The Various Orthodox Churches

[Wandile]

Your not making sense.

Sounds like post-modernism to me, whereby objective truth is simply an illusion. Everyone has dispositions, but if these dispositions necessitate a warped outcome, then it is impossible to arrive at an objective truth. Now someone of your position might claim that it comes close to the objective truth. However, logically speaking such a position necessitates having knowledge of the full objective truth for comparison to the so-called “biased truth.” Otherwise, how could one say that it is close to the objective truth? But then, how can one ever come to know the objective truth in order to compare to the “biased truth”? The rational simply doesn’t hold up.

Listen, I’m not denying that people have personal interests that could affect the outcome of their opinions or research. What I’m denying is that these personal interests necessarily make a work biased. Under your framework, for example, a man’s opinion on abortion, no matter how well reasoned it might be, is already impugned to some degree by virtue of him being a man and not a woman. The logic is very tribal and facile. Additionally, you’re making a rod for your own beating by pro-choicers, etc.

In the end, if you want to declare a work biased, then you must point specifically to some portion of Siecienski’s book where his religious affiliation quite clearly leads to a warped or erroneous conclusion. Otherwise, you have no case.

No the burden of proof is on you to show it neutral as you made that claim.

Secondly my statement isn’t post-modernism… It actually affirms objective truth. But this is not the philosophy forum so I will relent on expanding my statements any further.

All I will say is that evidence is interpreted by humans. Humans naturally have a bias and can’t be seperated from this. It doesn’t mean we can’t arrive at truth as some biases are truthful. No book or encyclopedia is neutral. That is just a fact as no books were written by robots. They were written by men with various dispositions.

Bias does not equal no truth. It just equals bias. Truth is objective. How we arrive at truth is subjective. This is very different to saying truth is relative/subjective. That is post-modernism.

To say we can’t arrive at objective truth due to warped outcomes due to subjectivity is a clear indication of a lack of clear understanding of how truth exists and how it relates to the person.

I can want to prove a shirt is blue because believe it to be blue so I form an argument to show it to be blue using evidence and reason (subjective). The shirt happens to be blue (objective). My whole argument will be based on a predisposition (me believing the shirt is blue) which makes it biased but clearly it being biased doesn’t take away from the truth of my argument that the shirt to be blue.

This is just one example of subjectivity. Most instances aren’t as blatant and are unintentional (like when attempting to write a scholarly book on a topic)

 

[Rohzek]

He has no authority. The mere right of hearing appeals and a few subtle things he has constituted no real authority.

That sort of authority actually means a lot in Orthodoxy.

More importantly the primacy itself is devoid of authority. The supposed minor proven ages of the EP are granted not by virtue of his primacy because accordingly they can be taken away. So the primacy itself is devoid of authority in EO where are in Catholicism it entails authority. The issue (between the CC and EO) thus includes authority.

By this logic, the president of the USA doesn’t have authority because he derives it from the people.

 

[Rohzek]

No the burden of proof is on you to show it neutral as you made that claim.

You’ve made the claim on more than one occasion that you are a Catholic. I am skeptical of this. The burden of proof is on you to provide us with your baptismal certificate.

See, I can play games too.

 

[Wandile]

You’ve made the claim on more than one occasion that you are a Catholic. I am skeptical of this. The burden of proof is on you to provide us with your baptismal certificate.

See, I can play games too.

I can prove it. My baptismal certificate and confirmation certificate and register roll at Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Midrand South Africa in the Archdiocese of Pretoria whose Archbishop is William Slattery

Further evidence is my identification details in the Repubkic of South Arfrica.

But in you instance the reason why it is not necessary for me to prove my claim is because you present a work as neutral and edifying because of its neutrality. It being neutral is a huge reason why you revere this book and reference it to others. A neutrality which you take for granted. Me claiming to be Catholic hurts nobody. You claiming the book is neutral is a false representation that may make one trust more than they should, the contents in the book.

 

[Rohzek]

I can prove it. My baptismal certificate and confirmation certificate and register roll at Hoky Trinity Catholic Church in Midrand South Africa in the Archdiocese of Pretoria whose Archbishop is William Slattery

Pics or it didn’t happen. Also, I want you to prove that you are a human being. Otherwise your sacraments of baptism might be invalid.

But in you instance the reason why it is not necessary for me to prove my claim is because you present a work as neutral and edifying because of its neutrality. It being neutral is a huge reason why you revere this book and reference it to others. A neutrality which you take for granted. Me claiming to be Catholic hurts nobody. You claiming the book is neutral is a false representation that may make one trust more than they should, the contents in the book.

It’s a scholarly vetted and peer reviewed book, that has received positive reviews in both Catholic and Orthodox academic journals. Your insistence that it just another Orthodox biased book is just a ploy to keep people from reading it or taking it seriously. Additionally, you have yet to point out any flaws with the work.

You see, I provided this work in answer to thephilosopher’s links from ETWN and a Catholic apologist. I pointed out specifically some of its flaws, while also suggesting literature that was peer reviewed and well-received by both Catholics and Orthodox for a more neutral and realistic perspective. If you have problems with these claims, then provide examples from the book as to why they are false. Otherwise, do us a favor and quit wasting everyone’s time with your petty polemics.

 

[Wandile]

That sort of authority actually means a lot in Orthodoxy.

By this logic, the president of the USA doesn’t have authority because he derives it from the people.

Power to the people. That is the very essence of democracy. Properly his office doesn’t have authority. It only has the privelage to exercise the authority of the people on their behalf. That is what a vicar is. He is the vicar of the people. If he had authority he would be a king

 

[Wandile]

Pics or it didn’t happen. Also, I want you to prove that you are a human being. Otherwise your sacraments of baptism might be invalid.

What’s your email address?

 

[Rohzek]

What’s your email address?

lol

 

[ltwin]

Power to the people. That is the very essence of democracy. Properly his office doesn’t have authority. It only has the privelage to exercise the authority of the people on their behalf. That is what a vicar is. He is the vicar of the people. If he had authority he would be a king

Isn’t the pope the vicar of Christ? By your logic, he has no authority or else he is a king. In any case, Eastern Orthodox polity is not democratic, it is episcopal. Compare this to the Presbyterian Church which actually has a democratic form of government.

 

[Reuben_J]

It has mostly to do with chronology of history.

Ah, chronology of history. If only historians agree among themselves. In any case, history is often nuanced with the author’s favorite belief. Thus it may happen that two protagonists may pick up history books of their choice respectively and upon comparative scrutiny, they may not be exactly identical. Sorry for being skeptical.

Strictly speaking the EO issue with the papacy is not so much an authority issue than it is a theological issue. EO could feasibly agree to a pope so long as they form a constitution and create the said office. What EO dispute is the Catholic theological claim that the office of the papacy was divinely sanctioned by Christ.

The statement seems to me rather contradictory but maybe it is because I could misunderstand your context. In one place you said it was not so much a theological issue and then you proceeded to say that the papacy was divinely sanctioned.

In any case, this is one statement that I would be happily agreeing too, being a Catholic myself. The papacy was divinely sanctioned, using your word, because Christ is divine, my word.

 

[Reuben_J]

Isn’t the pope the vicar of Christ? By your logic, he has no authority or else he is a king. In any case, Eastern Orthodox polity is not democratic, it is episcopal. Compare this to the Presbyterian Church which actually has a democratic form of government.

I think you were making a correct statement. Contrary to popular belief, especially among non-Catholics, the Pope has no authority on his own except for the One whom he represents, Christ. In other word, his authority comes from Christ and he merely confirms, affirms and guards what Christ had commanded. In a nutshell.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

I think you were making a correct statement. Contrary to popular belief, especially among non-Catholics, the Pope has no authority on his own except for the One whom he represents, Christ. In other word, his authority comes from Christ and he merely confirms, affirms and guards what Christ had commanded. In a nutshell.

Except that he claims more than what the Messiah gave him

 

[Reuben_J]

Except that he claims more than what the Messiah gave him

Perhaps.

Like I waz trying to say, it depends on who is saying.

so the argument is theological, no?

 

[Tomdstone]

In one place you said it was not so much a theological issue and then you proceeded to say that the papacy was divinely sanctioned…

He said that the EO dispute that Catholic theological claim.

 

[kdbueno]

Orthodox churches are amiable, they are overhwelmingly achievers.

 

[Wandile]

Isn’t the pope the vicar of Christ? By your logic, he has no authority or else he is a king.

Unlike in the democratic world where people’s authority is never ceded from their hands; Christ gave the church actual authority. Since God is infinite in his essence, he can give off authority and lose none of his own. Just as he gives all things real life and loses no life in himself. The Church this has real immediate authority but God has Ultimate authority. The Pope Is the Vicar of Chirat because he acts in the place of Christ governing the church together with his brother bishops, with real authority given to him to them.

The church has real authority given to it by Christ. We believe it is inherent in the primacy. The EO believe it is not but rather has been granted to the one who holds first place via councils. Hence their understanding of primacy is actually devoid of authority in it as that authority is not divine. His privelages can be given and taken away

In any case, Eastern Orthodox polity is not democratic, it is episcopal. Compare this to the Presbyterian Church which actually has a democratic form of government.

Borther Rohzek made the comparison to a democracy so tell this to him

 

[Wandile]

lol

 

[adf417]

It has mostly to do with chronology of history. The EO and Catholic split happened much much later than the splits between EO/Catholics and OO or even the Nestorians and the EO/OO/Catholics. Due to the nature of the Filioque’s development, the Filioque never was a part of discussion with the OO, Nestorians, etc. because they went their own way long before it developed into an issue. So for them, just as much with the EO, they find it objectionable on much the same grounds.

Strictly speaking the EO issue with the papacy is not so much an authority issue than it is a theological issue. EO could feasibly agree to a pope so long as they form a constitution and create the said office. What EO dispute is the Catholic theological claim that the office of the papacy was divinely sanctioned by Christ.

Hi Rhozek and thank you for responding to my post but im not sure how this addresses what I was getting at.

Im assuming that everything everyone is arguing about could be completely resolved without anything Catholic. Maybe Im wrong here but if in fact the premises put forward aginst the Catholic church are in fact viable, shouldn’t we be able to see these fruits in action outside the Catholic church and these fruits be “complete unity” as what all sides are expecting when argueing with the Catholic church? If unity equals “X” shouldn’t we see this “X” outside of the Catholic church? Do you believe this “X” exists less the Catholic church?

As a matter of fact, Im think that what I am asking about should never even include a rebuttal or (name removed by moderator)ut from me or any other Catholic, at least not from a how-to stand point. Is it not reasonable for me to say “just show us how this works and then maybe we can see where we are wrong”?

I am sorry for not laying this out more clearly. Im not good at clearly making my point. Maybe someone else would like to do a better job at this and just let me read along…

Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

Hi Rhozek and thank you for responding to my post but im not sure how this addresses what I was getting at.

Im assuming that everything everyone is arguing about could be completely resolved without anything Catholic. Maybe Im wrong here but if in fact the premises put forward aginst the Catholic church are in fact viable, shouldn’t we be able to see these fruits in action outside the Catholic church and these fruits be “complete unity” as what all sides are expecting when argueing with the Catholic church? If unity equals “X” shouldn’t we see this “X” outside of the Catholic church? Do you believe this “X” exists less the Catholic church?

As a matter of fact, Im think that what I am asking about should never even include a rebuttal or (name removed by moderator)ut from me or any other Catholic, at least not from a how-to stand point. Is it not reasonable for me to say “just show us how this works and then maybe we can see where we are wrong”?

I am sorry for not laying this out more clearly. Im not good at clearly making my point. Maybe someone else would like to do a better job at this and just let me read along…

Peace!!!

Hello? … Anybody?

 

[Rohzek]

Hello? … Anybody?

As I understand it, you’re asking why non-Catholics who are not Protestant are not united together as one so as to show why Catholicism is wrong. As I said before, it has to do with history. People split off at different times. The Eastern Orthodox and Catholic split occurred long after most of Christian Syria and Christian Egypt split. So there are other divisions based upon other theological considerations among those who are opposed to Catholicism. That’s the short version at least.

Both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox believe unity is displayed in the faith of the church and is not embodied in a head who pronounces what is and what isn’t the faith. Obviously both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox believe that their respective faiths display their unity across national and ethnic boundaries. That’s roughly it.