I wanted people to post their points of disagreement and agreement with that polemical article that was posted a while ago.

As a person that is looking at joining the EC someday in the future, It does matter to me, since I tend to be exposed to arguments like that. Not to mention... I want to fact check things out for myself!

I suppose the best course of action is to break down such an article in a point-by-point fashion and examine each argument and claim against the body of apologetics out there FOR the Catholic Church.

To do this, one might want to take each claim and go to different forums or start googling on the specific claim or topic, one at a time.

When presented with an article that gives an avalanche of reasons, people who want to chime in with agreement or disagreement are going to pick different points to make different points about. That leads to a real scatter-shot free-for-all where many folks will end up speaking past one another. Not very helpful!

That certainly is the most exact way to do it Simple. But in todays internet age, of informality and short attention spans I think that might be asking to much dedication from most users. I don't mind a few talking past situations, I'm use to participating in discussion threads when there are 3 or more parallel conversations going on at once. This is now par for the course given the medium and culture that has evolved from it. I am quite happy for people to talk "off the top of there head" and point out the highlights of what they dislike or like about the article.


I would say it does remind me of other doomsday type articles, yet I reckon the points about the anathemas against people proclaiming such and such about St. Paul is worth looking into.

Do you have a link to this article?

Joe

I think I found the article you were referring to. I'm not sure if it would be helpful to respond to the article since I think it is highly subjective and contentious. Like many apologetical writings, it not sufficiently dispassionate and objective.

Joe

Where is the link?

It may not be the most helpful to take it point by point if responding to them. What I would do is to focus in on their assumptions and slow down the conclusions, focusing on one or two of the most fundamental points.

Terry

Here is where I found it:

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/PaulBallaster_Convolier.en.aspx

You're too kind. Addai is trying to reopen a thread that, I think, was closed by the Administrator. This "article" is filled with vile untruths and distortions and should be consigned to the same place as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"!

I do have to say that this piece is really more of a personal testimony of a person's personal journey, than it is a point by point argument for the Orthodox view. I can sympathize with the author while at the same time recognizing that there is much more to the story of papal primacy than what is presented there.

Joe

Oops, I didn't realize that this has already been closed. Well, for my part, I'm not interested in spuring negative feelings among members and after reading the article, I have to confess that I don't think it is one stimulates fruitful dialogue.

Joe

Some disagreements cannot be resolved through reason. The article Joe linked to was written nearly fifty years ago and it is impossible to have a debate with its author. The vision he gathered of the Latin Church can be debated, but with whom?

Terry

I agree with Joe about the fruitfulness.

As referenced, the earlier thread was locked for reasons that John explains in his closing post there. Albeit the lack of charity that contributed to that decision has not recurred in this thread, the underlying concerns that the piece is highly polemical and not contributory to productive discussion remain.

The age of the article (published a half-century ago) is decidely a factor in the expressed views, though it would be naive to suggest that there are not persons yet who would advance similar beliefs. Still, it is an unlikely start point from which to fashion discussion - focusing as much or more on an anti-Catholic bias than on the substantive differences that divide our Churches.

For these reasons, I am locking this thread. Should the Admins, when they have had an opportunity to review it, feel that the prevailing, more reasoned, attitudes being offered in this present discussion give hope to fruitful discussion, they may choose to reopen it.

Many years,

Neil