Surely it depends on the behaviour of the Orthodox posters concerned.But Catholic hostility to Orthodox posters is OK, right?Matthew 7:3 my friend. I will never get tired of saying it.
I am not going to take a stand either for or against the forum change. I will say, however, that I won’t shed a tear for the old forum and the more I hear whining of this sort, the more convinced I become that the moderators may have made the correct decision.
Try me.
Your apology accepted. I’m sorry I answered before reading your retraction. Upset and hurt obviously cuts both ways.
If everyone behaves, and the volume justifies it, we have no reason to doubt it will occur. So let’s try to make it so.I am also very saddened by this change. I don’t recall ever having said anything offensive to RC, so I feel I have the right to say I am offended that Eastern Orthodoxy is from now on to be seen as a ‘non-catholic’ religion.
I hope the moderators will consider Madaglan’s proposal: Eastern Christianity forum divided into Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism. Heavily moderated. (I quite like Joe Monahan’s relaxed and jocular moderation, but it couldn’t hurt to be stricter) It also keeps all the ‘trouble-makers’ in one place, instead of all over Apologetics/Liturgy & Sacraments/Non-Catholic Religions and those not interested in Orthodox/Catholic polemics never have to visit.
In the wise words of Derek Trotter: ‘You know it makes sense.’
It’s a good question, but not an easily answerable one.
Not to put too fine a point on it, EC are required to accept the theology of the Latins. What they are not required to do is to share it or articulate it. This is a crucial distinction, and failure to respect it causes no end of confusion to EO, who otherwise see in it a failure of intellectual honesty on the part of both Eastern and Latin Catholics. EC are free to recite the Creed in its uninterpolated form, for example. But they are not free to question the orthodoxy of the filioque. If your conscience cannot accept Latin theology, you may well be in the wrong Church.
Ok, I will step in here with a sour note. What you say is true, or at least should be true, but are Ukrainian Catholics really living up to this role? Take this call for a revival of the Kievan Patriarchate, for example. As a student of Church history, this makes me queasy. The Kievan Patriarchate already and still exists. It moved to Moscow. Granted, under Orthodoxy it turned into the Russian Orthodox Church and arguably an instrument of russification and Russian imperialism. But is the answer really to incorporate the Orthodox ecclesiological “innovation” of national Churches? Is it not the role of Ukrainian Catholics to be witnesses to the Church’s catholicity and rejection of religious nationalism?
I think it’s sad that you take offence at this naivity and don’t seize on it as an opportunity to educate your fellow Catholics. You shouldn’t have to justify, but explaining it is all to your glory. The Eastern Catholics are the heros of the fight for Christian unity. Their fidelity to both their traditions and to the unity of the One True Church in spite of the abuse, pressure and ignorance coming from both sides tells the whole story. And it is one worth telling over, and over, and over to anyone disposed to listen and be enlightened.
As I mentioned in my previous post about this Orthodox dude, I once asked him a legitimate question and he told me he really didn’t know but to go to such and such a forum to get an answer. The question had to do with Orthodox Universities, hospitals, schools, etc. I posted that question in the EO forum he suggested and I simply stated that I was just asking out of curiosity. However, I was quickly jumped on by several regular EO posters there accusing me of hate posts, questioning my intentions, trying to start trouble etc. etc. The Orthodox dude came in defending me and explained to them that **he **sent me there to get an answer to my question and that he saw no hostility in my part. Regretfully I never got an answer. Needless to say I never posted there again.
Amen! The old Forum became a very unhealthy place for Catholics with all the polemics against us. I fell victim to it and I am very pleased that a decision was made to address it.
terminology ] to be helpful , kind and considerate whenever I have asked questions - both here and elsewhere.I also miss those level-headed Orthodox posters. But it came to a point where Catholic bashing became the norm in many threads and those level-headed Orthodox said nary a word of caution.I am sorry that you have felt this way.
I have always found the Orthodox Christian so I don’t use the banned , sorry forbidden
Perhaps the way I approach them is different - I don’t know .
I just know I miss their presence
So Latin theology is superior to eastern theology according to you because eastern theology must change itself to accomodate the latin theology. Excuse me but that is completely false. The council made clear that all churches were equal. If the churches are equal so are their theologies.
I don’t think that any Latin Catholic here in good standing with the Church will claim that Latin theology is superior to eastern theology.
I said no such thing. Latins accept Syriac theology because they see its Eastern Catholic expression as conforming fully with their own, merely stated differently and with different emphases. I am not sure whether Mary as mediatrix of all graces qualifies as dogma, but certainly Eastern Catholics would have to accept this as a valid expression of Mary’s role in the economy of grace and salvation. Whether they would give liturgical expression to this, or express their veneration to and for her in these terms would be up to them.
Not change, in the backwards sense, but grow and develop (development of doctrine).
The Immaculate Conception doesn’t fit into Byzantine theology. It would be a change of our theology to develop the idea of the immaculate conception within our theology. I accept that it is valid for Latins but it does not fit our theology.
