comparing is Catholicism and Coptic Christianity.

I was sharing a Coptic monk’s perspective that resonates with me. Is the entirety of Coptic Christianity contained in the monasteries? I don’t know. Probably not, but they are a source and measure of its strength and health.

You are more likely comparing a parochial and monastic expression of the faith.

Hmm. Okay.

It is often suggested that the East is mystical and the West is scholastic and legalistic. While this idea is not completely without merit, it is a stereotype that disregards the real, not mythologized, history of the East, and the great strains of mysticism in the West. If you missed out on the latter, that is a shame.

I don’t think I did. I maybe didn’t get as big a dose of that as I should have, but I did go out of my way to visit the only Benedictine monastery in the state when I lived in Oregon, and did find it quite eye-opening and beneficial.

You are right, however, that everyone has a mindset. Every one. Applying that to a Church needs to be done carefully to avoid stereotyping.

I agree.

To affirm the truth against heresy that can emerge when people are confronted with the the dichotomy between the faith and our senses. Seems simple enough. Why is this a matter of contention?

It’s not. That’s why I wrote “I have not yet met any Eastern or Oriental Christian who cares for this idea either way.” Meaning, they don’t say it’s wrong, but they don’t say it’s right, either. They generally ask, as I wrote, why label and classify a mystery?

 

[dvdjs]

Um. Okay. So I should defer to your experience instead of mine? Sorry, I don’t see how this is any sort of meaningful statement. Of course your experience is your own, and my experience is my experience, and everyone’s experience is their own experience.

You made a general claim. The generality of your claim is falsified by my experience. I did not and do not ask for deference, just a recognition that the claim should not be general but limited as one particular to you. Then I asked you to consider the implications of that.

Probably because they are different churches.

That is one possibility. But you might consider others and defer that conclusion.

Okay. I am only referring to people here because…well, they’re here, and they can provide their own much more comprehensive sense of what the differences are as they are not currently in transition as I am.

Actually your reference included, in an intriguing way, people who used to be here.

Making a distinction between the “netodox” and the people in the parishes, as you have, only makes sense in so far as the parishioners you know would have different experiences (see previous paragraph), but I don’t think that this means any CAF poster’s experience ought to be valued any less. After all, you may call them internet Orthodox or what have you, but surely they have their own parishes in the world, so they are “the people in the parishes”. I think this gets back to a previous discussion we’ve had about being “polemical”. If you see the people here on CAF as making distinctions that “non-netodox” do not make, there are two conclusions that you can draw, both of which are equally valid: 1) There is in a sense of argumentativeness here, perhaps spurred on by the format; and 2) you perhaps aren’t treating people on the internet as you would “real” people. For me, the fact that people here who are Orthodox are making these distinctions means that these are distinctions that people make, based on their own experiences. Whether they reflect what you find in your own life is another matter, but by pointing out that they don’t you’re essentially in the same boat as me: relying on some specific experiences from which to generalize about the character of a given community. ’

On the contrary, unlike real interactions, the tales told on fora are rarely open to fact checking. Moreover, the calibration of level of experience and expertise is vastly different: on the net it is often essentially nil. In real life the situation is different because we typically know much more about the background of the people that we are interacting with. This mutual awareness serves as a brake on speaking beyond ourselves in real life; on the net people all too often seem remarkably uninhibited to speak well beyond their experience and knowledge. (The group dynamics on fora often reinforce this unfortunate inhibition.)

Even in the area of personal report, where it would seem that knowledge and experience must be sufficient, there are still problems in taking reports at face value: a notable number of thoughtful and knowledgeable people have very publicly bounced around here and there and back in a matter of a few years as there own perception of their own experience changes. (Finally, FWIW, I have a hunch, that converts, and fairly recent ones at that, are overrepresented on the net.) My thinking is that apart from questions of documented fact, most of what appears on the net from anonymous sources is of marginal reliability or enduring value. Stick with you monk, he will speak to you from a rooted perspective with a full sense of responsibility.

I’m not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with. Yes, I see the significance of Peter, and his confession of faith. Did I somewhere imply otherwise?

I disagree with your divisive idea that it’s either X or Y and that Catholics see X while Orthodox see Y. You clearly see both; so do I, and if you look at the many threads on this matter, you will realize that pretty everyone, at least upon a moment of reflection, also sees this.

“Enough” what? Is it supposed to be?

Enough to do what we are trying to do: advance theosis; avoiding being waylaid by, among other things, theological error.

Is it supposed to?

Is that not important?

It’s not. That’s why I wrote “I have not yet met any Eastern or Oriental Christian who cares for this idea either way.” Meaning, they don’t say it’s wrong, but they don’t say it’s right, either. They generally ask, as I wrote, why label and classify a mystery?

Good, then let’s stop contending about it. The answer is as simple as I suggested. If you are telling me that there has never been a need to combat Eucharistic heresy among the Copts, I am delighted. At the same time I am wary about such a response from EO’s. I find in my own EO parish that belief in the real presence does not seem well integrated. This idea is reinforced by a current discussion of Eucharistic adoration on the Indiana list. I have also read posts, a year ago at OCAnet, by an Orthodox priest of patristic references that were taken as supporting consubstantiation. So there may be good reasons for them to dust off the EO writings that adopted the idea of transubstantiation.

 

[dzheremi]

You made a general claim. The generality of your claim is falsified by my experience. I did not and do not ask for deference, just a recognition that the claim should not be general but limited as one particular to you. Then I asked you to consider the implications of that.

I claimed that the experience of being Catholic and the experience of being Orthodox are not the same experience. This may be a general claim, but I do not think that is particular to me. In fact, I did not come up with this idea. Other people have made that observation (e.g., the EP). I just agree with it, because I see it as being essentially true.

That is one possibility. But you might consider others and defer that conclusion.

Did you have anything particular in mind?

Actually your reference included, in an intriguing way, people who used to be here.

Yes, some people who used to be here, and a few people who are still here but not currently participating in this conversation.

On the contrary, unlike real interactions, the tales told on fora are rarely open to fact checking.

What “fact checking” is to be done of a person’s personal experiences? How would that even work, actually? “No, I’m sorry, but I’ve uncovered that you did not actually go through what you’ve said you did”? I don’t think I’d want to submit anyone to that.

Moreover, the calibration of level of experience and expertise is vastly different: on the net it is often essentially nil.

I’m not sure what this means.

In real life the situation is different because we typically know much more about the background of the people that we are interacting with. This mutual awareness serves as a brake on speaking beyond ourselves in real life; on the net people all too often seem remarkably uninhibited to speak well beyond their experience and knowledge. (The group dynamics on fora often reinforce this unfortunate inhibition.)

I don’t know about that one way or another. What exactly are you talking about? Do you think people are lying or puffing themselves up? Do you think that I am doing that? I’m just confused as to how I should be responding to this, in light of the fact that I did write earlier that I am transition and that other people know much more than me, as they have the experience that I do not have in actually being Orthodox. What more do I have to say?

Even in the area of personal report, where it would seem that knowledge and experience must be sufficient, there are still problems in taking reports at face value: a notable number of thoughtful and knowledgeable people have very publicly bounced around here and there and back in a matter of a few years as there own perception of their own experience changes.

I fail to see the problem with this, so long as it is not done hastily. People ought not to be expected to stay in the same place, spiritually, to begin with. For some, that may involve making difficult decisions about where they are or where they should be. I am definitely not one to judge anyone in this regard.

Stick with you monk, he will speak to you from a rooted perspective with a full sense of responsibility.

I don’t plan on doing anything else.

I disagree with your divisive idea that it’s either X or Y and that Catholics see X while Orthodox see Y. You clearly see both; so do I, and if you look at the many threads on this matter, you will realize that pretty everyone, at least upon a moment of reflection, also sees this.

With regard to the particular situation I mentioned (which was just an example), it is exactly as I have presented it with regard to Latin Catholics. I know that because that’s exactly the apologetic line given to me in RCIA ~6 years ago, and I have heard it a gazillion times since then (give or take a few zillion). No doubt Catholics also see a great importance in Peter’s confession of faith, but their particular ecclesiastical outlook that has followed that particular interpretation of this passage (which is also found among the Fathers) has led this to be considered secondary to the idea that the “rock” was Peter himself. If this is not your Byzantine church’s interpretation, that is fine. There is likewise a diversity of opinions among the Fathers, but this does not mean that the “rock = Peter” interpretation is somehow NOT the Catholic position. So I don’t think this is divisive; I think it’s reality.

Enough to do what we are trying to do: advance theosis; avoiding being waylaid by, among other things, theological error.

I can’t for the life of me figure out how I’m supposed to answer this. I am not a good judge of my own progress or lack thereof. In general terms, I think that every word from the monks is helpful.

Is that not important?

Yes, of course dealing with Chalcedon is important. I just don’t know why what I quoted should be expected to do that.

Good, then let’s stop contending about it.

I’m not.

The answer is as simple as I suggested. If you are telling me that there has never been a need to combat Eucharistic heresy among the Copts, I am delighted. At the same time I am wary about such a response from EO’s.

Then I hope you can find one who will discuss this with you.

 

[dvdjs]

I claimed that the experience of being Catholic and the experience of being Orthodox are not the same experience. This may be a general claim, but I do not think that is particular to me. In fact, I did not come up with this idea. Other people have made that observation (e.g., the EP). I just agree with it, because I see it as being essentially true.

I cannot say that a given particular claim is wrong, neither can I say they are right; they may be dubious. The general claim , however, is false. Not true in essence. It’s probably best not good to believe false things.

W

hat “fact checking” is to be done of a person’s personal experiences? How would that even work, actually? “No, I’m sorry, but I’ve uncovered that you did not actually go through what you’ve said you did”? I don’t think I’d want to submit anyone to that.

Answered further on in my post.

I’m not sure what this means.

There is much misinformation on the net spouted by people who believe things that are not true.

I don’t know about that one way or another. What exactly are you talking about? Do you think people are lying or puffing themselves up? Do you think that I am doing that? I’m just confused as to how I should be responding to this, in light of the fact that I did write earlier that I am transition and that other people know much more than me, as they have the experience that I do not have in actually being Orthodox. What more do I have to say?

Be cautious about testimony, especially from unrooted people who may not know their own mind.

I fail to see the problem with this, so long as it is not done hastily. People ought not to be expected to stay in the same place, spiritually, to begin with. For some, that may involve making difficult decisions about where they are or where they should be. I am definitely not one to judge anyone in this regard.

Haste is a problem. But transplantation always carries risks. Some people have as many churches in their lives as the Samaritan women had husbands; the reality of the bond can be quite similar.

With regard to the particular situation I mentioned (which was just an example), it is exactly as I have presented it with regard to Latin Catholics. I know that because that’s exactly the apologetic line given to me in RCIA ~6 years ago, and I have heard it a gazillion times since then (give or take a few zillion). No doubt Catholics also see a great importance in Peter’s confession of faith, but their particular ecclesiastical outlook that has followed that particular interpretation of this passage (which is also found among the Fathers) has led this to be considered secondary to the idea that the “rock” was Peter himself. If this is not your Byzantine church’s interpretation, that is fine. There is likewise a diversity of opinions among the Fathers, but this does not mean that the “rock = Peter” interpretation is somehow NOT the Catholic position. So I don’t think this is divisive; I think it’s reality.

It is certainly divisive. I don’t expect everyone to plumb the depths of every point theological or ecclesiological. I don’t expect this are part of introductory catechism. But I do expect that people who want to express conviction about “the catholic position” to do more heavy lifting.

I can’t for the life of me figure out how I’m supposed to answer this. I am not a good judge of my own progress or lack thereof. In general terms, I think that every word from the monks is helpful.

Yes, of course dealing with Chalcedon is important. I just don’t know why what I quoted should be expected to do that.

Then don’t begrudge those who think it important that more needs to be said.

I’m not.

Really? Why do you bring it up?

Then I hope you can find one who will discuss this with you.
I am happy to watch the evolving discussion over at the Indiana List. It’s fascinating.