COMMUNION: Does "is" mean "is?" Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical

[Arsenios]

I commented that it seemed the EOC accepted the Lutheran Eucharist.

I recall you saying: "Arsenios, thank you for saying the EOC fully accepts the validity of the Lutheran Eucharist."

He wrote back "We do not."

Indeed I did, but not to your first mis-recollection...

The usual reading of that is that they do not accept it as valid.
What I said is accurate.

It would be but only IF I had not gone on to explain what I meant...

Hence what you said is a gross distortion and not truthful...

Now, he went on to indicate that they don't officially regard it as invalid either,
which is nice,
but that doesn't change what I said:
They don't regard it as valid.

It remains the same, exactly as I stated:
Lutherans tend to regard the Orthodox Eucharist as valid
but the Orthodox does not regard the Lutheran one as such.
At least, according to Arsenios.
IF I had posted, "The Orthodox regard the Lutheran Eucharist as invalid"
that would be "spinning" it (as you publicly accuse)
but that's not what I said, is it?

All of which utterly and untruthfully disregards what I did say...

So let me help you out here a little:

You posted that we regarded the Lutheran Eucharist as valid...
I said we do not...
I went on to explain that we do not regard it...
You then insisted that we do not regard it as valid...
Because we do not regard it as you do...
But we simply do not regard it...
Neither as valid nor as invalid...

Absence of regard is not regard...

All better now?

It is only logic...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

The above is what you said, correct?
Therefore my representation of what you said is accurate.
See what I did there?

That was subtle...

I tried the more brutal approach...

But I like how you think!


Arsenios