The Old CAF Crowd Will Love This!

[Irish Melkite]

I apologize in advance for revisiting the subject of CAF - but this couldn't pass without comment ...

The EC (remember, that's 'Eastern Catholic' these days - not 'Eastern Christi0anity' as it was in our time) forum Mod has posted some new guidelines there on charitable and civil debate.

In keeping with the rules here, I won't quote her post, but the essence is that posters should think of themselves as "robots". When someone objects to something they've posted, they should run it through a decision-making chart and, having discerned the appropriate factual and non-emotional response, they should post that with "encyclopedia-like neutrality".

The narrative text is followed by debate guidelines, several of which are pretty mundane. But, my definite favorite - in keeping with the narrative that precedes the guidelines - is ... 

"Remember: your goal is to sound like an encyclopedia robot." 

Why didn't I think of that in my day as mod over there?  ???

The place never ceases to amaze.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Irish Hermit]

Said the Irish Hermit to the Irish Melkite....

'Remember: your goal is to sound like an encyclopedia robot."

I am so choked with mirth that I cannot think of any intelligent response!

Sorry not to sound like an encyclopedia robot!  :laugh:

 

[Irish Melkite]

Bless, Father,

As I read your post, and finished spewing my coffee over my keyboard, I realized that the very line "Remember, ... " is contrary to the accompanying text and enunciated guidelines, which are replete with admonitions such as to give "No indication of what the other needs to do unless it is genuine praise."

Many years,

Neil

 

[the slave]

I nearly ended myself when I read the 2 posts made there , whilst eating my breakfast .

All I know is that I'm not learned enough to be able to sound like an encyclopedia robot.

oh well - I'm devastated

 

[Cavaradossi]

I'm curious how some of the snarkier posters will manage to survive.  Should be fun to watch.

 

[Alveus Lacuna]

Head back by to check out my response.

 

[JoeS]

I'm curious how some of the snarkier posters will manage to survive.  Should be fun to watch.

Well, this is another example of websites striving to be politically correct at the expense of resonable intellectual discourse.

I was a regular CAF member and had posted serveral thousand postings.  But, the discussions became too much for some mods and they extinguished our (Orthodox ) membership and gutted our past postings so you could never refer back to our responses.  It was their ball park so we had to bite the bullet and take our licks and go home.  Sadly, the western church will have a more difficult time in understanding our beliefs thats if they are still interested.

 

[podkarpatska]

"Danger, danger Will Robinson!!!!"

 

[Papist]

I apologize in advance for revisiting the subject of CAF - but this couldn't pass without comment ...

The EC (remember, that's 'Eastern Catholic' these days - not 'Eastern Christi0anity' as it was in our time) forum Mod has posted some new guidelines there on charitable and civil debate.

In keeping with the rules here, I won't quote her post, but the essence is that posters should think of themselves as "robots". When someone objects to something they've posted, they should run it through a decision-making chart and, having discerned the appropriate factual and non-emotional response, they should post that with "encyclopedia-like neutrality".

The narrative text is followed by debate guidelines, several of which are pretty mundane. But, my definite favorite - in keeping with the narrative that precedes the guidelines - is ... 

"Remember: your goal is to sound like an encyclopedia robot."   

Why didn't I think of that in my day as mod over there?  ???

The place never ceases to amaze.

Many years,

Neil

Probably because the bias in favor of Eastern Orthodoxy was palpable. When the moderator is allowing threads celebrating a Catholic's defection to Eastern Orthodoxy, he certainly cannot give the advice the provided above. He'd have to practice what he preaches first.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I apologize in advance for revisiting the subject of CAF - but this couldn't pass without comment ...

The EC (remember, that's 'Eastern Catholic' these days - not 'Eastern Christi0anity' as it was in our time) forum Mod has posted some new guidelines there on charitable and civil debate.

In keeping with the rules here, I won't quote her post, but the essence is that posters should think of themselves as "robots". When someone objects to something they've posted, they should run it through a decision-making chart and, having discerned the appropriate factual and non-emotional response, they should post that with "encyclopedia-like neutrality".

The narrative text is followed by debate guidelines, several of which are pretty mundane. But, my definite favorite - in keeping with the narrative that precedes the guidelines - is ... 

"Remember: your goal is to sound like an encyclopedia robot." 

Why didn't I think of that in my day as mod over there?  ???

The place never ceases to amaze.

Many years,

Neil

Probably because the bias in favor of Eastern Orthodoxy was palpable. When the moderator is allowing threads celebrating a Catholic's defection to Eastern Orthodoxy, he certainly cannot give the advice the provided above. He'd have to practice what he preaches first.

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll burn in hell for causing you such grievous offense. (Or maybe you can just let go of such silly grievances, if you possess the maturity).

 

[dzheremi]

Ahhh...CAF...I can't imagine a better place to have abandoned. That goes for the church they're pushing, too.

And I remember in my time there more than a few "I'm leaving Catholicism to become ____" on the Non-Catholic Religions subforum (my favorites were Muslim and Hari Krshna...not the same poster, of course, though that would have made it more interesting), which were allowed to go on for pages and pages and turn into such messes that eventually the moderator of that subforum had to make a sticky announcing that no one could post threads like that anymore. Hahaha. But somehow now posts that stop far short of that level are unacceptable if they do not show enough deference to Catholicism? Sounds like insecure Romanists throwing their weight around, lest their "Eastern lung" start thinking of actually breathing in an Eastern body, as opposed to being properly subservient to their Roman masters. Sad.

 

[stanley123]

I apologize in advance for revisiting the subject of CAF - but this couldn't pass without comment ...

The EC (remember, that's 'Eastern Catholic' these days - not 'Eastern Christi0anity' as it was in our time) forum Mod has posted some new guidelines there on charitable and civil debate.

In keeping with the rules here, I won't quote her post, but the essence is that posters should think of themselves as "robots". When someone objects to something they've posted, they should run it through a decision-making chart and, having discerned the appropriate factual and non-emotional response, they should post that with "encyclopedia-like neutrality".

The narrative text is followed by debate guidelines, several of which are pretty mundane. But, my definite favorite - in keeping with the narrative that precedes the guidelines - is ... 

"Remember: your goal is to sound like an encyclopedia robot."   

Why didn't I think of that in my day as mod over there?  ???

The place never ceases to amaze.

Many years,

Neil

I find the recommendations given there to be reasonable, and this one about the robots is taken out of the context. I thought that the moderator was only saying not to be overly emotional or sarcastic. One piece of advice that I liked was not to use "you" statements such as: you need to ..., why don't you..., etc.
How many times have I seen people write "you need to do this" or "you need to do that" and this adds nothing to the discussion but only hypes it ?
I don't say that there are not cases when moderators are out of line at CAF. But I don't see this as such a situation.

 

[Papist]

I apologize in advance for revisiting the subject of CAF - but this couldn't pass without comment ...

The EC (remember, that's 'Eastern Catholic' these days - not 'Eastern Christi0anity' as it was in our time) forum Mod has posted some new guidelines there on charitable and civil debate.

In keeping with the rules here, I won't quote her post, but the essence is that posters should think of themselves as "robots". When someone objects to something they've posted, they should run it through a decision-making chart and, having discerned the appropriate factual and non-emotional response, they should post that with "encyclopedia-like neutrality".

The narrative text is followed by debate guidelines, several of which are pretty mundane. But, my definite favorite - in keeping with the narrative that precedes the guidelines - is ... 

"Remember: your goal is to sound like an encyclopedia robot."   

Why didn't I think of that in my day as mod over there?  ???

The place never ceases to amaze.

Many years,

Neil

Probably because the bias in favor of Eastern Orthodoxy was palpable. When the moderator is allowing threads celebrating a Catholic's defection to Eastern Orthodoxy, he certainly cannot give the advice the provided above. He'd have to practice what he preaches first.

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll burn in hell for causing you such grievous offense. (Or maybe you can just let go of such silly grievances, if you possess the maturity).

I would hope that you would possess the maturity to be able to address a relevant issue. Joe's moderation of that subform was constantly painted by his biases, yet he is suggesting that the posters on CAF should not let their emotions get involved. This is problematic. When you defend this it appears that  you support bias, but I hope that is not the case.

 

[Papist]

Ahhh...CAF...I can't imagine a better place to have abandoned. That goes for the church they're pushing, too.

And I remember in my time there more than a few "I'm leaving Catholicism to become ____" on the Non-Catholic Religions subforum (my favorites were Muslim and Hari Krshna...not the same poster, of course, though that would have made it more interesting), which were allowed to go on for pages and pages and turn into such messes that eventually the moderator of that subforum had to make a sticky announcing that no one could post threads like that anymore. Hahaha. But somehow now posts that stop far short of that level are unacceptable if they do not show enough deference to Catholicism? Sounds like insecure Romanists throwing their weight around, lest their "Eastern lung" start thinking of actually breathing in an Eastern body, as opposed to being properly subservient to their Roman masters. Sad.

No, it sounds like that it is inappropriate to come into a Catholics home, and celebrate how un-catholic one now is. It's simply rude. What if an Eastern Orthodox Christian came to this forum and started a thread celebrating his defection from the EO Church? Is that appropriate here?

 

[Shlomlokh]

I apologize in advance for revisiting the subject of CAF - but this couldn't pass without comment ...

The EC (remember, that's 'Eastern Catholic' these days - not 'Eastern Christi0anity' as it was in our time) forum Mod has posted some new guidelines there on charitable and civil debate.

In keeping with the rules here, I won't quote her post, but the essence is that posters should think of themselves as "robots". When someone objects to something they've posted, they should run it through a decision-making chart and, having discerned the appropriate factual and non-emotional response, they should post that with "encyclopedia-like neutrality".

The narrative text is followed by debate guidelines, several of which are pretty mundane. But, my definite favorite - in keeping with the narrative that precedes the guidelines - is ... 

"Remember: your goal is to sound like an encyclopedia robot."   

Why didn't I think of that in my day as mod over there?  ???

The place never ceases to amaze.

Many years,

Neil

Probably because the bias in favor of Eastern Orthodoxy was palpable. When the moderator is allowing threads celebrating a Catholic's defection to Eastern Orthodoxy, he certainly cannot give the advice the provided above. He'd have to practice what he preaches first.

What's the problem? From your church's position, they were just moving to the other lung.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Papist]

I apologize in advance for revisiting the subject of CAF - but this couldn't pass without comment ...

The EC (remember, that's 'Eastern Catholic' these days - not 'Eastern Christi0anity' as it was in our time) forum Mod has posted some new guidelines there on charitable and civil debate.

In keeping with the rules here, I won't quote her post, but the essence is that posters should think of themselves as "robots". When someone objects to something they've posted, they should run it through a decision-making chart and, having discerned the appropriate factual and non-emotional response, they should post that with "encyclopedia-like neutrality".

The narrative text is followed by debate guidelines, several of which are pretty mundane. But, my definite favorite - in keeping with the narrative that precedes the guidelines - is ... 

"Remember: your goal is to sound like an encyclopedia robot."   

Why didn't I think of that in my day as mod over there?  ???

The place never ceases to amaze.

Many years,

Neil

Probably because the bias in favor of Eastern Orthodoxy was palpable. When the moderator is allowing threads celebrating a Catholic's defection to Eastern Orthodoxy, he certainly cannot give the advice the provided above. He'd have to practice what he preaches first.

What's the problem? From your church's position, they were just moving to the other lung.

In Christ,
Andrew

The other lung is the collection of eastern traditions and theology, not the Eastern Orthodox Church, which we still view as being in schism from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The fact that the Catholic Church views it in this way, can be seen from the magisterium's response to the Zohby initiative.

 

[danman916]

there's a reason why many people (and this latin rite Catholic) rarely, if ever, post over there anymore.

 

[Jetavan]

there's a reason why many people (and this latin rite Catholic) rarely, if ever, post over there anymore.

Some of us are banned for life.

 

[stanley123]

there's a reason why many people (and this latin rite Catholic) rarely, if ever, post over there anymore.

Some of us are banned for life.

This is one of the most unreasonable things that I can think of. I don't know why Joe Monahan would ban people for life, thereby giving them no chance for redemption.

 

[JR]

there's a reason why many people (and this latin rite Catholic) rarely, if ever, post over there anymore.

Some of us are banned for life.

Yes, and I am one of them, no warnings, no emails, just logged on to find a screen saying lifetime ban.

So mature of those robots lol

???

 

[Jetavan]

there's a reason why many people (and this latin rite Catholic) rarely, if ever, post over there anymore.

Some of us are banned for life.

This is one of the most unreasonable things that I can think of. I don't know why Joe Monahan would ban people for life, thereby giving them no chance for redemption.

Redemption? What's that?

 

[Orest]

Is this all an inside joke"?  What is CAF?

 

[JR]

there's a reason why many people (and this latin rite Catholic) rarely, if ever, post over there anymore.

Some of us are banned for life.

This is one of the most unreasonable things that I can think of. I don't know why Joe Monahan would ban people for life, thereby giving them no chance for redemption.

Redemption? What's that?

Redemption is something that CAF are not aware off !

 

[stanley123]

there's a reason why many people (and this latin rite Catholic) rarely, if ever, post over there anymore.

Some of us are banned for life.

This is one of the most unreasonable things that I can think of. I don't know why Joe Monahan would ban people for life, thereby giving them no chance for redemption.

Redemption? What's that?

In this context, I meant lifting the ban. It was an attempt at kindof a joke.

 

[Schultz]

I apologize in advance for revisiting the subject of CAF - but this couldn't pass without comment ...

The EC (remember, that's 'Eastern Catholic' these days - not 'Eastern Christi0anity' as it was in our time) forum Mod has posted some new guidelines there on charitable and civil debate.

In keeping with the rules here, I won't quote her post, but the essence is that posters should think of themselves as "robots". When someone objects to something they've posted, they should run it through a decision-making chart and, having discerned the appropriate factual and non-emotional response, they should post that with "encyclopedia-like neutrality".

The narrative text is followed by debate guidelines, several of which are pretty mundane. But, my definite favorite - in keeping with the narrative that precedes the guidelines - is ... 

"Remember: your goal is to sound like an encyclopedia robot."   

Why didn't I think of that in my day as mod over there?  ???

The place never ceases to amaze.

Many years,

Neil

Probably because the bias in favor of Eastern Orthodoxy was palpable. When the moderator is allowing threads celebrating a Catholic's defection to Eastern Orthodoxy, he certainly cannot give the advice the provided above. He'd have to practice what he preaches first.

What's the problem? From your church's position, they were just moving to the other lung.

In Christ,
Andrew

The other lung is the collection of eastern traditions and theology, not the Eastern Orthodox Church, which we still view as being in schism from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The fact that the Catholic Church views it in this way, can be seen from the magisterium's response to the Zohby initiative.

If this is totally true, why are Orthodox Christians allowed to commune in RC churches?

 

[Papist]

I apologize in advance for revisiting the subject of CAF - but this couldn't pass without comment ...

The EC (remember, that's 'Eastern Catholic' these days - not 'Eastern Christi0anity' as it was in our time) forum Mod has posted some new guidelines there on charitable and civil debate.

In keeping with the rules here, I won't quote her post, but the essence is that posters should think of themselves as "robots". When someone objects to something they've posted, they should run it through a decision-making chart and, having discerned the appropriate factual and non-emotional response, they should post that with "encyclopedia-like neutrality".

The narrative text is followed by debate guidelines, several of which are pretty mundane. But, my definite favorite - in keeping with the narrative that precedes the guidelines - is ...  

"Remember: your goal is to sound like an encyclopedia robot."  

Why didn't I think of that in my day as mod over there?  ???

The place never ceases to amaze.

Many years,

Neil

Probably because the bias in favor of Eastern Orthodoxy was palpable. When the moderator is allowing threads celebrating a Catholic's defection to Eastern Orthodoxy, he certainly cannot give the advice the provided above. He'd have to practice what he preaches first.

What's the problem? From your church's position, they were just moving to the other lung.

In Christ,
Andrew

The other lung is the collection of eastern traditions and theology, not the Eastern Orthodox Church, which we still view as being in schism from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The fact that the Catholic Church views it in this way, can be seen from the magisterium's response to the Zohby initiative.

If this is totally true, why are Orthodox Christians allowed to commune in RC churches?

Good questions. Probably because your faith is close enough to ours, and that you have a partial unity with Catholics, in that you have valid sacrments. This does not mean we think you are the Church, but we do think that elements of the Church exist in Eastern Orthodoxy. Evidence that we don't view your Church as part of "the Church" is found in the fact that we will not concelebrate liturgy with the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I apologize in advance for revisiting the subject of CAF - but this couldn't pass without comment ...

The EC (remember, that's 'Eastern Catholic' these days - not 'Eastern Christi0anity' as it was in our time) forum Mod has posted some new guidelines there on charitable and civil debate.

In keeping with the rules here, I won't quote her post, but the essence is that posters should think of themselves as "robots". When someone objects to something they've posted, they should run it through a decision-making chart and, having discerned the appropriate factual and non-emotional response, they should post that with "encyclopedia-like neutrality".

The narrative text is followed by debate guidelines, several of which are pretty mundane. But, my definite favorite - in keeping with the narrative that precedes the guidelines - is ... 

"Remember: your goal is to sound like an encyclopedia robot."   

Why didn't I think of that in my day as mod over there?  ???

The place never ceases to amaze.

Many years,

Neil

Probably because the bias in favor of Eastern Orthodoxy was palpable. When the moderator is allowing threads celebrating a Catholic's defection to Eastern Orthodoxy, he certainly cannot give the advice the provided above. He'd have to practice what he preaches first.

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll burn in hell for causing you such grievous offense. (Or maybe you can just let go of such silly grievances, if you possess the maturity).

I would hope that you would possess the maturity to be able to address a relevant issue. Joe's moderation of that subform was constantly painted by his biases, yet he is suggesting that the posters on CAF should not let their emotions get involved. This is problematic. When you defend this it appears that  you support bias, but I hope that is not the case.

Joe is no longer a mod at CAF. That handle has been 'retired.' This is a different moderator who posted the quoted request.

 

[biro]

[quote author=Schultz]If this is totally true, why are Orthodox Christians allowed to commune in RC churches?
[/quote]

Yes, that was still the policy listed in the last Roman Missal I had, not too long ago. As far as I know, they accept Eastern Orthodox to Communion. Not sure what the rule is in regard to Oriental Orthodox.

 

[the slave]

.......

Joe is no longer a mod at CAF. That handle has been 'retired.' This is a different moderator who posted the quoted request.

Ummm Joe did not retire - he was forcibly retired and has now been banned  - like many of us

 

[Schultz]

I apologize in advance for revisiting the subject of CAF - but this couldn't pass without comment ...

The EC (remember, that's 'Eastern Catholic' these days - not 'Eastern Christi0anity' as it was in our time) forum Mod has posted some new guidelines there on charitable and civil debate.

In keeping with the rules here, I won't quote her post, but the essence is that posters should think of themselves as "robots". When someone objects to something they've posted, they should run it through a decision-making chart and, having discerned the appropriate factual and non-emotional response, they should post that with "encyclopedia-like neutrality".

The narrative text is followed by debate guidelines, several of which are pretty mundane. But, my definite favorite - in keeping with the narrative that precedes the guidelines - is ...  

"Remember: your goal is to sound like an encyclopedia robot."  

Why didn't I think of that in my day as mod over there?  ???

The place never ceases to amaze.

Many years,

Neil

Probably because the bias in favor of Eastern Orthodoxy was palpable. When the moderator is allowing threads celebrating a Catholic's defection to Eastern Orthodoxy, he certainly cannot give the advice the provided above. He'd have to practice what he preaches first.

What's the problem? From your church's position, they were just moving to the other lung.

In Christ,
Andrew

The other lung is the collection of eastern traditions and theology, not the Eastern Orthodox Church, which we still view as being in schism from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The fact that the Catholic Church views it in this way, can be seen from the magisterium's response to the Zohby initiative.

If this is totally true, why are Orthodox Christians allowed to commune in RC churches?

Good questions. Probably because your faith is close enough to ours, and that you have a partial unity with Catholics, in that you have valid sacrments. This does not mean we think you are the Church, but we do think that elements of the Church exist in Eastern Orthodoxy. Evidence that we don't view your Church as part of "the Church" is found in the fact that we will not concelebrate liturgy with the Eastern Orthodox.

So I can go to communion in a church that I have only "partial" unity with?  That doesn't make any sense.  I was always taught that receiving communion meant that you were in "union" with the Church.  

As for your final statement, I'm pretty sure that's because of the other way around, that the Orthodox will not concelebrate with Roman Catholics.

 

[dzheremi]

Schultz: The Roman church essentially says "close enough". I don't get it either, but what I was taught in RCIA is that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are closer to one another than any other two churches, and hence, while not being in full union, the Eastern Orthodox who is properly disposed may commune due to that perceived closeness. It's like you're more estranged than separated. This goes along with the view expressed by many Romans that the schism should be healed already, as it was mostly a result of human pride and arrogance or some such.

Again, I don't get it, but that's what I remember hearing when I asked my priest this very question. It seems that the Roman Catholic Church sees unity in terms of degree rather than absolutes

 

[Maria]

I am a sleeper agent there, just lurk very infrequently, but do not post.
Therefore, I have not yet been banned.

Oh, I just noticed that the OCD/Scrupulosity Group is the most active thread at CAF.  :
Why does this not surprise me? The Baltimore Catechism promotes scrupulosity with its definition of mortal and venial sins.

 

[Cavaradossi]

.......

Joe is no longer a mod at CAF. That handle has been 'retired.' This is a different moderator who posted the quoted request.

Ummm Joe did not retire - he was forcibly retired and has now been banned  - like many of us

Yes, that's why I wrote, 'retired,' and not simply retired without the scare quotes.

 

[Schultz]

Schultz: The Roman church essentially says "close enough". I don't get it either, but what I was taught in RCIA is that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are closer to one another than any other two churches, and hence, while not being in full union, the Eastern Orthodox who is properly disposed may commune due to that perceived closeness. It's like you're more estranged than separated. This goes along with the view expressed by many Romans that the schism should be healed already, as it was mostly a result of human pride and arrogance or some such.

Again, I don't get it, but that's what I remember hearing when I asked my priest this very question. It seems that the Roman Catholic Church sees unity in terms of degree rather than absolutes

Oh, I know what the Roman church says.  I'm just trying to understand Papist's remark in light of the fact that I can, were I so inclined, skip up to the Basilica during lunch and receive communion if I wanted to do so.

Communion is a mark of who is "in church" and who is not. 

 

[Maria]

Schultz: The Roman church essentially says "close enough". I don't get it either, but what I was taught in RCIA is that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are closer to one another than any other two churches, and hence, while not being in full union, the Eastern Orthodox who is properly disposed may commune due to that perceived closeness. It's like you're more estranged than separated. This goes along with the view expressed by many Romans that the schism should be healed already, as it was mostly a result of human pride and arrogance or some such.

Again, I don't get it, but that's what I remember hearing when I asked my priest this very question. It seems that the Roman Catholic Church sees unity in terms of degree rather than absolutes

Oh, I know what the Roman church says.  I'm just trying to understand Papist's remark in light of the fact that I can, were I so inclined, skip up to the Basilica during lunch and receive communion if I wanted to do so.

Communion is a mark of who is "in church" and who is not. 

Exactly, the Roman Catholic Church has a very confused sense of ecclesiology.
This comes from modernism, does it not?

 

[Schultz]

Schultz: The Roman church essentially says "close enough". I don't get it either, but what I was taught in RCIA is that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are closer to one another than any other two churches, and hence, while not being in full union, the Eastern Orthodox who is properly disposed may commune due to that perceived closeness. It's like you're more estranged than separated. This goes along with the view expressed by many Romans that the schism should be healed already, as it was mostly a result of human pride and arrogance or some such.

Again, I don't get it, but that's what I remember hearing when I asked my priest this very question. It seems that the Roman Catholic Church sees unity in terms of degree rather than absolutes

Oh, I know what the Roman church says.  I'm just trying to understand Papist's remark in light of the fact that I can, were I so inclined, skip up to the Basilica during lunch and receive communion if I wanted to do so.

Communion is a mark of who is "in church" and who is not. 

Exactly, the Roman Catholic Church has a very confused sense of ecclesiology.
This comes from modernism, does it not?

That, I don't know.

All I know is that a church that prides its theology on being logical and forthright has a very strange sense of ecclesiology whereby a religious body cannot be considered "part of the church" but whose adherents are allowed to receive the one thing that exemplifies being "part of the church:" namely Holy Communion.

 

[stanley123]

Schultz: The Roman church essentially says "close enough". I don't get it either, but what I was taught in RCIA is that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are closer to one another than any other two churches, and hence, while not being in full union, the Eastern Orthodox who is properly disposed may commune due to that perceived closeness. It's like you're more estranged than separated. This goes along with the view expressed by many Romans that the schism should be healed already, as it was mostly a result of human pride and arrogance or some such.

Again, I don't get it, but that's what I remember hearing when I asked my priest this very question. It seems that the Roman Catholic Church sees unity in terms of degree rather than absolutes

Oh, I know what the Roman church says.  I'm just trying to understand Papist's remark in light of the fact that I can, were I so inclined, skip up to the Basilica during lunch and receive communion if I wanted to do so.

Communion is a mark of who is "in church" and who is not. 

Exactly, the Roman Catholic Church has a very confused sense of ecclesiology.
This comes from modernism, does it not?

That, I don't know.

All I know is that a church that prides its theology on being logical and forthright has a very strange sense of ecclesiology whereby a religious body cannot be considered "part of the church" but whose adherents are allowed to receive the one thing that exemplifies being "part of the church:" namely Holy Communion.

The idea of union comes about from the Catholic teaching that both Churches have a valid Eucharist. It is not seen as a full union.

 

[LBK]

All I know is that a church that prides its theology on being logical and forthright has a very strange sense of ecclesiology whereby a religious body cannot be considered "part of the church" but whose adherents are allowed to receive the one thing that exemplifies being "part of the church:" namely Holy Communion.

Oh, this is brilliant! Hoist by their own petards. Thanks for this, Schultz!

 

[Irish Hermit]

Probably because the bias in favor of Eastern Orthodoxy was palpable. When the moderator is allowing threads celebrating a Catholic's defection to Eastern Orthodoxy, he certainly cannot give the advice the provided above. He'd have to practice what he preaches first.

<quoting myself>:    Thy memory doth fail thee.  I do not recall threads celebrating Catholic conversion to the big O's.  I recall one such thread and the Orthodox response made it clear that they found it distasteful.  I further recall that the section moderator Joe Monahan made a ruling that such a thread would not be tolerated, on either side.

 

[Papist]

Probably because the bias in favor of Eastern Orthodoxy was palpable. When the moderator is allowing threads celebrating a Catholic's defection to Eastern Orthodoxy, he certainly cannot give the advice the provided above. He'd have to practice what he preaches first.

<quoting myself>:    Thy memory doth fail thee.  I do not recall threads celebrating Catholic conversion to the big O's.   I recall one such thread and the Orthodox response made it clear that they found it distasteful.  I further recall that the section moderator Joe Monahan made a ruling that such a thread would not be tolerated, on either side.

I remember an instance when I brought up such a thread to him, and he refused to do anything about it.