Jack, you know that Fr.'s argument was not necessarily a Tu Quoque.

Further, it is not imprudence NOT to think "Vadim is a complete moron and cannot...

Local Councils of bishops take place each four years. This is court of the final instance; and, of course, there are lower instances.

I can tell you, and I am telling you, that in my assessment, your argument is a logical fallacy. Imprudent, too, but more importantly, a logical fallacy (which, of course, highlights the imprudence in the argument even if I were to concede it is not a fallacy, which I do not).


I didn't say it is necessarily a tu quoque. I said that it is a tu quoque. In this particular case, I am claiming that it is.

And while Vadim ought to see the idiocy of his claim (even if Obi's argument is fallacious, he still ought to see at least that much), that's hardly the point. Obi will be the first to tell you that there are certain types of posters who cannot be persuaded because they are not open to reasoning. Vadim has long struck me, and I'm sure a lot of people here, as one of those. Now, perhaps I'm wrong and he's not one of those, but suppose he is: the best approach is to show the actual fallacy in his position, not to offer a poor critique that implicitly accepts his fundamental error. In this, the community here is most edified, because they see most clearly his error, and further, they can see the error of either the church he represents or simply his own foolishness. If, on the other hand, I am right and he is the type who will hear sound reasoning, then Obi will have afforded him a better opportunity for repentance than by merely getting into a mud-slinging contest. And so, my initial appeal to Obi to direct his considerable fire where it is most effective, both or Vadim and for the community (both active posters and lurkers).

Shifting Gears...

I've heard that some Orthodox have anti-Catholic tendencies, but I didn't realize how deep thse sentiments ran. Disregarding Vadims comments, it seems some Orthodox think that Protestantism, secular humanism, and all manner of Western folly is due to a Man-centered religion as promulgated by Rome.

From Mount Athos's Statement on the 2006 Papal Visit to Phanar,



All that being said, I'd still love to visit Mount Athos. I hear it's hard for Non-Orthodox to get in though.

I would love to see Mount Athos, but I don't expect to get there. At least there's the possibility for you and for me; women are not allowed at all.

So because an KGB stooge denies he's a KGB stooge, that means he's not? Vadim, I'm talking about declassified documents from the KGB itself. His code name was drozdov. He assisted in laying low "uncooperative" elements of the churches and monasteries. Ignore this if you'd like but the evidence is there.

Vadim also thinks that Catholics being ok with eating a steak cooked rare is a sign of the Church's invalidity. I concede that he's the only Orthodox guy I've met who believes this but he claims it's a widespread opinion.

The monastery that put that out needs to read Rodney Starks' new book. They are wrong about the Crusades, the Inquisition, slavery, and colonialism.

There is an old joke I heard from some Ruthenians that they long for the Pope to make an ex cathedra declaration defining that Our Lord is True God and True Man just to watch the Athonite monks condemn the idea.

I don't think the book is all that great, I think he actually creates almost as many myths as he refutes and his terminology and explanations often leave a lot to be desired.

For example, in his discussion of the Inquisitions, he correctly mentions that the Church has always looked askance at witch hunts, that the Inquisition were founded in order to PREVENT witch hunts, and that they didn't really become widespread until after the Reformation and that they tended to be limited to Protestant countries. That's all well and good, but then he has to go and say that the Church doesn't really oppose magic as long as it is 'Church magic' by which he means, prayer and the sacraments. I can't imagine any Catholic describing the sacraments as 'magic'.

It's got infelicities beyond that, such as his buying into the pagan date for Christmas theory. But its value as a non-Catholic refutation of damaging myths outweighs the flaws.

I remember while reading it that I felt like another book was necessary correcting that one. However, there is, I suppose, decent apologetic value in the fact that the book was written by a non-Catholic, so that one can always point to the book and say 'even Rodney Stark,a non-Catholic, admits that....', that's always useful.

I think that in such a case, Athonite monks will quote a letter of the Fourth Ecumenical Council to Marcian:

he who of his own will without an opponent takes pride in an exposition in his own words would deservedly be convicted as a braggart

In other words, it is only allowed to issue an explanation of faith only in a situation when some heresy arises. When there is no heresy, then there is no need to issue an explanation of faith.
On another hand, if a heresy arises and the Pope will decide to make a judgment infallibly, without a Council, then Athonite monks will quote the Sentence of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553 A.D.). The following fragment of this Sentence disapproves behaviour of the then Pope Vigilius, who refused to take part in the Council, but instead decided to make judgment on his own:

The most religious Vigilius happened to be present in this imperial city and took part in all the criticisms against the three chapters. He had frequently condemned them by word of mouth and in his writings. Later he gave a written agreement to take part in our council and to study with us the three chapters so that we could all issue an appropriate definition of the true faith. The most pious emperor, prompted by what was acceptable to us, encouraged a meeting between Vigilius and ourselves because it is proper that the priesthood should impose a common conclusion to matters of common concern. Consequently we asked his reverence to carry out his written undertakings. It did not seem right that the scandal over these three chapters should continue and that the church of God should be further disturbed. In order to persuade him, we reminded him of the great example left us by the apostles and of the traditions of the fathers. Even though the grace of the holy Spirit was abundant in each of the apostles, so that none of them required the advice of another in order to do his work, nevertheless they were loathe to come to a decision on the issue of the circumcision of gentiles until they had met together to test their various opinions against the witness of the holy scriptures.

In this way they unanimously reached the conclusion which they wrote to the gentiles: It has seemed good to the holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.

The holy fathers, who have gathered at intervals in the four holy councils, have followed the examples of antiquity. They dealt with heresies and current problems by debate in common, since it was established as certain that when the disputed question is set out by each side in communal discussions, the light of truth drives out the shadows of lying.

The truth cannot be made clear in any other way when there are debates about questions of faith, since everyone requires the assistance of his neighbour. As Solomon says in his proverbs: A brother who helps a brother shall be exalted like a strong city; he shall be as strong as a well-established kingdom. Again in Ecclesiastes he says: Two are better than one, for they have a good reward for their toil. And the Lord himself says: Amen I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Vigilius was frequently invited by us all, and most distinguished judges were sent to him by the most pious emperor. Eventually he promised to give judgment personally on the three chapters. ( https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CONSTAN2.HTM#1 )

You are aware, Vadim, that the two natures of Christ are a doctrine defined at Chalcedon?

This is what I am thinking:

I John 2:27.”
“…but the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in him.”

Mmmmmmmmm... rabbit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw

Nobody here is denying that Jesus is the Christ. Unrighteous believers and liars, at least in the context of this letter, exist in every Church from Catholic to Independent house churches. I'm not sure what that passage has to do with what we're discussing.

House churches usually grow into larger churches if they get more popular- as the Spirit wills, or if an outside force of oppression or persecution is removed- as the Spirit moves. The Catholic Church went through this process already with the exception of places that still persecute Christians. I don't know if house churches are good for Christianity outside of places with such conditions, even if they do have the wonderful ability to remedy some of the issues that occur in larger Churches. I say this because I think, it is more due to the members within a house church rather the use of a house church itself. It sort of reminds me of the Covenant Communities that were popular amongst some Charismatic Catholic circles.

Just posting to say this is often not true. There is a major difference in churches that are small enough to meet in houses and house churches. The former are just big churches that are currently too small to afford or to fill up a building. They have a traditional ecclesiology (episcopal or federal or congregational, etc.). On the other hand, house churches are increasingly being represented by what is sometimes called an organic church movement. The churches never grow into larger churches. They cannot by their very ecclesiology. They are forever teaching their members to start their own home churches, and as soon as the group gets larger than fifteen or twenty, they either send some of the extra to a daughter church or else split the church into two or more cells. Again, this isn't just about trying to keep small. It's necessary for their theology. For them, the elder/pastor/bishop (all the same thing) are not offices of the church. They are functions in it (a subtle but important difference). Teaching is usually not the central plank of the service as it is in most "protestant" churches. There may or may not be a sermon or homily, but more often than not, the emphasis on the service is sharing and praying together. As such, fellowship is typically the central point emphasized at every turn. There is typically no order of service at all. One service may be all singing, another all prayer, another all teaching/discussion around a particular issue, still another a formal presentation by a visiting teacher, etc. Again, the theological emphasis is on fellowship and sharing, and for them, the great sin of the church is professionalization, such that everyone basically sits and watches a professional minister do all the work (sing, preach a sermon, give announcements, etc.). Therefore, mutual sharing, open participation, and dialogue are not only the norm, they are expected, such that anything that hinders these ideas is expunged from the life of the Body. As you can imagine, such churches, theologically, cannot grow beyond fifteen to twenty. It's just not feasible.

So yeah . . . just another example of how we can't make generalizations about pretty much anything.

edit:

Just for the record, here's a paper I wrote several years ago that deals with some of this.

I was pointing to the fact that a significant number are choosing a third option because there is far less opportunity for politics or tradition or a good old boy system or cronyism to shield/ deflect criminal activity as has happened with large institutions. For them, large institutions have become like swimming in the ocean... and a number of them have been shark bit or know people that have been bitten. As I said above ... In addition, many people have experienced, in real time, that institutional churches of all stripes, too often, no longer meet the needs of the people... People looking for in depth, relationships and leadership that dont play political games.
In the US ... about 6 to 12 million people meet in house churches, in part, in order to nurture and protect their loved ones from what is happening in the large, centrally controlled/ administered institutions.

The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath
As with Judaism ...Tradition, held as a strength ... became a weakness when priorities were misplaced..


House Church members rely on

I John 2:27
“…but the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in him.”