EO and RCC.

[zippy2006]

What could possibly be wrong with an ecumenical reconciliation between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics in which the Roman church recognized the validity of Eastern Orthodox doctrine, the absolute autonomous autocephaly of the Eastern Orthodox churches and their bishops since antiquity, and the grave error committed when a Roman legate uncanonically excommunicated the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1054?

And why do we need Rome to validate anything of ours?

This whole recent series of replies began with your misrepresentation of @The Liturgist's post. You implied that @The Liturgist claimed that the Orthodox Church requires a basic kind of validation from the Catholic Church. What he actually said was that a reconciliation could occur if the Catholic Church recognized the validity of Orthodox doctrine, which is obviously true.

You lifted that quote out of context in order to take superficial umbrage (yet again). You are a polemical poster who is just trying to take offense, regardless of what is said, even to the point of misrepresenting neutral parties. Such misrepresentative posts deserve no response.

 

[prodromos]

You are a polemical poster who is just trying to take offense, regardless of what is said, even to the point of misrepresenting neutral parties. Such misrepresentative posts deserve no response.

Perhaps you could similarly comment on the polemic posts of some of your Catholic brethren?

 

[zippy2006]

Perhaps you could similarly comment on the polemic posts of some of your Catholic brethren?

I don't think my Catholic brethren have been so drastically misrepresentative as he was in that post, and I thought it would be useful to snip the root of that dialogue before people spend too much time on a topic with such a crude genesis.

Else, #82 was self-censored and it is a two-way street. I don't usually read all of the Catholic posts, but if I see a Catholic poster being that misrepresentative then I will try to correct. On the other hand, I didn't see any Orthodox correcting their brother.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I don't think my Catholic brethren have been so drastically misrepresentative as he was in that post, and I thought it would be useful to snip the root of that dialogue before people spend too much time on a topic with such a crude genesis.

Else, #82 was self-censored and it is a two-way street. I don't usually read all of the Catholic posts, but if I see a Catholic poster being that misrepresentative then I will try to correct. On the other hand, I didn't see any Orthodox correcting their brother.

Ive run into some VERY polemical Catholics on this forum, just not on this thread.

 

[zippy2006]

Ive run into some VERY polemical Catholics on this forum, just not on this thread.

I am not concerned with polemicism per se. On Aristotle's understanding of a definition "a polemical poster" was my genus, whereas the remainder of that sentence was the differentia (or specific difference). Mere polemicism is very common among all groups on this forum, and I myself sometimes engage in it. That's not to say polemics are fine and dandy, but rather that trying to snuff them out would be like playing whack-a-mole.

Beyond that, I'm not a proponent of the "group identity" argument, especially on CF. In the past OBOB has often been just a whine-fest, and I have received long bans from that forum for complaining about such things.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

That's not to say polemics are fine and dandy, but rather that trying to snuff them out would be like playing whack-a-mole.

Beyond that, I'm not a proponent of the "group identity" argument, especially on CF. In the past OBOB has often been just a whine-fest, and I have received long bans from that forum for complaining about such things.

LOL, I typically don't use polemics unless I just want to irritate someone

 

[bbbbbbb]

LOL, I typically don't use polemics unless I just want to irritate someone

Actually, I prefer the fine art of flustering over polemics.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

This whole recent series of replies began with your misrepresentation of @The Liturgist's post. You implied that @The Liturgist claimed that the Orthodox Church requires a basic kind of validation from the Catholic Church. What he actually said was that a reconciliation could occur if the Catholic Church recognized the validity of Orthodox doctrine, which is obviously true.

You lifted that quote out of context in order to take superficial umbrage (yet again). You are a polemical poster who is just trying to take offense, regardless of what is said, even to the point of misrepresenting neutral parties. Such misrepresentative posts deserve no response.

There was no misrepresentation on my part. I assumed he meant that, since the RCC/pope wants to be the supreme authority over everything, that they would need to somehow "bless" our doctrine as valid, as if it were not valid in and of itself. As if something was wrong with our doctrine and would need some sort of approval by Rome. So I misunderstood the intent...so sue me. So you can get off of your high horse now.

 

[zippy2006]

So I misunderstood the intent...

No, you blatantly misread a post by lifting it out of context. The ten words you lifted from that post in order to interpret it as being hostile to Orthodoxy are comical. That wasn't an honest mistake. You took an entire paragraph about how Catholics could reconcile by yielding to the Orthodox and made a strange attempt to interpret it as hostile to Orthodoxy. I doubt you even believe yourself with this excuse.

Here is your post for anyone who is confused on the matter.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

No, you blatantly misread a post by lifting it out of context. The ten words you lifted from that post in order to interpret it as being hostile to Orthodoxy are comical. That wasn't an honest mistake. You took an entire paragraph about how Catholics could reconcile by yielding to the Orthodox and made a strange attempt to interpret it as hostile to Orthodoxy. I doubt you even believe yourself with this excuse.

Believe what you need to "Zippy". I already explained myself. I was being honest. Now you are just bearing false witness against me. The only thing "comical" is you and your post.

 

[prodromos]

No, you blatantly misread a post by lifting it out of context. The ten words you lifted from that post in order to interpret it as being hostile to Orthodoxy are comical.

Having often dealt with Ultramontanists and their attitudes regarding the Church, it is not at all unreasonable to read the comment exactly as Yeshua HaDerekh understood it.
Stop pretending you can read the hearts and minds of people you've never even met.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Having often dealt with Ultramontanists and their attitudes regarding the Church, it is not at all unreasonable to read the comment exactly as Yeshua HaDerekh understood it.
Stop pretending you can read the hearts and minds of people you've never even met.

LOL I did not even know what ultramontanist was! I had to look it up!

 

[zippy2006]

Having often dealt with Ultramontanists and their attitudes regarding the Church, it is not at all unreasonable to read the comment exactly as Yeshua HaDerekh understood it.

No, it is unreasonable, and everyone knows it. No one even tried to defend him, they just claimed that I should also call out Catholics when they say really dumb things like that.

When the child gets caught red-handed with the cookie jar and claims that they weren't at fault, we don't have to believe them. Humoring them will only justify their anti-Catholic neurosis.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

No, it is unreasonable, and everyone knows it. No one even tried to defend him, they just claimed that I should also call out Catholics when they say really dumb things like that.

When the child gets caught red-handed with the cookie jar and claims that they weren't at fault, we don't have to believe them. Humoring them will only justify their anti-Catholic neurosis.

And your arrogant attitude and consensus bias regarding this is in full effect. I already said I understood it differently until the poster's context was explained. The only one here with the neurosis is you...you refuse to accept my honest response and will not even consider that you may be wrong in your accusations...that is ON YOU...

 

[zippy2006]

I ignored the post for four days because it's not even worth responding to, but it continued and continued. If someone managed to find Ultramontanism in post #85 or for some bizarre reason believes that The Liturgist is an Ultramontanist, then they are a paranoid anti-Catholic, full stop. Those defending this paranoia are not only obstructing truth and validating foolishness, but they are cooperating in impeding the perfectly irenic dialogue that The Liturgist--a non-Catholic--was carrying out.

This is a perfect example of the kind of bigoted anti-Catholicism that is frequently found among the Orthodox. This is precisely why many Catholics (mistakenly) believe Orthodox opposition is nothing more than an emotional grudge.

I will stop now, but I firmly reject the falsehood that this was "an honest mistake," as they say. We have seen this sort of behavior time and time again from this poster, and there is nothing reasonable about his interpretation of post #85. That said, I am glad that he has admitted that his interpretation was mistaken, even if he is unable to accept any blame for his mistaken interpretation.

 

[The Liturgist]

I am not concerned with polemicism per se. On Aristotle's understanding of a definition "a polemical poster" was my genus, whereas the remainder of that sentence was the differentia (or specific difference). Mere polemicism is very common among all groups on this forum, and I myself sometimes engage in it. That's not to say polemics are fine and dandy, but rather that trying to snuff them out would be like playing whack-a-mole.

Beyond that, I'm not a proponent of the "group identity" argument, especially on CF. In the past OBOB has often been just a whine-fest, and I have received long bans from that forum for complaining about such things.

Interestingly I have never polemicized for my Congregationalist tradition nor written apologetics in its defense, beyond expressing a view that the model is Patristic in that as the church grew into new cities, the bishop initially had one congregation, and it took some time for lots of churches and presbyters to be established under the bishop, so Congregationalism was a transitional state of freshly planted churches. Today, there are megachurches which use a congregational polity but have multiple “campuses” and I find this absurd; the senior pastor should just make himself the bishop and form a diocese as was done in antiquity. I have no objections to the episcopate as a concept.

 

[prodromos]

No, it is unreasonable, and everyone knows it.

Seeing as I agreed with his post, I can't come to the same conclusion.

No one even tried to defend him

Was there even a need?

they just claimed that I should also call out Catholics when they say really dumb things like that.

That was just me and I did not even imply that what YHD said was dumb. You said it was polemical, yet you were silent about the posts by thecolorsblend. He has since thought better of his posts, but they are still visible quoted in our responses.

 

[zippy2006]

Interestingly I have never polemicized for my Congregationalist tradition nor written apologetics in its defense, beyond expressing a view that the model is Patristic in that as the church grew into new cities, the bishop initially had one congregation, and it took some time for lots of churches and presbyters to be established under the bishop, so Congregationalism was a transitional state of freshly planted churches. Today, there are megachurches which use a congregational polity but have multiple “campuses” and I find this absurd; the senior pastor should just make himself the bishop and form a diocese as was done in antiquity. I have no objections to the episcopate as a concept.

Thanks, that makes sense.

If Rome wound up electing a Pope who was much more liberal than Pope Francis, someone not unlike the fictional Pope John Paul III played brilliantly by John Malkovich in The New Pope, I think that could cause not only a schism, but a re-evaluation of the Papal model, particularly if you had an antipope situation like with Avignon, or other complications which could cause many faithful Catholics to adopt a sedevacantist position.

This is a good point. Even Pope Francis has given many conservative Catholics doubts about "papalism" (such as myself).

Regarding the actual ecumenical talks, the feeling I get is that Pope Francis would probably like to do a deal, some of the Eastern Catholic primates such as the Melkite and Chaldean Patriarchs even more so, but the Orthodox at present are holding back, because some Orthodox churches, such as the Assyrian Church of the East, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches of Russia, Georgia, and Serbia, and most of the faithful in others such as Romania, have strong theological concerns, while other more ecumenically inclined Orthodox churches such as the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople fear a schism; lastly, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has its own political agenda, which is to elevate its position among the EO churches from primus inter pares to primus sine paribus, as the Metropolitan of Bursa, who I fear will likely be the next Ecumenical Patriarch when His All Holiness Bartholomew reposes, has openly admitted. And thus the EP will not push for reunion with Rome when doing so could jeopardize its own agenda.

Eventually Rome will have to choose an ecclesiological side to some extent. For example, I don't think it is possible to retain friendly relations with the SSPX and the Orthodox at the same time. The Catholic Church is in a strange position where there is increasing pressure towards a more episcopal (or "synodal") model, and yet no one really knows what to do with all the papalism of the 19th century.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I will stop now, but I firmly reject the falsehood that this was "an honest mistake," as they say. We have seen this sort of behavior time and time again from this poster, and there is nothing reasonable about his interpretation of post #85. That said, I am glad that he has admitted that his interpretation was mistaken, even if he is unable to accept any blame for his mistaken interpretation.

You are obsessed!! It was not even your post, it was Liturgist's post. Well in this case you are wrong. I honestly explained it. It is YOU who are pushing a falsehood...

 

[prodromos]

If someone managed to find Ultramontanism in post #85 or for some bizarre reason believes that The Liturgist is an Ultramontanist, then they are a paranoid anti-Catholic, full stop.

I do not believe for a moment that The Liturgist is an Ultramontanist, but his mention of the possibility of Rome accepting the validity of Eastern Orthodoxy is something I have come across many times in the years I was a member of Catholic Answers forum, and in that context it was always in the sense that Yeshua HaDerekh understood the comment.