# Latin Rite Catholic Dopers: Ask the Byzantine Catholic Chick **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 25, 2003, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594 "2003-08-25T20:25:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Asbestos_Mango)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/61 "2003-08-28T19:51:08Z")
I just want to emphasize this once more: it’s ridiculous to make a statement or claim, then tell me that it’s my responsibility to go on a research mission for evidence to support _your_ claims. It isn’t. It’s my job to do research and provide evidence to support my own claims. I did that. It’s your job to do research and provide the evidence to support your own claims. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/62 "2003-08-28T20:29:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Thea Logica \* > \*\ ***TVAA** , you’re the one who’s not paying attention. I said the author of my website _as quoted_ on the FAQ you posted. I never said he was the author of the FAQ. I chose the wording very carefully to make sure that was clear. You are twisting what I said. \*\* > [@](#): > > _“The author’s mistake not giving out wrong teaching, it was poor choice of words, and he admitted as much as quoted on the site you linked to. He stated that he should have said the consequenses of Original Sin were hereditary. The mis-phrasing led to a misunderstandingj of what he intended to say.”_ You didn’t choose this wording carefully at all. Who does “he” refer to? Without further specification, “he” can only refer to the author of the mistaken website. In the second sentence, are you saying that the first and second “he” do not refer to the same person? This is a semantic and grammatical nightmare. > [@](#): > > \*\*Second, when I speak of my unfamaliarity with the Latin Rite of the Church, I mean just the, the _Latin Rite_. Byzantine catechists make sure the catacheumen is apprised of the beliefs that are held as dogma by the entire Church. I am Byzantine. I was catechized in the Byzantine Rite, not the Latin Rite. I have only a cursory knowledge of Latin theology and terminology. So, since the majority of your argument (aside from Papal authority) seems to stem from differences in Eastern and Western religious thought, your quarrel is with the Latins, not the Byzantines. Byzantines are Eastern Christians. Oh, and it’s ludicrous to say that Eastern Catholics are not Eastern Christians because we accept the authority of Rome. We still have the same Eastern spirituality, theology, views on sin and redemption and Man’s relationship with God that the Eastern Churches have always held. The only difference is a matter of whether we accept the authority of Rome. \*\* But the authority of Rome determines your views on spirituality, theology, sin, redemption, and Man’s relationship with God. The Byzantines cannot accept both the teaching of the Immaculate Conception and the Orthodox conceptions of the nature of the Theotokos and the nature of sin. > [@](#): > > \*\*As to the issue of Purgatory… I found this at [www.firstthings.com](http://www.firstthings.com) > > (emphasis mine) \*\* You should have put the emphasis elsewhere. Particularly, on _some_ theologians. There are a number of debates within Orthodoxy as to the nature of the state commonly referred to as “Heaven”. Some suggest that it’s being in the presence of God – and that it’s actually the same as Hell. Only the nature of those in the states makes them different. “Purgatory” is not a concept taught by the OC. Additionally: you complain that I post only short articles and references, and then you derive conclusions about the nature of Orthodoxy from a passing reference in what appears to be a primarily RCC magazine?! > [@](#): > > **So, again, it’s not a difference in doctrine, but in Eastern vs. Western terminology and viewpoints.** It most certainly is a difference in doctrine. “Purgatory” is not found in Orthodox doctrine; it is found in Roman Catholic doctrine. > [@](#): > > \*\*As to original sin (there, I did it in lowercase, happy?), I have established that Byzantine Catholicism shares the Eastern Orthodox belief that the guilt of original sin is not inherited, only the consequences (the weakness or perversion of human nature, the inclination to actual sin), so what did you do? Start screaming about capitalization, as though a couple of capital letters constituted a huge doctrinal difference. \*\* It’s not the letters, but what they represent. If Byzantine Catholicism truly believes this, why is it in communion with a church that teachs an incompatible doctrine? > [@](#): > > \*\*Again, you are misrepresenting what I said. I didn’t say that the Orthodox refuse to accept the Immaculate Conception because they don’t want to play nice. I said that I don’t think that this doctrinal difference was irreconciliable, and the Orthodox do think it’s irreconciliable because they don’t want to play nice. \*\* You have it completely backwards: the Orthodox do not want to “play nice” _because_ they view the difference as irreconcilable. > [@](#): > > \*\*As to papal authority, I presented my evidence in favor of it, you presented no evidence from the Orthodox perspective to counter it. You just kept screaming “heresy”. If you have evidence from the Orthodox perspective that this is a heretical belief, post it _in this thread_. Don’t just say, “It’s heretical because the Orthodox believe it’s heretical, and the Orthodox believe it’s heretical because it’s heretical.” \*\* It’s heretical because it does not appear in the tradition of the early Church, nor in the records of the Ecumenical Councils. > [@](#): > > \*\*From the Catholic perspective, the Orthodox refusal to accept Papal authority amounts to nothing more than disobedience and schism. \*\* And from the Orthodox perspective, the assertion of Papal Authority is heresy and schism. Are you Catholic, or not? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that Byzantine Catholicism is virtually identical to Orthodoxy except for a few minor doctrinal matters and then say that the Orthodox’s main dispute with the RCC is disobedience and schism. > [@](#): > > \*\*Also, if Christ’s statement “flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven… thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Chuch… I will give you the keys to the Kingdom… and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” is a pun, a mere joke… \*\* “…upon this rock will I build my Church” is a joke. It’s also a statement about the primacy of faith. Is ‘you’ singular or plural when Christ says “I will give you the keys to the Kingdom”? When Christ said “I will send you the Comforter” (speaking of the Holy Spirit), was he talking about sending the Spirit to a person or to people? > [@](#): > > **It isn’t funny.** It at least shows that God has no objection to puns. > [@](#): > > \*\*As for your claim that my statement that Byzantine Catholicism is what Eastern Orthodoxy would be if the Orthodox were still in communion with Rome is in error… > > Since my church was never in schism with Rome, and, aside from a particular Marian doctrine and differences in belief about how the soul of the believer is prepared for entry into Heaven after death, (which, again, is an issue of terminology and Eastern/Western thought, not a fundamental doctrinal difference, and as a Byzantine, I subscribe to the Eastern view- I just use the Latin term as a matter of linguistic convenience) the only real difference between the Byzantine Catholics is the acceptance of Papal authority. The reason that the Orthodox are not in communion with Rome is because they don’t accept it. \*\* No, the reason the Orthodox are not in communion with Rome is that their doctrine is incompatible with Rome’s. Accepting Rome’s authority necessarily requires disregarding not only the idea that the Spirit was sent to the Church, not one man, but any number of other doctrines which Papal Authority has established. > [@](#): > > \*\*Which means that Byzantine Catholicism is what Eastern Orthodoxy woud be if the Eastern Orthodox were in communion with Rome. \*\* No. If they were in communion with Rome, they would have slowly been forced to abandon their doctrines that were contrary to Rome’s teachings. Not that that’s happening to the Byzantine Catholics. Right? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Asbestos_Mango)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/63 "2003-08-28T21:15:20Z")
**TVAA** , um, this thread was started by an Eastern Catholic soliciting questions from Latin Catholics about the differences between Eastern and Western thought and practice. Therefore the majority of your post is ludicrous. You keep going over ground I’ve already covered, such as the historical evidence that the early church did, in fact, recognize the authority of Rome. Scroll a bit, you’ll find it, that is, if you’re actually interested in reading my posts any more than is necessary to find phrases and terminology to pick at. There are so many ways a hair can be split. As to your last statement- > [@](#): > > * * * > > ## Which means that Byzantine Catholicism is what Eastern Orthodoxy woud be if the Eastern Orthodox were in communion with Rome. > > No. If they were in communion with Rome, they would have slowly been forced to abandon their doctrines that were contrary to Rome’s teachings. > > Not that that’s happening to the Byzantine Catholics. Right? The fact that I am in a Byzantine parish that still holds to Byzantine theology, spirituality and world views proves this statement to be untrue. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Asbestos_Mango)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/64 "2003-08-28T21:30:12Z")
One more thing- There is no way the See of Rome could force the Eastern Rite Churches (including mine) who have been in communion with the See of St. Peter throughout history to abandon our doctrines are contrary to what Rome teaches. We never had them to begin with. If you want to understand more about the teachings of Byzantine Catholicism, (which I doubt, you seem to be more interested if picking fights than in understanding) I’m going to turn your own tactics against you and suggest you do some research on your own. This is absolutely the last word I am going to say on the Orthodox/RCC debate. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/65 "2003-08-29T11:54:12Z")
[sigh] And ignorance marches on… ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/66 "2003-08-29T13:15:14Z")
I don’t believe I have a dog in this fight – both Orthodox and Catholic heirarchies regard us Anglicans as schismatic and heretical, though not so much so as, say, the Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God. But it occurs to me that the issues at hand boil down to (A) a strong divergence in mindset – Orthodox (and Eastern Riters, it would seem) tend to allow much more room for the _musteria_, the sense of wonder at the works of God, while Catholicism, more “rational” (in the technical use) attempts to define these much more explicitly; (B) conflicts over practice, a few of which are based in disagreement on doctrine but most not; and © a very strong case of “what Catholics believe” vs. “what Orthodox believe” founded in non-autoritative teachings rather than in what the Magisterium on one hand tand Holy Tradition and the Councls on the other have taught authoritatively. I find it very difficult to accept that Eastern Rite Catholics are permitted to hold and teach doctrines contrary to what Rome teaches authoritatively – but when **TVAA** decided to explain to **Thea Logica** , who seems to have a pretty clear grasp of what her church teaches and practices, that she couldn’t believe that because it’s against Rome, it was all I could do to keep myself from saying that what he needed to do was write to the Curia and complain, not tell her that she was wrong about what she and her church believed. Catholicism since Paul VI has been very accepting of a breadth in piety and theology within prescribed bounds, and nothing is clearer to me than that a lot of wiggle room is given by Rome to the Eastern Rites to believe and practice what has been handed down as tradition in the East since apostolic times and preserved by Orthodoxy. I suspect nearly every Catholic here can identify at least one occasion when he was told “what the Church teaches” by a well-meaning nun, priest, or older Catholic, only to find out that that’s not the case at all. _Extra ecclesiam nihil salus_ is a classic case which came up recently. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/67 "2003-08-29T14:06:09Z")
That’s part of the whole problem – for the Orthodox, there _are no non-authoritative teachings_. Even if we eliminate all “non-authoritative” teachings of the RCC, the authoritative teachings are still incompatible with OC teachings. Byzantine Catholicism is not identical to Orthodoxy excepting that they “recognize the authority of Rome”: accepting the Pope as head of the Church inevitably leads to a variety of doctrines that the Orthodox vehemently deny as heretical. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/68 "2003-08-29T14:46:55Z")
According to Bishop John Elya (of the Melkites, another “Byzantine” group in communion with Rome, their Canons state the following): > [@](#): > > c. 597 CCEO: “The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office (munus), possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.” > > c. 599: :A religious obsequium of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching of faith and morals which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim with a definitive act.; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching." ([http://www.melkite.org/Questions/R-9.htm](http://www.melkite.org/Questions/R-9.htm)) The Uniates are 100% doctrinally subservient to Rome. They must accept the doctrine of the “filioque”, even if they do not say it during their Liturgies. They must accept the doctrine of the “immaculate conception” of the Virgin Mary. They must accept the doctrine of “purgatory”. ---
**Author:** ![Reepicheep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@Reepicheep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reepicheep)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/69 "2003-08-29T15:37:10Z")
So, if I understand what you quoted from Mr. Walls correctly, purgatory is not so much the place I go to fully expedite the sin of cursing when someone cuts me off in traffic, as it is the place I learn to always make the choice not to curse when I am cut off. Is this the correct interpretation of the Byzantine Rite’s belief? Or is purgatory a place where both the sin of cursing at being cut off is expedited as well a perfect love of my fellow man is learned? Thank you again for a fascinating thread ---
**Author:** ![The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Asbestos_Mango)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/70 "2003-08-29T19:02:07Z")
**Reepicheep** , I was actually up quite late searching the 'net on that very subject. I couldn’t find anything definitive, aside from a sqwaking at on a Byzantine message board by a Latin trying to persuade Byzantines that we must accept purgatory as taught by the Latins. Of course, since the Orthodox have (quite sensibly in my view) made no formal doctrinal statement on the subject. They quite obviously do not believe in the Latin conception of it, but I am finding some things that seem to suggest that souls in the Paradise section of Hades do undergo some kind of process whereby sanctification is completed, but is not purification or “purgation” in the Latin sense of the word. Which is a view that the Latins would not find heretical. A bit strange maybe… Maybe you can enlighten us, since **TVAA** doesn’t seem to want to tell us anything about what the Orthodox believe in any kind of positive sense. **Dogface** I did find this article about the Orthodox view of Papal primacy. [http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp](http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp) This is actually the first EO site I’ve found that seems to be capable of discussing the differences between Catholic and Orthodox belief without being mean-spirited about it. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/71 "2003-08-29T20:29:47Z")
They’re not being meanspirited. They’re simply willing to state that they regard their beliefs as correct and yours as wrong. I found this part of the linked article especially clear regarding OC’s opinion on the Papacy: > [@](#): > > \*Before the schism, in times of ecclesiastical discord and theological controversies, appeals for peaceful resolutions and mediation were made to the pope from all parts of the Christian world. For instance, in the course of the iconoclast controversy, St Theodore the Studite urged the emperor to consult the pope: “If there is anything in the patriarch’s reply about which you feel doubt or disbelief… you may ask the chief elder in Rome for clarification, as has been the practice from the beginning according to inherited tradition.” From an Orthodox perspective, however, it is important to emphasize that these appeals to the bishop of Rome are not to be understood in juridical terms. The case was not closed when Rome had spoken, and the Byzantines felt free on occasion to reject a Roman ruling. > > In a reintegrated Christendom, when the pope takes his place once more as primus inter pares within the Orthodox Catholic communion, the bishop of Rome will have the initiative to summon a synod of the whole Church. The bishop of Rome will, of course, preside over such a synod and his office may coordinate the life and the witness of the Orthodox Catholic church and in times of need be its spokesman. The role of acting as the voice of the Church is not, however, to be restricted to any hierarchical order within the Church, still less to a single see. In principle, any bishop, priest or layman may be called by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the true faith. - Read that article carefully, **Thea Logica**. Can’t you see that the Orthodox view of the Pope’s nature and role within the Church is fundamentally incompatible with Rome’s? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/72 "2003-08-29T20:48:45Z")
It is one any Anglican could be quite comfortable with. In fact, I think it could fit into Catholic theology quite well, if the Roman Pontiff, in an act of Christian humility, while preserving for himself his Catholic claim to teach authoritatively in behalf of the Church, defines formally in behalf of himself and his successors that they will only do so after consultation with an Ecumenical Council, which will be convened at frequent intervals. Granted that gaps of a hundred years or more were common when travel was limited to what sail or horse could do, there would be no reason not to convene them far more often when one can get up in Bombay, Lima, Khabarovsk, or Ottawa, and be in Rome by that time the next day. And the first order of business, IMHO, would be to decide what core teachings of Christianity are to be held as true by the whole faith, and what are matters on which differences of opinion, style, or piety are acceptable within a unified body united in brotherly love. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/73 "2003-08-29T20:54:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > **They’re not being meanspirited. They’re simply willing to state that they regard their beliefs as correct and yours as wrong.** “Though I speak with the tongues of Popes or Patriarchs, if I have not love, I am nothing.” Christian doctrine is not a matter of intellectual assent to an internally coherent and consistent body of dogmatic pronouncements regarding metaphysical abstractions. It is a matter of striving to better understand the God in whose hands we have placed our lives, and His grace and will towards us. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Asbestos_Mango)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/74 "2003-08-29T21:09:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*They’re not being meanspirited. They’re simply willing to state that they regard their beliefs as correct and yours as wrong. > > I found this part of the linked article especially clear regarding OC’s opinion on the Papacy: \* > > Read that article carefully, **Thea Logica**. Can’t you see that the Orthodox view of the Pope’s nature and role within the Church is fundamentally incompatible with Rome’s? \*\* Not incompatible. Just… Eastern. As an Easten Catholic, I, like **Polycarp** , am comfortable with it. Again, the core of your debate seems to be differences in Eastern and Western modes of thinking. Which, really, is what created the schism in the first place. I’m still waiting for you to start a thread in which you take up your argument with the Latin/Western church, instead of telling me that I have the same viewpoint as them and attacking me on that basis. If you have a quarrel with the Latins, take it up with the Latins. Leave the Byzantines out of it. I wish you would actually read my posts before you reply to them. I did not say that this article was mean-spirited. I said that it was the first EO site that I’ve found that could discuss Catholic/Orthodox differences _without_ being mean-spirited. \*\* > [@](#): > > [sigh] > > And ignorance marches on…\*\* And will continue to do so as long as the ignorant use circular reasoning, misrepresentations of their opponent’s position, present arguments without evidence and demand their opponent provide evidence to the contrary (as you did when you asserted that Rome had embraced Iconoclasm), quibble over grammar and semantics rather than over actual belief, and flat out screaming as tactics to wear those who are trying to debate reasonably down until they quit fighting the ignorance out of sheer exhaustion. I’m going to say it again (my face is getting blue from repeating this. If you have a problem with the Latin Church, take it up with the Latins. Don’t ask a Byzantine to defend the Latin position. It just isn’t valid. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/75 "2003-08-29T21:20:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*Christian doctrine is not a matter of intellectual assent to an internally coherent and consistent body of dogmatic pronouncements regarding metaphysical abstractions. \*\* No kidding. Do you think I’m _defending_ the Orthodox? Their theology is every bit as ridiculous, illogical, unreasonable, and insane as the Roman Catholics. > [@](#): > > \*\*It is a matter of striving to better understand the God in whose hands we have placed our lives, and His grace and will towards us. \*\* Respectfully, no it isn’t. “Understanding” is an intellectual goal; neither the Western nor Eastern Churches have any interest in gaining understanding. Both seek faith, which is inherently opposed to understanding. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/76 "2003-08-29T21:25:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > Both seek faith, which is inherently opposed to understanding. Any apposite response I could make to this comment would not be appropriate in Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/77 "2003-08-29T21:44:44Z")
It’s truth, no matter how insulting or offensive you may find it. Ultimately, theologians confronted with the logical paradoxes inherent in the existing religions respond with “you just have to believe”; the words may differ, but the meaning is the same. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Asbestos_Mango)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/78 "2003-08-29T22:43:42Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*\*\* No kidding. Do you think I’m defending the Orthodox? Their theology is every bit as ridiculous, illogical, unreasonable, and insane as the Roman Catholics._\* Ya know, Teev, I’ve been wondering ever since you said in a prior post that you aren’t Orthodox… Why are you even getting involved in this thread, claiming to present the Orthodox perspective, when you don’t even believe as they do? Seems to me that you just came in with a chip on your shoulder looking for a fight. Doesn’t really matter what the fight is about. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2003, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/79 "2003-08-30T00:35:29Z")
You mean, why did I bother? I have an impersonal interest in truth and accuracy. Naturally, once I saw your posts, I immediately felt I needed to become involved. If I wanted to pick a fight, there are plenty available in the Pit. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Thea Logica_\*\* > Not incompatible. Just… Eastern. As an Easten Catholic, I, like Polycarp, am comfortable with it. Again, the core of your debate seems to be differences in Eastern and Western modes of thinking. Which, really, is what created the schism in the first place. \*\* The Eastern and Western viewpoints _are_ incompatible. The Orthodox claim to be highly concerned with all aspects of faith. That’s (supposedly) the reason for their emphasis on incense, icons, music, and ritual gestures: they seek to involve all of the senses. Catholicism has many of these elements, but the emphasis is different. The RCC has a greater emphasis on logic and intellect, and a relative de-emphasis placed on intuition and emotion. And those are merely the most superficial and obvious aspects of the differences. The theological division is profound. > [@](#): > > \*\*I wish you would actually read my posts before you reply to them. I did not say that this article was mean-spirited. I said that it was the first EO site that I’ve found that could discuss Catholic/Orthodox differences without being mean-spirited. \*\* Again, I’m not impressed by your reading comprehension. I never said that article was meanspirited. Your implication was that the other sites you’d looked at _were_ meanspirited – I contested that, claiming they weren’t. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Asbestos_Mango)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2003, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594/80 "2003-08-30T03:15:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*You mean, why did I bother? > > I have an impersonal interest in truth and accuracy. \*\* Interesting statement, coming from someone who has, several times in this thread, misrepresented things I said, and continued to do so even after the innacuracies were pointed out. > [@](#): > > \*\*[ The Eastern and Western viewpoints _are_ incompatible. > > The Orthodox claim to be highly concerned with all aspects of faith. That’s (supposedly) the reason for their emphasis on incense, icons, music, and ritual gestures: they seek to involve all of the senses. Catholicism has many of these elements, but the emphasis is different. \*\* Byzantine Catholics place the same emphasis on these things the Orthodox do. \*\* > [@](#): > > The RCC has a greater emphasis on logic and intellect, and a relative de-emphasis placed on intuition and emotion.\*\* And your point is…? Byzantine Catholics do not have the same emphasis on logic and intellect as the Latins do. Again, you’re attacking me based on the differences between Eastern and Western thought, and falsely asserting that Byzantine Catholics subscribe to the Western point of view because we are in communion with the See of Rome, despite having been corrected several time. \*\* > [@](#): > > Again, I’m not impressed by your reading comprehension. I never said that article was meanspirited. Your implication was that the other sites you’d looked at _were_ meanspirited – I contested that, claiming they weren’t. > > :rolleyes: \*\* Great. Now you’re not even reading your own posts. You stated that _I_ said the article was meanspirited, and after I corrected you, you’re claiming that I said \*you \* said the article was meanspirited. Just once, can you try arguing your point without lying about what I’m saying? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-rite-catholic-dopers-ask-the-byzantine-catholic-chick/197594.md?page=5)