Toll-House Doctrine?

[Isa_Almisry]

Chris, no offense, but much of what you have said is the epitome of anti-Catholicism. The Truth is not what is in view, but rather who is speaking. If it is Catholic, it MUST be bad, must be corrupt, confused, anti-patristic, etc. Your quotes are the epitomy of someone with blinders on so tight that it affects rational and fair and genuine Christian quest for truth. Your list is a bunch of lies, false dichotomies, misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and ignorance of the facts.

And the anti-Catholic tool belt always holds certain buzz words designed to “clearly” distinguish pure Orthodoxy with Latin filth. Fortunately, these buzz phrases not only do not work on any semi-informed Catholic, but they are a bad reflection on those issuing such statements, indicating they don’t know what Catholicism really teaches, only the God given “intuition” that whatever Catholicism teaches must be wrong.

When all else fails just toss out, “scholasticism”, “legalism”, “systematic”, etc and dont forget to “contrast” this with “feet of the fathers,” “lovers of silence,” “ascetisim” etc and you “win”! :dancing:

Welcome to Catholicism, specifically the doctrine of Original Sin.

In other words, Truth is not absolute but relative. If it is an EO speaking naturally they should be at least given the benefit of the doubt, if it is Catholic speaking the same things that just wont fly.

So lets lift language from the Koran and Book of Mormon and insert it into our Confession of faith…that’s OK?..that’s the “Orthodox Way” of doing business???

A spade is a spade.

So heresy is tolerable as long as it is used in certain circumstances? The unbroken Apostolic testimony to the world is sometimes has to stoop down to embracing heresy to survive?

Fuerza, you nailed it. The answer here is in one word: anti-Catholicism. It is the irrational belief, founded upon a long tradition of animocity, that teaches the adherent that when it comes to Catholicism fairness, logic, etc can be tossed out the window when it comes time for “evaluation.” Anti-Catholicism is one of the hardest obstacles us Catholics face, it puts blinders on people that, at times, seems only the Holy Ghost can lift.

So as long as one heresy is not as bad as another it can be employed as a “solution”…as long as it isnt permanent?

Answering a fool in is folly is, at times, an acceptable defense of truth, but I dare say never a permanent solution.

It is rather interesting how we are told at length how narrowly defined the Vatican’s infallibility is, yet much is made here about statements that no Orthodox ever claimed were infallible.

 

[chrisb]

Chris, no offense, but much of what you have said is the epitome of anti-Catholicism. The Truth is not what is in view, but rather who is speaking. If it is Catholic, it MUST be bad, must be corrupt, confused, anti-patristic, etc. Your quotes are the epitomy of someone with blinders on so tight that it affects rational and fair and genuine Christian quest for truth. Your list is a bunch of lies, false dichotomies, misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and ignorance of the facts.

And the anti-Catholic tool belt always holds certain buzz words designed to “clearly” distinguish pure Orthodoxy with Latin filth. Fortunately, these buzz phrases not only do not work on any semi-informed Catholic, but they are a bad reflection on those issuing such statements, indicating they don’t know what Catholicism really teaches, only the God given “intuition” that whatever Catholicism teaches must be wrong.

When all else fails just toss out, “scholasticism”, “legalism”, “systematic”, etc and dont forget to “contrast” this with “feet of the fathers,” “lovers of silence,” “ascetisim” etc and you “win”! :dancing:

No offense taken Catholic Dude but I don’t believe ‘anyone’ knows what Roman Catholicism teaches anymore. Ecumenism has completely obscured any clarity Roman Catholicism had when they ripped the Holy Altars out of their Churches Post-Vatican II. Lord have Mercy.

Am I mad at Roman Catholicism? I sure am mad and I’ll be happier once the Western Church awakens from the delusion of Infallibility and returns to Holy Orthodoxy. Amen.

The problem is you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t pretend that 1000 years of straying can be overcome with platitudes. Anyone who’s read This is The Faith know full well that such is not Holy Orthodoxy. The radical changes in the Roman Catholic Church of Post-Vatican II has far more in common with liberal theology (i.e. liberal Anglicanism and Lutheranism) than it has with Holy Orthodoxy and the Divine Liturgy.

What has transpired in the West is more like a second Iconoclasm than anything else.

I’m not happy about the state of Roman Catholicism. I lament, I weep. It saddens me to no end but I have no desire to pretend that such things are the ‘fruit’ of many years of error and arrogance on the part of many. I don’t say ‘all’ and for those who are devout and God-Fearing Roman Catholics who are pained by the state of the Church I weep with them. Lord have Mercy. There is no Triumphalism in my demeanor here. I am saddened but it all and I pray for the Orthodox Christians and Parishes to ‘hold to the Faith of the Fathers’ by all means. Amen. So that such will not befall us in turn. Lord have Mercy.

 

[Fuerza]

When pointing out the lesser of two evils that are already outside the Church. Ordinarily you say “a pox on both your houses,” but when the two houses have occupied your house, that not a luxury you have.

Inside the Church, yes. Outside, well, they’re outside the Church.

When another Patriarch has denied prayers for the dead and promoted Presdestination and Total Depravity. Dositheos was specifically dealing with the Calvinist educated EP Cyril Lukaris.

some here, given what has happened to Limbo, might look into that log.

Isa,

I’m afraid that this still does not make any sense to me. If something is wrong, then it’s wrong. To use “heresy” to counteract another heresy is at best dishonest and at worst scandal. We are commanded to make disciples of all nations, not to lie to those who disagree with us in order to get them to go away. Why could Dositheos not use sound Orthodox teaching to overcome this, rather than resorting to “heretical Latin innovations”?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa,

I’m afraid that this still does not make any sense to me. If something is wrong, then it’s wrong. To use “heresy” to counteract another heresy is at best dishonest and at worst scandal. We are commanded to make disciples of all nations, not to lie to those who disagree with us in order to get them to go away. Why could Dositheos not use sound Orthodox teaching to overcome this, rather than resorting to “heretical Latin innovations”?

First things first: it never ceases to amaze me how Dosittheos’ Confession is treated as an infallible ex cathedra pronouncement, when, as ALL Orthodox, including Dositheos and all the Fathers at the Synod of Jerusalem (actually, Bethlehem) would agree that a) the belief of infallible ex cathedra statements is heresy (isn’t Vatican I one of the problems? b) no one, including Dositheos and the Fathers, took the Confession to be an infallible statement (Dositheos revised his statements later, once they were taken out of context) c) no one, as far as I can tell, took the Synod as an Ecumenical Council.

We are told, time and time again, how NARROW papal infallibility is (though I’ve yet to see a coherent explanation of that “assent” required by Lumen Gentium et alia to the pope of Rome even when he doesn’t speak ex cathedra), yet claims are advanced for Dositheos’ Confession which he, nor any Orthodox, ever have or ever would advance for it.

At the very worst, Dositheos is guilty of miswording of sound Orthodox doctrine. The Protestants were, and are, your problem. We don’t have a problem with denial of the Real Presence, numbering of sacraments, the hierachical nature of the Church, the priesthood, predestination, solo fidei, solo scriptura, etc. etc., etc. these are chickens that came home to roost at Rome, from applying Aristoleanism to the mystery of the Eucharist, overcategorizing grace, clericalism, etc.

Why not “sound Orthodox teaching?” Because these were not Orthodox problems.

During the Western Captivity of the Church your polemics pro and con filtered in to us, “like a plague from without” as the Patriarchs would word it. No Orthodox were penning these, but they were directed at the Orthodox as Jesuit and Calvinist looked for allies in their argument with the other. We had no dog in that fight, but were being dragged itnto.it. Now all those nice pamphlets and tracts being spread by the Jesuits and Calvinists were not written by Orthodox, they were giving an Orthodox veneer to what they were really teaching, Trent or Calvin. And this is what Dositheos was addressing. Dositheos was not addressing either of you: he was addressing the Faithful who were (or should have been) in agreement with him.

Case in point, on confession/penance, the term for “satisfaction” had to be invented even to follow the arguements you and your Protestant siblings were arguing about. Again, not a problem we were having. (btw we did have an indulgence problem, but since we didn’t have a Tezle, we didn’t have a Martin Luther either, and it was solved with no Reformation).

The problem of course was the whole problem with the Western Captivity: when the Orthodox went to those seminaries they didn’t learn Orthdoxo theology, they learned Reformed or Latin theology, and it showed even when what they were teaching was 100% Orthodox. Case in point, the Synod of Jerusalem adopted the Confession/Catechism of St. Peter Movila, but the edition approved at the Synod of Iasi (Jassy), which edited out Jesuit excesses (Peter protested, but the Church had spoken).

Now of course the Captivity is over: the phronema has reasserted itself and we have sound Orthodox teaching by Orthodox for Orthodox in Orthodox wording (although his All Holiness Bartholomew and Met. John Z. might get on board with this). So now a lot of those prior wordings are again alien, a problem as the West liked its terminology being used by the Orthodox, whether that did violence to Orthodox teaching (as if the West looked that deeply into it after it got the “statement” it wanted, a la Florence).

Case in point: as the Calvinists denied confession and prayers for the dead, siding with Trent on these was easy, deceptively so. Because the Orthodox never saw a need to go into the hows of it. The Church has always prayed for those fallen asleep and trusted that it had a part in the salvific mission of the Church. Rome wasn’t satisfied with this and had to explain it with all these indulgences, grades of purgatory, etc., which Calvin rightly rejected, but threw out the baby too. As Toll Houses (the OP) never made it to dogma, we never produced, nor had to deal with, a Calvin. Your Calvin was enough.

So take Dositheos off the cathedra. He didn’t speak from it, and we never put him there.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

All of this is exactly what I said in my post where I cited “On the Incarnation”, and it is the Latin teaching on the matter.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

I just read the first chapter of “On the Incarnation”. You’re right; it definitely isn’t the Eastern view of Original Sin. I think I understand the Latin view now after reading it. We all have a natural tendency toward non-existence, since we are created from non-existence. God is existence, as well as the epitome of Goodness, Life, and Incorruption. Therefore, this non-existence to which we tend is inherently the opposite, that is, evil, mortal, and corruptible. Only through participation in the Grace of God are those tendencies quelled. By sinning, Adam was primarily rejecting Grace, and therefore fell subject to his natural tendencies.

This is contrasted by the Eastern view which says man is neither mortal nor immortal by nature, but simply has the potential to be either. Which we became depended on our acceptance or rejection of Grace. When Adam sinned, he was primary introducing to himself a contagion of sinfulness, characterised by distrust, pride, and lust. Naturally, such an infection breeds more sin, and creates a general tendency of sinfulness. This tendency naturally manifested itself spiritually and physically as corruption and mortality. Also, it impeded our ability to participate fully in the Grace of God, making it impossible to, by natural means, embrace immortality. This impediment does not stem from our nature like in the Latin tradition. Rather, a good analogy would be Saint Paul’s characterisation of us as athletes running a race. We were meant to be able to freely run this race, which is analogous to theosis. However, when the contagion of sinfulness entered us, we became unable to complete this race. It would be incorrect to say an athlete who can’t perform at his finest does so because his nature was changed. His nature is as it always was. The contagion that impedes him is not integral to his being, but a foreign element that has been introduced into his character. Christ became incarnate to supernaturally remove this foreign contagion from us, so that we would be able to act to the full potential of our nature, and freely participate in the fullness of his Grace, thus embracing immortality. Prior to this healing, we certainly could participate in Grace, but only in a limited and partial way. In other words, we were like the sick runner who could still run, but was unable to complete the full length of the race.

I hope I got that right, because I feel ecstatic to have that click in my mind. Like an epiphany!

 

[Ghosty]

Therefore, this non-existence to which we tend is inherently the opposite, that is, evil, mortal, and corruptible.

This is the only portion of your post I would address. In Latin tradition it’s not the basic nature of humans to be evil per se, but rather that our basic nature without Grace makes us fall short of what we should be doing by design.

Again, to use the car analogy, a perfectly designed car with no flaws still won’t run properly without oil or gasoline. It’s not broken, it’s not a bad car, it just won’t work as designed. Human nature is kind of like that car, except you have the additional problem of “breaking down”, like a car forced to drive with low oil with burn up the engine, and the engine won’t work properly. When we’re running with just our basic nature, we begin to fall apart; it may start as just not having Grace, but as time goes on we burn ourselves out more and more with sin. St. Athanasius addresses this when he says in the first chapter:

When this happened, men began to die, and corruption ran riot among them and held sway over them to an even more than natural degree, because it was the penalty of which God had forewarned them for transgressing the commandment. Indeed, they had in their sinning surpassed all limits; for, having invented wickedness in the beginning and so involved themselves in death and corruption, they had gone on gradually from bad to worse, not stopping at any one kind of evil, but continually, as with insatiable appetite, devising new kinds of sins.

We put ourselves, both collectively, in the abstract sense, and personally, on a downward spiral of self-destruction. God didn’t make us to do this, it’s not “natural” for humans to be so thoroughly corrupt, but it is a natural consequence for turning away from God in the first place (since God gave us free will, we could walk with Him in Grace, or against Him without His Divine Life in us). Once we turned to sin, we got our ball rolling downward faster and faster. In that sense it is like a sickness, but it’s one born from turning away Grace, like the body collapsing without the proper vitimins and minerals.

God made us to live off of the Bread of Life spiritually, just like he made us to live off of physical bread for our physical health. When we turn down food, our bodies starve and we get even sicker as our immune system collapses, and likewise with our spiritual food. So it’s not that our underlying God-given nature is bad (nothing God makes is bad), but rather that we put it to bad use and began destroying ourselves.

This may seem like nitpicky details, but it’s actually very critical to understanding the Latin tradition. The major break with the original Protestants, theologically speaking, was that the Latins believed that human nature was fundamentally good, even without Grace, though it was collapsing into itself in corruption and there was nothing it could do to stop it without Grace, while the Protestants believed that human nature without God is actually totally corrupt by nature (often called total depravity). Latins believed that we can do good things without Grace, but they aren’t supernaturally good, aren’t geared perfectly towards and with God, but that also we tend to fail in such things more often than not, and that the more we sin the more we corrupt ourselves and find it hard to do good.

So long as we exist and can act, however, we have goodness, since existence is from God, and is good (as St. Athanasius says). Even Satan is good in this respect, though he’s taken all of his natural gifts and immortality and turned it towards evil and corruption.

Keep up the studies! Learning about the different Apostolic traditions is very fulfilling indeed.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Fuerza]

First things first: it never ceases to amaze me how Dosittheos’ Confession is treated as an infallible ex cathedra pronouncement, when, as ALL Orthodox, including Dositheos and all the Fathers at the Synod of Jerusalem (actually, Bethlehem) would agree that a) the belief of infallible ex cathedra statements is heresy (isn’t Vatican I one of the problems? b) no one, including Dositheos and the Fathers, took the Confession to be an infallible statement (Dositheos revised his statements later, once they were taken out of context) c) no one, as far as I can tell, took the Synod as an Ecumenical Council.

We are told, time and time again, how NARROW papal infallibility is (though I’ve yet to see a coherent explanation of that “assent” required by Lumen Gentium et alia to the pope of Rome even when he doesn’t speak ex cathedra), yet claims are advanced for Dositheos’ Confession which he, nor any Orthodox, ever have or ever would advance for it.

At the very worst, Dositheos is guilty of miswording of sound Orthodox doctrine. The Protestants were, and are, your problem. We don’t have a problem with denial of the Real Presence, numbering of sacraments, the hierachical nature of the Church, the priesthood, predestination, solo fidei, solo scriptura, etc. etc., etc. these are chickens that came home to roost at Rome, from applying Aristoleanism to the mystery of the Eucharist, overcategorizing grace, clericalism, etc.

Why not “sound Orthodox teaching?” Because these were not Orthodox problems.

During the Western Captivity of the Church your polemics pro and con filtered in to us, “like a plague from without” as the Patriarchs would word it. No Orthodox were penning these, but they were directed at the Orthodox as Jesuit and Calvinist looked for allies in their argument with the other. We had no dog in that fight, but were being dragged itnto.it. Now all those nice pamphlets and tracts being spread by the Jesuits and Calvinists were not written by Orthodox, they were giving an Orthodox veneer to what they were really teaching, Trent or Calvin. And this is what Dositheos was addressing. Dositheos was not addressing either of you: he was addressing the Faithful who were (or should have been) in agreement with him.

Case in point, on confession/penance, the term for “satisfaction” had to be invented even to follow the arguements you and your Protestant siblings were arguing about. Again, not a problem we were having. (btw we did have an indulgence problem, but since we didn’t have a Tezle, we didn’t have a Martin Luther either, and it was solved with no Reformation).

The problem of course was the whole problem with the Western Captivity: when the Orthodox went to those seminaries they didn’t learn Orthdoxo theology, they learned Reformed or Latin theology, and it showed even when what they were teaching was 100% Orthodox. Case in point, the Synod of Jerusalem adopted the Confession/Catechism of St. Peter Movila, but the edition approved at the Synod of Iasi (Jassy), which edited out Jesuit excesses (Peter protested, but the Church had spoken).

Now of course the Captivity is over: the phronema has reasserted itself and we have sound Orthodox teaching by Orthodox for Orthodox in Orthodox wording (although his All Holiness Bartholomew and Met. John Z. might get on board with this). So now a lot of those prior wordings are again alien, a problem as the West liked its terminology being used by the Orthodox, whether that did violence to Orthodox teaching (as if the West looked that deeply into it after it got the “statement” it wanted, a la Florence).

Case in point: as the Calvinists denied confession and prayers for the dead, siding with Trent on these was easy, deceptively so. Because the Orthodox never saw a need to go into the hows of it. The Church has always prayed for those fallen asleep and trusted that it had a part in the salvific mission of the Church. Rome wasn’t satisfied with this and had to explain it with all these indulgences, grades of purgatory, etc., which Calvin rightly rejected, but threw out the baby too. As Toll Houses (the OP) never made it to dogma, we never produced, nor had to deal with, a Calvin. Your Calvin was enough.

So take Dositheos off the cathedra. He didn’t speak from it, and we never put him there.

No one is saying that Dositheos was speaking ex-cathedra. We just find it confusing that we are called heretics for believing more or less what he stated, but that he was never condemned for it. In addition, Orthodox posters on this very board have stated that the basic Latin statements concerning purgatory (that there is a transitional state which some souls must undergo on the way to heaven, and that prayers are beneficial for these souls) are not heretical. So why are we still called heretics for this?

The premise of the argument that I was principally addressing is your contention that it is acceptable to combat heresy by promoting another heresy. If we lie to those with heretical beliefs about what is acceptable, how are they ever supposed to learn the truth? Such behavior is irresponsible and shows a lack of concern for the salvation of others.

Also, it’s time to stop referring protestants as a “Catholic problem”. They are separated from us and we have no control over what they believe. I hear over and over again how nothing on the scale of protestantism has ever happened in Orthodoxy? Is not Catholicism, according to your view, a heresy which separated itelf from the Orthodox Church? If you’re going to blame us for protestantism, you must also blame yourselves for Catholicism.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Ghosty,

I just read the first chapter of “On the Incarnation”. You’re right; it definitely isn’t the Eastern view of Original Sin. I think I understand the Latin view now after reading it. We all have a natural tendency toward non-existence, since we are created from non-existence. God is existence, as well as the epitome of Goodness, Life, and Incorruption. Therefore, this non-existence to which we tend is inherently the opposite, that is, evil, mortal, and corruptible. Only through participation in the Grace of God are those tendencies quelled. By sinning, Adam was primarily rejecting Grace, and therefore fell subject to his natural tendencies.

This is contrasted by the Eastern view which says man is neither mortal nor immortal by nature, but simply has the potential to be either.

How is that contrasted with the Eastern view? As creature we tend to non-existence, but, being created in the image and likeness of God, we are made for immortality. Missing the mark (literal definition of sin) accuates the fomer, receiving grace the latter. Sin is a being trying not to be.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

How is that contrasted with the Eastern view? As creature we tend to non-existence, but, being created in the image and likeness of God, we are made for immortality. Missing the mark (literal definition of sin) accuates the fomer, receiving grace the latter. Sin is a being trying not to be.

Because it, like the Latin view, emphasises the loss of Grace as the primary consequence of Adam’s sin. Death and sinful inclination are seen as secondary consequences due to lack of Grace. Every account of the Eastern view I have read emphasises death and the contagion of sinful inclination as the primary consequence, while the impediment to participating fully in Grace is seen as a secondary consequence caused by the contagion of sin. It’s not the most noticeable difference, but it’s a difference nonetheless.

 

[Mickey]

If you’re going to blame us for protestantism, you must also blame yourselves for Catholicism.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Fuerza,

Also, it’s time to stop referring protestants as a “Catholic problem”. They are separated from us and we have no control over what they believe. I hear over and over again how nothing on the scale of protestantism has ever happened in Orthodoxy? Is not Catholicism, according to your view, a heresy which separated itelf from the Orthodox Church? If you’re going to blame us for protestantism, you must also blame yourselves for Catholicism.

That is a GREAT observation!!! The non-Catholic polemic is so often based on inconsistent/hypocritical arguments.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

The non-Catholic polemic is so often based on inconsistent/hypocritical arguments.

This is brilliant–criticizing polemics with polemics!

 

[mardukm]

This is brilliant–criticizing polemics with polemics!

Pointing out inconsistency/hypocrisy is polemics? I guess we define “polemics” differently. To me, polemics are unfounded and invalid arguments. I am thinking you are defining polemics simply as argumentation which causes bad feelings (correct me if I’m wrong).

According to your definition, pointing out inconsistency/hypocrisy would be engaging in polemics. According to my understanding, pointing out inconsistency/hypocrisy is simply a good exercise of our God-given logic for the defense of the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints. By pointing it out, as Jesus had done, apologists hope to move people’s consciences to right understanding, even though the Truth may hurt or initially cause bad feelings.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

To me, polemics are unfounded and invalid arguments.

Exactly! And your broad strokes of accusations of hypocrisy fits the bill.

According to your definition, pointing out inconsistency/hypocrisy would be engaging in polemics.

I think that your generalized insults can be a part of polemics.

According to my understanding, pointing out inconsistency/hypocrisy is simply a good exercise

If that makes you feel good—go for it.

the Truth may hurt

Agreed.

 

[mardukm]

Exactly! And your broad strokes of accusations of hypocrisy fits the bill.

Really? Did I say EO apologetics are hypocritical? No. I said non-Catholic POLEMICS are often inconsistent/hypocritical. I know you have been around here long enough to know that I distinguish between EO apologetics (arguments EO have in defense of their beliefs) and EO anti-Catholic polemics (unfounded arguments EO have against the Catholic Church). And I’ve always asserted that I would not have such a problem with EO if they stuck to defending their own Faith (which they know a lot about), rather then attacking the Catholic Faith (which they know little about - judging from ALL the polemics that have gone on here).

Just because I attack EO anti-Catholic POLEMICS, you think I’m attacking the EOC? Are you saying that you support unfounded accusations against the Catholic Church? I don’t think you do, but the Mickey I used to know would not jump to conclusions.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Really? Did I say EO apologetics are hypocritical? No. I said non-Catholic POLEMICS are often inconsistent/hypocritical.

My apologies. Most people around here consider the EO to be non-Catholic. I did not know that you felt differently–you did not clarify.

Polemics deal with controversial arguments refuting specific opinions or doctrines. Polemics are not always bad–are they?

EO anti-Catholic polemics (unfounded arguments EO have against the Catholic Church).

Which arguments might they be?

And I’ve always asserted that I would not have such a problem with EO if they stuck to defending their own Faith (which they know a lot about), rather then attacking the Catholic Faith

I have seen many clear and convincing arguments from educated EO defending their faith **AND **pointing out Latin/Eastern Catholic errors.

Just because I attack EO anti-Catholic POLEMICS, you think I’m attacking the EOC?

Sometimes, (not always), you attack what you perceive to be anti-Catholic polemics when sometimes, (not always), they are not anti-Catholic polemics.

Are you saying that you support unfounded accusations against the Catholic Church?

No. I am asking what you perceive to be unfounded accusations against the Latin/Eastern Catholic Church.

the Mickey I used to know would not jump to conclusions.

The marduk I used to know did not jump to conclusions either.

But I must add: you are a very fine debater. You would match up well in a debate with Mr James White. He is also a very fine debater.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

My apologies. Most people around here consider the EO to be non-Catholic. I did not know that you felt differently–you did not clarify.

I don’t want you to misunderstand my intention. I did not write what I wrote to mean that EO are Catholic. I wrote what I wrote to distinguish between apologetics and polemics. (To be clear, I don’t mind the EO claiming they are Catholic. I make the distinction for the sake of those who might be confused between the formal names of our Churches, for in fact, the Eastern Orthodox Church is a different Church from what is commonly identified as the Catholic Church)

Polemics deal with controversial arguments refuting specific opinions or doctrines. Polemics are not always bad–are they?

There is a difference between defending the faith (apologetics) and arguing for the sake of controversy (polemics). I believe polemics are always bad. It does not promote understanding, but specifically promotes contention, which St. Paul charges us not to do. As I stated, I understand “polemic” to refer to unfounded and invalid rhetoric, for it is only these that lead to contention with no attempt at understanding.

Which arguments might they be?

Well, as far as this thread is concerned, someone claimed that the Catholic CHURCH is the cause of or could not prevent Protestantism. That is polemic. It has no basis in fact. The facts are that while it is understood that the Protestant reformation was initiated by an abuse of indulgences, these abuses were a result of individual clerics who DISOBEYED prior CHURCH ordinances against the selling of indulgences. You can’t blame the CHURCH for that. AND you can’t blame the Church for the atmosphere of intellectual freedom in the West that fomented all the varied heresies of the Protestants. It is just as valid as claiming that EO Church is the cause of or could not prevent the Schism with the Western Church, or that the EO is the cause of all the heresies that arose from the East - which is not valid at all. That is where the charge of inconsistency/hypocrisy comes in.

For the record, you are welcome to interject in any of the threads in which I participate wherein I point out EO polemics to show me where it is not polemic - i’e., unfounded and invalid.

I have seen many clear and convincing arguments from educated EO defending their faith **AND **pointing out Latin/Eastern Catholic errors.

I haven’t seen any convincing arguments that the Latin/Eastern Catholics have any errors. What I have seen are weak or no attempts at understanding, attempts to impose the Eastern view on all Christians as if that was the only valid Tradition, and/or miconceptions of Latin/Eastern Catholic teachings. But like I said, you are welcome to participate in any of the threads in which I participate wherein I demonstrate these elements in EO polemics.

Sometimes, (not always), you attack what you perceive to be anti-Catholic polemics when sometimes, (not always), they are not anti-Catholic polemics.

Such as?

No. I am asking what you perceive to be unfounded accusations against the Latin/Eastern Catholic Church.

I think I’ve addressed them well enough in other threads without having to make a list here. Please participate in those threads so I can know your own opinions.

The marduk I used to know did not jump to conclusions either.

I haven’t jumped to any conclusions. I always distinguish between polemics and apologetics, and I always give my reasons when I combat polemics - i.e. unfounded and invalid argumentation.

But I must add: you are a very fine debater. You would match up well in a debate with Mr James White. He is also a very fine debater.

Thanks, but I’ve had my share of debates with Protestants when I was a Coptic Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome. My focus now is on healing the breach between the apostolic Churches by exposing and refuting baseless and invalid charges against the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

I did not write what I wrote to mean that EO are Catholic.

I see.

I believe polemics are always bad. It does not promote understanding, but specifically promotes contention, which St. Paul charges us not to do. As I stated, I understand “polemic” to refer to unfounded and invalid rhetoric, for it is only these that lead to contention with no attempt at understanding.

Hmmm. Not to sound contentious–but I think I disagree. I think a civil polemical dialogue can sometimes reveal real error in specific dogma.

Well, as far as this thread is concerned, someone claimed that the Catholic CHURCH is the cause of or could not prevent Protestantism. That is polemic.

But the reformation DID happen.

You can’t blame the CHURCH for that.

Did the Roman Catholic Church attempt to stop these individual abuses?

That is where the charge of inconsistency/hypocrisy comes in.

Who are you calling a hypocrit?

For the record, you are welcome to interject in any of the threads in which I participate wherein I point out EO polemics to show me where it is not polemic - i’e., unfounded and invalid.

Thank you Mark. But the endless and circular insults that are hurled on all sides has become tedious. I am not here much anymore. It is not very conducive to prayer.

I haven’t seen any convincing arguments that the Latin/Eastern Catholics have any errors…

I am aware of your opinions.

What I have seen are weak or no attempts at understanding, attempts to impose the Eastern view on all Christians as if that was the only valid Tradition, and/or miconceptions of Latin/Eastern Catholic teachings.

Is that polemical—or just a generalized ad hominem?

My focus now is on healing the breach between the apostolic Churches by exposing and refuting baseless and invalid charges against the Catholic Church.

And I will do the same for the Holy Orthodox Church…but it will be mostly through prayer from now on…not cyberspace debate.

Blessings on your journey

 

[Fuerza]

I see.
But the reformation DID happen.

Mickey,

I could just as easily say that the Western Schism DID happen. Since protestantism is our fault and our problem, clearly Catholicism is your fault and your problem.

Really we should both see how ridiculous that it. We have no more control over what they believe than you do over what we believe (although, depsite the fact that you don’t want to hear it, we believe almost exactly the same as you ).

 

[Mickey]

could just as easily say that the Western Schism DID happen. Since protestantism is our fault and our problem, clearly Catholicism is your fault and your problem.

Wrong. Protestantism is an offshoot from RC. It was a rebellion that resulted in a reformation and a counter reformation. They are your wayward children. Blame could be thrown around–but that would be silly at this point. Orthodox never dealt with such a rebellion unless you are sayin that Roman Catholicism rebelled against the East. Protestanism proceeded to throw the baby out with bath water as they also separated themselves from the Sacraments. It is not ridiculous. Protestants are your step children–what’s the big deal?

We have no more control over what they believe than you do over what we believe although, depsite the fact that you don’t want to hear it.

I did not say that you should be able to control the protestants?

Nor should the East think they should control Latin Catholics or vice versa.

EO and Latin Catholics share much–I have never denied this-- and I do not know from where you glean your speculation.