Catholics and "the Sacred Heart of Mary"

[zippy2006]

In short, we believe that the Holy Virgin was born just like you and me and consciously did not sin by her own free will. That's what makes her sinless, because she consciously lived a life that was without sin.

I understand that, but I asked whether she was subject to death and had an innate proclivity for sin, just as all others do?

There was actually a debate about this same topic in Catholicism, whether the Virgin was sinless because she consciously did not sin or whether she was born immaculately (without sin) but the Pope ended the debate by proclaiming the Immaculate Conception to be an infallible doctrine.

But of course the answer is both. She was born without Original Sin and she consciously did not sin. On the other hand, Eve was born without a proclivity to sin and she did consciously choose to sin.

When I say it takes away her agency, I'm saying that it takes away that she consciously lived without sin by her own free will as opposed to being born without the same proclivity to sin as you and I. She did that on her own, since she was the same as you and I and was not Immaculately Concieved — she chose to not sin.

So you hold that she was born with a proclivity to sin?

 

[xypnios]

I understand that, but I asked whether she was subject to death and had an innate proclivity for sin, just as all others do?



But of course the answer is both. She was born without Original Sin and she consciously did not sin. On the other hand, Eve was born without a proclivity to sin and she did consciously choose to sin.



So you hold that she was born with a proclivity to sin?

She was human, so yes like every other human she had the proclivity to sin since she was born exactly the same to how you or I was born — but she did not sin, ever. This makes her unlike any other human.

I think the fact that she could sin, but didn't is that more venerable.

 

[xypnios]

I understand that, but I asked whether she was subject to death and had an innate proclivity for sin, just as all others do?



But of course the answer is both. She was born without Original Sin and she consciously did not sin. On the other hand, Eve was born without a proclivity to sin and she did consciously choose to sin.



So you hold that she was born with a proclivity to sin?

I hit reply too soon and wanted to add:

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds that the choice to sin was taken away from her...she could not sin.


Orthodoxy holds that she could have sinned, but did not sin.

 

[paul becke]

I'm not familiar with any practice holding Mary's heart to be divine or even sacred; it is usually referred to as "Immaculate."



This is a controversial title for Mary, and I'm not sure it has been officially recognized by the Church.

I quite strongly suspect that that title of Our Lady has been given the official 'thumbs down', as I believe I read fairly recently that the alleged visionary concerned in its dissemination, allegedly at Our Lady's request, did not receive official approval from the Vatiucan.

 

[zippy2006]

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds that the choice to sin was taken away from her...she could not sin.

I'd say that's incorrect.

She was human, so yes like every other human she had the proclivity to sin since she was born exactly the same to how you or I was born — but she did not sin, ever. This makes her unlike any other human.

It seems that this is a controversial issue in the Orthodox Church, especially prior to the Catholic promulgation of the dogma.

For example, Orthodox priest Lev Gillet concludes his discussion of the topic thus:

VI. Let us draw our conclusions:

1. The Immaculate Conception of Mary is not a defined dogma in the Orthodox Church.

2. One can say that since the first part of the nineteenth century the majority of Orthodox believers and theologians have taken their stand against this doctrine.

3. Nevertheless. it is impossible to say that from the Orthodox point of view the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception constitutes a heresy; for canonically it has never been defined as such by an oecumenical council and in fact it has never met with the disapproval of a universal and unchanging consensus of opinion.

4. There does exist a continuous line of eminent Orthodox authorities who have taught the Immaculate Conception.

5. Therefore the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has every right to its existence in the Orthodox Church as an opinion of a school or as a personal theologoumenon based on a tradition worthy of respect.

6. It follows therefore that the Roman definition of 1854 does not constitute an obstacle to the reunion of the Eastern and Western Churches.

7. It is my own view that not only does the Immaculate Conception not contradict any Orthodox dogma but that it is a necessary and logical development of the whole of Orthodox belief. (18)

Also, the Eastern Rite priest, Father Casimir Kucharek, in his book The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, gives evidence of the East holding to the Immaculate Conception. For example:

No sin, no fault, not even the slightest, ever marred the perfect sanctity of this masterpiece of God's creation. For hundred of years, the Byzantine Church has believed this, prayed and honored Mary in this way. Centuries of sacred tradition stand behind this title. [The very vastness of available testimony precludes listing. Two excellent surveys may be consulted: A. Ballerini, "Sylloge monumentorum ad mysterium conceptionis immaculatae virginis deiparae spectantium" (Rome, 1854-1855), and C. Passaglia, "De immaculato deiparae semper virginis conceptu commentarius" (Rome, 1854 -1855).] Even during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when some Western theologians doubted or denied the truth of her immaculate conception, Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox theologians unanimously taught it.

In support of this statement, Fr. Kucharek cites these references in a footnote on pp. 355-356:

Among the better known ninth to thirteenth century Byzantine theologians: Patriarch Photius in his homilies "De Annuntiatione" and "De Nativitate Deiparae" (S. Aristarchis, "Photiou logoi kai homiliai", Vol. II [Constantinople, 1900], pp. 230-245, 368-380); George of Nicomedia in his homilies (PG 100, 1336-1504), especially "Conceptione deiparae" and "Praesentatione Mariae virginis"; Michael Psellos in the recently discovered and edited homily "De Annuntiatione" (PO 16, pp. 517-525); John Phurnensis, "Oratione de Dormitione" (G. Palamas, "Theophanous tou kerameos homiliai", [Jerusalem, 1860], append., pp. 271-276); Michael Glykas, "Annales", III (PG 158, 439-442); Germanus II, Patriarch of Constantinople, "In annuntiationem" (edit. Ballerini, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 283-382); Theognostos the Monk, "In dormitionem" (PO 16, pp. 457-562); Nicetas David, "In nativitatem B.M.V." (PG 105, 16-28); Leo the Wise, "In dormitionem" and "In praesentationeum" (PG 107, 12-21); Patriarch Euthymius of Constantinople, "In Conceptionem Annae" (PO 16, pp. 499-505); Bishop Peter Argorum, "In conceptionem B. Annae"(PG 104, 1352-1365); John Mauropos, "In dormitionem" (PG 120, 1075-1114); James the Monk, "In nativitatem et in praesentationem B.M.V." (PO 16, pp. 528-538). Cf. Jugie, "L'immaculee Conception dans l'Ecriture Sainte et dans la tradition orientale [Rome, 1952], pp. 164-307, for others.

 

[xypnios]

I'd say that's incorrect.



It seems that this is a controversial issue in the Orthodox Church, especially prior to the Catholic promulgation of the dogma.

For example, Orthodox priest Lev Gillet concludes his discussion of the topic thus:



Also, the Eastern Rite priest, Father Casimir Kucharek, in his book The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, gives evidence of the East holding to the Immaculate Conception. For example:

A blog post does not a controversial issue make, and that Eastern Rite Priest is an Eastern Catholic not an Orthodox Christian. There's not really any debate on this.


"The Orthodox church does not accept the Catholic dogma of 1854 -- the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin, in the sense that she was exempt at birth from original sin. This would separate her from the human race, and she would then have been unable to transmit to her Son humanity. But Orthodoxy does not admit in the all-pure Virgin any individual sin, for that would be unworthy of the dignity of the Mother of God."

— Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church. Crestwood: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997.


Saint Vladimir's Seminary is the institution of the OCA, the Orthodox Church in America. That book The Orthodox Church is given to every catechumen in the Anglophone world. This is doctrine. We do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Theotokos was a human with a fully human nature. She didn't sin because she herself of her own volition did not sin. Quoting a Uniate Priest to tell me otherwise doesn't punctuate your point in any meaningful way.

 

[zippy2006]

A blog post does not a controversial issue make, and that Eastern Rite Priest is an Eastern Catholic not an Orthodox Christian. There's not really any debate on this.


"The Orthodox church does not accept the Catholic dogma of 1854 -- the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin, in the sense that she was exempt at birth from original sin. This would separate her from the human race, and she would then have been unable to transmit to her Son humanity. But Orthodoxy does not admit in the all-pure Virgin any individual sin, for that would be unworthy of the dignity of the Mother of God."

— Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church. Crestwood: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997.


Saint Vladimir's Seminary is the institution of the OCA, the Orthodox Church in America. That book The Orthodox Church is given to every catechumen in the Anglophone world. This is doctrine. We do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Theotokos was a human with a fully human nature. She didn't sin because she herself of her own volition did not sin. Quoting a Uniate Priest to tell me otherwise doesn't punctuate your point in any meaningful way.

Both the Eastern Orthodox priest and the Eastern Rite priest cited are much more qualified than you, and both provide abundant citations and sources for their arguments. It seems that this issue is much more complicated than you are willing to admit, or perhaps than you even comprehend.

 

[xypnios]

Both the Eastern Orthodox priest and the Eastern Rite priest cited are much more qualified than you, and both provide abundant citations and sources for their arguments. It seems that this issue is much more complicated than you are willing to admit.

The Eastern Orthodox Priest is Fr Lev Gillet, a French Catholic convert and noted ecumenist. The Eastern Catholic Priest is not Orthodox.


If you'd like to think we believe in the Immaculate Conception, that's on you. I have quoted you doctrine here's some more from the Antiochan Orthodox in Australia's website


Orthodox view on Immaculate Conception | Official website of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines

"Taken at face value, the Western doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is seen by the Orthodox as separating the Mother of God from the rest of the human race. If true, this would have made it impossible for Christ to become truly man, because Mary would therefore not be subject to the same conditions of humanity as those for whom Christ had become incarnate in order to save. Mary is human, and through her, God became fully human as well."


Here is a nice piece on it rebutting the concept by Saint John of Shanghai


St. John (Maximovich) of Shanghai and San Francisco. An Orthodox Christian Understanding of the Immaculate Conception / OrthoChristian.Com


This is official doctrine, we do not and have not ever believed in the Immaculate Conception

Blog posts by a Uniate Catholic and a heterodox Frenchman do not negate the official position of the Orthodox Church as expressed above by the Antiochan Orthodox Church and the writings of Saint John of Shanghai.

If you'd like to delude yourself otherwise, to validate your Catholic worldview then I cannot stop you.

 

[xypnios]

Both the Eastern Orthodox priest and the Eastern Rite priest cited are much more qualified than you, and both provide abundant citations and sources for their arguments. It seems that this issue is much more complicated than you are willing to admit, or perhaps than you even comprehend.

Patriach Bartholomew on the “Immaculate Conception”


Patriarch Bartholomew is the highest authority in Orthodoxy as the Ecumenical Patriarch


https://oca.org/questions/saints/sinlessness-of-mary


The Autocephalous Orthodox Church of America


I'll be awaiting your sincerest apologies.

 

[xypnios]

Both the Eastern Orthodox priest and the Eastern Rite priest cited are much more qualified than you, and both provide abundant citations and sources for their arguments. It seems that this issue is much more complicated than you are willing to admit, or perhaps than you even comprehend.

Wait, there's more!



An Orthodox Christian Understanding of the Immaculate Conception - Hellenic News of America


Still awaiting your apology, and please don't reply to me with blog spam or Catholic sources trying to rebuff me — thanks


The nerve of some people, trying to tell me that I don't "comprehend" my faith because my faith doesn't subscribe to the insulting modernist innovation that the Theotokos couldn't control herself and had to be "cleaned"

 

[zippy2006]

The Eastern Orthodox Priest is Fr Lev Gillet, a French Catholic convert and noted ecumenist. The Eastern Catholic Priest is not Orthodox.

I never said he was Orthodox. He is an Eastern Rite priest and a scholar of Eastern Christianity.

If you'd like to think we believe in the Immaculate Conception, that's on you. I have quoted you doctrine here's some more from the Antiochan Orthodox in Australia's website


Orthodox view on Immaculate Conception | Official website of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines

"Taken at face value, the Western doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is seen by the Orthodox as separating the Mother of God from the rest of the human race. If true, this would have made it impossible for Christ to become truly man, because Mary would therefore not be subject to the same conditions of humanity as those for whom Christ had become incarnate in order to save. Mary is human, and through her, God became fully human as well."


Here is a nice piece on it rebutting the concept by Saint John of Shanghai


St. John (Maximovich) of Shanghai and San Francisco. An Orthodox Christian Understanding of the Immaculate Conception / OrthoChristian.Com


This is official doctrine, we do not and have not ever believed in the Immaculate Conception

Blog posts by a Uniate Catholic and a heterodox Frenchman do not negate the official position of the Orthodox Church as expressed above by the Antiochan Orthodox Church and the writings of Saint John of Shanghai.

If you'd like to delude yourself otherwise, to validate your Catholic worldview then I cannot stop you.

If you had actually read the sources I gave you, you would see that the Orthodox view became very unified after the 19th century (largely due to anti-Roman bias that you so obviously also show forth), so it's no surprise that the modern theologians you cite argue against the Immaculate Conception. But, unsurprisingly, the articles you cite give no historical sources for their belief, unlike the pieces I provided. Prior to the definition in the 19th century, however, there seems to have been numerous Orthodox theologians who subscribed to the Immaculate Conception, including such important figures as patriarch Photius, St. Gregory Palamas, Manuel II Paleologus, patriarch Scholarios, patriach Lukaris, patriach Gerasimo, and many others. Finally, you failed to meet Gillet's challenge to produce an Ecumenical teaching contrary to the Immaculate Conception, thus showing that it is inadmissible to be held as a theological opinion.

 

[xypnios]

I never said he was Orthodox.




If you had actually read the sources I gave you, you would see that the Orthodox view became very unified after the 19th century (largely due to anti-Roman bias that you so obviously also show forth), so it's no surprise that the modern theologians you cite argue against the Immaculate Conception. But, unsurprisingly, the articles you cite give no historical sources for their belief, unlike the pieces I provided. Prior to the definition in the 19th century, however, there seems to have been numerous Orthodox theologians who subscribed to the Immaculate Conception, including such important figures as patriarch Photius, St. Gregory Palamas, Manuel II Paleologus, patriarch Scholarios, patriach Lukaris, patriach Gerasimo, and many others. Finally, you failed to meet Gillet's challenge to produce an Ecumenical teaching contrary to the Immaculate Conception, thus showing that it is inadmissible to be held as a theological opinion.

What challenge? You asserted that there was some sort of division or debate in the church, and that I don't comprehend the church. I gave you a definitive and unquestionable answer that the church does not believe in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. That was the charge.

I'm not moving goalposts and playing games with you. Do you accept that this is the doctrine of my church — that we don't believe in the Immaculate Conception as evidenced by what I've given you? Yes or no.


This isn't an argument. It hasn't ever been an official doctrine, and it is not an official doctrine. We don't believe that men are infallible, only the church is. Therefore it is more than possible that men had this opinion, but it is not the opinion of the church.

I have a pro-Orthodox bias, that's called healthy faith. I'm not a relativist.

 

[zippy2006]

What challenge? You asserted that there was some sort of division or debate in the church, and that I don't comprehend the church. I gave you a definitive and unquestionable answer that the church does not believe in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. That was the charge.

You gave me the opinion of a few men. I guess you do believe in infallibility then?

I'm not moving goalposts and playing games with you. Do you accept that this is the doctrine of my church — that we don't believe in the Immaculate Conception as evidenced by what I've given you? Yes or no.

Doctrine is determined by the whole church and shown forth at the Ecumenical Councils. Is there an Ecumenical Council that has declared Mary to not be immaculately conceived?

This isn't an argument. It hasn't ever been an official doctrine, and it is not an official doctrine. We don't believe that men are infallible, only the church is. Therefore it is more than possible that men had this opinion, but it is not the opinion of the church.

I have a pro-Orthodox bias, that's called healthy faith. I'm not a relativist.

In Catholicism the Church is a historical reality and the consensus of the faithful is not limited to present-day belief. It seems that any Orthodox who takes seriously the notion of Tradition cannot so blithely claim that the Immaculate Conception is excluded from the Orthodox faith--indeed it could, as Father Gillet notes, be held as a legitimate theological opinion.

 

[xypnios]

You gave me the opinion of a few men. I guess you do believe in infallibility then?



Doctrine is determined by the whole church and shown forth at the Ecumenical Councils. Is there an Ecumenical Council that has declared Mary to not be immaculately conceived?



In Catholicism the Church is a historical reality and the consensus of the faithful is not limited to present-day belief. It seems that any Orthodox who takes seriously the notion of Tradition cannot so blithely claim that the Immaculate Conception is excluded from the Orthodox faith--indeed it could, as Father Gillet notes, be held as a legitimate theological opinion.

Ah I see, I've given you an official answer from literally every Orthodox Church. It isn't a doctrine because it hasn't been declared a doctrine, having not been declared a doctrine does not make a doctrine. It has to be declared doctrine to be doctrine, the thoughts of some men aren't "doctrine" — the doctrine of the Church is the doctrine of the Church. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? By your logic if an Orthodox person 700 years ago said that pigs could fly then it is Orthodox doctrine until declared not so at a council?


I trust my Patriarch, a learned theologian as well as every other Patriarchate of Orthodoxy. If you'd like to believe a French convert and a Uniate Catholic over every other Orthodox Church and the most learned theologians in history it screams of your own desperation.


The Virgin Mary was a human, she had the full ability to sin because she was human and not some in between character.

You're grasping at straws and it's pathetic and insulting. I've given you official sources from the Church, you've given me a Heterodox Catholic convert from France and a Uniate. There's not really any argument here.


Go to your nearest Orthodox Church and ask the Priest, he won't even have to think about the answer.


Good bye, you desperate person.

 

[zippy2006]

Ah I see, I've given you an official answer from literally every Orthodox Church. It isn't a doctrine because it hasn't been declared a doctrine, having not been declared a doctrine does not make a doctrine. It has to be declared doctrine to be doctrine, the thoughts of some men aren't "doctrine" — the doctrine of the Church is the doctrine of the Church. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? By your logic if an Orthodox person 700 years ago said that pigs could fly then it is Orthodox doctrine until declared not so at a council?


I trust my Patriarch, a learned theologian as well as every other Patriarchate of Orthodoxy. If you'd like to believe a French convert and a Uniate Catholic over every other Orthodox Church and the most learned theologians in history it screams of your own desperation.


The Virgin Mary was a human, she had the full ability to sin because she was human and not some in between character.

You're grasping at straws and it's pathetic and insulting. I've given you official sources from the Church, you've given me a Heterodox Catholic convert from France and a Uniate. There's not really any argument here.


Go to your nearest Orthodox Church and ask the Priest, he won't even have to think about the answer.


Good bye, you desperate person.

Only after Pope Pius IX defined the dogma in 1854 did opposition to the doctrine solidify among most Orthodox theologians. The Orthodox Church, however, has never made any definitive pronouncement on the matter. When Patriarch Anthimos VII, for example, wrote his reply to Pope Leo XIII's letter in 1895, and listed what he believed to be the errors of the Latins, he found no fault with their belief in the immaculate conception, but objected to the fact that the Pope had defined it.
-Kucharek​

 

[xypnios]

Only after Pope Pius IX defined the dogma in 1854 did opposition to the doctrine solidify among most Orthodox theologians. The Orthodox Church, however, has never made any definitive pronouncement on the matter. When Patriarch Anthimos VII, for example, wrote his reply to Pope Leo XIII's letter in 1895, and listed what he believed to be the errors of the Latins, he found no fault with their belief in the immaculate conception, but objected to the fact that the Pope had defined it.
-Kucharek​

Again, you are quoting a Uniate Catholic. On matters of Orthodox faith and doctrine, the opinion of a Catholic is the same as the opinion of a
Muslim or a Jew or an atheist. Worthless commentary from someone outside the Church, someone by their voluntary circumstances outside of the graces of God because they have seperated themselves from the church.

I have given you the definitive statements of our Patriarchs, you give me the quotes of someone of a foreign faith.

That's really all there is to it here, you have given me nothing but the Catholic opinion on an Orthodox issue.

I think you owe me an apology, but your sinful pride will preclude you from doing that of course. Repent.

 

[zippy2006]

Again, you are quoting a Uniate Catholic. On matters of Orthodox faith and doctrine, the opinion of a Catholic is the same as the opinion of a
Muslim or a Jew or an atheist. Worthless commentary from someone outside the Church, someone by their voluntary circumstances outside of the graces of God because they have seperated themselves from the church.

I have given you the definitive statements of our Patriarchs, you give me the quotes of someone of a foreign faith.

That's really all there is to it here, you have given me nothing but the Catholic opinion on an Orthodox issue.

I think you owe me an apology, but your sinful pride will preclude you from doing that of course. Repent.

Here's an idea! Let the work of the historian speak for itself, and stop committing ad hominem fallacies. History is so pesky, isn't it? It flies in the face of your black-and-white, sealed-up certainties. Fortunately for those faithful to Tradition, history cannot be discounted so easily.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't wish to get involved in a dispute, but I only wish to point out that Catholics often come away saying "we are the same" while Orthodox are often looking at points of the issue that Catholics tend not to address.

One of the important hurdles to an Orthodox agreemement with the IC involves the nature of Original Sin, and why the Theotokos needed to be preserved from it, and what that means for the flesh that Christ took from her.

As St. Athanasius is often quoted, "What has not been assumed has not been healed." If the Virgin Mary did not have the SAME flesh as the rest of mankind, but was somehow elevated, then did Christ really take on HUMAN flesh? And would we have redemption?

These questions are more at the heart of the issue. Yes, the Virgin Mary was subject to death. We observe the Dormition every year in August. The flesh Christ took from her was the same flesh as the rest of mankind. He is fully man, as well as fully God. Not a Demi-God of some kind in the flesh.

I am not saying that Catholics believe Christ is half Demi-God, but in their interest of (I'll leave this blank - I'm actually not sure what the primary motivation was that made the IC necessary?) ... from an Orthodox view, it compromises the means of salvation. That and the fact that we view the way it has been expressed as an innovation, which I'm sure you know we reject on those grounds.

It's not so much "Did the Virgin Mary ever sin?" which is actually not important as far as soteriology to us, but it is more about Christ and His Incarnation.

I don't like to focus on differences, and refuse to argue or debate. But it is a bit curious to me how the dynamics usually go, with Catholics generally focusing on a different aspect and claiming we believe the same.

A lot of freedom is allowable, but just as the early Church was very concerned about even minute details of Christology, it remains important to us today.

Peace to all.

 

[zippy2006]

Here are some blog posts from an Orthodox Priest, Fr. Alvin Kimel:

1. The Ecumenical Stain of Original Sin (Do Catholics and Orthodox really differ?)
2. St. John the Wonderworker (Orthodox Arguments against the Immaculate Conception)
3. Mary Prokathartheisa (The Greek Fathers up to the 14th Century on Mary's "pre-purification")
   
4. St. Mark Eugenicus and the Immaculate Burning Bush (Joseph Bryennius and St Mark Eugenicus on Mary's "pre-purification")
5. Immaculate Virgin: Predestined Before the Ages

 

[zippy2006]

I don't wish to get involved in a dispute, but I only wish to point out that Catholics often come away saying "we are the same" while Orthodox are often looking at points of the issue that Catholics tend not to address.

It's true that Catholics often seek unity and Orthodox are more apt to point out differences. What I have commonly noticed among Orthodox is a certain bitterness or resentfulness towards the Catholic Church. Perhaps it is due to the sacking of Constantinople, the claims of Papal Primacy, or the Westernization of Christianity that "left out" the East. In any case, there are a number of things that will cause many Orthodox to almost rejoice in this bitter attitude; some include Papal pronouncements, Scholasticism or Latinization, or talk of Original Sin. It's not just that Orthodox disagree with Augustine on Original Sin or with scholastic Tridentine formulations, but they take some kind of strange communal joy in their disagreement. This sort of culture of despising Catholicism seems to drive some divergences and color many more. It also leads to a lock-down mentality where historical deviations from current Orthodox teaching on, say, the Immaculate Conception or Papal Primacy are ignored or papered over at all expenses. I find it frustrating and unhealthy.

I don't mean to sound dour. I know there are plenty of Orthodox who would not meet this stereotype, and I have even met a healthy number of them, but dialogue often seems to be an uphill battle.