|
Post by PerEvangelicaDicta on Oct 9, 2017 22:26:39 GMT
Pon in the house! whoop whoop Sorry for the step down into modernist culture mud, but that's how I felt when I saw PDR's comment, overall succinctly stated, as usual. I appreciate your assessment, PDR, of mod latitude. Kaes is quite tolerant, as is the mod on CI, I believe more so - he permits excellent debates on "untouchable" topics such as EENS and geocentrism. Some odd balls, but overall pretty scholastic and I've done a 180 on a particular issue. Despite some challenges for a moderator, a more hands off approach on that style of forum seems to be the most beneficial. OTC may evolve differently, or be cultivated differently out of the gate. Admin, I'm so happy you mentioned your podcast with Sir Charles Coulombe, or I'd not have known. What an opportunity! You will post a link perhaps? ps. You know me. I will never argue on your right to ban, but only mentioned what I did b/c I don't understand the why and thought I could help a little with my interpretation of a misinterpretation. That was my motive. But ours is not to wonder why, but to do or die AMDG
|
|
|
Post by hopeful on Oct 10, 2017 0:00:24 GMT
Today was spent picking the last picks, then taking down fencing and letting animals enjoy the dregs 😊 They don't seem to realize they are getting the leftovers. Seeing them revel in their good fortune is great fun.
Also did a fair amount of cooking, so I can get a step ahead. Love the feeling of being on top of things.
|
|
|
Post by Pon de Replay on Oct 10, 2017 0:22:40 GMT
Thank you again, PerEvangelicaDicta. I agree with you completely about good forum governance; it's one of the few subjects where I find I actually have a libertarian bone in my body: that which governs least, governs best. I have not been to CathInfo in quite a long while. roscoe was always my favorite member there. SD's moratorium on geocentrism is indeed a shame. (I was once banned there for a performance on a geocentrism thread, and I might be partially to blame for their nixing of geocentrism talk in general). But at the same time, I can appreciate the reluctance to allow it. QMR has called it "the Waterloo of traditional Catholicism"—and I don't think there's a better phrase for it, really, although Matto once said he read a blogger who compared it to Building 7, insofar as it pulls the rug out from under the official explanation.
Admin, I'm pleased that the forum is intended to be slow. I do love tradition, as you say, but unfortunately I am no longer as fond of doctrine and ecclesiology, so I think it will be best if I keep more or less quiet around here lest I upset the apple cart (even if it is moving at a snails' pace). I am currently reading David Hume, if that gives you any indication. I always figured the Enlightenment philosophers would be boring and robotic, but Hume's writing style is jolly and appealing. He was a rather large individual, so I suppose the jollity is fitting. That reminds me of an old Garfield strip, where Garfield is grumpier than usual because he's dieting. Jon: "I thought fat people were supposed to be jolly." Garfield: "They're ecstatic they're not on diets."
|
|
|
Post by hopeful on Oct 10, 2017 1:34:11 GMT
Pon, ecclesialogy and doctrine are the balast for my ship, please, read the confession and conversion of monsignor Hugh benson. Read why he converted.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 10, 2017 2:38:26 GMT
Thank you again, PerEvangelicaDicta. I agree with you completely about good forum governance; it's one of the few subjects where I find I actually have a libertarian bone in my body: that which governs least, governs best. I have not been to CathInfo in quite a long while. roscoe was always my favorite member there. SD's moratorium on geocentrism is indeed a shame. (I was once banned there for a performance on a geocentrism thread, and I might be partially to blame for their nixing of geocentrism talk in general). But at the same time, I can appreciate the reluctance to allow it. QMR has called it "the Waterloo of traditional Catholicism"—and I don't think there's a better phrase for it, really, although Matto once said he read a blogger who compared it to Building 7, insofar as it pulls the rug out from under the official explanation.
Chris, I'm pleased that the forum is intended to be slow. I do love tradition, as you say, but unfortunately I am no longer as fond of doctrine and ecclesiology, so I think it will be best if I keep more or less quiet around here lest I upset the apple cart (even if it is moving at a snails' pace). I am currently reading David Hume, if that gives you any indication. I always figured the Enlightenment philosophers would be boring and robotic, but Hume's writing style is jolly and appealing. He was a rather large individual, so I suppose the jollity is fitting. That reminds me of an old Garfield strip, where Garfield is grumpier than usual because he's dieting. Jon: "I thought fat people were supposed to be jolly." Garfield: "They're ecstatic they're not on diets." Yes, "ecclesiology and doctrine" can get old if the focus is usually on VII, the NO, and polemics. Hence why this forum makes those subjects a marginal subforum at best. Sorry, I couldnt stand reading Hume. Reading existensialism is like Jodie Foster's character in the movie Contact listening for hours at random static hoping to hear a message from aliens. Do you really think he believed in objective truth? Also, I didnt get Hopeful's point to you about ecclesiology. Hopeful, can you ellaborate? (Ps my Fall garden did not sprout (yet)! Did I plant the seeds too deep? What to do)
|
|
|
Post by Pon de Replay on Oct 10, 2017 13:49:22 GMT
Pon, ecclesialogy and doctrine are the balast for my ship, please, read the confession and conversion of monsignor Hugh benson. Read why he converted. I certainly understand and appreciate this. Without ecclesiology and doctrine, Catholicism becomes pointless. It becomes like a Mozart concerto or a Waterhouse painting: something beautiful, and something you can admire, but ultimately ephemeral. In such a case, one's admiration for Catholicism would probably not survive one's death; Mozart, after all, cannot save your soul. I already have Robert Hugh Benson on my reading list, as he was a writer of Edwardian ghost stories (in the mode of M.R. James, I am told), and I will add Confessions of a Convert at your recommendation.
However, I do wonder whether the Anglican converts of that era are relevant to our own time. I have read John Henry Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua, where he said "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." Which is quite correct as far as it goes, but I almost think that to be deep in history is also to cease being a traditional Catholic. Because historically one did not resist an ecumenical council, the hierarchy, and a series of popes. Robert Hugh Benson didn't have to deal with the epistemological dilemma of QMR. He went to some fancy schools, though, so he probably read Hume. Clearly he was not persuaded.
|
|
|
Post by Pon de Replay on Oct 10, 2017 15:00:53 GMT
Yes, "ecclesiology and doctrine" can get old if the focus is usually on VII, the NO, and polemics. Hence why this forum makes those subjects a marginal subforum at best. Sorry, I couldnt stand reading Hume. Reading existensialism is like Jodie Foster's character in the movie Contact listening for hours at random static hoping to hear a message from aliens. Do you really think he believed in objective truth? I wouldn't consider Hume an existentialist, Admin; I would class him as a rationalist. The surprising thing about him, though, is that he does not glorify or celebrate man as magnificently rational. To the contrary, he says that the one thing you might most reasonably observe about man is his tendency to believe and behave irrationally: that rather than being creatures guided by reason, we are more often governed by our emotions and our passions. In his long-winded, 18th-century way of saying it, Hume was pointing out how we sure do like the rush of those neurotransmitters, whether it's in the frenzy of the mob or the wishful dreaminess of the individual. Being irrational can actually feel better and more rewarding than being rational—and it can feel even twice as good to double down and defend our irrationality when it's challenged, because then we're on the high of defending ourselves, like a gorilla thumping his chest and roaring against trespassers on his territory. That gorilla is getting a rush. And that, said Hume (anticipating Darwin) is us, in a sense.Â
So he says that the trick to rationality is to kind of out-think ourselves: to always subject our own thinking to an unforgiving scrutiny, to make certain that we are not being subconsciously led astray by our emotions. It's like the lady in a police station banging her purse against the counter and hollering for justice, causing a scene and yelling "my son is innocent!" It's inconceivable to her that her son might be guilty, because to admit the possibility would cause her to have to question not only the morals of her son, but also her own contribution in raising him, and such a level of self-doubt and introspection would be incredibly painful to endure. So the emotions and the passions kick in: it becomes preferable to feel good and be wrong, than to be right and be totally depressed about it. Hume's lesson, then, in a manner of speaking, is for us to be constantly on guard against the many ways that we are all, on some levels, inclined to be our own little versions of that hyper lady in the police station. Self-knowledge is one of the oldest philosophical concepts out there, but I don't know if anyone brought it to such surgical precision as Hume.
If you couldn't stand him, then that is perfectly understandable, as he was (politely) hostile to Christianity and his works were placed on the Church's Index. I do not recommend him to Catholic readers, but I just wanted to mention him as a barometer of "this is where I find myself these days." In terms of his style I find him quite enjoyable. He isn't impenetrable or constipated like some philosophers are; it's more like he seems to want to kindly implore you to give him fair consideration. He was a Scotsman, of course, but the voice of his prose doesn't have the guttural phlegm-clearing brusqueness typical of the Scottish accent. I had an aunt who was Scottish and she was often incomprehensible. For Hume you would want a softer and more pleasing brogue, and therefore I hear the dulcet tones of someone like a Ewan McGregor when I read him.
Personally, I don't think ecclesiology and doctrine have gotten old for me, but they have certainly gotten impossible. So far I haven't seen anything that resolves what I suppose I'm calling "the epistemological dilemma of QMR" at this point, but I will say that you and Non Nobis on Suscipe Domine were two posters who come to mind as having comprehended his argument correctly and responded to it directly and thoughtfully. Most of the other posters, I'm sorry to say, seemed to just angrily throw an entire arsenal of stale apologetics lines (often tangential or irrelevant) at him. They were the indignant mom in the police station, and that, indeed, does get old. They either plum didn't bother to understand him, or else they did—and simply didn't care.
|
|
|
Post by Pon de Replay on Oct 10, 2017 15:21:44 GMT
I just realized who you are, hopeful. (I won't publicize your name from the other forum in case you would prefer anonymity). You could use an avatar, though. The default on this forum looks like a cross between a gray-skinned Roswell alien and the children's cartoon character Caillou.
|
|
|
Post by hopeful on Oct 10, 2017 15:40:10 GMT
Thank you again, PerEvangelicaDicta. I agree with you completely about good forum governance; it's one of the few subjects where I find I actually have a libertarian bone in my body: that which governs least, governs best. I have not been to CathInfo in quite a long while. roscoe was always my favorite member there. SD's moratorium on geocentrism is indeed a shame. (I was once banned there for a performance on a geocentrism thread, and I might be partially to blame for their nixing of geocentrism talk in general). But at the same time, I can appreciate the reluctance to allow it. QMR has called it "the Waterloo of traditional Catholicism"—and I don't think there's a better phrase for it, really, although Matto once said he read a blogger who compared it to Building 7, insofar as it pulls the rug out from under the official explanation.
Chris, I'm pleased that the forum is intended to be slow. I do love tradition, as you say, but unfortunately I am no longer as fond of doctrine and ecclesiology, so I think it will be best if I keep more or less quiet around here lest I upset the apple cart (even if it is moving at a snails' pace). I am currently reading David Hume, if that gives you any indication. I always figured the Enlightenment philosophers would be boring and robotic, but Hume's writing style is jolly and appealing. He was a rather large individual, so I suppose the jollity is fitting. That reminds me of an old Garfield strip, where Garfield is grumpier than usual because he's dieting. Jon: "I thought fat people were supposed to be jolly." Garfield: "They're ecstatic they're not on diets." Yes, "ecclesiology and doctrine" can get old if the focus is usually on VII, the NO, and polemics. Hence why this forum makes those subjects a marginal subforum at best. Sorry, I couldnt stand reading Hume. Reading existensialism is like Jodie Foster's character in the movie Contact listening for hours at random static hoping to hear a message from aliens. Do you really think he believed in objective truth? Also, I didnt get Hopeful's point to you about ecclesiology. Hopeful, can you ellaborate? (Ps my Fall garden did not sprout (yet)! Did I plant the seeds too deep? What to do) Dear Admin, dear Pon, by ecclesiology, I merely meant that the study of the Church, plus the apostolic succession, convinced me I was in the right place. This conviction has carried me through many a storm.
|
|
|
Post by hopeful on Oct 10, 2017 15:46:04 GMT
I just realized who you are, hopeful. (I won't publicize your name from the other forum in case you would prefer anonymity). You could use an avatar, though. The default on this forum looks like a cross between a gray-skinned Roswell alien and the children's cartoon character Caillou. Dear Pon, you clever Pon, you. Yes it's me. Actually, my avatar is a picture of ME in the morning, before coffee and I don my wig. I just happen to resemble the default avatar. So good to see you. Always found you to be an interesting poster, and not without a sense of humor. Which, as you know, I value very much. Life is too tough without one.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 10, 2017 22:44:26 GMT
Yes, "ecclesiology and doctrine" can get old if the focus is usually on VII, the NO, and polemics. Hence why this forum makes those subjects a marginal subforum at best. Sorry, I couldnt stand reading Hume. Reading existensialism is like Jodie Foster's character in the movie Contact listening for hours at random static hoping to hear a message from aliens. Do you really think he believed in objective truth? I wouldn't consider Hume an existentialist, Admin; I would class him as a rationalist. The surprising thing about him, though, is that he does not glorify or celebrate man as magnificently rational. To the contrary, he says that the one thing you might most reasonably observe about man is his tendency to believe and behave irrationally: that rather than being creatures guided by reason, we are more often governed by our emotions and our passions. In his long-winded, 18th-century way of saying it, Hume was pointing out how we sure do like the rush of those neurotransmitters, whether it's in the frenzy of the mob or the wishful dreaminess of the individual. Being irrational can actually feel better and more rewarding than being rational—and it can feel even twice as good to double down and defend our irrationality when it's challenged, because then we're on the high of defending ourselves, like a gorilla thumping his chest and roaring against trespassers on his territory. That gorilla is getting a rush. And that, said Hume (anticipating Darwin) is us, in a sense.Â
So he says that the trick to rationality is to kind of out-think ourselves: to always subject our own thinking to an unforgiving scrutiny, to make certain that we are not being subconsciously led astray by our emotions. It's like the lady in a police station banging her purse against the counter and hollering for justice, causing a scene and yelling "my son is innocent!" It's inconceivable to her that her son might be guilty, because to admit the possibility would cause her to have to question not only the morals of her son, but also her own contribution in raising him, and such a level of self-doubt and introspection would be incredibly painful to endure. So the emotions and the passions kick in: it becomes preferable to feel good and be wrong, than to be right and be totally depressed about it. Hume's lesson, then, in a manner of speaking, is for us to be constantly on guard against the many ways that we are all, on some levels, inclined to be our own little versions of that hyper lady in the police station. Self-knowledge is one of the oldest philosophical concepts out there, but I don't know if anyone brought it to such surgical precision as Hume.
If you couldn't stand him, then that is perfectly understandable, as he was (politely) hostile to Christianity and his works were placed on the Church's Index. I do not recommend him to Catholic readers, but I just wanted to mention him as a barometer of "this is where I find myself these days." In terms of his style I find him quite enjoyable. He isn't impenetrable or constipated like some philosophers are; it's more like he seems to want to kindly implore you to give him fair consideration. He was a Scotsman, of course, but the voice of his prose doesn't have the guttural phlegm-clearing brusqueness typical of the Scottish accent. I had an aunt who was Scottish and she was often incomprehensible. For Hume you would want a softer and more pleasing brogue, and therefore I hear the dulcet tones of someone like a Ewan McGregor when I read him.
Personally, I don't think ecclesiology and doctrine have gotten old for me, but they have certainly gotten impossible. So far I haven't seen anything that resolves what I suppose I'm calling "the epistemological dilemma of QMR" at this point, but I will say that you and Non Nobis on Suscipe Domine were two posters who come to mind as having comprehended his argument correctly and responded to it directly and thoughtfully. Most of the other posters, I'm sorry to say, seemed to just angrily throw an entire arsenal of stale apologetics lines (often tangential or irrelevant) at him. They were the indignant mom in the police station, and that, indeed, does get old. They either plum didn't bother to understand him, or else they did—and simply didn't care.If you're currently reading an author that used to be on the Index, for his hostility to the Church, can I ask Pon, in a completely benign and friendly tone--I always wondered about this over at Shooship--are you a Catholic? Of course you sound like you are, but certain lines of debate you took suggested you might not be, or that you are just skeptical of the whole business. I don't think you say on your SD profile your religion. Do you go to the Latin Mass? Of course you don't have to, to be a part of OkieTradCats, or even to argue about ecclesiology or doctrine. Re Hume, I could see you seeing a certain line of rationality in his works. But when I took modern philosophy, the professor classified him as an existentialist (even though he is technically an empiricist) and his works were the main ones we studied when we covered that area. It was in a critical sense in light of the Faith, mainly because of his skepticism, but also underlining certain material contributions he made to philosophy. From the Thomistic point of view, all the different schools of modern philosophy can be categorized under the umbrella of rationalism, romanticism, or existensialism (at least that is what Leo Strauss attempted to argue in his work The Three Waves of Modernity). I have an Okie trad friend who is a professional professor/teacher of Thomism, who I can see if he can register here and join the debate (s). He is the expert. What are some things we could debate? The aim would be to a) show how a forum debate, when observing the rules of civility, can actually be very fruitful, b) generate more traffic here, especially Okie trads for networking purposes (the primary purpose of this little forum), and c) be a way to bring us all closer to the good, true, and beautiful.
|
|
|
Post by hopeful on Oct 10, 2017 23:20:37 GMT
Maybe you could entice QMR over here. It may be more hospitable to him.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 10, 2017 23:48:25 GMT
James03 is an OkieTrad! Wrote his own book recently, I think on (against?) distributism! Something about economics. Does podcasts! But I know he is very busy. Good guy. I pm'd him on SD. Maybe someone elsecan also coax him on over here.
|
|
|
Post by Pon de Replay on Oct 11, 2017 0:09:15 GMT
If you're currently reading an author that used to be on the Index, for his hostility to the Church, can I ask Pon, in a completely benign and friendly tone--I always wondered about this over at Shooship--are you a Catholic? Of course you sound like you are, but certain lines of debate you took suggested you might not be, or that you are just skeptical of the whole business. I don't think you say on your SD profile your religion. Do you go to the Latin Mass? Of course you don't have to, to be a part of OkieTradCats, or even to argue about ecclesiology or doctrine. Re Hume, I could see you seeing a certain line of rationality in his works. But when I took modern philosophy, the professor classified him as an existentialist (even though he is technically an empiricist) and his works were the main ones we studied when we covered that area. It was in a critical sense in light of the Faith, mainly because of his skepticism, but also underlining certain material contributions he made to philosophy. From the Thomistic point of view, all the different schools of modern philosophy can be categorized under the umbrella of rationalism, romanticism, or existensialism (at least that is what Leo Strauss attempted to argue in his work The Three Waves of Modernity). I have an Okie trad friend who is a professional professor/teacher of Thomism, who I can see if he can register here and join the debate (s). He is the expert. What are some things we could debate? The aim would be to a) show how a forum debate, when observing the rules of civility, can actually be very fruitful, b) generate more traffic here, especially Okie trads for networking purposes (the primary purpose of this little forum), and c) be a way to bring us all closer to the good, true, and beautiful. Greetings, Admin. I moved ten months ago and I know I haven't been to Mass since, so it's probably been at least a year since I was last in a Catholic church. A precise timeline would be hard to gauge, because I went through a long period of trying to discern whether I belonged as an Eastern Orthodox Christian instead of a Catholic (and that accounts for probably the bulk of my posts on SD, many of which were centered on papal infallibility), but during that time I definitely considered myself a believer in Christ, the gospels, apostolic succession, and the first seven councils. I took two voluntary six-month bans from Suscipe Domine while I was figuring these things out, so I think my "tenuous Catholicism" is probably two and a half years old at this point, while my agnosticism is approximately a year. This is the second time, now, that I have left the Church in disillusion and disappointment, but with the accrual of Hume I think it is more final.Â
Hume is essentially "where I'm at" at this point, and I do find him very companionable. You are correct in diagnosing him as an empiricist; it is in his insistence on strictly experiential knowledge where he formally makes his break from rationalism proper. (I would still consider him a rationalist sooner than an existentialist, though I do not claim to know better than Leo Strauss who wrote a book about it). At any rate, I am currently reading his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding; I'm reading the chapters out of order, however, as I wanted to start with his famous essays on the miraculous, and I have moved around hodge-podge from there. The early chapters, I believe, contain his empiricism. (I haven't read those yet). To answer your question, though, I attended the Latin Mass almost exclusively when I was an adult practicing Catholic. The only time I regularly attended the Novus Ordo was when I was young and my mother made me (I hated it even then).
The only three topics worth debating, in my opinion, would be 1. "the epistemological dilemma of QMR," 2. theodicy, and 3. evolution. These are the three biggest hurdles to traditional Catholicism, I think. But I do not believe any debate is necessary, and no one need be invited to "OkieTradCats" on my account. I would be happy to be quiet as a mouse around here. I would only surface occasionally, perhaps to pose an honest question here and there—or maybe post a Guns N' Roses video, just to be cheeky.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 11, 2017 0:24:41 GMT
If you're currently reading an author that used to be on the Index, for his hostility to the Church, can I ask Pon, in a completely benign and friendly tone--I always wondered about this over at Shooship--are you a Catholic? Of course you sound like you are, but certain lines of debate you took suggested you might not be, or that you are just skeptical of the whole business. I don't think you say on your SD profile your religion. Do you go to the Latin Mass? Of course you don't have to, to be a part of OkieTradCats, or even to argue about ecclesiology or doctrine. Re Hume, I could see you seeing a certain line of rationality in his works. But when I took modern philosophy, the professor classified him as an existentialist (even though he is technically an empiricist) and his works were the main ones we studied when we covered that area. It was in a critical sense in light of the Faith, mainly because of his skepticism, but also underlining certain material contributions he made to philosophy. From the Thomistic point of view, all the different schools of modern philosophy can be categorized under the umbrella of rationalism, romanticism, or existensialism (at least that is what Leo Strauss attempted to argue in his work The Three Waves of Modernity). I have an Okie trad friend who is a professional professor/teacher of Thomism, who I can see if he can register here and join the debate (s). He is the expert. What are some things we could debate? The aim would be to a) show how a forum debate, when observing the rules of civility, can actually be very fruitful, b) generate more traffic here, especially Okie trads for networking purposes (the primary purpose of this little forum), and c) be a way to bring us all closer to the good, true, and beautiful. Greetings, Admin. I moved ten months ago and I know I haven't been to Mass since, so it's probably been at least a year since I was last in a Catholic church. A precise timeline would be hard to gauge, because I went through a long period of trying to discern whether I belonged as an Eastern Orthodox Christian instead of a Catholic (and that accounts for probably the bulk of my posts SD, many of which were centered on papal infallibility), but during that time I definitely considered myself a believer in Christ, the gospels, apostolic succession, and the first seven councils. I took two voluntary six-month bans from Suscipe Domine while I was figuring these things out, so I think my "tenuous Catholicism" is probably two and a half years old at this point, while my agnosticism is approximately a year. This is the second time, now, that I have left the Church in disillusion and disappointment, but with the accrual of Hume I think it is more final. Hume is essentially "where I'm at" at this point, and I do find him very companionable. You are correct in diagnosing him as an empiricist; it is in his insistence on strictly experiential knowledge where he formally makes his break from rationalism proper. (I would still consider him a rationalist sooner than an existentialist, though I do not claim to know better than Leo Strauss who wrote a book about it). At any rate, I am currently reading his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding; I'm reading the chapters out of order, however, as I wanted to start with his famous essays on the miraculous, and I have moved around hodge-podge from there. The early chapters, I believe, contain his empiricism. (I haven't read those yet). To answer your question, though, I attended the Latin Mass almost exclusively when I was an adult practicing Catholic. The only time I regularly attended the Novus Ordo was when I was young and my mother made me (I hated it even then). The only three topics worth debating, in my opinion, would be 1. "the epistemological dilemma of QMR," 2. theodicy, and 3. evolution. These are the three biggest hurdles to traditional Catholicism, I think. But I do not believe any debate is necessary, and no one need be be invited to "OkieTradCats" on my account. I would be happy to be quiet as a mouse around here. I would only surface occasionally, perhaps to pose an honest question here and there—or maybe post a Guns N' Roses video, just to be cheeky. Lol. You're a good man, Pon. Thanks for clarifying. Re Catholics-considering-Orthodoxy, I wrote a blog post about that recently, per Tulsapapist's request, which you might find interesting, if you get time to look at it: okietraditionalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-allure-and-danger-of-eastern.htmlAlso, I just use the name "Admin" here, not my real flesh name, plus free forums won't let the Admin use any other name than Admin. If you'd be game, we could start a separate thread for a good old-fashioned debate. You can choose the topic: a) the epistemology debate, b) evolution, c) Catholics considering Orthodoxy, d) your choice. It would be a way to 1. show how a civil debate can take place on a trad forum, 2. attract traffic and new members, and 3. bring us all closer to the divine truth. Quare could be invited to join, as well as Tulsapapist, and my Thomist professor Okietrad friend! It could even become a loooong, slooow discourse like Treebeards in LOTR! What say you Pon?? Do you accept the challenge??
|
|