Posted on 07/22/2010 11:01:11 AM PDT by the_conscience
Edited on 07/23/2010 8:45:24 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
I think the_conscience has said that the intention of the OP was to start a thread which would demonstrate to his satisfaction that the poor maligned non-Catholics are so brutally treated by the ho' of babylon that they can't have a caucus thread -- or something like that.
t-c, would you tell us again why you started the thread?
I think the original body of the main thread was posted in such a way that the uninformed would believe that this “confession” is consistent with Orthodox beliefs.
The FACT is that this “confession” was completely rejected by the Orthodox on more than one occasion, the Patriarch Lucaris verbally denied writing it (though he never denied it in writing), the style is totally inconsistent with known writings of his. All of this was CLEARLY ACKNOWLEDGED at the the website where the thread was taken from, but was OMITTED when posted here.
It should be pointed out that, the request of the OP for Roman Catholics to honor the caucus status notwithstanding, it was the Roman Catholics who made Roman Catholicism the issue, explicitly so with wagglebee's first post. There was precisely zero mention of the cited portion of the OP (or of even of the doctrine to which it speaks) to that point, and of course we'll never know if that point ever even would have been discussed because it was forcibly made an issue by the Roman Catholics as an excuse for injecting themselves into a caucus thread.
The fact of the matter is the portion cited does not explicitly pertain to the Roman Catholic Church, nor does it by necessary inference pertain exclusively to the Roman Catholic Church. It simply spoke to the topic of primacy in "ChurchES." Unless the Roman Catholic Church is willing to make the (ridiculously unsupportable) claim that it is the only institution throughout history up until that point to have had any doctrine of primacy with respect to the institutional head of its church, then any claim of direct targeting likewise is unsupportable.
As such, there was no real grounds for removal of the caucus designation other than the incessant self-justifying whining of the Catholics which continues still 200 posts later.
LOL
You can strain all the gnats you want but the camel is still in the middle of the room.
What would the prefatory remarks of a Wesley-Arminian have to do with a Sola/Orthodox caucus? I was only interested in Lucaris’ words and the Orthodox response. If I had included the Arminian’s commentary then some gnat-straining Romanist would have broken the caucus claiming we were excluding Arminians. There’s an infinite amount of gnats to strain for Romanists, it seems.
For the record, I would no more agree to another group barging in on one of your caucus threads. You see, just because I believe something to be true doesn't mean I think its truth value is somehow endangered by others believing and *gasp* even openly claiming that it's not.
No, I simply pointed out that Chapter 10 made a not-so-thinly-veiled reference to the papacy and that made the caucus invalid.
Unless the Roman Catholic Church is willing to make the (ridiculously unsupportable) claim that it is the only institution throughout history up until that point to have had any doctrine of primacy with respect to the institutional head of its church, then any claim of direct targeting likewise is unsupportable.
Perhaps not, but as of the mid-17th Century I don't know of any other Church that the Orthodox would have ever recognized as a valid Church. The Orthodox of that time considered Protestantism to be completely heretical.
Oh! Were back on motives again? And the relevance?
I liked the “ho’ of babylon” part.
Even I am not naive enough to believe that.
The original poster (OP) deliberately omitted the portions of the original source which made it clear that this "confession" was emphatically rejected by the Holy Orthodox. One can't even excuse it as ignorance (by which I mean nothing more that "lack of knowledge"). Independent of any theological issues, such action is a gross violation of ordinary standards of integrity, to say nothing of the moral precepts to which all Christians are expected to adhere. It's an entirely reprehensible act.
The OP himself admits that this thread was nothing more than an "exercise" intended to undermine the caucus system, which is the only corner of this cesspool of a forum in which rational discussion is even possible.
This is the OP's third attempt to game the caucus system. The upshot of the first was "Yes, Catholics can have their caucuses, but it must be labeled with my favorite slur, so that every time it's used, Catholic are automatically insulted." The net result of that conniption was the entirely unnecessary departure of good-willed, well-behaved Orthodox over a controversy that needn't have been stirred up. The religion forum is poorer for their absence.
The second attempt was to allow former Catholics with a grudge to infiltrate Catholic caucus threads, so that they could turn them into the same food-fights which prevail on the open threads.
The third attempt we have before us. Trying as objectively as possible to discern the pattern of behavior here, I must conclude that the modus operandi of the OP is "let's you and him fight, while I sit back and enjoy the chaos I've created." This is a direct attack on the cohesion of the forum itself, and leads me to wonder if there's any degree of destructive behavior which the mods will at long last find intolerable.
Since there's no reason whatsoever to believe that the OP's attempts to undermine the system which is in place - no matter how flawed it may be - are likely to cease, I have to wonder why he or she has yet to be shown the door.
Then why did you OMIT the portion where it was acknowledged that Lucaris DENIED writing them? Where the Orthodox Church CONDEMNED this confession? And where theologians have always suspected that it might be a FRAUD?
Why was that left out?
There’s an infinite amount of gnats to strain for Romanists, it seems.
Oh the "Romanists" are the problem? You have yet to find a single Orthodox FReeper who would support your agenda.
The "Orthodox" have already officially spoken. Unfavorably.
You think that's of less importance to your readers than the fact that the gentleman pointing out this critical pice of information just happens to be a "Wesley-Arminian"?
Seriously?
Being "Arminian" disqualifies one as a source of credible commentary?
If I had included the Arminian’s commentary then some gnat-straining Romanist would have broken the caucus claiming we were excluding Arminians. There’s an infinite amount of gnats to strain for Romanists, it seems.
Gotcha.
If you had included "the Arminian's" remarks some Catholics might have objected.
Not a single person on this site believes that. Not even you.
Excellent analysis.
This is the OP's third attempt to game the caucus system. The upshot of the first was "Yes, Catholics can have their caucuses, but it must be labeled with my favorite slur, so that every time it's used, Catholic are automatically insulted."
Odd that you should mention that.
There was an anti-Catholic troll who had a short stay here about three years ago who had an obsession with changing and redefining the caucus system. I wonder where it comes from.
“You have yet to find a single Orthodox FReeper who would support your agenda. “
You might be surprised.
Oh where are they? Why won't they come forward? Were they also pleased that this document that is likely a fraud was posted WITHOUT disclosing that fact? Were they also pleased with that the fact that the Orthodox Church has specifically rejected this document was not disclosed?
Bookmark for later.
It actually isn't even commentary. The Arminian in question pointed out historical and verifiable FACTS.
The spin being created to give the impression that this "confession" is somehow valid Orthodox dogma reminds me a lot of when CBS and Dan Rather went into their "fake, but accurate" mode.
There was an anti-Catholic troll who had a short stay here about three years ago who had an obsession with changing and redefining the caucus system. I wonder where it comes from.
Odd you should mention that.
I seem to recall reading this very recently:
To: don-o
We could set up a Protestant/Orthodox caucus where we can engage in polite dialogue away from the slings and arrows of the Romanists. We could model it based on this.
1,512 posted on Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:05:13 AM by the_conscience (We ought to obey God, rather than men. (Acts 5:29b))
Followed up by this:
The Confession of Cyril Lucaris
The Voice ^ | 1692 | Cyril Lucaris
Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2010 2:01:11 PM by the_conscience
Of course that could be strictly coincidental.
I’m dying to know, does don-o call his wife a “Romanist” when she brings out the “slings and arrows”?
Quite so.
I was just a little curious as to why being a "Wesley-Arminian" made the gentleman's comments worthy of the editing scissors.
If he'd been Catholic........excuse me.......Romanist.....I could understand it. But "Wesley-Arminian"?
Slings and arrows?
Oh, my...are you sure that kind of talk is appropriate?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.