Toutes polémistes?

[Harpazo]

The Spirit is descended!

I’ve noticed something here on CAF in general but this forum in particular. The phrase “polemicist” or “anti-Catholic polemicist” or some derivation thereof is tossed around rather liberally by some. Sadly, I see it employed by many of my Eastern Catholic friends. I don’t know if it has been pointed out yet, and please forgive me if it has been, but is this any way for us to talk to each other? I just seems counterintuitive for those who continually desire union with the Orthodox, from my view of things at least.

If someone disagrees with someone else, why should they be automatically labeled with such a pointed phrase? Any thoughts? Perhaps we can resolve to speak to each other with a bit more tact and love?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[dzheremi]

Views I disagree with are polemical and extreme. Views I agree with are logical to the point of being obvious.

I do not know what you’re talking about, Andrew.

 

[Harpazo]

Views I disagree with are polemical and extreme. Views I agree with are logical to the point of being obvious.

I do not know what you’re talking about, Andrew.

Allow me to clarify: when someone who disagrees with a Catholic position on something (it could be anything), many times they are brushed off as being a polemicist, simply for disagreeing. Though sometimes, their views will be characterized as polemical rather than them being outright called such. I’ve seen it used enough lately that it has me worried. Not because it offends me or causes me to fear anything, but because it can escalate tensions when a simple “we disagree” would suffice.

Of course, that’s my opinion and I dony expect anyone to subscribe to it. I just started this thread to see if anyone else noticed the trend and if we could perhaps reverse it?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[dzheremi]

I should have been more clear/used more smilies. I was being silly to make the point that this is the (likely subconscious) way of thinking of those who overuse that term, and, in fairness, also those who do not. That’s why we shouldn’t be talking to each other in that fashion, of course. It doesn’t help us understand where anyone is coming from to just brush them off as being polemicists any more than calling the “schismatics”, “heretics”, or any other nasty term would. I don’t think I’m being polemical when I’m disagreeing with you any more than you think you’re being polemical when you disagree with me.

Or perhaps it would be better, as your thread title rightfully hints at, for us all to admit that we’re all polemical, as polemics involve refuting errors, and that’s why any of us ever argue about anything.

 

[gregdaly]

When a person is “polemical” I’ve always understood it to mean that the person just wants to argue, and is not willing to listen to rational arguments. It would be silly, I think, for someone to call another person “polemical” just because of disagreement. There needs to be a showing that the person being “polemical” is being irrational (that is, not willing to listen to reason).

I think in an apologetics website, it is likely that people can become polemical.

My two-cents.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[Aramis]

The term Polemicist, to me, means someone who is arguing from a point of view focused solely upon converting people, without any willingness to consider the arguments of others, and with no willingness to actually engage in discussion.

Several Eastern Orthodox posters dip into polemicism from time to time; several others seem to come here only to make snide remarks and waste people’s time, repeating the same erroneous beliefs even when confronted with the actual authoritative documents that show them to be wrong.

But they are not the only ones. Many of the so-called “traditionalists” are polemical in their misunderstandings as well.

 

[Rawb]

I think a “polemicist” is someone who brings up controversial issues for the sake of starting an argument.

I think on this site (and probably on other forums though I don’t frequent them often enough to know) a “polemicist” is “someone who doesn’t agree with me”.

Too often people refuse to see that something they hold dear isn’t as clear cut as they’d like to believe. Especially in some churches where they pride themselves on the logical and ‘irrefutable’ defenses of their church when someone doesn’t buy their arguments defenses get raised. In those situations the term “polemicist” is useful; it allows the person to be dismissed because they’re “simply disagreeing just to disagree” and the person doesn’t have to face the fact that perhaps someone can legitimately disagree with their beliefs. The idea that their church is “irrefutable” is then preserved.

 

[mardukm]

I think on this site (and probably on other forums though I don’t frequent them often enough to know) a “polemicist” is “someone who doesn’t agree with
me”.

Too often people refuse to see that something they hold dear isn’t as clear cut as they’d like to believe. Especially in some churches where they pride themselves on the logical and ‘irrefutable’ defenses of their church when someone doesn’t buy their arguments defenses get raised. In those situations the term “polemicist” is useful; it allows the person to be dismissed because they’re “simply disagreeing just to disagree” and the person doesn’t have to face the fact that perhaps someone can legitimately disagree with their beliefs. The idea that their church is “irrefutable” is then preserved.

The problem is not the disagreeing. The problem is the MISRESPRESENTATION.

It’s not that person A disagrees with person B’s position. It’s the fact that person A CONTINUES to misrepresent person B’s position, even when person A is corrected by person B (I mean, proof is actually given that person A is misrepresenting person B’s position). The myth of the Catholic “heresy” is thus preserved in the polemicist’s mind.

It’s not pride to simply explain our Faith and expect others not to misrepresent it.

It’s like brother DCointin’s example of Protestants accusing Eastern Orthodox of heresy for claiming that Christians actually become God through theosis. Should the Protestant be corrected, or are you saying that - to use your own words - Protestants “legitimately disagree with your beliefs.”

The log in the eye - a constant itch on the polemicist’s nerves.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Rawb]

Should the Protestant be corrected, or are you saying that - to use your own words - Protestants “legitimately disagree with your beliefs.”

You’ve applied **your **definition to a situation and asked me to defend **my **position.

In what I said, the person hasn’t misrepresented anything (you’ll note I never spoke of any misrepresentation) but understands what the other person believes. They just don’t believe it.

 

[mardukm]

You’ve applied **your **definition to a situation and asked me to defend **my **position.

That’s called consistency. If an EO expects a Protestant to listen to him/her when he/she explains the EO position, then the EO should listen to a Catholic when the Catholic explains his/her Catholic position. Agreed? But the EO in question who was charged with being polemical did not follow that simple rule of ethics. Despite ample documentary proof from Catholic sources that his source was misrepresenting the Catholic position, he maintained that his mispresentation was true.

In what I said, the person hasn’t misrepresented anything (you’ll note I never spoke of any misrepresentation) but understands what the other person believes. They just don’t believe it.

There’s a difference between not believing someone else’s position, and not believing what you WRONGLY THINK is someone else’s position.

The first one is not polemical. The second one is polemical when one’s misrepresentation of someone else’s position CONTINUES even though one has been corrected with ample proof. That is what has been going on here.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Rawb]

That’s called consistency.

No, that is called “asking someone to defend something I have thought up.” I have never claimed to use your definition, so why should I defend it?

The first one is not polemical. The second one is polemical when one’s misrepresentation of someone else’s position CONTINUES even though one has been corrected with ample proof. That is what has been going on here.

I am of the opinion that it is your belief that “that is what has been going on here”. Personally I don’t think that is true as often as you appear to believe it is.

At any rate I was speaking of this particular site only in passing. My statements were meant to convey my understanding of the term “polemicist” in general. I mention churches specifically because religion happens to be the subject of this forum and I spend most of my time on religious-based forums. I have seen that attitude play out on several other boards.

If I ever use the term “polemicist” it will be with the definition I have stated above - someone who argues for the sake of arguing, who enjoys “polarizing” a group. Misrepresentation has nothing to do with it (by my definition or, apparently, any of the definitions I find online after a brief google search.)

 

[mardukm]

No, that is called “asking someone to defend something I have thought up.” I have never claimed to use your definition, so why should I defend it?

You think I made up the Golden Rule?

I am of the opinion that it is your belief that “that is what has been going on here”. Personally I don’t think that is true as often as you appear to believe it is.

It happened recently in a thread on scholasticism, and also in a thread on filioque. The person was purposefully misrepresenting the Catholic position after being corrected.

If I ever use the term “polemicist” it will be with the definition I have stated above - someone who argues for the sake of arguing,

Someone who refuses to listen to a person’s explanation sure seems like someone who is in it for the sake of arguing.

who enjoys “polarizing” a group.

So when someone mispresents a certain group to justify the pretense of calling someone “heretic,” that’s not polarizing?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Rawb]

You think I made up the Golden Rule?

Ok, I’m dropping this because you’re not making any sense to me, and I don’t care about the subject enough to ask you to clarify.

It happened recently in a thread on scholasticism, and also in a thread on filioque. The person was purposefully misrepresenting the Catholic position after being corrected.

I’m sure. I still don’t believe it happens as often as you claim. For one I don’t think as many people misrepresent Roman Catholicism as you think they do. Despite your wealth of documents, sources, references, cross references, and forms filled in in triplicate p) always at the ready I don’t believe your take on Catholicism always is truly Catholicism. Thus when/if I disagree with you (just using myself for example, and for all I know you’re talking about me in your example because I vaguely recall being involved in threads on both those subjects) I don’t feel I am misrepresenting anything, despite my continued disagreement with you. You may feel otherwise. By my definition I am not then a “polemicist”, but by yours I would be. I believe (in this hypothetical) that I am still pursuing an issue because I don’t believe your explanation was true, satisfactory, clear enough, or a host of other possibilities. You believe that I am trying to misrepresent something.

Someone who refuses to listen to a person’s explanation sure seems like someone who is in it for the sake of arguing.

Far too often in my experience it is not that the person is refusing to listen to a person’s explanation, but that the person offering the explanation still trudges on insisting the other person doesn’t understand, or the person has listened and found the explanation unsatisfactory and the offer-er refuses to accept that their explanation could be so found.

So when someone mispresents a certain group to justify the pretense of calling someone “heretic,” that’s not polarizing?

As a psych major, mardukm, I have to say I feel you’re projecting onto me. I have no clue what situation you’re talking about.

I’ll add that as I’m not being paid to be projected upon, I don’t care to know this situation either. My participation on this intended broad topic will not include complications of specifics as to whether so-and-so was being a polemicist on such-and-such thread.

(yes that last sentence came out very stuffy but I am getting ready to go to bed ((am actually in bed already)) and that was the first way it came to mind to type it. My apologies for transporting us back to Victorian England. Unless there’s tea and scones. I make no apologies for tea and scones.)

 

[dzheremi]

Not that it matters, but it could just as easily be me, as I was also involved in those threads, as were many other people.

Anyway, I think part of the reason why this happens is that we seem to be operating on different wavelengths or with very different views on just what makes a good/official/valid source from which we can craft our arguments. As I have experienced recently in discussions with people here, two people can read the same documents and not at all agree on what they mean. So I find reliance on the official Vatican declarations to be ultimately unsatisfactory when my own sources of faith-formation (clergy and laypeople in the Orthodox church) disagree with the Catholic interpretation of them. I don’t see that as polemical at all. I see that as part of the process of converting from the Roman Catholic Church to the Orthodox Church. Certainly a similar shift in mindset must occur for an Orthodox person to convert to the Roman Catholic communion.

 

[mardukm]

Ok, I’m dropping this because you’re not making any sense to me, and I don’t care about the subject enough to ask you to clarify.

The clarification will come below.

Despite your wealth of documents, sources, references, cross references, and forms filled in in triplicate p) always at the ready I don’t believe your take on Catholicism always is truly Catholicism.

Fair enough. But to be perfectly fair, I assume you will agree, then, that if a Protestant believes your EO teaching on theosis makes a person unto God, then you’ll just let it go as “legitimate.” Why should your word as an EO about the EO Faith be trusted by the Protestant?

I’ll give you a personal example. I used to believe that EO were heretics for claiming that there was an Essence/Energy distinction WITHIN the Godhead. Nothing the EO said could convince me otherwise. Would you consider my belief “legitimate?” Answer this question if you can - why should I listen to what EO claim about their own religion?

Answer that question, and hopefully you can see the relevance of the Golden Rule to this discussion (i.e., do unto others as you would have them do unto you). Concretely, if you think you can satisfactorily represent EO’xy in the face of non-EO misrepresentations, why should you not give Catholics the same benefit of the doubt? Isn’t it the one who is misrepresenting who is actually pufffed up with pride?

Thus when/if I disagree with you (just using myself for example, and for all I know you’re talking about me in your example because I vaguely recall being involved in threads on both those subjects) I don’t feel I am misrepresenting anything, despite my continued disagreement with you. You may feel otherwise. By my definition I am not then a “polemicist”, but by yours I would be. I believe (in this hypothetical) that I am still pursuing an issue because I don’t believe your explanation was true, satisfactory, clear enough, or a host of other possibilities. You believe that I am trying to misrepresent something.

To be precise, I don’t recall seeing your handle on CAF until a few weeks ago. If you debated the matter, it was not with me (at least not that I recall). I am not inclined to think what I am saying here applies to you, but if you say it does, I’ll take your word for it. In any case, my assessment of whether someone is a polemicist takes the following steps:
(1) A non-Catholic makes a mispresentation about the Catholic Faith based on some little snippets of Catholic documents OR some non-Catholic source.
(2) Catholics refute the misrepresentations of those snippets through logic.
(3) Catholics refute the misrepresentations of those snippets by quoting other Catholic documents to reveal the true context of those snippets.
(4) The non-Catholic fails to refute the logic.
(5) The non-Catholic fails to refute the contextual quotations from Catholic sources.
(6) The non-Catholic simply re-affirms the misrepresentation without any logical or documantary support.

The non-Catholic is not a polemicist after point (1). The non-Catholic only becomes a polemicist after point (6).

Far too often in my experience it is not that the person is refusing to listen to a person’s explanation, but that the person offering the explanation still trudges on insisting the other person doesn’t understand, or the person has listened and found the explanation unsatisfactory and the offer-er refuses to accept that their explanation could be so found.

If the non-Catholic can offer a response to the corrections of the Catholic, then the person would not be a polemcist. But they never do - most likely because they cannot. It’s the fact that they can’t offer a refutation, but still retain their irrational position that makes them a polemicist.

As a psych major, mardukm, I have to say I feel you’re projecting onto me. I have no clue what situation you’re talking about.

I think your puzzlement comes from your own assumption that I am addressing these comments to you personally. Until your own admission in your previous post that my comments could apply to you, I never had an inkling that they actually did apply to you.

Sleep tight.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I don’t see that as polemical at all. I see that as part of the process of converting from the Roman Catholic Church to the Orthodox Church. Certainly a similar shift in mindset must occur for an Orthodox person to convert to the Roman Catholic communion.

Interesting perspective. I never came into the Catholic communion by rejecting my Coptic Faith, but only by rejecting what I came to realize were misrepresentations of the Catholic Faith. It seems you are saying that your own process of converting is to imbibe misrepresentations about the Catholic Faith.

That’s actually understandable. I have yet to meet a former Catholic who can accurately explain the Catholic Faith. I’m not sure if that is because they never understood Catholicism, or if it is because they had later imbibed the misrepresentations about Catholicism that they get from their new authorities.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Esdra]

The Spirit is descended!

I’ve noticed something here on CAF in general but this forum in particular. The phrase “polemicist” or “anti-Catholic polemicist” or some derivation thereof is tossed around rather liberally by some. Sadly, I see it employed by many of my Eastern Catholic friends. I don’t know if it has been pointed out yet, and please forgive me if it has been, but is this any way for us to talk to each other? I just seems counterintuitive for those who continually desire union with the Orthodox, from my view of things at least.

If someone disagrees with someone else, why should they be automatically labeled with such a pointed phrase? Any thoughts? Perhaps we can resolve to speak to each other with a bit more tact and love?

In Christ,
Andrew

To your signature:
Все меняется, ничто не исчезает.
“Nothing disappears, it only changes”-Russian Proverb

Is this is a word by word translation, or does this proverb, like you have translated it into English exist like that in English? (Note: I am not a native-speaker of English!)
Word by word, it actually should be: Everything changes, nothing disappears.
(So it’d actually be the other way round! )

 

[dzheremi]

Interesting perspective. I never came into the Catholic communion by rejecting my Coptic Faith, but only by rejecting what I came to realize were misrepresentations of the Catholic Faith. It seems you are saying that your own process of converting is to imbibe misrepresentations about the Catholic Faith.

Mardukm, I’ve tried to be as charitable as I can be in summarizing our very basic disagreements, and I am a bit disappointed that you’ve responded with this. There is not a single substantial point that I can agree with in this reply, but you won’t see me writing things like that in reply to you, even as I disagree.

If you must know, I have began to look to Alexandria not in relation to Rome or any other See, but based on her own merits, which are many. I have presented the argument as I have because some explanation must be made for why exactly I refuse to take Rome’s word when it comes to all the things you and others have explained with reference to official Vatican documents. Converting to Orthodoxy is not merely converting away from whatever you were before, but acquiring an Orthodox mind which necessarily involves not looking to the heterodox for guidance.

That’s actually understandable. I have yet to meet a former Catholic who can accurately explain the Catholic Faith. I’m not sure if that is because they never understood Catholicism, or if it is because they had later imbibed the misrepresentations about Catholicism that they get from their new authorities.

I find it hard to believe that you could write things such as this without realizing how incredibly arrogant they sound. Are you so convinced of the invincibility of your own positions that you seriously cannot imagine a situation as simple as two people disagreeing without one or the other being hopelessly deluded as to the substance of their disagreement?

I swear, it’s like we live on different planets or something!

 

[mardukm]

Mardukm, I’ve tried to be as charitable as I can be in summarizing our very basic disagreements, and I am a bit disappointed that you’ve responded with this. There is not a single substantial point that I can agree with in this reply, but you won’t see me writing things like that in reply to you, even as I disagree.

But you did. You wrote: “So I find reliance on the official Vatican declarations to be ultimately unsatisfactory when my own sources of faith-formation (clergy and laypeople in the Orthodox church) disagree with the Catholic interpretation of them.”

Basically, you want to listen to what OTHERS say about the Catholic Faith rather than what the Catholic Faith says about itself because the Catholic Church is untrustworthy. You disrespect every Catholic by saying that. And your subsequent statements confirm the same attitude.

Case in point: You claim, “If you must know, I have began to look to Alexandria not in relation to Rome or any other See, but based on her own merits, which are many.” But in the same breath, you state “I refuse to take Rome’s word when it comes to all the things you and others have explained with reference to official Vatican documents. Converting to Orthodoxy is not merely converting away from whatever you were before, but acquiring an Orthodox mind which necessarily involves not looking to the heterodox for guidance.”

So your process of conversion intimately involves seeing Rome through the eyes of Alexandria instead of what Rome says about herself (i.e., misrepresentation), and not just seeing Alexandria on its own merits.

I find it hard to believe that you could write things such as this without realizing how incredibly arrogant they sound. Are you so convinced of the invincibility of your own positions that you seriously cannot imagine a situation as simple as two people disagreeing without one or the other being hopelessly deluded as to the substance of their disagreement?

I don’t know what you are complaining about. I could just as easily write, “Do you know how incredibly arrogant you sound claiming that Catholics and Rome herself are not trustworthy sources about their own Faith?” I don’t know why you have to get all bent out of shape when I simply repeated what you stated in different words, even while expressing the same ideas.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

But you did. You wrote: “So I find reliance on the official Vatican declarations to be ultimately unsatisfactory when my own sources of faith-formation (clergy and laypeople in the Orthodox church) disagree with the Catholic interpretation of them.”

I do not see how this is comparable to your contention that “it seems you are saying that your own process of converting is to imbibe misrepresentations about the Catholic Faith.”

Basically, you want to listen to what OTHERS say about the Catholic Faith rather than what the Catholic Faith says about itself because the Catholic Church is untrustworthy.

No, I want to listen to what others have to say, period. I have already spent several years of my life listening to Rome and following it, and I do not think that it is right that I do that anymore.

You disrespect every Catholic by saying that. And your subsequent statements confirm the same attitude.

So I should lie to myself and everyone else about why I believe and behave as I do to spare your feelings? I don’t think that’s a very good idea.

Case in point: You claim, “If you must know, I have began to look to Alexandria not in relation to Rome or any other See, but based on her own merits, which are many.” But in the same breath, you state “I refuse to take Rome’s word when it comes to all the things you and others have explained with reference to official Vatican documents. Converting to Orthodoxy is not merely converting away from whatever you were before, but acquiring an Orthodox mind which necessarily involves not looking to the heterodox for guidance.”

Mardukm, I would really appreciate it if you would read my posts with a little more care. The first quotation explains my relationship to the Orthodox Church of Alexandria as it exists now, against the idea that I came to Alexandria after some Coptic Orthodox person fed me all kinds of lies about Catholicism (I don’t see how this would even be possible, as I had never talked to a single Coptic Orthodox person until well after I was finished with Rome). The second quotation (which you have taken out of context) is meant to EXPLAIN why I no longer believe and behave as I once did, and would be substantially the same if I had never bothered with the Coptic Church.

So your process of conversion intimately involves seeing Rome through the eyes of Alexandria, and not just seeing Alexandria on its own merits.

I think this is backwards. Rather, I have come to see Rome through the eyes of Alexandria only after beginning to see Alexandria through the eyes of Alexandria. How could it be otherwise? When all I had under my belt was my time in Rome (and I suppose some very faded memory of the Presbyterian church, but they never talked about other churches), all I knew was that I was having trouble where I was. I didn’t have any context in which to place Rome outside of what Rome itself says. This is why I spent so much time tearing my hair out trying to reconcile my problems with Rome’s solutions. Ultimately it didn’t work out, but I wouldn’t blame Alexandria any more than I would blame me. The problems came first. The solutions came much, much later. In fact, I don’t really know if they’re here or not, as I am not Orthodox. We shall see. It is sufficient to say, honestly, I did not want to leave Rome. You don’t have to believe me when I write that, but I do take exception to your characterization of what I have written about myself and my own mindset and my own struggles in the faith, apparently to get my experience to fit into your preconceived idea that nobody who leaves Rome has any idea what they’re doing.

I don’t know what you are complaining about. I could just as easily write, “Do you know how incredibly arrogant you sound claiming that Catholics and Rome herself are not trustworthy sources about their own Faith?”

What? I have written about why I no longer trust Rome. I have not written anywhere that Rome is not trusthworthy about its own faith. I don’t believe that is true. I have written about disagreeing with Catholic interpretations of Catholic documents. Obviously, if you want to know what Rome says it believes, you need to read Roman sources. I’m just saying that this is different than agreeing with what is written therein or argued from those documents by Catholics. As I have written before, Rome does not see anything she does as unorthodox in any way. It doesn’t mean that I won’t disagree with that, even after reading the documents. As you wrote in reply to me last time I wrote that, obviously the Orthodox think that they’re in the right, as well, and you clearly disagree with that. So I hope you’ll see where I’m coming from now.

I don’t know why you have to get all bent out of shape when I simply repeated what you stated in different words, even while expressing the same ideas.

Because that’s not what you’re doing. I don’t think you’re doing it on purpose or anything, but…well, I guess this whole exchange is a very good example of what I’m trying to get at about how far apart we are.

Good luck to all in trying to reform the environment here.