The Myth of Schism

[Mickey]

I claimed that the experience of being Catholic and the experience of being Orthodox are not the same experience.

There is no doubt about that.

 

[dzheremi]

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.

This is just ridiculousness. Everything that is not a strict matter of the historical record (e.g., when a given church united with Rome; whether or not a given church ever held a particular theological position, etc.) is a matter of perception, and even the interpretation of the historical record is a matter of perception. Quit pretending otherwise. I’m sorry you can’t tell the difference between your own opinion and objective fact, but they’re not the same thing, and behaving as though they are makes you seem like a silly ideologue.

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

Indeed. And likewise be careful about assuming who “knows their own mind” and who doesn’t.

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.

Good advice. If I do end up in the Orthodox church, I will have had three over an equal number of decades (assuming I become Orthodox within this decade). I don’t think that’s too bad, given that the trajectory has been from non-apostolic churches to apostolic ones, and that I didn’t even realize that there was such a difference until I became Catholic (thanks, RCC!). To continue with the marriage analogy: The first church was like a marriage arranged by my mother when I was baby (I didn’t have any choice); the second was like a marriage that I rushed into as a young man, simply excited at the idea of having found “the one” (I learned a lot and am grateful for it, but ultimately it didn’t work out); the third, if there is to be a third, I hope it will be built upon the kinds of lessons I learned through the second, but not hampered or dictated by them, as I’m just not the same person that I was then. The world is not so shiny and new, but hopefully the relationship will be that much stronger because of the maturity of the participants. Sure, it’s a bit of a May-December romance (she is 2,000 years old, after all!), but that can have it’s advantages…

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.

Ugh. Seriously? This is seriously your position? That somehow the Catholic church has NOT interpreted the person of Peter as “the Rock” and used that interpretation as evidence for certain positions? I think you’re closing your eyes to reality in that case, more for the sake of arguing than anything else (again, I only presented it as an example to another poster). I’m not interested in that.

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

I don’t. I brought it up as an example to another poster who wanted to know how we’re different.

Really? Why do you bring it up?

As an example to another poster.

 

[dcointin]

But surely the experience of being an Oriental Orthodox Christian is different than that of an Eastern Orthodox Christian as well, or being an American Eastern Orthodox Christian versus being a Greek one. Differing experiences are fine so long as we are united faith and love to our Lord.

 

[dzheremi]

I agree, D. My point is that everybody’s experience is different. It is silly to pretend otherwise. Within that overarching point is the particular point that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are not the same experience.

 

[Mickey]

To continue with the marriage analogy: The first church was like a marriage arranged by my mother when I was baby (I didn’t have any choice); the second was like a marriage that I rushed into as a young man, simply excited at the idea of having found “the one” (I learned a lot and am grateful for it, but ultimately it didn’t work out); the third, if there is to be a third, I hope it will be built upon the kinds of lessons I learned through the second, but not hampered or dictated by them, as I’m just not the same person that I was then.

I like that analogy. For me, the RCC was the arranged marriage. Eastern Catholicsm was the one I rushed into (but it taught me vast amounts and prepared me for my true love). And then of course, today there is the mature and true love of my final step in the journey to Holy Orthodoxy. But I understand that I cannot get complacent. My faith within Holy Orthodoxy will continue to deepen.

 

[dvdjs]

This is just ridiculousness. Everything that is not a strict matter of the historical record (e.g., when a given church united with Rome; whether or not a given church ever held a particular theological position, etc.) is a matter of perception, and even the interpretation of the historical record is a matter of perception. Quit pretending otherwise. I’m sorry you can’t tell the difference between your own opinion and objective fact, but they’re not the same thing, and behaving as though they are makes you seem like a silly ideologue

. Your response doesn’t seem to be connected to my point, which is simple. You may have case A, B, C, etc. that support your proposition. You may hypothesize that the proposition is true in general. However, when confronted with a counter example, you must accept that the proposition even if true in case A, B, C, … , is not true in general, and reject the hypothesis. And you should modify your expression of the proposition so that it is not general. This restriction avoids the implicit dismissal of the experience of all those whose experience is different than yours.

Indeed. And likewise be careful about assuming who “knows their own mind” and who doesn’t.

Since the testimony is not essential anyway, it;s probably save to doubt something that may be true than accept something that may be false.

Good advice. … To continue with the marriage analogy …

I may be old-fashioned, but I am uncomfortable with serial marriage.

Ugh. Seriously? This is seriously your position? That somehow the Catholic church has NOT interpreted the person of Peter as “the Rock” and used that interpretation as evidence for certain positions?.

I hold no such position and have not expressed such a position. I certainly have said nothing about evidence. What I have talked about is that fact that the two positions that you describe at not mutually exclusive: this is not an not either/or. And it is an injustice to both traditions to frame it that way. I made no comments about “evidence for certain positions”.

I think you’re closing your eyes to reality in that case, more for the sake of arguing than anything else …

My motivation for posting is not really an appropriate matter for discussion. But, in the interest of clarity, my aim is to try to get people not to make fallacious claims - over-generalizing, drawing the line, etc. that spread misinformation about the Catholic church. It seems to me btw that the mistaken claims are not germane to the points that you want to make; so why bother with them?

I don’t.

Fair enough, perhaps “begrudge” is too strong. What, then did you think of the noteworthy response:

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.

As an example to another poster.
This “example” is often brought up by many others and by you on a number of occasions. The meme is always the same, notwithstanding the fact that it is repeatedly pointed out that the matter is not about “how” or “explaining the Mystery”, and that the idea developed to combat heresy - the motivation for theological development and definition throughout the church. It really doesn’t reveal a thing about differing mindsets.

 

[Aramis]

I like that analogy. For me, the RCC was the arranged marriage. Eastern Catholicsm was the one I rushed into (but it taught me vast amounts and prepared me for my true love). And then of course, today there is the mature and true love of my final step in the journey to Holy Orthodoxy. But I understand that I cannot get complacent. My faith within Holy Orthodoxy will continue to deepen.

Continuing your analogy:
The RCC was your arranged marriage, about whom you still believe and spread jealous lies about. Then you married her closest sister, and applied the same lies as being about her as well.

 

[Mickey]

spread jealous lies about… and applied the same lies…

Wow! How absolutely false and vicious and judgemental of you to say. May God forgive you.

 

[dzheremi]

Your response doesn’t seem to be connected to my point, which is simple. You may have case A, B, C, etc. that support your proposition. You may hypothesize that the proposition is true in general. However, when confronted with a counter example, you must accept that the proposition even if true in case A, B, C, … , is not true in general, and reject the hypothesis. And you should modify your expression of the proposition so that it is not general.

No, I shouldn’t. That’s the entire point of a generalization in the first place: It is generally true, though there may be this or that case in which it is not true. Your personal experience is essentially of equal value to that of others, so it doesn’t so much destroy the generalization as provide a counterpoint to it (a different generalization, if you will). As I would expect it to, because (again) Catholicism and Orthodoxy embrace different mindsets. Thank you for proving my point by your continued insistence that I am wrong.

This restriction avoids the implicit dismissal of the experience of all those whose experience is different than yours.

And I have dismissed your experience how, exactly? I’ve written that it is your own, and just as valid as anyone else’s, but I refuse to take it as establishing some sort of objective standard, because that’s not what it does (that’s what I was getting at in my previous post). Neither does mine.

Since the testimony is not essential anyway, it;s probably save to doubt something that may be true than accept something that may be false.

Not when the point of contention that I have with you is that personal testimony cannot be falsified outside of particular concrete details (e.g., where they attended church, how long they were there, etc).

I may be old-fashioned, but I am uncomfortable with serial marriage.

Good. So stay in your marriage and strengthen it as best you can. I will go my own way, and both of us can be happy.

What I have talked about is that fact that the two positions that you describe at not mutually exclusive: this is not an not either/or. And it is an injustice to both traditions to frame it that way. I made no comments about “evidence for certain positions”.

Well to be honest, I don’t even understand why you seized upon this point, so…whatever. I’m just going to ignore it from now on, as we both agree that the Catholic church sees an importance in Peter’s confession of faith. What you don’t like (apparently) is my observation that Catholics claim that the “rock” in Mat. 16 is Peter himself. Take it up with your fellow Catholics, as they do indeed claim that.

But, in the interest of clarity, my aim is to try to get people not to make fallacious claims - over-generalizing, drawing the line, etc. that spread misinformation about the Catholic church

Then I suggest that you stop reading my posts if this is what you think I am doing. Heck, you can even tell other people to stop reading my posts, if that’s what you want to do. It wouldn’t bother me. The conversation was between me and JackQ anyway, not you, and he seemed to be relatively receptive to it and pleased by it. I think it accomplished what we both set out to accomplish (a friendly conversation) without your (name removed by moderator)ut.

It seems to me btw that the mistaken claims are not germane to the points that you want to make; so why bother with them?

Again, I brought up certain examples (specifying that that’s what they were, with reference to other people’s speeches, and using hedges like “for instance”) in order to help clarify to JackQ what I was referring to when I wrote a particular thing. The fact that you think that they are not germane or are mistaken claims or whatever is kind of a separate issue, because they still illustrate what I think is the truth (that Catholics and Orthodox are different).

Fair enough, perhaps “begrudge” is too strong. What, then did you think of the noteworthy response:

What difference does that make? The fact that the original poster disagreed shows the difference in mindset that I was trying to illustrate. What I think of their response doesn’t really matter.

This “example” is often brought up by many others and by you on a number of occasions. The meme is always the same, notwithstanding the fact that it is repeatedly pointed out that the matter is not about “how” or “explaining the Mystery”, and that the idea developed to combat heresy - the motivation for theological development and definition throughout the church. It really doesn’t reveal a thing about differing mindsets.

Yeah, actually it kinda does… I don’t know any way to explain it to you since you are determined to force through this idea that because Catholics see the matter differently this means that their view is what it’s really about, and everyone else is just flat out wrong. You must meet people where they are; not where you would like them to be. Simply repeating “but it’s NOT about that” doesn’t do anything to show HOW it’s not about that when that’s how the people you’re talking to perceive it to be. Again, our mindsets are simply too far apart to even reach an agreement of the substance of what we’re disagreeing about! That says more about the divide between the churches than any one particular point of disagreement ever could!

You have your “truth”, and I have mine. Frankly, I prefer mine. Good day.

 

[dvdjs]

No, I shouldn’t. That’s the entire point of a general

 

[hazcompat]

Jesus is the Truth.

peace

 

[dzheremi]

I’m not going to get into an argument over the meaning of certain words with you. I trust we both own dictionaries and can use them. I’m pretty much done with this conversation, as there’s very little more that I can say to make my point clear, which remains: Catholicism and Orthodoxy are different experiences. They just are. If they aren’t in your own experience, you’re probably not living up to the standard set by one or the other communion. Still, have whatever experiences you want, and tell others about them as freely as you wish. I honestly don’t care. My point was never to diminish your own experience in the first place.

 

[dvdjs]

Catholicism and Orthodoxy are different experiences. They just are. If they aren’t in your own experience, you’re probably not living up to the standard set by one or the other communion.

Aha. But it’s really just the other way around.

 

[dzheremi]

How can it be the other way around if I included both?

 

[JackQ]

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.

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

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

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.

Well, I’m sorry to see you go, and I think you’re making a mistake. Just one more point. You’ve obviously put a lot of time into studying the pertinent issues. How can it be that the way to truth is to become a well-read intellectual?

 

[dzheremi]

Well, I’m sorry to see you go, and I think you’re making a mistake.

I appreciate your kindness, Jack. Thank you.

Just one more point. You’ve obviously put a lot of time into studying the pertinent issues. How can it be that the way to truth is to become a well-read intellectual?

It’s interesting that you should look at it that way. Just a few hours ago a Coptic friend of mine contacted me about putting together a care package of sorts, as she knows I will be attending my first liturgy soon but also that the area that I am moving to has a very small Coptic community (they don’t have their own church, so they meet in an individual’s house), so she wants to make sure I have some of the basic things that come with life as a Coptic Christian, because who knows where/if I could get them where I’m moving. She asked me about what books I have that relate to the faith, so I told her about the four or five I have. Then she asked if I had read this or that book or pamphlet, and everything she mentioned I said no to, because I haven’t. It really hit me how I’ve barely even stuck a toe into the water yet, you know? So it seems the exact opposite to me. In fact, I imagine that I could spend the rest of my life reading about various forms of Christianity and how they relate to and differ from one another and still not really know all that much. Eventually you have to put down the books and pick a street, I guess.

 

[Hesychios]

Eventually you have to put down the books and pick a street, I guess.

I agree.

 

[Aramis]

Wow! How absolutely false and vicious and judgemental of you to say. May God forgive you.

You keep willfully misrepresenting Catholic teaching. THAT is the jealous lie; perhaps not of your invention, but definitely one you heard, believed, and then continue to spread.

 

[Mickey]

THAT is the jealous lie;

Holy Orthodoxy is the fulness of truth and I represent the faith as best I can. I am able to make some unique comparisons having been RC and EC prior to that. I harbor no jealousy, and I attempt to represent my faith truthfully. In fact, I am grateful that the RCC has led me to my ultimate path.

You believe that RC’ism is the fulness of truth and you attempt to represent that as best you can. I do not call you a “jealous liar.” Your insults are vindictive and immature. May God forgive you.

 

[Mickey]

there’s very little more that I can say to make my point clear, which remains: Catholicism and Orthodoxy are different experiences. They just are.

And your point is very clear and correct. There is no doubt that they are different experiences in so many ways. I will pray for you as you continue your journey.