N/A Gone Posted September 17, 2007 Posted September 17, 2007 I am not frustrated sir. Just not a fan of injustice. Battle board is getting old to me. There has to be more to it than just attacking and having points go up. Idk.
PapaHilarious Posted September 17, 2007 Author Posted September 17, 2007 [quote name='Revprodeji' post='1387106' date='Sep 17 2007, 11:19 AM']Dont try and pretend the western church has been perfect in its relationship with the east. The idea that you think the morality of the pope is tied up with Christ is not orthodox. We have had some bad popes, some bad bishops, some bad priests. Does that mean if we accuse them of sin we ar accusing Christ of sin? If, in unity, we are telling the eastern churches to abandon their theological traditions, practices, saints, etc then we are in the wrong. If we are dehumanzing them to submit to us like a second class christian then we are wrong. The idea was that instead of dealing with the issues of disagreement in dialogue (like we were doing until you thought your insight and judgement of todd was needed) they would condemn and force the east to be submissive like they did something wrong. I dont see this visual in Ut Unum Sint. Do you?[/quote] LOL. This is descending into pure madness. What in the world are you talking about with Popes being perfect and the West being perfect? And [u]WHO[/u] is asking the East to abandon their beautiful traditions? Again, whatever conversation you're having right now has nothing to do with anything I've said. The problem that neither you nor Todd seems to understand is that the West [i]also[/i] has beautiful traditions, and that does not change regardless of how much you insist on mocking them.
PapaHilarious Posted September 17, 2007 Author Posted September 17, 2007 [quote name='Anomaly' post='1387116' date='Sep 17 2007, 11:22 AM']Rev, maybe you should release some frustration on the Battle Board. There's plenty of wounded people to release stress on.[/quote] Good suggestion!
Anomaly Posted September 17, 2007 Posted September 17, 2007 At least the pointless attacks and fighting are really meant to be pointless and harmless in the overall scheme of life. Why is it so easy for committed 'Christians' to attack a fellow 'Christian's' faith, ultimately damaging each other's relationship with God?
PapaHilarious Posted September 17, 2007 Author Posted September 17, 2007 [quote name='Anomaly' post='1387128' date='Sep 17 2007, 11:28 AM']At least the pointless attacks and fighting are really meant to be pointless and harmless in the overall scheme of life. Why is it so easy for committed 'Christians' to attack a fellow 'Christian's' faith, ultimately damaging each other's relationship with God?[/quote] Brother, I thank you for your insight. It's something I tried to say earlier in this thread, but no one wants to hear it. .... [quote]And all this, mind you, is beside the glaring and most obvious point that your friend has never once apologized for his constant offenses. This would imply some humility, I suppose. Perhaps even some humanity. Charity, certainly. His attitude and any of those who post with similarly hostile - or as your friend once said: "unpopular" - remarks is embarrassing to not just Eastern Rite Catholics, but Orthodox, Protestant, and all who call themselves Christians. A true Christian seeks to correct those in error, to lead them with love, and to avoid strife and discord. I'll leave you with the words of a great Eastern saint, Maximus the Confessor (from Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XCI), responding to those who argue without charity: QUOTE "Any other spirit, even in the face of real heresy, leads the would-be zealot to something as bad as heresy itself. That is, the betrayal of the prime Christian commandment of love."[/quote]
Anomaly Posted September 17, 2007 Posted September 17, 2007 (edited) [quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1387131' date='Sep 17 2007, 02:32 PM']Brother, I thank you for your insight. It's something I tried to say earlier in this thread, but no one wants to hear it. ....[/quote]Dude, not intending to flame you, but I think you are contributing to the 'MADness' too. (Mutual Assured Destruction). An overly zealous defense to a perceived offense isn't great either. But hey, what do I know, I'm in neither camp and think Baptists and Muslim's worship the same God with different imperfect understandings. Bruhaha's over the Filoque have served mostly to harm the faith of Christians, both East and Latin (in my opinion, anyways). Edited September 17, 2007 by Anomaly
PapaHilarious Posted September 17, 2007 Author Posted September 17, 2007 [quote name='Anomaly' post='1387138' date='Sep 17 2007, 11:40 AM']Dude, not intending to flame you, but I think you are contributing to the 'MADness' too. (Mutual Assured Destruction). An overly zealous defense to a perceived offense isn't great either. But hey, what do I know, I'm in neither camp and think Baptists and Muslim's worship the same God with different imperfect understandings. Bruhaha's over the Filoque have served mostly to harm the faith of Christians, both East and Latin (in my opinion, anyways).[/quote] No flame taken. haha Believe it or not, Anomaly, I never engaged in the Filioque debate. I agree with your position that it's caused more harm than good. My only purpose for posting in this thread was to draw attention to how uncharitable such debates always turn out. Which, as you can see, is yet again true. If you flip back a few pages, you'll see what I'm talking about. Nonetheless, I will take the lead and apologize if I have contributed to the scandal myself.
N/A Gone Posted September 17, 2007 Posted September 17, 2007 You started the scandal. There was no issue of charity at all until you started. Otherwise it was Todd telling me how an eastern mind would react to the work I am doing on my thesis paper. We were not debating the filioque, but rather working with the systematic objections each side has for each other. It was all duckies and bunnies until you had to go and poke an eye out.
PapaHilarious Posted September 17, 2007 Author Posted September 17, 2007 [quote name='Revprodeji' post='1387152' date='Sep 17 2007, 12:17 PM']You started the scandal. There was no issue of charity at all until you started. Otherwise it was Todd telling me how an eastern mind would react to the work I am doing on my thesis paper. We were not debating the filioque, but rather working with the systematic objections each side has for each other. It was all duckies and bunnies until you had to go and poke an eye out.[/quote] It's a shame that Anomaly's rebuke wasn't enough for you to stop this divisive thread. Multiple malicious statements against Western tradition - paganism, heresy, the groveling slave business, etc. - have already been stated as facts of slander with no apology ever offered. Until you or Apotheoun wish to speak with charity amongst brothers, there is nothing more to be said. [size=4][quote]"Any other spirit, even in the face of real heresy, leads the would-be zealot to something as bad as heresy itself. That is, the betrayal of the prime Christian commandment of love."[/quote][/size]
N/A Gone Posted September 17, 2007 Posted September 17, 2007 Im sorry. WHo are you? What authority do you have to come into a conversation that is 6 pages deep and condemn it for something you dont like? If you dont like it. Go away. Todd is eastern, and I am western. We were speaking in charity and will continue to. The only time I was uncharitable was towards your hijack attack. So whats your beef? Do you honestly have a problem with this issue? If I ask Todd "will the east accept a model of the filioque where the Spirit participates as the son particpates in order to have mutual particpation" and he replies "no, there was a council in Ad 934 that said the son cannot cause the spirit" and I respond "he is not a cause, he is participation, father is cause alone" Todd replies "oh, ok work with the language and happy-happy joy-joy" What exactly is your problem with that? That is the basic tone of what has been happening for the last 4 pages before you set up camp. What is going on with the dual threads now?
PapaHilarious Posted September 17, 2007 Author Posted September 17, 2007 [quote name='Aloysius' post='1387167' date='Sep 17 2007, 12:54 PM']I have split those things not related to the filioque debate directly into another topic, so that this thread may continue to discuss the issue of the filioque. Please stay on topic here. It's perfectly fine to suggest, if you wish, that the filioque controversy should not be focused on. It is not fine to then derail the conversation away from discussion of the topic because you do not think it should be discussed. If you want to discuss whether Apotheoun's ecclesiology is ok for an Eastern Catholic to hold, go do it [b]politely[/b] in the other thread, "Of East and West and Charity and Ecclesiology"[/quote] What was the point of splitting these threads when the other one was closed? All it does is lend credence to those who think it's okay to constantly slander other Catholics in their threads, as if they were private and there are no rules. To answer Rev... Your thread got sidetracked because your friend refused to stop belittling Western tradition or even apologize for his remarks. Just because you don't take it as an offense to be called a heretic, pagan, or slavemaster doesn't mean that others don't take some flippant and profane comments seriously. East and West [i]both[/i] have beautiful traditions and you will never hear me say a bad word about our Eastern brothers. Anyone who speaks condescendingly toward the tradition of their brothers should be ashamed of the scandal they've caused. Even if you think one aspect of your tradition is grander than another's, what glory is there is putting your brother down? Such behavior only brings out the worst of Christians, regardless of their tradition. And this, unfortunately, is very much at the heart of the Filioque debate. [size=4][quote]Any other spirit, even in the face of real heresy, leads the would-be zealot to something as bad as heresy itself, that is, the betrayal of the prime Christian commandment of love.[/quote][/size]
Aloysius Posted September 17, 2007 Posted September 17, 2007 This topic is re-opened, please be polite and charitable, Papa, understanding that there is a legitimate ecclesiology from an Eastern Catholic perspective which differs from Roman Ultramontane views of the papacy, an Eastern Ecclesiology that the Vatican itself fully supports as being held by Eastern Christians.
PapaHilarious Posted September 17, 2007 Author Posted September 17, 2007 [quote name='Aloysius' post='1387211' date='Sep 17 2007, 01:45 PM']This topic is re-opened, please be polite and charitable, Papa, understanding that there is a legitimate ecclesiology from an Eastern Catholic perspective which differs from Roman Ultramontane views of the papacy, an Eastern Ecclesiology that the Vatican itself fully supports as being held by Eastern Christians.[/quote] Your comments are beyond perplexing. Have you read nothing of the posts in question? It is highly rude and arrogant to call the Western tradition "pagan" , "heresy" , or described in terms of "groveling at the feet of the Pope like slaves" (from a Veiling thread). That is the entire summation of this discussion: these uncharitable remarks by Apotheoun. I have never, ever, not once made a disparaging remark about Eastern Rites, only calling them "beautiful." This is not a discussion of trivial points of doctrine. This is a discussion of the complete disregard for love and charity used when talking about someone else's tradition.
Aloysius Posted September 17, 2007 Posted September 17, 2007 It is a legitimate complaint about the way the Papacy has treated Eastern bishops in the past, to a degree. he did not call us pagans, he called Aristotelian philosophy pagan. Well, purely, it is. We have applied pagan philosophy to our theology; we see it as being capable of approaching God through our reason, the East does not. but it's a fact that its origin is pagan. I'm sorry, I haven't seen anything uncharitable from Apotheoun. Personally, I have issues with Apotheoun in that sometimes he decries the latinization of the East, but then goes on to seemingly propose an easternization of the West. But so long as he is legitimately critiquing our tradition whilst allowing us to critique his, both of us can probably retreat and decry the other for trying to "latinize" or "easternize" a legitimate tradition of the Church, but there are legitimate points that ought to be debated; like the filioque and ecclesiology et cetera.
Laudate_Dominum Posted September 17, 2007 Posted September 17, 2007 Although, Al, I tend to appreciate Papa's sentiments because such discussions could go both ways and this approach is entirely unproductive and unbecoming. I know Eastern Christians who constantly vent about the faults of Roman Catholics and I know Roman Catholics who often tear the behavior and failings of Eastern Christians to shreds. It is ridiculous. The Pope has apologized and made many gestures of good will such as giving back relics to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. I don't think we are supposed to be exchanging polemics and slanders. I say this because in reading Papa's posts I realize that I have that tendency myself at times and I'm not proud of it.
PapaHilarious Posted September 17, 2007 Author Posted September 17, 2007 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1387223' date='Sep 17 2007, 02:08 PM']Although, Al, I tend to appreciate Papa's sentiments because such discussions could go both ways and this approach is entirely unproductive and unbecoming. I know Eastern Christians who constantly vent about the faults of Roman Catholics and I know Roman Catholics who often tear the behavior and failings of Eastern Christians to shreds. It is ridiculous. The Pope has apologized and made many gestures of good will such as giving back relics to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. I don't think we are supposed to be exchanging polemics and slanders. I say this because in reading Papa's posts I realize that I have that tendency myself at times and I'm not proud of it.[/quote] Thank you for your thoughtful insight, LD. I've gotten rather exhausted explaining why it is uncharitable to compare the Pope to a slavemaster or any of the other malicious statements that have been said with no regard for the feelings of others. Why anyone would want to drive such wedges is beyond me, as I have nothing but love and admiration for the Eastern Rites. I've said this about a dozen times today, but it bears repeating... The great Eastern Saint Maximus the Confessor teaches us very clearly that one's opinions - whether we hold them as truth or simply probable observation - are not [i]by nature[/i] charitable, just in their being voiced. Rather, it is the way in which we present our argument and the loving tone we use with others. Charity, in such a context, is a genuine concern for someone else's soul as evidenced in our actions and manner of speech. A true Christian seeks to correct those in error, to lead them with love, and to avoid strife and discord. [size=4][quote]Any other spirit, even in the face of real heresy, leads the would-be zealot to something as bad as heresy itself. That is, the betrayal of the prime Christian commandment of love.[/quote][/size]
Laudate_Dominum Posted September 17, 2007 Posted September 17, 2007 A perennial problem of message board discussions is that the intended tone of posts does not always come through very clearly. I know I have been misinterpreted as being hostile in the past when in fact my disposition was quite friendly. There is also a difficulty inherent in subjects that are very dear to people (politics and religion being cliche examples), and it is easy to express an honest conviction and find that others are deeply offended even though this was not the intent. In light of these and other factors I must say that the reminder of charity, and the high standard of respect and Christian peace that we are called to manifest, cannot be stressed enough. Coupled with this however, is giving people the benefit of the doubt when they give offense. Having had a great many discussions with Apotheoun over the years I don't think he was trying to be mean. I think that hardly a day goes by where I do not violate these principles. I often tell myself that it is zeal for the truth or love for the Church, but in all honesty it is often hard for me to see in myself where authentic zeal ends and a kind of bitter zeal begins. I am certainly rambling, but the point is really just that I appreciate the reminder and know from experience that in conversations such as these it is a good idea to continually examine one’s conscience.
PapaHilarious Posted September 17, 2007 Author Posted September 17, 2007 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1387243' date='Sep 17 2007, 02:51 PM']A perennial problem of message board discussions is that the intended tone of posts does not always come through very clearly. I know I have been misinterpreted as being hostile in the past when in fact my disposition was quite friendly. There is also a difficulty inherent in subjects that are very dear to people (politics and religion being cliche examples), and it is easy to express an honest conviction and find that others are deeply offended even though this was not the intent. In light of these and other factors I must say that the reminder of charity, and the high standard of respect and Christian peace that we are called to manifest, cannot be stressed enough. Coupled with this however, is giving people the benefit of the doubt when they give offense. Having had a great many discussions with Apotheoun over the years I don't think he was trying to be mean. I think that hardly a day goes by where I do not violate these principles. I often tell myself that it is zeal for the truth or love for the Church, but in all honesty it is often hard for me to see in myself where authentic zeal ends and a kind of bitter zeal begins. I am certainly rambling, but the point is really just that I appreciate the reminder and know from experience that in conversations such as these it is a good idea to continually examine one’s conscience.[/quote] Good points once again. Thank you. Unfortunately, after hearing my objections to his comments, Apotheoun offered no retraction or apology other than a defiant: "the truth is always charitable." Obviously, he sees no distinction between speaking things we believe to be true and the way in which we present our arguments. To think of an obvious analogy: Would it ever be charitable for a Christian to barge into a gay club with a sign and loud-speaker, chanting "GAYS GO TO HELL" ? Surely, we can all agree this would be the furthest thing from a charitable attitude. So it is indeed possible to feel you are right and yet lack all charity in your discussion. Nonetheless, the olive branch was extended, and I will leave it at that. It's all just a shame, because as I've said time and again, I love our Eastern brothers and sisters. And I will have to hope deep down inside they can say the same about the West.
cmotherofpirl Posted September 17, 2007 Posted September 17, 2007 [quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1387253' date='Sep 17 2007, 06:09 PM']Good points once again. Thank you. Unfortunately, after hearing my objections to his comments, Apotheoun offered no retraction or apology other than a defiant: "the truth is always charitable." Obviously, he sees no distinction between speaking things we believe to be true and the way in which we present our arguments. To think of an obvious analogy: Would it ever be charitable for a Christian to barge into a gay club with a sign and loud-speaker, chanting "GAYS GO TO HELL" ? Surely, we can all agree this would be the furthest thing from a charitable attitude. So it is indeed possible to feel you are right and yet lack all charity in your discussion. Nonetheless, the olive branch was extended, and I will leave it at that. It's all just a shame, because as I've said time and again, I love our Eastern brothers and sisters. And I will have to hope deep down inside they can say the same about the West.[/quote] This thread is closed because you just don't know how to stop the attack.
Recommended Posts