Toutes polémistes?

[dzheremi]

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.

Of course I can, and do. This is just getting silly. Just because I don’t agree with what the Catholic Church claims about itself doesn’t mean that I would censor anybody.

Forgive me for saying so, but your “listen, but not believe” argument is just doublespeak.

How do you figure? If we (again, I believe this is something everyone does) cannot make such a distinction, then there is essentially no way we can have any convictions at all. Because Catholic, Orthodox, and other Christians often make conflicting claims either drawn from or with regard to particular events, Fathers, etc., it is incumbent upon each individual to interpret things within whatever particular tradition in which they find themselves. This is why Latins have a particular view, Orientals several others, Easterners another, etc. It is no more doublespeak that I should point this out then it is when you or another Latin sympathizer rejects the claims of the Eastern Orthodox, or when the Orientals reject both of you, or the Assyrians all equally. To require anything else out of “fairness” to Rome or anyone is just foolishness, frankly. This is why I don’t understand Mardukm’s (and your?) apparent contention that since the Roman church has apparently been misunderstood by its detractors (I don’t know or care if it has), then those of us who don’t agree with Rome’s way of looking at things must…I don’t know…come into union with Rome? Convert to the Latin Church? Do something more than just listen, anyway…

It just seems ridiculous to me. It is trying to force square pegs into round holes, as it still takes Rome as some sort of exonormative authority to which we all must assent. Balderdash and poppycock (hi, board censor!). Again, Rome can claim whatever it wants, but that’s something different than adopting Catholic viewpoints.

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.

That’s nice and all, but we’re not in a court of law, so this is a ridiculous analogy. And people wonder why Western Christianity is sometimes seen as overly legalistic…!

If we’re going to argue like this, then I prefer the idea of Rome being an “expert witness” on post-schism Latin theology and other things that relate uniquely to it and its history. I wouldn’t build my entire case on it, and indeed there are times when its testimony is entirely irrelevant to the case at hand, but if you’re looking for an expert on those things that are specifically within its area of expertise, then I can’t think of any better source to go to. The trouble is when it overreaches, as it sometimes does…

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

Hahaha. Really? So this is how we’re discussing things here? I wouldn’t have thought that anyone here would take something that I’ve presented as an unquestionably necessary part of actually being faithful to a given church or tradition to be some sort of rhetorical trickery. Get it straight: You follow a particular interpretation of the faith, and I follow a particular interpretation of the faith. That’s it. You want to call that a “rationalization”, be my guest, but it is not a fallacy.

 

[gregdaly]

IHowever, 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?

Thanks for the example. That makes sense. However, if you claim not to trust what Rome has written in the second quote, how do you consistently claim to trust what Rome has written in the first quote? If the second cannot be trusted for what it says on its face, logically, the first cannot be trusted for what it says on its face either.

The most logical solution (IMO) is to see how to interpret one in light of the other, instead of trying to set up one in opposition to the other.

To claim that the first sets up a principle where the Pope can impede the authority of the local bishop causes the first to contradict the second. So that cannot be the correct understanding. “How else can it be understood?” is the question I would ask. Maybe a Catholic can help in this.

I would like to see what a Catholic has to say about this. It is their teaching, and they should be given a chance to explain it. I am capable of determining for myself if there is any inconsistency in their logic. If there is, I will reject it. If there isn’t, I will most likely accept (depending on other questions I have about the Catholic faith).

In Christ,
Greg

 

[Rawb]

Thanks for the example. That makes sense. However, if you claim not to trust what Rome has written in the second quote, how do you consistently claim to trust what Rome has written in the first quote? If the second cannot be trusted for what it says on its face, logically, the first cannot be trusted for what it says on its face either.

I (and other 'Dox I’ve spoken to on it) would believe the first quote because we see the Roman Catholic church acting on it - they live out that belief.

They do not live out the second.

Then to me it’s just basic logic - if the pope can remove a bishop for any reason that obviously is a direct disruption of that bishop’s authority. If that bishop is assigned by the pope, if all bishops must be approved by the pope, if the pope can censer a bishop, if the bishop must get permission from the pope to do anything (not that he must get permission for everything, but if there’s even a single thing he must ask permission on) how does that not limit his power?

Look at it this way - if you’re a king, doesn’t the mere fact of there being a “High King” limit your authority?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Greg,

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.

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

Great points.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Of course I can, and do. This is just getting silly. Just because I don’t agree with what the Catholic Church claims about itself doesn’t mean that I would censor anybody.

As brother Greg, pointed out - doublespeak. You claim you can let the Catholic Church speak for herself, but nevertheless blatantly assert:
“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.”

You can do whatever you want to rationalize your decisions to get through the day, brother. That’s your prerogative. But I think brother Greg has given an accurate assessment of your statements.

The trouble is when it overreaches, as it sometimes does…

And your sources don’t?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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

Excellent sir!

Alex

 

[dzheremi]

As brother Greg, pointed out - doublespeak. You claim you can let the Catholic Church speak for herself, but nevertheless blatantly assert:
“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.”

You can do whatever you want to rationalize your decisions to get through the day, brother. That’s your prerogative. But I think brother Greg has given an accurate assessment of your statements.

Ah, I think I am beginning to see where our confusion lies. You take me to mean that I do not actually let the Vatican documents speak for themselves if the Orthodox would interpret them differently, right? I could see how you would come to that conclusion based on what I’ve written (admittedly it is ambiguously-phrased, but I can’t think of a better way to rephrase it), but that’s not quite what I was getting at. Rather, I specified as clearly as I could the situation in which I refuse to agree with Rome: When my own sources of (Orthodox) faith formation (meaning: the priests, the laypeople, and the bishops) disagree with the Catholics.

Think about it this way: In every Catholic (or Orthodox) declaration or document, a particular reasoning or chain of arguments is set forth from which a particular conclusion is to be drawn. So, if I were required to accept any particular reasoning as being objectively true, as opposed to being an accurate representation of how a given church or communion conceptualizes the matter under discussion, it would be impossible for me to not accept the conclusions that follow from that reasoning as likewise being true (because I am a rational human being). So, when presented with a given piece of Catholic reasoning, I accept the second “truth” (that this is truly what the Catholic church is arguing or claiming to be guided by), but not necessarily the first (that what the Catholic church is arguing is objectively the truth, separate from accepting its reasoning). Do you now see the distinction I am making? This is why it is easy for me to dismiss any example you can bring me about HH misinterpreting this or that about Catholics. Maybe he did, and that certainly is a reason to not trust him as a source of Catholic doctrine, but that is something different than accepting the claims of the Catholics (which I know because, unlike el-Baba, I was actually RC! I think you might be pleasantly surprised at how often I’ve taken the time to correct errant Copts on this or that part of Catholic doctrine that they really don’t understand).

I believe that this must be the case for anyone in any church, because otherwise you could not pick up a book or pamphlet or listen to a lecture on a given topic without being swayed by it, and would cycle through all manner of belief systems and movements due to your own rootlessness and malleability.

And your sources don’t?

Again, no they don’t, because I don’t look to the Orthodox to explain Catholicism to me (I was unaware what HH had written about the IC until you told me about it, for instance), and I wouldn’t trust most of them to get it right, as they are writing about beliefs that are entirely outside their tradition. That doesn’t mean that I don’t have very real and substantial disagreements with the Roman Catholic communion.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Greg,

Thanks for the example. That makes sense. However, if you claim not to trust what Rome has written in the second quote, how do you consistently claim to trust what Rome has written in the first quote? If the second cannot be trusted for what it says on its face, logically, the first cannot be trusted for what it says on its face either.

The most logical solution (IMO) is to see how to interpret one in light of the other, instead of trying to set up one in opposition to the other.

To claim that the first sets up a principle where the Pope can impede the authority of the local bishop causes the first to contradict the second. So that cannot be the correct understanding. “How else can it be understood?” is the question I would ask. Maybe a Catholic can help in this.

I would like to see what a Catholic has to say about this. It is their teaching, and they should be given a chance to explain it. I am capable of determining for myself if there is any inconsistency in their logic. If there is, I will reject it. If there isn’t, I will most likely accept (depending on other questions I have about the Catholic faith).

Maybe I can help you with this. But this is not the topic of the thread. Might I suggest that you do a search for a thread that reflects this concern, and pose your question there?

Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

Again, no they don’t, because I don’t look to the Orthodox to explain Catholicism to me (I was unaware what HH had written about the IC until you told me about it, for instance), and I wouldn’t trust most of them to get it right, as they are writing about beliefs that are entirely outside their tradition. That doesn’t mean that I don’t have very real and substantial disagreements with the Roman Catholic communion.

Thank you very much for your explanation. I think we are actually on the same page here.

As I mentioned in a previous post, when I talk about the Catholic Church speaking for itself about itself, I am referring to her explanations of her own doctrines/Faith, not about her claims to orthodoxy.

It is up to each person to investigate a Church’s claims of orthodoxy for themselves, but it should always and only be based on what that particular Church explains about its own doctrines, not on what someone else claims those doctrines supposedly teach.

If you agree, give me a thumbs up.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

Not only do I agree, that’s actually what I meant this entire time every time I tried to explain it previously. Rome may claim this or that, but accepting Rome’s claims as to the correctness of her given positions is something fundamentally different than accepting that such-and-such is what Rome is claiming. Perhaps now it also makes a little bit more sense why I said “to Rome, nothing she does is unorthodox”, as it is only orthodoxy that I am interested in.

So, uh…two thumbs up to the satisfactory resolution to this…

 

[gregdaly]

I (and other 'Dox I’ve spoken to on it) would believe the first quote because we see the Roman Catholic church acting on it - they live out that belief.

They do not live out the second.

If I based my decision on which Church to be a member on how her members live out that standard of her teaching, I would, frankly, remain athiest. I admit I haven’t investigated how well each Church lives out its teachings at all, but just from what one can see on the Internet, I don’t think any Church has ever done this perfectly. The child abuse scandal which affected (perhaps still affects) ALL the Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant alike) is a good example. Another one that has caught my eye is the Russian Orthodox complaint against the Catholic Church in Russia. That’s just pure hypocrisy to an outsider like me. I’ve read of the relationship between the Coptic Orthodox and the Church of the East. I think in that instance, the Coptic Orthodox Church is being hypocritical - it expects others to understand what she teaches about the Nature of Christ, yet it is not willing to grant that same benefit of the doubt to the Church of the East. From what I know, the Syriac Orthodox Church still has a good relationship with the Church of the East, so they are more consistent.

These are just matters that pop out at me from a cursory search on the Internet. Like I said, I haven’t really investigated it in depth because I do not live the life of those Churches (yet). Whatever else the case may be, I am certain that if I decide to become a member of any Church, it will ONLY be because of its teachings (its consistency and faithfulness to “Sacred Tradition”), not on how well its members live out those teachings.

I grant that there are some people who judge a Church by the actions of its members. I like (pretend?) to think that my criteria is more sensible. There might very well come a time when the actions of a Church’s members forces me to reject that Church. But I am not there yet, since I am not yet immersed in any Church. I am trying to look for a Church based on its teachings only. Truth to tell, if there ever comes a time when I have joined a Church because I believe its teachings, and I find myself not able to remain in it for sheer disgust at the sins of its members, it is more likely I will leave Christianity altogether instead of trying to look for another Church.

Then to me it’s just basic logic - if the pope can remove a bishop for any reason that obviously is a direct disruption of that bishop’s authority. If that bishop is assigned by the pope, if all bishops must be approved by the pope, if the pope can censer a bishop,

My consistent criteria, as explained, will be to judge a Church by her teachings, not on what some else outside that Church might say. I would prefer a Catholic to explain this. However, I will accept your statements if you can show me a Catholic teaching that specifically states that the pope can remove a bishop for any reason.

if the bishop must get permission from the pope to do anything (not that he must get permission for everything, but if there’s even a single thing he must ask permission on) how does that not limit his power?

If the bishop does not need permission for everything, then I personally don’t see a problem. It’s common sense (to me anyway) that a bishop is not able to do just anything he d**n well pleases in his diocese. What would concern me more is whether or not the Pope has any limits to his own authority. I am willing to consider both a Catholic and non-Catholic opinion on this. But, as Mardukm has pointed out, that conversation is not for this thread. I’ll post on the matter when I am ready, and I look forward to your own comments.

Look at it this way - if you’re a king, doesn’t the mere fact of there being a “High King” limit your authority?

It depends on how far and how often the “High King” interferes in my affairs. That seems like a sensible answer, right? In any case, in terms of Christianity, I don’t believe any king (“high king” or otherwise) can rule with absolute power. Authority is meant to be exercised in service to the Church, according to our Lord.

So, to be perfectly honest, if each authority (“high king” or “king”) understands what their authority is for according to Christ, I really, really do not understand where you are coming from. If his position is meant to serve, concerns about one’s own authority is only a matter of pride. A bishop’s only concern should be how best to serve his flock. If the Pope can help, the bishop should be more than willing to accept that help because his concern is only for the welfare of his flock, not about the level or status of his personal authority. A Pope’s only concern should be how best to serve the Church as a whole. If the best way to do this is for the bishops to serve their own flocks by themselves, then he should humbly refrain from interfering, and not feel like this is some sort of affront to his authority.

I think all this argument about jurisdiction causes people to forget that all bishops (local, patriarch or pope) were given by God to his Church to SERVE, not for any pretensions of control.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[gregdaly]

Maybe I can help you with this. But this is not the topic of the thread. Might I suggest that you do a search for a thread that reflects this concern, and pose your question there?

Thank you, mardukm. I will take you up on that offer when I am ready.

In Christ,
Greg

P.S. Is Mardukm your real name or a handle? What does it mean, if you don’t mind my asking?

 

[gregdaly]

Not only do I agree, that’s actually what I meant this entire time every time I tried to explain it previously. Rome may claim this or that, but accepting Rome’s claims as to the correctness of her given positions is something fundamentally different than accepting that such-and-such is what Rome is claiming. Perhaps now it also makes a little bit more sense why I said “to Rome, nothing she does is unorthodox”, as it is only orthodoxy that I am interested in.

So, uh…two thumbs up to the satisfactory resolution to this…

Dzheremi, thank you for the explanation. I retract what I earlier stated that you were violating some very basic principles of justice.

I’m going to try to play peacemaker here.

Mardukm, I hope you retract your statement that Dzheremi is closeminded.

Dzheremi, I hope you retract your statement in that other thread that mardukm is being hypocritical for claiming that you were closeminded.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[dzheremi]

For sure, all things are only so many words that will be forgotten in light of substantial agreement. I don’t now or ever hold anything against anyone here, no matter how tiring I find it to have to go over the same territory over and over (I’m sure I’m not alone in this respect). I’ve been understood as being overly emotional, but that comes from the difficulty of trying to express oneself precisely and properly in text and being consistently misunderstood. I’ll work on being more clear to begin with, and to anyone I have offended, I am very sorry. It was unintentional. Please accept my apologies.

 

[mardukm]

Dzheremi, thank you for the explanation. I retract what I earlier stated that you were violating some very basic principles of justice.

I’m going to try to play peacemaker here.

Mardukm, I hope you retract your statement that Dzheremi is closeminded.

Dzheremi, I hope you retract your statement in that other thread that mardukm is being hypocritical for claiming that you were closeminded.

On the issue of how to approach each other in dialog and respect, through the Grace of the Holy Spirit, the church of Marduk and the church of Dzheremi have signed a mutual agreement consisting of the following:

1. We consign to oblivion all statements hurtful or perceived to be hurtful by each church to the other, particularly words such as “closeminded” and “hypocrite.”
2. We confess that our mutual estrangement has been due to nothing more than a lack of clarity in statements made by both parties.
3. We affirm that the only way to discover what any one Church actually teaches is to take it from the horse’s mouth, and not from another source.
4. We promise to be discerning about the sources upon which we depend for information, and try our best to refer only to Magisterial sources for a true representation of the position of any particular Church.

On the following matters, the two churches recognize that further dialogue is necessary:

1. What degree of trustworthiness can be assigned to individual theologians from a Church as an actual representative of the teaching of that Church.
2. What degree of blame can be put on a Church for the individual acts of its members which may violate the principles of that Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[NinjaSnark]

Interesting discussion, folks. I think part of the issue is the nature of the beast, viz. Internet discussions. Delivery/tone is everything, and that’s something that you can’t always accurately deduce from the written word.

 

[dvdjs]

Not only do I agree, that’s actually what I meant this entire time every time I tried to explain it previously. Rome may claim this or that, but accepting Rome’s claims as to the correctness of her given positions is something fundamentally different than accepting that such-and-such is what Rome is claiming.

Very good, as I also misunderstood your position - probably because it is some common here for some to dispute Rome’s understanding of its own documents. I am happy for the clarification.