Iqbal
posted on May 17, 2008 - 07:56 AM
I'm going to exercise the liberty of going back on my word given that Truth.Seeker has done so himself, twice.
And by "certain" I mean known to all.
A Synod does not make a particular truth “known to all”. A Synod codifies a particular truth, not for the purpose of making it known to all, but for the purpose of concretely safeguarding it from imminent and threatening opposition. The issue is not that the truth was not “known to all” prior to the Synod, but simply that prior to the Synod, as much as there was sufficient authority to establish the conclusiveness of that truth, there existed some leeway for persons to nevertheless undermine that sufficient authority and to oppose such truths without being officially subject to some standardised form of ecclesiastical discipline (much like the position you're in at the moment with respect to your opposition to the divine underpinnings of the Coptic heritage).
If you have some awareness of the commonwealth legal system it may help you to consider the relationship between a principle grounded in common law and that same principle as it is later formulated in statute law, as being representative of a fairly reasonable analogy to the relationship between the state of a particular principle prior to its codification by a Synod and the state of the same principle subsequent to its Synodal codification (at least on the point of the authority carried by such principles).
That doesn't make sense, if you're referring to his spirituality
As I told you previously, I have not left you with any reasonable scope to assume what I am referring to since I have explicitly defined the factors in consideration of which his interpretation acquires determinative value. Forgive me if I choose not to repeat myself like a parrot. See my above posts. His spiritual charisma, along with his episcopal position, are but two factors which, taken in consideration of the other factors mentioned, give due weight to his position, thereby confirming the prima facie implications that are--within an Orthodox Christian framework--generally assumed to stem from the fact of his being a Saintly Bishop. But ultimately, and clearly, I have not singled out any one factor, be it his patriarchal position or his spiritual perfection, and have in fact also appealed to factors external to the Pope himself, in support of my position. If, as I have made clear, there are factors external to the Pope which have a significant role to play in the determination of whether or not his particular position is correct or not, then clearly I have not assumed any notion of papal infallibility. That is but your own ludicrous assumption resulting from your own inability to properly grasp my argument.
half of his teachings are rejected by the Coptic Church.
No, they’re not, actually. It’s truly amazing; as if it wasn’t enough for you to try and undermine Pope Kyrillos VI and St Samuel the Confessor, you now feel the need to insist upon degrading a Saint who has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You may claim that you’re only trying to give an example to indicate a wider point, but since you already mentioned St Augustine in your last post, and since I already addressed the general point at hand in response, I cannot help but feel that there is something more to your itching need to bring his name into the discussion once again.
So, a spiritual saint can make mistakes and the pope can make mistakes
Is there something you missed in my last reply, particular the part when I said:
I already agreed with the point that a particular Saint is not always necessarily correct. We are not dealing with the theoretical possibility of a Saint erring. We are dealing with a concrete example of a particular Saint’s application of a Scriptural verse and dealing with it in consideration of its particular context. I have not appealed to the mere fact a Saint said X to argue in favour of the correctness of X which is what you don’t seem to be understanding.
Honestly, what part of that was not clear to you?
Are we going to really go through this path?
You mean the path of desperation where one feels the need to point out something as silly as a minor spelling error in one’s use of a Latin phrase so as to detract from the substantial issues at hand? Well, clearly that’s the path you have opted to take. I think my position has sufficient strength on its own terms so as to keep me from ever feeling desperate enough to resort to such tactics. But please, do continue down that path if it tickles your fancy; it only goes to further undermine the already negligible (to say the most) credibility of your conjecturally based arguments.
Btw, I don’t mean to disappoint you, but the fact I misspelt non-sequitur does not make your arguments any less non-sequitur (if you want to make a point of my use of the hyphen, I’d be glad to take you up on that one as well).
You need to brush up on your history.
Humour me, Truth.Seeker: what kind of formal education have you pursued with respect to church history or even Egyptian history for that matter? It was only a year ago that I studied ‘Egypt in the First Millenium C.E.’ under the direction of Coptologist Dr. Heike Behlmer, so readings on the Arab conquest of Egypt are not at all stale in my mind. I have alluded to historical authorities which directly and indirectly support the notion that the conquest of Egypt was not an event expected to occur within the ordinary course of things. For direct support of this notion I alluded to Walter Emil Kaegi’s article which was published in the Church History journal. Apart from your own self-conceived authority, who can you refer us to in support of the idea that the conquest of Egypt was an event that came as no surprise? I don’t want your personal hypothesis; unless ofcourse you prove yourself to be qualified to make such a hypothesis in the first place (do you have a doctorate in history? Do you have any articles that have been published in peer-reviewed journals?)
When the Church has not spoken, there's no authoritative teaching to submit to.
I suggest you take time off the internet and pursue some formal studies in Orthodox ecclesiology and epistemology. The idea that teachings only acquire authoritative status upon their being ruled upon by a Synod is nothing but your own novel opinion. Synods are but one form of many instruments through which the phronema of the Church is made manifest. The Church has spoken; you simply refuse to listen. That’s what it comes down to, in a nutshell.
If the Coptic Synod were to pass something saying the Coptic language has divine worth in and of itself, I'll start going to an Armenian Church.
This is the saddest line in this entire thread, though I can’t say I’m surprised to hear it. Needless to say, It speaks VOLUMES in regard to the credibility of your position…and confirms my initial supposition as to the main and real reason why you are simply not going to budge on this issue irrespective of the force of the arguments and authorities that weigh overwhelmingly against you.
In Christ,
Iqbal
Joined: Nov 14, 2004 | Posts: 124
