Catholic = Christian Really.

[robrecht]

I have not yet been able to find anyone concerned about their own authority to have anything resembling humility, have you?

The Reformation tried to battle the Latins with the "authority" of Scripture...
And the Latins fought back with their self-proclaimed "Petrine authority"...

And so the battle for "authority" continues...

Meanwhile...
Back at the ranch...
The treasury of the Orthodox...
In stark contrast to the above...
Is obedience to Christ...

The Reformation resents Papal authority...
When Scripture is the authority...
Everybody gets to be their own Pope...

So here we have tons of little authoritarian popes
All arguing for the authority of their own opinions
Yet nontheless united against their first Archetype
Whom each individually now emulates...

So that us Orthodox types sniff around...
And obedience seems on the ropes...
Everyone is an authority...
All are arguing Scripture...
Nobody argues for obedience...
Except to their own opinions...
Sometimes...

Pro-football and the MMA are looking better and better...

Arsenios

True Christian authority is founded upon pastoral love and wisdom. Obedience is first an act of listening, in other words a relationship of love. One should indeed be concerned with whether we living up to this ideal in discharging our responsibilities.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

True Christian authority is founded upon pastoral love and wisdom. Obedience is first an act of listening, in other words a relationship of love. One should indeed be concerned with whether we living up to this ideal in discharging our responsibilities.

Life in Christ is not based upon authority at all... It is instead based upon willing obedience... Christ is the only author of our Faith...

A friend of mine, a convert to Orthodoxy, would brag to his friends about how in Orthodoxy, in order to have authority, you have to first live in obedience to a spiritual father... I shuddered when I heard him say that... Like so many converting to this Faith, he is a recovering Evangellical Christian control freak who loves to be in positions of authority... And by this understanding he had, he was turning this Faith into his personal control drama where controlling others is the demon driving his psyche... I told him he belonged in the Latin Confession! He laughed at my 'joke'... Recovering control-freak authoritarians are a lot of trouble, but not nearly so much so as those who are not in recovery and who have the power to enforce their little psycho-dramas... Yet all have their place, be it for obedience, or for martyrdom...

So that your idea of trying to find a foundation for "True Christian Authority" [TCA] in love and wisdom fails, because we already HAVE TCA, and His Name is Jesus Christ... For 2000 years now... And counting... And the only authority He exercised was over demons... So that I wish Rome would but do likewise and follow Him... Christ, you see, did not exercise his Authority, but instead instilled obedience, by Himself BEING obedient, even unto death on the Cross... He even discussed authority with His disciples, telling them that the greatest is the least, indeed the servant of all, in the Kingdom of Heaven... That among the nations, the great have authority over the small, but not so in His heavenly kingdom...

Arsenios

[robrecht]

Life in Christ is not based upon authority at all... It is instead based upon willing obedience... Christ is the only author of our Faith...

A friend of mine, a convert to Orthodoxy, would brag to his friends about how in Orthodoxy, in order to have authority, you have to first live in obedience to a spiritual father... I shuddered when I heard him say that... Like so many converting to this Faith, he is a recovering Evangellical Christian control freak who loves to be in positions of authority... And by this understanding he had, he was turning this Faith into his personal control drama where controlling others is the demon driving his psyche... I told him he belonged in the Latin Confession! He laughed at my 'joke'... Recovering control-freak authoritarians are a lot of trouble, but not nearly so much so as those who are not in recovery and who have the power to enforce their little psycho-dramas... Yet all have their place, be it for obedience, or for martyrdom...

So that your idea of trying to find a foundation for "True Christian Authority" [TCA] in love and wisdom fails, because we already HAVE TCA, and His Name is Jesus Christ... For 2000 years now... And counting... And the only authority He exercised was over demons... So that I wish Rome would but do likewise and follow Him... Christ, you see, did not exercise his Authority, but instead instilled obedience, by Himself BEING obedient, even unto death on the Cross... He even discussed authority with His disciples, telling them that the greatest is the least, indeed the servant of all, in the Kingdom of Heaven... That among the nations, the great have authority over the small, but not so in His heavenly kingdom...

Arsenios

I do not see where you are disagreeing with anything I have said. Perhaps you merely have a different understanding of what I have said than mine.

[RBerman]

It is simply my question. To be a bit more honest, you are not questioning but rather impugning the Catholic faith as false with respect to the core of the gospel. I question your credibility and capacity to advance such an insulting claim regarding the faith of others. I do not mind constructive criticism when it indeed has the authority of love and wisdom to genuinely be creative of deeper faith and communion.

It sounds more like you're saying, "You disagree with my beliefs, so you must be a bad person." If you have an objection to the content of what I said, let's hear it. If all you want to do is speculate about me personally, then apparently you can't or won't engage the ideas themselves.

[robrecht]

It sounds more like you're saying, "You disagree with my beliefs, so you must be a bad person." If you have an objection to the content of what I said, let's hear it. If all you want to do is speculate about me personally, then apparently you can't or won't engage the ideas themselves.

Nonsense. I have not said anything like that. I do not know you as a person. As far as I'm concerned this discussion has nothing to do with you personally. If we knew each other personally, I might like you very much and I already suspect that we have significant interests in common, eg, NT authors and writings. I have already expressed my position on your anti-Catholic views, not because they are critical but because they are sometimes shallow and one-sided and unfair. Even insulting at times.

[RBerman]

Nonsense. I have not said anything like that. I do not know you as a person. As far as I'm concerned this discussion has nothing to do with you personally.

Then you would do well not to make comments about me personally such as, "I question your credibility and capacity to advance such an insulting claim regarding the faith of others." and "Do you truly possess sufficient authority, insight, humility, wisdom and charity to criticize the faith of others?" So far you have not raised any meaningful critique of the content of my posts.

[robrecht]

Then you would do well not to make comments about me personally such as, "I question your credibility and capacity to advance such an insulting claim regarding the faith of others." and "Do you truly possess sufficient authority, insight, humility, wisdom and charity to criticize the faith of others?" So far you have not raised any meaningful critique of the content of my posts.

The second 'comment' is a question. If you find it too personal, you are in no way constrained to answer. And it is a question that is primarily meant to communicate what I feel is the correct manner to engage in critical yet constructive dialogue with people whose faith you disagree so strongly, eg, your 'hellish' comment.

You may consider my strong objection to some of your posts to be meaningful; that is, of course, your choice.

[RBerman]

The second 'comment' is a question. If you find it too personal, you are in no way constrained to answer. And it is a question that is primarily meant to communicate what I feel is the correct manner to engage in critical yet constructive dialogue with people whose faith you disagree so strongly, eg, your 'hellish' comment.

I don't plan on answering any personal questions, since they are irrelevant to the discussion of doctrine. It doesn't matter if an doctrine is brought by an angel, if it's the wrong doctrine. Paul said so.

You may consider my strong objection to some of your posts to be meaningful; that is, of course, your choice.

So far all we've established is that you disagree with me and wonder about my character. Since after repeated requests you've not had anything substantive to say about the actual points at hand, there doesn't seem to be anything further to discuss.

[robrecht]

I don't plan on answering any personal questions, since they are irrelevant to the discussion of doctrine. It doesn't matter if an doctrine is brought by an angel, if it's the wrong doctrine. Paul said so.

Recall, I described my question as primarily rhetorical, ie, primarily meant to communicate what I feel is the correct manner to engage in critical yet constructive dialogue with people whose faith one might disagree with so strongly. That is to me very relevant.

So far all we've established is that you disagree with me and wonder about my character. Since after repeated requests you've not had anything substantive to say about the actual points at hand, there doesn't seem to be anything further to discuss.

No, not if you cannot recognize or perceive the substance of my remarks.

[RBerman]

Recall, I described my question as primarily rhetorical, ie, primarily meant to communicate what I feel is the correct manner to engage in critical yet constructive dialogue with people whose faith one might disagree with so strongly. That is to me very relevant.

I have not found your approach to foster constructive dialogue. If you'd like to say what you believe and why, then we'd have an opportunity to move forward in discussion. If not, then not.

[robrecht]

I have not found your approach to foster constructive dialogue. If you'd like to say what you believe and why, then we'd have an opportunity to move forward in discussion. If not, then not.

Have I not said what I believe and why? It seems to me I have. I have engaged in official dialogue with leaders of other Christian churches and two non-Christian faiths. I and my partners found such ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue extremely constructive and personally intensely rewarding. Sorry you have not.

[RBerman]

Have I not said what I believe and why? It seems to me I have. I have engaged in official dialogue with leaders of other Christian churches and two non-Christian faiths. I and my partners found such ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue extremely constructive and personally intensely rewarding. Sorry you have not.

Me too.

[robrecht]

Me too.

And did you find your partners to be in grave danger of going to hell on account of their hellish beliefs?

[RBerman]

And did you find your partners to be in grave danger of going to hell on account of their hellish beliefs?

Sometimes. It depends on the topic at hand.

[Aner]

George -

As always, thanks for your insightful input. I guess I wonder why you would consider yourself somehow bound to any tradition at all other than simply the person of Jesus Christ?? The church is a reflection of those bound to Christ - rather than their source (per your buddies in the "latin confession"). I am also wondering if others in the eastern tradition hierarchy would be quick to agree with you if their institution or position was somehow called into question?

I appreciate the dialogue between the other two gentlemen - I remain a cautious spectator.

Aner