PapaHilarious Posted September 17, 2007 Author Share Posted September 17, 2007 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1387070' date='Sep 17 2007, 10:53 AM']The popes of the last century did not, but that is not true historically speaking. Pope Eugene wanted Patriarch Joseph to kiss his feet at the Council of Florence, but -- happily -- things have changed for the better since that time. As far as the "pagan" philosophy comment is concerned, the East long ago rejected Aristotelian philosophy in theology, while the West embraced it wholeheartedly. That said, as an Eastern Catholic I do not consider Aristotle to be a Christian, nor a Father, and so his philosophical views are irrelevant to me theologically speaking.[/quote] The authority of Jesus Christ is in no way that of a slavemaster. The more you wish to discredit Popes, the more you mock all bishops and Christ Himself. Careful of your footing, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N/A Gone Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 [quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1387082' date='Sep 17 2007, 01:01 PM']The authority of Jesus Christ is in no way that of a slavemaster. The more you wish to discredit Popes, the more you mock all bishops and Christ Himself. Careful of your footing, my friend.[/quote] The popes, as human, have not been perfect. When it comes to matters of east/west both side went out of their ways to declare each other as heretics and dehumanize each other. It is a horrible analogy for you to suggest that we are calling christ a slavemaster by citing that the popes at that time in the lovers quarel with the east were less than charitable and very derogatory towards the east. That was a horrible statement papa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaHilarious Posted September 17, 2007 Author Share Posted September 17, 2007 [quote name='Revprodeji' post='1387090' date='Sep 17 2007, 11:05 AM']The popes, as human, have not been perfect. When it comes to matters of east/west both side went out of their ways to declare each other as heretics and dehumanize each other. It is a horrible analogy for you to suggest that we are calling christ a slavemaster by citing that the popes at that time in the lovers quarel with the east were less than charitable and very derogatory towards the east. That was a horrible statement papa.[/quote] Again fighting Todd's battles? It was his statement, made in a thread you don't even remember, so it's more than silly for you to be defending his actions here. He knew exactly what he was saying, and that is precisely why he never took it - or any of his malicious statements - back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N/A Gone Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 It isnt papa vs todd. It is papa vs statements and perhaps the east. I dont know Todd's personaility when he is aggressively challenged in a polemic way because we do not dehumanize each other in that way. But my instinct is to go to arms. You wanna come at him with a sword, than as my friend and someone I respect I will raise mine up. Your statement was horrible because it was not the intention, nor the purpose of the analogy. He should not take it back, it is an accurate statement and analogy. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 Rev, maybe you should release some frustration on the Battle Board. There's plenty of wounded people to release stress on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N/A Gone Posted September 17, 2007 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaHilarious Posted September 17, 2007 Author Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaHilarious Posted September 17, 2007 Author Share 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted September 17, 2007 Share 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaHilarious Posted September 17, 2007 Author Share 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] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted September 17, 2007 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaHilarious Posted September 17, 2007 Author Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N/A Gone Posted September 17, 2007 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaHilarious Posted September 17, 2007 Author Share 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] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N/A Gone Posted September 17, 2007 Share 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts