Toutes polémistes?

[mardukm]

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.

Thank you for the explanation.

However, this is exactly what I am concerned about (the highlighted portion above). I never claimed that you began your journey towards Alexandria by listening to lies about the Catholic Church. But I know that you are not yet a Coptic Orthodox and are still in the process of learning. My concern is that in this process, you will imbibe misrepresentations about the Catholic Church. For example, HH Pope Shenoute once wrote that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception means Mary did not have a natural conception from Sts. Joachim and Hannah. But that is not what the doctrine of the IC teaches. In fact, Pope Alexander VII way back in the 17th century had already formally condemned the idea that Mary’s conception was not natural. Would you believe that misrepresentation about the Catholic teaching on the IC just because your (potentially) Supreme head claims that is what it teaches? You will find Coptic Orthodox claim that the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin states that we inherit the personal fault of Adam’s personal sin. But the Catholic Church nowhere teaches that. Are you going to imbibe that misrepresentation just because your Coptic sources might tell you to believe that?

Not accepting Catholic teaching and accepting misrepresentations about Catholic teaching is a fine line. I pray you can live in honesty and integerity, never adhereing to such obvious misrepresentations of the Catholic Faith in your journey towards Coptic Orthodoxy, and that you to do not become one of those who “slanders what they do not understand.”

As the wisdom of Sirach exhorts us, “If you hear something bad against a person, question that person about it, for it might be slander. Do not believe everything you hear.,” as does the Wisdom of Solomon, “Be sure you do not go about complaining - it does no good - keep your tongue from slander. The most secret thing you say will have their consequences.”

Thank you for the conversation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Pakesh]

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

Sadly, it is the “traditionalists” that come across as quite polemical to me as well, but that is in the “Traditional Catholicism” board though.

God Bless,
Pakesh

 

[Pakesh]

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.
That’s actually understandable. I have yet to meet a former Catholic who can accurately explain the Catholic Faith.
Blessings,
Marduk

I just wanted to say-spot on. Very succinct and precise.
God Bless,
Pakesh

 

[dzheremi]

Thank you for the explanation.

However, this is exactly what I am concerned about (the highlighted portion above). I never claimed that you began your journey towards Alexandria by listening to lies about the Catholic Church. But I know that you are not yet a Coptic Orthodox and are still in the process of learning. My concern is that in this process, you will imbibe misrepresentations about the Catholic Church.

Forgive me, but it still seems like you are saying that this is what the process entails, as though your interpretation of it is the plain fact. Instead of using some sort of conditional construction (“I’m afraid that X might happen”), in a way that might express actual human concern and healthy self-doubt, you first tried to place your own interpretation in my mouth (“It seems you are saying that your own process of converting is to imbibe misrepresentations about the Catholic Faith”, as though I would ever say or think that!), and now are trying to dress it up a little classier and say that you are concerned that I will absorb misinterpretations. Do you mean to imply that there is no actual discernment going on? And then you are baffled that I am “bent out of shape” at what you claim is a re-wording of what I’ve said that expresses the same basic ideas. Really? For my part, I am shocked that you believe that this is what you’ve done.

For example, HH Pope Shenoute once wrote that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception means Mary did not have a natural conception from Sts. Joachim and Hannah. But that is not what the doctrine of the IC teaches.

I appreciate your point, but it is not all that moving to me, as I am not now nor have I ever been a “single-issue” Christian, such that if Alexandria (or Rome, for that matter) could be found to be in error on one particular point of doctrine then the whole thing collapses in on itself and I must go elsewhere for spiritual nourishment. I’m not saying that’s the case as you’re presenting it here, but I am saying that the representation of particularly Roman Catholic doctrine by anyone (Catholic or otherwise) is not enough to sway me one way or another. There are deeper, more substantial issues at play. I’d just as soon ignore the IC, whether from the interpretation of a Latin or not (as I suppose most Latins do, since they are not involved in theological discussions on the internet).

Would you believe that misrepresentation about the Catholic teaching on the IC just because your (potentially) Supreme head claims that is what it teaches?

Um…no? I would rather, as I just stated, ignore the IC altogether, as the only thing that makes it “necessary” is a particularly Latin understanding of Original Sin that is not even shared by the Orthodox in the first place. This is what I meant by “deeper, more substantial issues”. You have, if I may borrow your favorite verb, imbibed a particularly Latin understanding that I have not, and as such our conversations and arguments continue along two completely different planes, never to meet so long as I continue to not operate under your presuppositions. Sorry. I don’t see how it can be otherwise.

You will find Coptic Orthodox claim that the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin states that we inherit the personal fault of Adam’s personal sin. But the Catholic Church nowhere teaches that. Are you going to imbibe that misrepresentation just because your Coptic sources might tell you to believe that?

I could ask you the analogous question: Are you going to imbibe the Latin misrepresentation of the faith that transforms such unnecessary doctrines into infallibly-declared dogmas to fill holes that only exist in the minds of certain theologians whose opinions are given undue weight in the Roman communion? The rest of your post would already make this question purely rhetorical, though, and as you may have noticed I am not fond of arguing from purely rhetorical bases. Instead, I will say as I have said to you in the past: We are essentially arguing the same argument (SOMEONE out there is misrepresenting the faith), but coming to opposing conclusions. The difference from where I’m sitting is that I am more than happy to admit this and let you have your own standard from which to defend your stances, so long as you do not try to force me to argue as you do and then chastise me when I’m not up to it.

Not accepting Catholic teaching and accepting misrepresentations about Catholic teaching is a fine line. I pray you can live in honesty and integerity, never adhereing to such obvious misrepresentations of the Catholic Faith in your journey towards Coptic Orthodoxy, and that you to do not become one of those who “slanders what they do not understand.”

Nothing is to be understood in Orthodoxy using Catholic teaching as any sort of sign post in the first place. Whenever you see otherwise, it is because the two communities have interacted or are interacting in such a way as to make such comparison necessary.

As the wisdom of Sirach exhorts us, “If you hear something bad against a person, question that person about it, for it might be slander. Do not believe everything you hear.,” as does the Wisdom of Solomon, “Be sure you do not go about complaining - it does no good - keep your tongue from slander. The most secret thing you say will have their consequences.”

Holy and wise words, all of them. Also, rather irrelevant.

Thank you for the conversation.

You’re welcome, and I thank you in return. We may never see eye to eye, but it is good to be able to flesh out our ideas a little bit, so as to not live in an echo chamber wherein our presuppositions go unchallenged.

 

[mardukm]

Forgive me, but it still seems like you are saying that this is what the process entails, as though your interpretation of it is the plain fact. Instead of using some sort of conditional construction (“I’m afraid that X might happen”), in a way that might express actual human concern and healthy self-doubt, you first tried to place your own interpretation in my mouth (“It seems you are saying that your own process of converting is to imbibe misrepresentations about the Catholic Faith”, as though I would ever say or think that!), and now are trying to dress it up a little classier and say that you are concerned that I will absorb misinterpretations. Do you mean to imply that there is no actual discernment going on? And then you are baffled that I am “bent out of shape” at what you claim is a re-wording of what I’ve said that expresses the same basic ideas. Really? For my part, I am shocked that you believe that this is what you’ve done.

This demonstrates exactly what I have been saying. You completely miss the “It seems” portion of my statement, indicating a willingness on my part to be open-minded, yet you focus on only the part you want and then get all “bent out of shape” over the matter. That is the general mein of those who have an eye to misrepresentation. They focus on little tidbits and can’t see the forest for the trees. All Catholics and the Catholic Church wants is to continue in dialogue towards understanding. But there are those who think understanding is impossible, and hurl accusations of heresy or heterdoxy on the Catholic Church with an authority they don’t have, and expect that the only way to unity is through uniatism. But that is not the point at issue. The issue here is that people pretend they are rejecting the Catholic Faith, when all they are rejecting are actually misrepresentations of it.

I appreciate your point, but it is not all that moving to me, as I am not now nor have I ever been a “single-issue” Christian, such that if Alexandria (or Rome, for that matter) could be found to be in error on one particular point of doctrine then the whole thing collapses in on itself and I must go elsewhere for spiritual nourishment. I’m not saying that’s the case as you’re presenting it here. but I am saying that the representation of particularly Roman Catholic doctrine by anyone (Catholic or otherwise) is not enough to sway me one way or another. There are deeper, more substantial issues at play. I’d just as soon ignore the IC, whether from the interpretation of a Latin or not (as I suppose most Latins do, since they are not involved in theological discussions on the internet).

So why even bring up the matter of “single-issue?” I specifically stated “For example,” so it is obviously not the only issue between Coptic Orthodox and the Catholics. It just seems like a convenient cop-out to avoid a topic when one cannot respond. But that is how this dialogue between different apostolic Churches is proceeding - through single issues. If you read the agendas in the OO-CC colloquies, it is all about single issues. There is no cure-all measure. Each Church wants to make sure there is complete unanimity on issues that demand such unanimity, and figure out which ones may not demand such strictness. You can’t come to the table of dialogue with preconceived misrepresentations or misconceptions about the other party. The more immersed you are in Oriental Orthodoxy, perhaps the more you will realize that.

Um…no? I would rather, as I just stated, ignore the IC altogether, as the only thing that makes it “necessary” is a particularly Latin understanding of Original Sin that is not even shared by the Orthodox in the first place.

Please don’t confuse the Eastern Orthodox with the Oriental Orthodox. The Oriental understanding of Original Sin is closer to the Latin understanding - just about the only serious difference is the issue of the “Guilt of Adam,” which is just another misunderstanding.

This is what I meant by “deeper, more substantial issues”. You have, if I may borrow your favorite verb, imbibed a particularly Latin understanding that I have not, and as such our conversations and arguments continue along two completely different planes, never to meet so long as I continue to not operate under your presuppositions.

But whereas my paradigm seeks dialogue towards understanding, yours has already closed it off because you are unwilling (as you have stated) to listen to what Rome says about itself. For all your claims that I am trying to dictate the terms (see your first paragraph), it is those who are not willing to listen to what the other side has to say, instead imposing and maintaining their misrepresentations, that should be the target of your concerns.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

I could ask you the analogous question: Are you going to imbibe the Latin misrepresentation of the faith that transforms such unnecessary doctrines into infallibly-declared dogmas to fill holes that only exist in the minds of certain theologians whose opinions are given undue weight in the Roman communion? The rest of your post would already make this question purely rhetorical, though

Now we’re getting somewhere. In truth, I accept the IC because I believe it to be true, not because it was dogmatized. But that is beside the point. You have stated something that illustrates my point perfectly. Here you have identified something that is actually the Catholic position (the dogmatization of the teaching) that you reject. And I accept that (though even the matter of dogmatization is often misrepresented by polemicists). What I don’t accept is if you reject Catholic teaching based on a MISREPRESENTATION of it. What I presented to you from HH Pope Shenoute is a MISREPRESENTATION of the Catholic teaching. My only concern is that you do not accept such mispresentations because of a blind submission to authority. Unfortunately, a lot of people reject Catholic teaching based on such misrepresentations.

We are essentially arguing the same argument (SOMEONE out there is misrepresenting the faith), but coming to opposing conclusions.

I don’t think we are arguing the same thing, as evinced above. I will readily admit if you reject a Catholic teaching based on what the Catholic Church herself teaches. The problem is when people MISREPRESENT the Catholic teaching in order to reject it. And that is what has been going on here, and it is the immediate cause for the use of the term "polemicist".

The difference from where I’m sitting is that I am more than happy to admit this and let you have your own standard from which to defend your stances, so long as you do not try to force me to argue as you do and then chastise me when I’m not up to it.

What I chastise(?) people for is if they violate the basic principle of Christian ethics - the Golden Rule. Don’t go around expecting people to understand Orthodoxy according to what Orthodox Church members say about it, if you are not willing to understand Catholicism according to what the Catholic Church teaches about it. If you are not willing to live by the Golden Rule, just admit it. You don’t have to pretend I am trying to force you to do something which our own Lord commands us to do.

Nothing is to be understood in Orthodoxy using Catholic teaching as any sort of sign post in the first place.

Well done. No one should find out about Orthodoxy through the claims of non-Orthodox Church members. Now apply the Golden Rule. No one should find out about Catholicism through the claims of non-Catholic Church members. If you cannot live by the Golden Rule, just admit it, and the conversation will have a satisfactory conclusion for all.

Holy and wise words, all of them. Also, rather irrelevant.

It is greatly relevant since we are talking about imbibing misrepresentations about party A, with no willingness to approach party A for clarification. nor any willingness to accept the clarification of party A about itself.

You’re welcome, and I thank you in return. We may never see eye to eye, but it is good to be able to flesh out our ideas a little bit, so as to not live in an echo chamber wherein our presuppositions go unchallenged.

Yes, I am all for dialogue for the sake of understanding each other without unnecessary emotion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

This demonstrates exactly what I have been saying. You completely miss the “It seems” portion of my statement, indicating a willingness on my part to be open-minded, yet you focus on only the part you want and then get all “bent out of shape” over the matter.

I don’t miss it at all. It’s not as though I have confused what you interpret me to be saying for what I am actually saying. In fact, that’s kind of the whole point of presenting our dialogues as I have. We’ll never get anywhere so long as one side insists that there is a true difference that another side insists is a mere misunderstanding (hiding the true, underlying difference, I suppose). The way that you approach dialogue with individuals is a handy simulacrum of how you’d have the churches approach one another. We’re all just misunderstanding Rome, and by God if our misunderstandings could be corrected, we’d all see the wisdom and truth that you have found therein. I think that this degrades the position from which your partner asserts himself, but that’s just me getting all bent out of shape again, I guess.

That is the general mein of those who have an eye to misrepresentation. They focus on little tidbits and can’t see the forest for the trees. All Catholics and the Catholic Church wants is to continue in dialogue towards understanding.

And the dialogues continue regardless of what anyone here thinks about them.

But there are those who think understanding is impossible, and hurl accusations of heresy or heterdoxy on the Catholic Church with an authority they don’t have, and expect that the only way to unity is through uniatism. But that is not the point at issue.

That Rome is heterodox is kind of indisputable from the point of view of literally every Orthodox person I’ve ever talked to (of any jurisdiction or ecclesiastical rank). That does not mean that the dialogues cannot continue, though. And “uniatism”…I don’t know if you’re referring to the Easterners when you write that, but I haven’t seen anything close to that attitude coming from the OO.

The issue here is that people pretend they are rejecting the Catholic Faith, when all they are rejecting are actually misrepresentations of it.

I wasn’t aware that was possible to “pretend-reject” Rome. Have the OO and EO just been playing at being communions for the past 1500-1000 years?

It just seems like a convenient cop-out to avoid a topic when one cannot respond. But that is how this dialogue between different apostolic Churches is proceeding - through single issues.

As it seems right that it proceed. I’m saying that for me, with regard to your example of the IC or any other similar example you could bring up, I do not see that as reason enough to find Alexandria in error in her teaching of the faith, which is really what attracts me and other converts, not any of her stance (wrong or right, from outsider’s perspectives such as yours) toward particular Roman doctrine. This is what I meant when I wrote that nothing in the Orthodox world is argued with Rome as a signpost of any kind anyway. When you find otherwise, it is because the leadership of the Orthodox church has seen fit to address a given point. I find no fault in that, just as I find no fault in Rome addressing this or that point of Orthodox doctrine or Protestant belief even as members of those churches might reject Rome’s analysis of the same.

You can’t come to the table of dialogue with preconceived misrepresentations or misconceptions about the other party. The more immersed you are in Oriental Orthodoxy, perhaps the more you will realize that.

God-willing, I will realize whatever is necessary to become Orthodox.

Please don’t confuse the Eastern Orthodox with the Oriental Orthodox. The Oriental understanding of Original Sin is closer to the Latin understanding - just about the only serious difference is the issue of the “Guilt of Adam,” which is just another misunderstanding.

I am not confusing anything with anything. Particularly, I am not confusing your retelling of what the Oriental Orthodox believe with the guidance that they themselves are giving me. If their priests tell me that their understanding differs or is similar to that of Rome on a given issue, I believe it. And they are the ones who have told me that they do not embrace things like the IC because their understanding of Original Sin does not mandate it, and they certainly do not find it Orthodox. That’s enough for me. What Rome believes or how it substantiates that belief is really a separate issue.

But whereas my paradigm seeks dialogue towards understanding, yours has already closed it off because you are unwilling (as you have stated) to listen to what Rome says about itself.

If you re-read my posts you’ll find what I actually stated is “I have not written anywhere that Rome is not trustworthy about its own faith”, and “if you want to know what Rome says it believes, you need to read Roman sources”. These are the actual words I have used. Furthermore, I clarified my stance by adding that this is different than actually BELIEVING IN what Rome says about itself. I can listen to Rome all day. In fact, I do find myself still enjoying EWTN on a more than semi-regular basis (Archbishop Fulton Sheen, Fr. Mitch Pacwa and several others whose names escape me are regular favorites of mine). Again, this is very different than believing in any particular thing Rome teaches. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t trust Rome to teach the orthodox faith, because Rome is not orthodox. That’s it.

 

[dzheremi]

Now we’re getting somewhere. In truth, I accept the IC because I believe it to be true, not because it was dogmatized. But that is beside the point. You have stated something that illustrates my point perfectly. Here you have identified something that is actually the Catholic position (the dogmatization of the teaching) that you reject. And I accept that (though even the matter of dogmatization is often misrepresented by polemicists). What I don’t accept is if you reject Catholic teaching based on a MISREPRESENTATION of it.

Yes, but would you say that there are far more misrepresentations out there of Catholic doctrine than essentially accurate ones? I am taking a page from Rawb here, in that I don’t think that many of the things that you see as misrepresentations are necessarily so.

What I presented to you from HH Pope Shenoute is a MISREPRESENTATION of the Catholic teaching. My only concern is that you do not accept such mispresentations because of a blind submission to authority. Unfortunately, a lot of people reject Catholic teaching based on such misrepresentations.

As I tried to explain previously, I rejected Rome long before I came upon Alexandria. This is an unfounded concern, in my case.

I don’t think we are arguing the same thing, as evinced above. I will readily admit if you reject a Catholic teaching based on what the Catholic Church herself teaches.

Did you miss the part where I explained what I mean by that, that SOMEONE somewhere is misrepresenting the faith? I really only mean it at that most basic of levels. Otherwise, yeah, we might as well be arguing back and forth in Swahili and Estonian or something.

The problem is when people MISREPRESENT the Catholic teaching in order to reject it. And that is what has been going on here, and it is the immediate cause for the use of the term "polemicist".

As I wrote my first post, things I disagree with are polemical, while things I agree with are logical to the point of being obvious. Perhaps I could amend this to say things that I agree with are proper representations, while things I disagree with are misrepresentations.

Nah, on second thought, that’s not my distinction to make.

What I chastise(?) people for is if they violate the basic principle of Christian ethics - the Golden Rule. Don’t go around expecting people to understand Orthodoxy according to what Orthodox Church members say about it, if you are not willing to understand Catholicism according to what the Catholic Church teaches about it.

I am not expecting anyone to do anything. I don’t think I can argue anyone into or out of something as serious as their chosen religion or church. That’s God’s business. Just the other day I advised an acquaintance (regarding Orthodoxy) that it is something that everyone must figure out for himself. People all around are here to help you (as I can say honestly that several key figures in my time as an RC unknowingly helped me on my way toward Orthodoxy), if you find yourself at some sort of crossroads. But it is not up to me, or anyone, to push someone in that way. I have more faith in the faithful than to consciously try to do that. (And if I have unconsciously done that, I am very sorry and beg repentance before my Lord and Savior that He may forgive me my many sins.)

If you are not willing to live by the Golden Rule, just admit it.

If I saw things as you do, I suppose I would.

Well done. No one should find out about Orthodoxy through the claims of non-Orthodox Church members. Now apply the Golden Rule. No one should find out about Catholicism through the claims of non-Catholic Church members. If you cannot live by the Golden Rule, just admit it, and the conversation will have a satisfactory conclusion for all.

I do not see this argument as an extension of or a violation of the Golden Rule. I understand what you’re getting at, I think, but I would like to remind you that I have never told anyone to get information about the Catholic Church from non-Catholic sources to the exclusion of Catholic sources. That would just be ridiculous.

It is greatly relevant since we are talking about imbibing misrepresentations about party A, with no willingness to approach party A for clarification. nor any willingness to accept the clarification of party A about itself.

Man, you really love that verb, don’t you? I can’t for the life of me ascertain why.

Anyway, I think we’re pretty much done here. Peace.

 

[mardukm]

The way that you approach dialogue with individuals is a handy simulacrum of how you’d have the churches approach one another. We’re all just misunderstanding Rome, and by God if our misunderstandings could be corrected, we’d all see the wisdom and truth that you have found therein. I think that this degrades the position from which your partner asserts himself, but that’s just me getting all bent out of shape again, I guess.

I admit we live by different principles. I believe that one partner should not come to the table with presuppositions about the other party, but be willing to listen in humility. I believe there is still a possibility for understanding between partners. What I read here from you and other non-Catholics is that one party (namely your own) has their views about Catholicism already set in stone, and the Catholic party just has to kowtow. And you think my position is the one that degrades?

And the dialogues continue regardless of what anyone here thinks about them.

Amen to that.

And “uniatism”…I don’t know if you’re referring to the Easterners when you write that, but I haven’t seen anything close to that attitude coming from the OO.

Yes, I am speaking more of EO, not OO. With all due respect, your own personal outlook as you have presented it seems rather uniatist - insofar as you have expressed that you are not willing to listen to Catholic sources explain about itself.

I wasn’t aware that was possible to “pretend-reject” Rome. Have the OO and EO just been playing at being communions for the past 1500-1000 years?

Given the lack of communication, I seriously doubt there was any sort of pretense in the past. Today, however, communication is much, much better, and the likelihood of pretense is greater - i.e., since info is much more readily available, there is a greater likelihood that the info is just being ignored, and, hence, pretense. A perfect example is the recent thread on scholasticism, where an EO proferred an essay misrepresenting the Catholic teaching on the relationship between Faith and Reason. Direct documentary evidence was given to him refuting practically every misrepresentation in the essay, but - with no response or reason - the EO poster simply maintained his position. You keep pleading for the possibility that a non-Catholic may have a valid reason for his/her view - so why aren’t they able to provide such reasons when challenged? (I know this thread is not about particular issues, so we don’t need to discuss such issues here).

I’m saying that for me, with regard to your example of the IC or any other similar example you could bring up, I do not see that as reason enough to find Alexandria in error in her teaching of the faith, which is really what attracts me and other converts, not any of her stance (wrong or right, from outsider’s perspectives such as yours) toward particular Roman doctrine.

I understand that. All I’m saying is one should not so readily accept what a non-Catholic source states about Catholicism, especially if the opinion is condemnatory. In such instances, one should always go to the Catholic Church to let her explain herself first instead of blindly accepting such condemnations at face value (as the Scripture verses I quoted exhort us to do).

This is what I meant when I wrote that nothing in the Orthodox world is argued with Rome as a signpost of any kind anyway. When you find otherwise, it is because the leadership of the Orthodox church has seen fit to address a given point.

That’s perfectly fine. Let Orthodox (Eastern or Oriental) stick to explaining their own teachings. That can easily be done without criticizing orthodox Catholicism through misrepresentation.

I find no fault in that, just as I find no fault in Rome addressing this or that point of Orthodox doctrine or Protestant belief even as members of those churches might reject Rome’s analysis of the same.

Agreed. But there is fault when there is misrepresentation, no matter who it comes from (Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant).

I am not confusing anything with anything. Particularly, I am not confusing your retelling of what the Oriental Orthodox believe with the guidance that they themselves are giving me. If their priests tell me that their understanding differs or is similar to that of Rome on a given issue, I believe it. And they are the ones who have told me that they do not embrace things like the IC because their understanding of Original Sin does not mandate it, and they certainly do not find it Orthodox. That’s enough for me. What Rome believes or how it substantiates that belief is really a separate issue.

If you don’t mind, please point me to these OO sources you claim reject the IC based on a different understanding of Original Sin. A link will do - we don’t have to discuss it here in this thread.

If you re-read my posts you’ll find what I actually stated is “I have not written anywhere that Rome is not trustworthy about its own faith”, and “if you want to know what Rome says it believes, you need to read Roman sources.”. These are the actual words I have used. Furthermore, I clarified my stance by adding that this is different than actually BELIEVING IN what Rome says about itself.

The highlighted portion is exactly what I was referring to. You are not willing to listen to Rome’s explanation of its own teachings. I’m not talking about claims of orthodoxy. I’m talking about the explanation of the teachings as such.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Yes, but would you say that there are far more misrepresentations out there of Catholic doctrine than essentially accurate ones? I am taking a page from Rawb here, in that I don’t think that many of the things that you see as misrepresentations are necessarily so.

My position is that I am willing to admit that there is a difference if the non-Catholic can demonstrate it. So far, no non-Catholic has been able to do this on a LOT of issues.

As I tried to explain previously, I rejected Rome long before I came upon Alexandria.
This is an unfounded concern, in my case.

What is an unfounded concern - (1) that you might imbibe misrepresentations of the Catholic Church? or (2) That HH Pope Shenoute has a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church teaches about the IC?

Did you miss the part where I explained what I mean by that, that SOMEONE somewhere is misrepresenting the faith? I really only mean it at that most basic of levels.

I understand that, but one shouldn’t generalize. We should take it one issue at a time (like the Orthodox-Catholic colloquies are doing).

As I wrote my first post, things I disagree with are polemical, while things I agree with are logical to the point of being obvious. Perhaps I could amend this to say things that I agree with are proper representations, while things I disagree with are misrepresentations.

One shouldn’t presume that disagreement automatically equates to misrepresenation/polemicism. There has to be proof that mispresentation exists. I offered a six-point rational process of such a determination in an earlier post.

I am not expecting anyone to do anything. I don’t think I can argue anyone into or out of something as serious as their chosen religion or church. That’s God’s business. Just the other day I advised an acquaintance (regarding Orthodoxy) that it is something that everyone must figure out for himself. People all around are here to help you (as I can say honestly that several key figures in my time as an RC unknowingly helped me on my way toward Orthodoxy), if you find yourself at some sort of crossroads. But it is not up to me, or anyone, to push someone in that way. I have more faith in the faithful than to consciously try to do that. (And if I have unconsciously done that, I am very sorry and beg repentance before my Lord and Savior that He may forgive me my many sins.)

You think that advising someone to go to a Catholic source to find out about Catholic teaching, or to go to an Orthodox source to find out about Orthodox teaching, etc., etc., is “pushing” someone?

I do not see this argument as an extension of or a violation of the Golden Rule. I understand what you’re getting at, I think, but I would like to remind you that I have never told anyone to get information about the Catholic Church from non-Catholic sources to the exclusion of Catholic sources. That would just be ridiculous.

Acknowledged. But, if you don’t mind my saying, there’s a big difference between what you stated, and positively telling people that if one wants to find out about the Catholic Church, they should go to the Catholic sources. For all anyone knows all you could be saying is “I didn’t tell anyone NOT to go to Catholic sources.” Practically speaking, I think that is just as bad as positively presenting a NON-Catholic source as a reliable witness to Catholic teaching.

Man, you really love that verb, don’t you? I can’t for the life of me ascertain why.

It just fits.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

What I read here from you and other non-Catholics is that one party (namely your own) has their views about Catholicism already set in stone, and the Catholic party just has to kowtow.

To be fair, I don’t consider my own views to be representative of my “party” at all (if you mean the Coptic Orthodox). Most Copts have never been Catholics, and so wouldn’t really know its doctrines from having being taught them as I have been.

And you think my position is the one that degrades?

Yeah, I do.

With all due respect, your own personal outlook as you have presented it seems rather uniatist

Wouldn’t mind explaining what you mean by this label? I’m not seeing it in my own arguments, but then of course I am biased.

insofar as you have expressed that you are not willing to listen to Catholic sources explain about itself.

Mardukm, I’ve clarified and re-clarified myself several times by now on this point. Listen to me, please: I am NOT unwilling to listen to what Catholic sources say about themselves. I am unwilling to BELIEVE IN what those sources say. In other words, Catholic sources may say this or that, but I will not necessarily believe in whatever statements are found in them (depending on what it is we’re looking at). That’s all. This is a very basic distinction, and it is baffling to me that you keep misstating it as “you are not willing to listen to Catholic sources”.

Direct documentary evidence was given to him refuting practically every misrepresentation in the essay, but - with no response or reason - the EO poster simply maintained his position. You keep pleading for the possibility that a non-Catholic may have a valid reason for his/her view - so why aren’t they able to provide such reasons when challenged? (I know this thread is not about particular issues, so we don’t need to discuss such issues here).

Was the EO poster me? I am confused as to why you’re including me in your recollection of an argument over what someone else said. Even if I agreed with it, that likely doesn’t mean anything beyond the fact that we both disagreed with you on a given issue. I’m not interested in being EO. Any EOs argument is their own, just as my arguments are my own, and your arguments are your own. If I say that non-Catholics have what I consider a valid reason for their view, it means nothing more than that. It doesn’t mean that you would see that as a valid view, because indeed to you there are no valid reasons to disagree with the Roman Catholic Church, are there? So I don’t see why you brought this up, as it really just boils down to “you don’t believe as I do, and I think that’s wrong.” Well…not to be a brat, but duh. If/when I agree with you, I’ll say so.

I understand that. All I’m saying is one should not so readily accept what a non-Catholic source states about Catholicism, especially if the opinion is condemnatory. In such instances, one should always go to the Catholic Church to let her explain herself first instead of blindly accepting such condemnations at face value (as the Scripture verses I quoted exhort us to do).

Who says anything about blindly accepting something? Unless you are so arrogant as to believe that the only true discernment that occurs in the life of the believer is that which leads to Rome, I don’t know why you’re arguing in this manner.

That’s perfectly fine. Let Orthodox (Eastern or Oriental) stick to explaining their own teachings. That can easily be done without criticizing orthodox Catholicism through misrepresentation.

And in those cases when they think that Catholicism is right to be criticized, then they ought to be free to do so. Does not the Roman Pontiff refer to the Orthodox on occasion as “defective” for their (erroneous, in his view) lack of communion with Rome? Should I take this as an opportunity to start telling Rome what it can comment on?

Agreed. But there is fault when there is misrepresentation, no matter who it comes from (Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant).

For what feels like the bazillionth time, this only works as any kind of response if you already believe that there is so much misrepresentation at the root of Orthodox or Protestant disagreement. I can’t speak to Protestants, but I think that the Orthodox often have very solid reasons for their continued separation from Rome.

If you don’t mind, please point me to these OO sources you claim reject the IC based on a different understanding of Original Sin. A link will do - we don’t have to discuss it here in this thread.

I hesitate to play your game of source leapfrog, but you can find various writings of HH Pope Shenouda III, Fr. Tadros Malaty, and others on original sin, the IC, and related topics on orthodoxebooks.org/, using the search engine found there. Yes, I would prefer not to discuss what you find there in this thread.

The highlighted portion is exactly what I was referring to. You are not willing to listen to Rome’s explanation of its own teachings. I’m not talking about claims of orthodoxy. I’m talking about the explanation of the teachings as such.

Oh, for heaven’s sake…I am willing to LISTEN to the explanation, NOT necessarily to accept it. Should I put this in my signature so that I won’t have to write it in every single post from now on? It would be quicker… :banghead:

 

[dzheremi]

My position is that I am willing to admit that there is a difference if the non-Catholic can demonstrate it. So far, no non-Catholic has been able to do this on a LOT of issues.

Once again, for me the fact that they say there is is enough for me. And if you are predisposed to view the various differences as misunderstandings or matters of semantics (even when Orthodox sources disagree with that idea), it could be said that there is no evidence that could be brought before you that would satisfy your standard. I certainly know that for me there is no evidence that could be brought from Rome that would satisfy me. I’m pretty upfront about that, though.

What is an unfounded concern - (1) that you might imbibe misrepresentations of the Catholic Church? or (2) That HH Pope Shenoute has a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church teaches about the IC?

A modified version of (1) – if I am led astray in your view, this can’t be the fault of Alexandria (or Constantinople, or Antioch), as I had already left Rome of my own decision prior to having any idea where I might end up. I certainly could not have imagined Alexandria. It is probably the least likely of choices.

I understand that, but one shouldn’t generalize.

Sometimes I think generalizations are appropriate so that we can establish some sort of common understanding of the other at the most basic level.

One shouldn’t presume that disagreement automatically equates to misrepresenation/polemicism. There has to be proof that mispresentation exists. I offered a six-point rational process of such a determination in an earlier post

.

I am not interested in such things.

You think that advising someone to go to a Catholic source to find out about Catholic teaching, or to go to an Orthodox source to find out about Orthodox teaching, etc., etc., is “pushing” someone?

This is not really what I’m talking about. I meant more that people who are obviously searching for something should be made aware of what is available to them for their own edification, but not pushed to one direction or the other, as in my experience this does nothing but scare people off. A gentle general encouragement to grow in the Lord can do wonders, while official, high-minded and occasionally confusingly-worded documents can cause headaches, burnout, or worse. In a perfect world, we’d all have spiritual fathers to turn to. In an imperfect world, I pray for all who are trying to discern the movement of the Holy Spirit in their lives (as the Holy Spirit does the real guiding), as I don’t know anyone who is involved in much else.

Acknowledged. But, if you don’t mind my saying, there’s a big difference between what you stated

No there isn’t. Not when I’ve said several times in this thread (even to the point of quoting myself!) that those who want to know what the RC church believes should go to Catholic sources. Maybe you missed those bits, though.

For all anyone knows all you could be saying is “I didn’t tell anyone NOT to go to Catholic sources.” Practically speaking, I think that is just as bad as positively presenting a NON-Catholic source as a reliable witness to Catholic teaching.

Sheesh. Be careful, Mardukm…you could sprain something from stretching as far as you are stretching here to make an argument out of nothing. I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings or something that I am not presenting Rome with all the enthusiasm that you do. I honestly don’t care enough about this to even entertain a discussion of it. How about you present Rome as you wish if you are so concerned that I am not earning my fidei defensor merit badge? I’ve got laundry and drying paint to keep an eye on.

 

[Mickey]

How about you present Rome as you wish if you are so concerned that I am not earning my fidei defensor merit badge? I’ve got laundry and drying paint to keep an eye on.

 

[Mickey]

A perfect example is the recent thread on scholasticism, where an EO proferred an essay misrepresenting the Catholic teaching on the relationship between Faith and Reason. Direct documentary evidence was given to him refuting practically every misrepresentation in the essay, but - with no response or reason - the EO poster simply maintained his position.

But we do not accept your evidence. The essay was superb and the Metropolitan who offered it had some superb insights. I do not believe you refuted anything at all.

It is rather humorous that you are still whining about it.

 

[gregdaly]

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.

This is refreshingly honest.

But coming from a rationalist, athiest background, I must say it violates some pretty fundamental ethical principles.

I guess people have to do what they have to do. We all have to rationalize to get through the day. But, IMO, that’s a pretty BIG rationalization!

In Christ,
Greg

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t see it as being any more of a rationalization than Catholics must go through to justify their own particular stances which separate them from Orthodoxy. I think it’s pretty disingenuous, in fact, to pretend as though we’re not all doing essentially the same thing.

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t see it as being any more of a rationalization than Catholics must go through to justify their own particular stances which separate them from Orthodoxy. I think it’s pretty disingenuous, in fact, to pretend as though we’re not all doing essentially the same thing.

Our separation from Orthodoxy is not a voluntary thing that we seek to justify. They made the decision to excommunicate us.

I think that Gregdaly makes a good point. We need to work toward agreeing on objective facts - which should not be in dispute, and we need to begin working to a coherent and common interpretation of facts. However there is one matter that should be trivially simple: the meaning of Catholic writings can only reasonably be made by the authors and the continuing magisterium that upholds that tradition. You may reasonably disagree about the logic, or see errors of fact. But to claim that the authors mean something that they say that they do not mean, that is not reasonable, it is purely polemical.

 

[dzheremi]

Our separation from Orthodoxy is not a voluntary thing that we seek to justify. They made the decision to excommunicate us.

I disagree with this interpretation of events. From what I’ve been told from both Catholics and Orthodox, the excommunications were mutual.

I think that Gregdaly makes a good point. We need to work toward agreeing on objective facts - which should not be in dispute

I do not believe that Rome is very objective. I’m not either, but again I’m not pretending to be. I agree with Rome in so far as Rome is to be agreed with (when not manipulating things to support her particular claims), and disagree with Rome in so far as Rome is to be disagreed with (in her particular claims that separate the communion from the orthodox faith). That’s as objective as I can be.

and we need to begin working to a coherent and common interpretation of facts.

I agree.

However there is one matter that should be trivially simple: the meaning of Catholic writings can only reasonably be made by the authors and the continuing magisterium that upholds that tradition. You may reasonably disagree about the logic, or see errors of fact. But to claim that the authors mean something that they say that they do not mean, that is not reasonable, it is purely polemical.

I have not claimed any such thing to begin with. Again, since I am apparently having trouble clarifying this distinction, what I am saying is this and only this: Rome may claim this or that in some official document or some other capacity, but the truth of the matter may be elsewhere. There is a difference between correctly summarizing Roman claims (like Mardukm’s IC example, wherein the IC has apparently been misinterpreted by HH Pope Shenouda III) and believing in the supposed truth of the same. I know you’ll say “well how can you accept or reject anything based on an incorrect understanding of what the belief actually is?” Fair enough, but that is not reason to suppose that every rejected belief is only rejected based on some misinterpretation. I can’t speak for el-Baba, but I can say that for myself: I went through RCIA (taught by a woman who had grown up in the pre-VII church, under the guidance of the priest who was similarly anachronistic), I read the official Vatican documents and owned the standard Catechism, and I just don’t believe that Rome adheres to the true faith.

There is a danger in spending so much time decrying “misinterpretations” that ignores the reality that properly-explained/understood erroneous doctrine is just as wrong as improperly-explained/understood erroneous doctrine. For instance, I trust that Mardukm is a source of properly-explained Catholic doctrine, yet I have not agreed with him in many moons. Similarly, when I read a Vatican document on this or that particular doctrine, I often have the sensation of enjoying a particularly well-crafted piece of sophistry Again: The RCC can claim whatever it wishes, but accepting those claims or arguments as truth is another matter.

 

[gregdaly]

I don’t see it as being any more of a rationalization than Catholics must go through to justify their own particular stances which separate them from Orthodoxy.

I have no problem with rationalization. As I said, we all do it everyday. The issue here is your principle that you cannot let the Catholics speak for themselves. Forgive me for saying so, but your “listen, but not believe” argument is just doublespeak. On the most basic principles of justice, a second-hand source is less reliable than a first-hand source. If you go to any court of law, that is known as hearsay. I think someone earlier gave some good Bible quotes that indicate Christians should not depend on hearsay.

I think it’s pretty disingenuous, in fact, to pretend as though we’re not all doing essentially the same thing.

Tu quoque argumentation is invalid argumentation to a lot of people.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[Rawb]

I have no problem with rationalization. As I said, we all do it everyday. The issue here is your principle that you cannot let the Catholics speak for themselves. Forgive me for saying so, but your “listen, but not believe” argument is just doublespeak. On the most basic principles of justice, a second-hand source is less reliable than a first-hand source. If you go to any court of law, that is known as hearsay. I think someone earlier gave some good Bible quotes that indicate Christians should not depend on hearsay.

I don’t think dzheremi meant to say that he was looking outside of Catholic sources for Catholic teaching, just that the documents Catholicism provides aren’t necessarily true in practice.

Take for example the document Pastor Aeturnus provided by another Orthodox member who showed the numerous times the document says things such as:

Ch. 3, no. 2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

That seems pretty clear about the Catholic teaching on the Pope’s power and authority. A Roman Catholic then quoted this part of that document:

1. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.”[51]

Now see, according to some definitions put forth on this site the argument is done - Catholic teaching says that the Pope’s authority in no way detracts from the authority of other bishops. To then continue saying otherwise, according to the definitions given on this thread, is “polemic” and a “misrepresentation”.

However, is this second paragraph actually true? Does the Pope’s power in no way detract from other bishop’s authority? Just because Rome has written that doesn’t mean it’s true. I could say “I am a vegetarian, having never touched meat to my lips” and then said in the same letter “Beef is not a meat” but is it true?

In the above example the Orthodox would say that the Roman Catholics certainly believe the first quote, but the second quote isn’t true. The Pope’s authority *does *detract from the authority of other bishops. A Roman Catholic could rightly say “The Pope’s authority doesn’t usurp other bishop’s authority” but the Orthodox would disagree. The Catholic could point out the document “proving” such, but the Orthodox would still say “So what? You have a document that says something, but the document isn’t true.” To insist on that point is not being “polemic” but being intellectually honest.