www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Scott Hahn, Thomas Howard, Peter E. Gillquist ,etc..

Thank you both for your council and input, Father Thomas and Father Stephanos!

So, I guess the angry red face in the instant graemelins ( ) is okay to use if we are feeling righteous indignation, but not hurting anyone in the process!

Maybe the administrator can arrange for the angry red face to be called 'holy anger' instead of 'mad'!! Indeed, Father Thomas, that sounds MUCH better!

Asking for both your blessings,
Alice

I had a priest tell me once it was OK to me angry, that in that case it was righteous anger. The reason being there was a woman, may her memory be eternal+, that I was trying to help, she was a recluse and I had taken her to the store, as we did once a week. However, during this time I was pregnant with my second child, I had taken the woman to the grocery store and could not get her to leave. I was getting really sick, actually I ended up having my daughter that day. It got to the point I was going to give her money for a taxi, but she didn't want a taxi to take her home, so she left. I felt really bad for getting upset with her, but then later on that night I understood why.

So I can see where that type of anger can come into play.

Pani Rose

I have not visited the site mentioned above, but I once did hear Father Peter speak about four years ago and he was very edifying and serene in that talk. Also, he has been battling cancer of some kind, so we should try to be understanding of whatever small foibles there might be.

A blessed Christmas to all,
Woody

Dear Alice et al:

You're probably right about that. I wouldn't really know.

What I do know is that Scott Hahn HAS bashed Eastern Orthodoxy. (See the passage quoted at the bottom of this message.)

I don't have any problem with Thomas Howard.

-Peter.


"So I started looking into Orthodoxy. I met with Peter Gillquist, an evangelical convert to Antiochian Orthodoxy, to hear why he chose Orthodoxy over Rome. His reasons reinforced my sense that Protestantism was wrong; but I also thought that his defense of Orthodoxy over Catholicism was unsatisfying and superficial. Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.
"Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century."

-Rome Sweet Home, pg. 61

Dear Peter B:

I don't know but the quoted portion of his conversion book just recalls the reasons why he chose to swim the Tiber instead of crossing the Bosphorus.

Dr. Scott Hahn is not BASHING Eastern Orthodoxy in this instance and I have not heard nor read that he is.

At any rate, are his observations, or most of them, not factually true?

Amado

I can understand why some would believe that Hahn is "bashing" Orthodoxy. I remember reading that passage in his book, and I was taken aback when I read it. Since I am Latin (but a Slav - the wife is Latina!) I will not comment on agreeing or disagreeing with Hahn's words. I only pray that we forgive each other's sins and realize what we have that unites us.

I believe what you meant to say is that you HAD not heard it. Clearly you HAVE heard it (from me).

I would prefer not to dignify that question with an answer.

Dear Peter B:



Prior to your post, I would like to know the other person(s) (of note) who has/have said Dr. Hahn is bashing Eastern Orthodoxy in that cited portion of his book?




Thank you. But is this an ex cathedra statement?




Sorry, your Highness, your humble servant will now keep his mouth shut!

Amado

I think the term "bashing" has become a little over-used these days. Dr. Hahn wasn't "bashing" anything, he was just stating his reasons for not joining the Orthodox Church. Where is the "bashing"???

Dear Christine/Theist Gal,

I agree with you. As an Orthodox I see no bashing in what Mr. Hahn has said. He respectfully stated his opinion. I take no offense.

Infact, I would go even further to say that I wish that many Orthodox would state THEIR opinions about the Roman Catholic church as respectfully as he did about mine.

Humbly in Christ, who is LOVE and CHARITY and our unity,
Alice

Politeness is charity, charity is love, and love is God....Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, of blessed memory.

Dear Father Thomas,

I beg to differ with you about saints anger. If I recall correctly, I was told in my youth, a story about two Irish saints. One was insisting he was on water, as he threw fish at the other, who was insisting it was land, and threw back rocks.

Please Bless,

Zenovia

"I agree with you. As an Orthodox I see no bashing in what Mr. Hahn has said. He respectfully stated his opinion. I take no offense.

Infact, I would go even further to say that I wish that many Orthodox would state THEIR opinions about the Roman Catholic church as respectfully as he did about mine."
-------------------------------------------------

Dear Alice,

I couldn't agree with you more.

Zenovia

I�ll admit that �bashing� can be interpreted different ways. But in any case, Dr. Hahn�s attitude toward Orthodoxy is extremely unfortunate. (I say this as a Steubenville alum who was once a big fan of his.)

Perhaps it would help if I specify which statements I found offensive (I should have done this in the first place):

Amadeus et al, since we're discussing anti-Orthodox polemics, perhaps we should round the discussion out by considering what anti-Catholic polemics have to say about the matter. To that end, I suggest reading

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_carltonrome.aspx

What you'll find there is the epilogue of Clark Carlton's book "The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know about the Orthodox Church." This book, incidentally, was reviewed (along with two other polemical books) in the Touchstone article Paths & Polemics by William J. Tighe. Concerning the epilogue Tighe says:

(The Touchstone article can also be found online:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-07-033-b )


God bless,
Peter.

P.S. To ward off any angry replies, let me state for the record that I am NOT siding with Carlton against Hahn.

I read some ofthe quotes from Carlton's book.

Calling Rome "Protestantism repackaged in sacramental garb� reminds me of the many Orthodox who used to come on this board and pick fights.

Carlton is the East's version of SSPX. You want to call him justified - have at it. I think he's a fanatic.
I have read enough about Fr. Schaeffer to know that HE dismisses Rome as being nothing more than another backwater fundamentalist revival bunch.

Oh, and by the way - my wife's father saw the sun change at Fatima. He was not the victim of a demonic delusion. Carlton has taken his hate for Rome and repackaged it in sacramental garb.

Carlton has as much value for me as the SSPX who call the Orthodox schismatics.