Many Orthodox theologians, in addition to viewing the
schism in terms of the separation of the Roman Church from the Church,
also view certain Roman theological propositions as heretical.
|
Is that why Orthodox christians may receive communion in Catholic churches, but Catholic christians may not receive communion in Orthodox churches?
And so, Janus, if you wish to have this
conversation again I am game. After all, it might even be profitable;
you and I have doubtless picked up a good deal more knowledge in the
interim, and the Spirit never ceases to lead. If we do have a
discussion, however, I may be a little less punctual than I was in our
previous thread, for which I apologize.
|
No here is not the proper thread for that, also, unfortunately I don't think I'd have much more to add since I haven't looked into the schism since our previous debate. I was just merely replying to xristar's comments since at least to me they seemed a bit condescending.
Anyway since my knowledge of the Orthodox church is second-hand, I'll leave the discussion to those who are actually members (although I like to think of myself as a member too  )
Elenos ive started a new forum_posts.asp?TID=20620&PN=1 -
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 22:09
Originally posted by Janus Rook
Originally posted by Akolouthos
Many Orthodox theologians, in addition to viewing the schism in terms of the separation of the Roman Church from the Church, also view certain Roman theological propositions as heretical. |
Is that why Orthodox christians may receive communion in Catholic churches, but Catholic christians may not receive communion in Orthodox churches? |
Precisely so. This was a cause of some controversy, and still is, to a lesser degree. Many of our ecclesiastics resented what they saw as the Roman Church trying to get Orthodox Christians to commit an act that put them out of canonical good order with the Orthodox Church. The Roman Church, sensitive to this, has recently begun advising Eastern Orthodox Christians, as well as Copts, to observe the canonical discipline of their respective churches. In fact, the sentence immediately preceding this one was a paraphrase of something I read in a missal at a Mass I attended.
The long and short of it, I guess, is that progress is being made in this area, for which ecclesiastics from both churches are to be commended.
Originally posted by Janus Rook
No here is not the proper thread for that, also, unfortunately I don't think I'd have much more to add since I haven't looked into the schism since our previous debate. |
I think you are right; this thread would be better served by a series of questions and answers than by a polemical discussion. Well stated. 
Originally posted by Janus Rook
Anyway since my knowledge of the Orthodox church is second-hand, I'll leave the discussion to those who are actually members (although I like to think of myself as a member too  ) |
If you did not, I assume you would have converted already.
God bless, Janus.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 11:01
Originally posted by Akolouthos
The Orthodox do not pray to icons, but rather, as Athanasios noted above, to the saints whom the icons represent.
Although you will occasionally hear Orthodox Christians speaking of praying to icons, that phrasing is technically incorrect (it presumes a familiarity with the orthodox understanding of the icon). We pray before icons, to the saints and to God. When we venerate the icons, we venerate the image of the saint or Christ, and our veneration goes to the prototype. This is in accordance with the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
An illustration:
Surely if I take a picture of my family on a trip and kiss it, thereby venerating it, I am not venerating the picture itself--that is to say, my love is not directed toward the paper and pigments of which the picture is composed. My love is directed to the prototype of the image in the photograph. I am kissing the picture as an expression of love for my family itself. So it is with the holy icons. |
I have always understood the explanation given by the Orthodox for their use of icons. What you have said above is pretty much what I have heard. However, it seems that many of the Orthodox faithful take the veneration of icons way too far. It seems especially so with the older generation. The acts of "veneration" that are directed towards an icon in the mass, front and center, can be quit unnerving, even if one is aware of the aforementioned explanation.
Why can't veneration and prayers to a saint be accomplished through just that - prayer? To me it appears that the many Orthodox reveal a burdensome reliance and focus on various saints rather than the author of their salvation Jesus Christ. Why is his intercession and grace not wholly sufficient? The rending of the temple veil at the time of the crucifixion symbolically gave believers direct access to God through the medium of prayer without the necessity of an intercessor.
Originally posted by Akolouthos
This is not my special area of expertise. Nonetheless, I will strive to answer your question to the best of my ability.
Generally the Orthodox Church does not hold to the overly juridical theology that gradually developed in the West. No doubt there will be a judgment, and no doubt our actions affect that judgment. Still, we think of God in terms of mercy, and of sin in terms of separation (hamartia) from Him. Thus, Hell may be conceived of as God's love experienced as pain. The infinite love of God is experienced as an infinite torment by those who have rejected it. |
As I understand it, in Orthodox theology, Christ came to save man not from sin itself but from the spiritual death that results from sin. Is Hell not a real place to which those who have rejected Christ enter and experience eternal separation from God and the savior?
Now, onto a different subject, if anyone wants to discuss it. Akolouthos and others, what do the present-day Orthodox think of the so-called "Protestant Patriarch" Kyril Loukaris, who was a 16th-17th century ecumenical patriarch?
Speaking of discussions between Orthodox and Protestants, there has been some scholarship devoted to the subject. George Mastrantonis wrote a book, complete with translations of the correspondence, about the theological discussions between the Lutheran Tubingen theologians and the patriarch Jeremiah II called Augsburg and Constantinople (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982). There are also volumes in an edited series on Orthodox-Protestant ecumenism, the title of which escapes me at the moment. I believe Sir Steven Runciman contributed to it.
-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas
|
Posted By: Eondt
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 05:13
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Why is his intercession and grace not wholly sufficient? The rending of the temple veil at the time of the crucifixion symbolically gave believers direct access to God through the medium of prayer without the necessity of an intercessor.
|
Thanks Byzantine Emporer, just what I wanted to ask, but put much more eloquently than I ever could. I am genuinely interested to understand the orthodox (and catholic) viewpoint of praying to saints? Praying to anybody but God seems heretical to me as a protestant.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 10:25
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
There are also volumes in an edited series on Orthodox-Protestant ecumenism, the title of which escapes me at the moment. I believe Sir Steven Runciman contributed to it. |
Are you sure that wasn't Orthodox-Anglican ecumenism?
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ecumenical/dialogues/orthodox/index.cfm - http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ecumenical/dialogues/orthodox/index.cfm
-------------
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 16:58
|
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
I have always understood the explanation given by the Orthodox for their use of icons. What you have said above is pretty much what I have heard. However, it seems that many of the Orthodox faithful take the veneration of icons way too far. It seems especially so with the older generation. The acts of "veneration" that are directed towards an icon in the mass, front and center, can be quit unnerving, even if one is aware of the aforementioned explanation. |
I agree with you, but I would phrase it a bit more precisely. I do not think that the problem is with the acts of veneration, themselves. Rather, I believe, the problem is a general lack of understanding--especially, as you noted, among the older generation--as to why we venerate, what we venerate, and how we venerate.
During the liturgical services of the Church veneration of the icons does indeed take place during prayers. The icons are material used to lead us into a deeper experience of worship. I will agree that it is a bit unsettling for one not acquainted with Orthodoxy, but I think that the unsettling feeling is as much a result of our culture as it is of our individual religious persuasions.
The practice of venerating icons, as well as the theology behind it, goes back to the earliest days of the Church. As you say, some take the veneration of icons too far, but I believe the transgression is generally an inadvertent ideological one.
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Why can't veneration and prayers to a saint be accomplished through just that - prayer? |
An act of veneration--such as kissing an icon--is an act of prayer. So is lighting a candle, making the sign of the cross, etc. Though these physical acts are occasionally accompanied by verbal--or mental--prayer, they are forms of prayer in their own right.
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
To me it appears that the many Orthodox reveal a burdensome reliance and focus on various saints rather than the author of their salvation Jesus Christ. |
The Orthodox Church understands that the saints lead us to Christ; by reflecting on the lives of these holy men and women we reflect on the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, which leads us to a more perfect understanding of Christ in whom we see the Father.
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Why is his [Christ's] intercession and grace not wholly sufficient? |
Christ's mediation and grace are, indeed, wholly sufficient. Does this mean, however, that we should not ask for the prayers of our fellow Christians, here on earth? Of course not. Why then, would we refuse to ask those who have fallen asleep in Christ to pray for us?
The saints act as intercessors before God. They pray for us, just as our Christian brethren on earth pray for us. They can do nothing by their own power, separated from Christ. Unlike our living brothers and sisters, however, the saints prayers are not interrupted by any of the mundane concerns that occupy our lives; they can, as the Apostle commands, "pray without ceasing."
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
The rending of the temple veil at the time of the crucifixion symbolically gave believers direct access to God through the medium of prayer without the necessity of an intercessor. |
Aye, that is the way the passage has been most commonly intepreted. Still, we continue to pray for each other--indeed we are commanded to do so. Why then, would we not want those who have "finished the race" to pray for us?
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
As I understand it, in Orthodox theology, Christ came to save man not from sin itself but from the spiritual death that results from sin. |
I believe that you understand correctly. 
Christ came to divinize human nature. He came to restore the image of God in Man, which was damaged but not destroyed by the Fall. Through our participation in Him, we become "partakers of the divine nature." Incidentally, this is the basis for our understanding of sacramental theology, as well.
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Is Hell not a real place to which those who have rejected Christ enter and experience eternal separation from God and the savior? |
Hell is absolutely not an experiential separation from God; it is, rather, a volitional separation from Him. By refusing to accept His love, which is never forced on us, we refuse to accept our own redemption. As Bishop Kallistos (Timothy Ware) puts it:
Hell is not so much a place where God imprisons humans, as a place where humans, by misusing their free will, choose to imprison themselves. And even in hell the wicked are not deprived of the love of God, but by their own choice they experience as suffering what the saints experience as joy.
[Ware, The Orthodox Church]
Thus, while Hell is a result of the rejection of God, by an individual, it is not a separation from God who never rejects us.
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Now, onto a different subject, if anyone wants to discuss it. Akolouthos and others, what do the present-day Orthodox think of the so-called "Protestant Patriarch" Kyril Loukaris, who was a 16th-17th century ecumenical patriarch? |
Ah, now there's an interesting topic!
The modern Orthodox don't generally think much of his doctrinal statements. His Confession was declared anathema three times, once by his successor and a Constantinopolitan synod and twice by other synods, one of which has a strong claim to ecumenicity. His martyrdom by the Turks was certainly a tragedy. In summary, despite his doctrinal errors, he seems to have had the best intentions.
I think your suggestion of starting a thread dealing with Cyril Loucaris is a wonderful idea, and so will not post more here. Please send me a PM when it is up; I have been accused of being scatterbrained a time or two before, and might not notice it if left to my own devices. 
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Speaking of discussions between Orthodox and Protestants, there has been some scholarship devoted to the subject. George Mastrantonis wrote a book, complete with translations of the correspondence, about the theological discussions between the Lutheran Tubingen theologians and the patriarch Jeremiah II called Augsburg and Constantinople (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982). |
I would definitely be interested in reading this. I have read excerpts from some of Jeremiah's letters, but have never had the opportunity to study the matter in depth. Does the book contain the original documents with commentary, or is it strictly a secondary source?
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
There are also volumes in an edited series on Orthodox-Protestant ecumenism, the title of which escapes me at the moment. I believe Sir Steven Runciman contributed to it. |
Hm. I generally love Runciman, so I might have to check this out. Was the link gcle2003 provided what you were thinking of, or was it something else?
Anyway, thank you for your patience and the book tips. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. God bless, Byzantine Emperor.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 20:59
|
Cool thread!
I have a couple of questions about the Orthodox Church.
I know the Orthodox dont accept the idea of the Pope but do they acknowledge Peters primacy?
Does the Orthodox view their Church as the first? Or in other words doest it view itself older than the Catholic Church? I ask this question because Ive heard this arguement before and its seems somewhat silly because arent both Churches rooted in the original Apostolic Church established by Christ? Of course they both argue over which Church still holds true to the original Apostolic Church
Thanks in advance
-------------
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 05:54
Originally posted by arch.buff
Cool thread!
I have a couple of questions about the Orthodox Church.
I know the Orthodox dont accept the idea of the Pope but do they acknowledge Peters primacy? |
Akolouthos is the best man to explain this.
also this http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16338&PN=1 -
Originally posted by arch.buff
Does the Orthodox view their Church as the first? Or in other words doest it view itself older than the Catholic Church? I ask this question because Ive heard this arguement before and its seems somewhat silly because arent both Churches rooted in the original Apostolic Church established by Christ? Of course they both argue over which Church still holds true to the original Apostolic Church |
AFIAK, we are the same age, but the latins have splintered from the Apostolic church from our point of view.
From what i can gather in recent lessons with the local priest, the orthodox church takes allot of pride in keeping its beliefs, rituals and the Apostolic lineage preserved and unchanged over the ages. Its legitimacy is in its keeping the faith as true to the original doctrines that were agreed to, and by the Apostolic heritage of its bishops. The bishop in Rome went to seek greater power than what was understood or agreed to by the other bishops, hence breaking himslef from church and the faith. His Apostolic heritage counts for little if he deviated from it.
The holy and catholic church of the orthodox faith (and worship), are very conservative in their views of what is and isn't Christian. Any change is simply a deviation of the true nature of the worship and faith established by the Apostles. This is also a non negotiable point of view, there can only be one Church for the One trinitarian God.
Arch, again, I ask you to wait for Akolouthos response, as i know very little on actual details - councils, dogma and the like. This is more of an attempt to articulate the orthodox POV.
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2007 at 23:19
Originally posted by arch.buff
Cool thread!
I have a couple of questions about the Orthodox Church.
I know the Orthodox dont accept the idea of the Pope but do they acknowledge Peters primacy?
Does the Orthodox view their Church as the first? Or in other words doest it view itself older than the Catholic Church? I ask this question because Ive heard this arguement before and its seems somewhat silly because arent both Churches rooted in the original Apostolic Church established by Christ? Of course they both argue over which Church still holds true to the original Apostolic Church
Thanks in advance |
Actually, the Orthodox Church does accept "the idea of the Pope"--in fact, we actually have two (the Patriarch of Alexandria is also referred to as a "Pope"). What the Orthodox Church does not accept is the Roman interpretation of the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome. In accordance with the canonical tradition of the ancient Church, Orthodox Christians hold that the Bishops of Rome, so long as they are canonical, are to enjoy a primacy of honor. While there are certain canonical prerogatives enjoyed by each of the ancient Patriarchates, the Roman Church has sought to interpret her prerogatives in a matter that is inconsistent with the ancient canons and the Apostolic understanding of ecclesiastical governance.
Thus, while the prerogatives of the Roman Bishop are connected to his office, the office itself is connected to the Church; hence the prerogatives of the office cannot be exercised, or for that matter properly interpreted, outside of the ecclesial context in which they were meant to be exercised and interpreted. A canonical Bishop of Rome would hold the primacy of honor within the Church; an uncanonical Bishop of Rome, by virtue of his separation from the Church, is entitled to neither primacy, nor even to the episcopal office itself.
As for the question regarding whether or not the Orthodox Church views itself as "the first" or "older than the Catholic Church," the answer is a carefully qualified yes; that answer, however, must be understood in the proper context (which, for the record, provides the qualification).
While the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church historically share the common Apostolic Tradition, it is the deviation of the Roman Church from that very Tradition that separates her from us. Thus, though she is historically grounded in the same faith, she has left that faith by a series of innovations. As Leonidas said:
Originally posted by Leonidas
AFIAK, we are the same age, but the latins have splintered from the Apostolic church from our point of view... The bishop in Rome went to seek greater power than what
was understood or agreed to by the other bishops, hence breaking
himslef from church and the faith. His Apostolic heritage counts for
little if he deviated from it. |
The term "Apostolic Succession" requires more than a legalistic understanding; while it does refer to an unbroken line of episcopal consecrations that can be traced back to the Apostles, it implicity refers to a preservation of the Tradition delivered by Christ, to the Apostles, and through them to the Church. The Apostolic Succession can never be understood properly if it is separated from the Apostlic Tradition of the ancient Church.
Thus, the question of the uniqueness of the Orthodox faith is properly one of both validity and chronology. The Orthodox Church, possessing the fullness of the Apostolic faith, and tracing her episcopacy back to the Apostles themselves, is the one catholic and apostolic Church founded by Christ.
The thread Leonidas cited was a discussion of the various theological,
ecclesiological, and canonical issues surrounding the question of the
Roman primacy. I have included the link below.
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16338 - Possible Union of Churches
If you have any specific questions regarding the nature of the Orthodox ecclesiology, I will do my best to answer them.
Originally posted by Leonidas
Arch, again, I ask you to wait for Akolouthos response, as i know very little on actual details - councils, dogma and the like. |
Thank you, once again, for the confidence.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 18:39
|
Maybe this question has already been answered but why does the Orthodox Church reject a primary figure-head here on earth(Pope) when we see in scripture Peters primacy. Why would something Christ has established on earth be broken with no succesion??
Thanks in advance
-------------
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 02:47
All questions surrounding the papacy should be redirected to this new, cool thread:
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21045 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21045
Thank you very much. And a special thanks to The Jackal God for transferring his last post.
God bless and keep you all.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 02:15
Originally posted by Akolouthos
Christ's mediation and grace are, indeed, wholly sufficient. Does this mean, however, that we should not ask for the prayers of our fellow Christians, here on earth? Of course not. Why then, would we refuse to ask those who have fallen asleep in Christ to pray for us? |
Originally posted by Akolouthos
Why then, would we not want those who have "finished the race" to pray for us? |
Does the tradition of praying for the intercession of saints asleep in Christ come from the Fathers? Isn't the saints' pritority praising God in the literal presence of the Father and the Son for all eternity? Excuse my ignorance of Patristics if I am way off here. Predictably Protestant I suppose, my ultimate reference is the Scriptures.
Romans 8:27 (Holman Christian Standard)
And He who searches the hearts knows the Spirit's mind-set, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
-That the saints' lives on earth should be examples for the faithful:
Matthew 5:16 (HCS)
In the same way, let your light shine before men, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.
I Peter 2:12 (HCS)
Conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles, so that in a case where they speak against you as those who do evil, they may, by observing your good works, glorify God in a day of visitation.
-Especially, through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Timothy's earnest recommendations on prayer:
I Timothy 2 (HCS)
First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all those who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
For there is one God
and one mediator between God and man,
a man, Christ Jesus,
who gave Himselfa ransom for all,
a testimony at the proper time.
For this I was appointed a herald, an apostle (I am telling the truth; I am not lying), and a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
Romans 8:26 (HCS)
And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.
Originally posted by Akolouthos
The Orthodox Church understands that the saints lead us to Christ; by reflecting on the lives of these holy men and women we reflect on the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, which leads us to a more perfect understanding of Christ in whom we see the Father. |
I understand this as being the proper method of veneration as sanctioned by the Orthodox Church. However, in practice, it appears to me that many Orthodox faithful develop a fixation on saints and their percieved intercessory powers and leave Christ as almost an afterthought. If the focus is totally on God through Jesus Christ, whose grace alone is sufficient for salvation and the answering of prayers, there would not be such a misguided fixation.
Originally posted by Akolouthos
Christ came to divinize human nature. He came to restore the image of God in Man, which was damaged but not destroyed by the Fall. Through our participation in Him, we become "partakers of the divine nature." Incidentally, this is the basis for our understanding of sacramental theology, as well. |
Is this the notion of theosis?
Originally posted by Akolouthos
Hell is absolutely not an experiential separation from God; it is, rather, a volitional separation from Him. By refusing to accept His love, which is never forced on us, we refuse to accept our own redemption. |
Yes, I agree that it is totally volitional. But in Revelation, God eventually does cast the damned, along with Death and Satan, into the Lake of Fire as the prescribed Second Death.
Revelation 20:14 (HCS)
Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
Revelation 21:8 (HCS)
But the cowards, unbelievers, vile, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liarstheir share will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.
Originally posted by Akolouthos
I think your suggestion of starting a thread dealing with Cyril Loucaris is a wonderful idea, and so will not post more here |
This thread is still in the works. Once I get the time to sit down and review the secondary material again (there isn't much but it is intensive), it will appear. Should it go in the Early Modern or Theology subforum? I am thinking it should go into Early Modern since it involves the Ottomans and the Reformation.
Originally posted by Akolouthos
I would definitely be interested in reading this. I have read excerpts from some of Jeremiah's letters, but have never had the opportunity to study the matter in depth. Does the book contain the original documents with commentary, or is it strictly a secondary source? |
It has a historical introduction, the translated text of the letters, and a commentary. There is an inexpensive paperback reprint of the book available from HCOP. I had to call them and order it by phone since curiously the book is absent from the online store.
Originally posted by Akolouthos
Hm. I generally love Runciman, so I might have to check this out. Was the link gcle2003 provided what you were thinking of, or was it something else? |
Yes, actually, this is part of it. There was a series of statements that were issued from the ecumenical talks. I think there were some Lutheran-Orthodox ecumenical dialogues in a different series.
-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 02:15
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Does the tradition of praying for the intercession of
saints asleep in Christ come from the Fathers? Isn't the
saints' pritority praising God in the literal presence of the Father
and the Son for all eternity? Excuse my ignorance of Patristics if I
am way off here. Predictably Protestant I suppose, my ultimate
reference is the Scriptures. |
Aye, it would appear that it does go back to the Fathers. Both Chrysostom and Augustine mention it (Chrysostom in his Homily on II Corinthians, Augustine in The City of God and his First Homily on I John). That said, I think the important thing is understanding that as human nature has been radically altered by the Incarnation, so the position of the soul after death has been radically altered by the Resurrection. If we are to ask our fellow Christians for intercession (I Tim 2), and if the righteous who have reposed in Christ are fellow Christians (Rev 16: 6 and, more clearly, Rev 20: 9), then it would seem that the practice of praying for the intercession of the saints is entirely valid. It is interesting to note that I Tim 2, the passage which states that Christ is the "one Mediator," also contains a clear exhortation to pray for one another. It isn't the term "Mediator" itself that is important, but rather the understanding of the term. Christ's mediation is unique, but saintly intercession is also a valid form of "mediation"--although this mediation is of a completely different character and, for lack of a better word, "quality."
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Originally posted by Akolouthos
The Orthodox Church understands that
the saints lead us to Christ; by reflecting on the lives of these holy
men and women we reflect on the transforming power of the Holy Spirit,
which leads us to a more perfect understanding of Christ in whom we see
the Father. |
I understand this as being the proper method of
veneration as sanctioned by the Orthodox Church. However, in practice,
it appears to me that many Orthodox faithful develop a fixation on
saints and their percieved intercessory powers and leave Christ as
almost an afterthought. If the focus is totally on God through Jesus
Christ, whose grace alone is sufficient for salvation and the answering
of prayers, there would not be such a misguided fixation. |
Undoubtedly many Orthodox do possess a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of praying to the saints for intercession. Still, we should not discard a valid--and I would argue necessary--practice because of misunderstandings; rather we must educate those who misunderstand. We must explain to them that the saints have no power to save us in and of themselves--indeed it is only by the grace of God that they can even hear our prayers. Their ability to intercede for us is always united to their close union with Christ.
As for the practice being necessary, allow me to illustrate by means of establishing a simple dichotomy of errors.
1) An individual venerates and prays to the saints in a manner which is outwardly consistent with orthodox practice, while inwardly holding the misconception that the saints, in and of themselves, are able to effect the individual's salvation. This damages the individual's understanding of and relation to Christ by focusing an undue level of attention on those who, while they do possess a special degree of union with God, are still very much human.
2) An individual, out of a fear of the type of misunderstanding evident in [1], refuses to venerate or pray to the saints for intercession, thereby refusing to acknowledge the prayers of the Church triumphant. This damages the individual's understanding of and relationship to Christ by distorting the concept of the Body of Christ; in essence, it prevents the individual from taking advantage of the full range of the grace of God.
We must seek to properly participate in the life of the Church, which includes asking all of her members to intercede on our behalf. I hope that the illustration above both demonstrates that this is the case, and explains why we do not discard an essential piece of orthopraxy because of a lack of understanding. The whole discourse is rather like the great debate that raged over the holy icons; while there are abuses, the proper course is in seeking right practice for its own sake and not for its lack of relation to a present misunderstanding. The latter course will lead to overcorrection and error. If "the focus is totally on God through Jesus
Christ, whose grace alone is sufficient for salvation and the answering
of prayers," then we will take advantage of all the wonderful boons that His grace entails, one of which is the ability to ask fellow members of His body--including those who sleep in Him--to intercede for us. We actually damage our understanding of Christ by refusing to unite with our departed brothers and sisters in prayer. In essence, when our attempt to focus on Christ is misfocused, we are focusing on a different "Christ."
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Originally posted by Akolouthos
Christ came to divinize human nature. He came to restore the image of
God in Man, which was damaged but not destroyed by the Fall. Through
our participation in Him, we become "partakers of the divine nature."
Incidentally, this is the basis for our understanding of sacramental
theology, as well. |
Is this the notion of theosis? |
Indeed it is.
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Yes, I agree that it is totally volitional. But in
Revelation, God eventually does cast the damned, along with Death and
Satan, into the Lake of Fire as the prescribed Second Death.
Revelation 20:14 (HCS)
Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
Revelation 21:8 (HCS)
But the cowards, unbelievers, vile, murderers,
sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liarstheir share will
be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second
death. |
Aye, well stated.
I was just trying to make it clear that God does not separate Himself from us; rather we fail to understand and utilize His union with us--a union which comes about both through His infinite love and through the hypostatic union of the theanthropos.
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
This thread [re. Cyril Loukaris] is still in the works. Once I get the time
to sit down and review the secondary material again (there isn't much
but it is intensive), it will appear. Should it go in the Early Modern
or Theology subforum? I am thinking it should go into Early Modern
since it involves the Ottomans and the Reformation. |
I definitely think it should go in the Philosophy and Theology forum; after all, it would constitute an investigation and comparison of two theological perspectives which, while they differ greatly, possess some interesting similarities. That said, it's your baby, so you may choose to post it wherever you wish. It does, indeed, relate to the Turkokratia, and could thus be construed as an Early Modern issue. It's not my preference, but then it's not my decision either.
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
It [the dialogue between Jeremiah and the Tubingen theologians] has a historical introduction, the translated text of
the letters, and a commentary. There is an inexpensive paperback
reprint of the book available from HCOP. I had to call them and order
it by phone since curiously the book is absent from the online store. |
Could I have the phone number or a website? That would definitely be an interesting read. I don't have a great sense of how much either side was interested in actual dialogue; so many theological discussions, especially during contentious periods, consist mainly of posturing. Thanks for the tip; I always love a good book.
God bless and keep you and yours Byzantine.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 14:58
Originally posted by Akolouthos
I would definitely be interested in reading this. I have read excerpts from some of Jeremiah's letters, but have never had the opportunity to study the matter in depth. Does the book contain the original documents with commentary, or is it strictly a secondary source? |
It seems that since I tracked down my copy of it a few years ago, HCOP now has made Augsburg and Constantinople available on its website for ordering.
http://store.holycrossbookstore.com/916586820.html - http://store.holycrossbookstore.com/916586820.html
Akolouthos, if you get the book, we should start an Othodox-Protestant dialogue of our own at AE using it as a basis! We could start a separate thread for it. In it we could discuss issues raised in the book as well as modern ecumenical issues between the churches.
Thanks for your reply. I will answer in full here shortly once I get some of my school work done.
-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas
|
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 20:43
It is said that the orthodox bishops in official ceremonies wear
different costumes than those who were used to wear before 1453. This
happened because when the emperor died, Patriarch was the only pearson
who remained of the byzantine authority(if i can use this title), a
civil head, so some people dressed Genadios Scholarios into imperial clothes, they gave him the sceptre and a
crown. Before this i think that priests and bishops wore a piece of
black buckram around the head (or is it just a perception of mine?)
anyway, the similarities render this version believable:
-------------
|
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2007 at 23:06
I have a link right here which is about a virtual guide into the "holy"(ieron) of a Greek orthodox church in an eastern suburb of Athens.The tradition of Greek orthodox church haven't any significant changes since Palaiologoi era.
.
.
.
http://geoimages.berkeley.edu/worldwidepanorama/wwp1204/html/GeorgeKountouris.html - http://geoimages.berkeley.edu/worldwidepanorama/wwp1204/html/GeorgeKountouris.html
I think this is the correct link
-------------
|
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2007 at 07:59
The link isn't there any more. "Server not found".
-------------
elenos
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2007 at 12:57
Originally posted by Athanasios
The tradition of Greek orthodox church haven't any significant changes since Palaiologoi era. |
Aye, and the Tradition of the Orthodox Church has not changed since the Apostolic era.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2007 at 13:20
catacombs do not exist anymore as worshiping centers, "love tables" have charity character nowadays, psalms, music , iconography are not the same with those of 5century AD for example... the Ecumenical Sessions were made to change the weak parts of the religious system , right? Things have changed many times since the apostolic era i suppose...
-------------
|
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2007 at 14:19
I managed to get the link you posted Athanasios, thankyou. What a remarkable interior for a church! It shows the icons of many traditions
-------------
elenos
|
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2007 at 14:51
It is Foti's Kontoglou paintings.In case you don't know him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotis_Kontoglou - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotis_Kontoglou
Of course paintings(wall or wooden) are a major part of Greek orthodox
tradition. It seems that the mainstream technique is the Macedonian school. Personally i don't see very often paintings of the Cretan school, which depicts persons and events with less intense colors in
comparison to the Macedonian- i would say that in Cretan school prevails the nuance of grey color- but both streams are equal in expressiveness. In my hometown, i remember that our major church had both "schools " in its walls(and still has )...
anyway, i've tried to find on the net some characteristic samples of both styles:
Cretan school: http://www.mathsforyou.gr/images/fotomfu/64.jpg - http://www.mathsforyou.gr/images/fotomfu/64.jpg
Macedonian : http://home.yebo.co.za/%7Exenitis/annuntiationDchoolofKastoria.jpg - http://home.yebo.co.za/~xenitis/annuntiationDchoolofKastoria.jpg
if i'm not mistaken, both styles were developed after the Latin domination. Very beautiful paintings have been made during the Ottoman domination period(especially wooden paintings)
-------------
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2007 at 16:03
Originally posted by Athanasios
catacombs do not exist anymore as worshiping centers, "love tables" have charity character nowadays, psalms, music , iconography are not the same with those of 5century AD for example... the Ecumenical Sessions were made to change the weak parts of the religious system , right? Things have changed many times since the apostolic era i suppose...
|
Ah, but we must draw a distinction between minor ecclesiastical traditions and the Apostolic Tradition itself.
Your examples fit into the former category; the essence of the Faith, revelation, biblical interpretation, etc. fit into the latter. Confusing the two has led to a great deal of needless bickering lately (see Orthodox fundamentalism; ethnophiletism). Identifying the Tradition of the Church with the traditions of the fifteenth century is a recipe for confusion.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2007 at 17:18
Now i'm a bit confused ... At first sight you seem to have right. Orthodox religion as a dogma seems to be regularly close to the Apostolic tradition, in its dogmatic beliefs, right?.
Anyway , i meant that some elements of iconography , psalms, melody, church style and of course the ritual are regularly the same since post-byzantine period . To be honest i can't see clearly the difference between minor ecclesiastical traditions and the Apostolic Tradition... Considering that Apostolic tradition had affected the Catholics as well(for example) they have slightly different "minor ecclesiastical traditions" from the Greek Orthodox. This is caused of the different explanations which
were given by the Orthodox and the Catholic "fathers" about the same subject?
-------------
|
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2007 at 23:32
I prefer the Cretan style as being more naturalistic and harmonious. I would like to see more for the style tells a holistic story. It looks modern in the cartoon frame approach, so what is the date of the painting?
-------------
elenos
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2007 at 00:03
Originally posted by Athanasios
Now i'm a bit confused ... At first sight you seem to have right. Orthodox religion as a dogma seems to be regularly close to the Apostolic tradition, in its dogmatic beliefs, right?.
Anyway , i meant that some elements of iconography , psalms, melody, church style and of course the ritual are regularly the same since post-byzantine period . To be honest i can't see clearly the difference between minor ecclesiastical traditions and the Apostolic Tradition... Considering that Apostolic tradition had affected the Catholics as well(for example) they have slightly different "minor ecclesiastical traditions" from the Greek Orthodox. This is caused of the different explanations which
were given by the Orthodox and the Catholic "fathers" about the same subject?
|
Well, "Tradition" refers to the dogmatic aspects of the Faith, as well as the context in which those dogmatic aspects are understood. Things like Trinitarian doctrine, the Scriptures and their interpretation, orthodox Christology, basic liturgics, and the definitions regarding the Theotokos all fit into this category. Even things that are not clearly defined must be understood within the matrix of "Tradition." Certain characteristics of iconography, church architechture, and other elements of the Faith also fall into this category.
Then there is "tradition." This refers to things like ecclesiastical vestments (both those worn during the liturgical services as well as question of whether or not clergy should wear the cassock when they are not serving), melody, cultural traditions in local churches, etc. These are certainly grounded in Tradition, but are subject to change and continued reinterpretation. This reinterpretation is always done within the context of the Apostolic Tradition. These have, indeed, remained fairly constant since the end of the Byzantine era.
The Great Schism represents a point where the Roman Church broke with the Apostolic Tradition which she had, until that point, shared. In fact, it is precisely this which occasioned the Schism. Hope that helps.
God bless.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2007 at 07:33
Yes, very helpful but "the Great Schism represents a point where the Roman Church broke with the Apostolic Tradition which she had"
are you talking about Roman-Catholic or Roman (Byzantine)?
"I managed to get the link you posted Athanasios, thankyou. What a
remarkable interior for a church! It shows the icons of many
traditions"
Welcome Elenos, i've just tried to post some sample pics which are not the most representative ones...
If this does helps, i've two links (if you haven't already see them) the first is an extensive article of wikipedia about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretan_School - Cretan_School
and the second one is about the paintings of mount Athos, which monasteries are very rich in byzantine -post byzantine heritage and relics. There is a short description of both schools and some nice depictions( of the most characteristic i believe): http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Athos/General/AthosArt.html - http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Athos/General/AthosArt.html
-------------
|
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2007 at 21:47
Thanks Athanasios that helped a lot. I was wondering about the age of the Cretan school and it apparently dates to the 15th century.
I thought the great schism took place in the 9th century, but that is surface history rather than in depth. There had been tension between Greek and Latin elements right from the time of St Paul but by and large the differences never got in the way of growth in Europe but did cause some conflict. After the fall of Roman Empire came a militancy in the Roman Church. Their great push for converts wherever they could be found never sat well with the complacency of Constantinople.
When Rome was rebuilding they sent out an urgent call for bishops and that was answered in full by Ireland. Their main condition was the observance of Christmas and Easter during the time of the solstices which was granted. The first of the great cathedrals and monasteries then began springing up across Europe as the Euro natives apparently shed their former ways. However the celebration of Christmas still is well known as a time of excess, so the pagans got the last laugh!
Upon seeing the blending of traditions within the church paintings one could be tempted to say "God's house has many mansions." and so perhaps there is room for all despite our many sins of different lifestyles.
-------------
elenos
|
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2007 at 23:53
I have no problem with icons myself because I believe in the freedom of worship and expression- short of human sacrafice by Satanist-
I am just confused how the Greek church supports this from a Biblical viewpoint, in view of the old testament. I cannot recall if it says anything neg or positive about it in the New Testament. Does anyone know?
-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2007 at 02:44
Originally posted by eaglecap
I have no problem with icons myself because I believe in the freedom of worship and expression- short of human sacrafice by Satanist-
I am just confused how the Greek church supports this from a Biblical viewpoint, in view of the old testament. I cannot recall if it says anything neg or positive about it in the New Testament. Does anyone know? |
Well, the thing is it doesn't really say anything negative about icons in the Old Testament--and there is actually quite a bit of precedent for them, particularly in Exodus. To understand the injunction against graven images, we must properly understand what a "graven image" is, as well as the difference between a graven image and an icon. A graven image is an object that idolaters deem worthy of worship. An icon is a representation of an image that Christians deem worthy of veneration (the image, that is). A graven image is an image that is worshipped for its own sake, an icon is an image that is venerated for the sake of the individual represented. I am honestly a bit perplexed that the validity of icons is called into question so much, especially since this is generally done on, ostensibly, Scriptural grounds. Anyway, I hope that helped. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask; my explanations can always be more detailed by specific request. 
-Akolouthos
Addendum: Incidentally, the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787 A.D.) is the one that pronounced anathema against the iconoclasts. Also, St. John of Damascus wrote three treatises in defense of the icons. If you are interested in further reading, all of this exists in translation. I could do some digging for you later, if you like.
|
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2007 at 17:17
Originally posted by Akolouthos
Originally posted by eaglecap
I have no problem with icons myself because I believe in the freedom of worship and expression- short of human sacrafice by Satanist- I am just confused how the Greek church supports this from a Biblical viewpoint, in view of the old testament. I cannot recall if it says anything neg or positive about it in the New Testament. Does anyone know? |
Well, the thing is it doesn't really say anything negative about icons in the Old Testament--and there is actuallyquite a bit of precedent for them, particularly in Exodus. To understand the injunction against graven images, we must properly understand what a "graven image" is, as well as the difference between a graven image and an icon. A graven image is an object that idolaters deem worthy of worship. An icon is a representation of an image that Christians deem worthyof veneration (the image, that is).A graven image is an image that is worshipped for its own sake, an icon is an image that is venerated for the sake of the individual represented. I am honestly a bit perplexed that the validity of icons is called into question so much, especially since this is generally done on, ostensibly, Scriptural grounds. Anyway, I hope that helped. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask; my explanations can always be more detailed by specific request.
-Akolouthos
Addendum: Incidentally, the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787 A.D.) is the one that pronounced anathema against the iconoclasts. Also, St. John of Damascus wrote three treatises in defense of the icons. If you are interested in further reading, all of this exists in translation. I could do some digging for you later, if you like. |
Yes - that would be good!
The one bit of confusion is if only God is Omnipresent and a Saint is only Mortal - how can they hear millions of prayers around the world? I only went two-three years to the Greek Orthodox Church and then raised Missouri Synod Lutheran. In my Protestant upbringing praying to any image was considered wrong. The only images in the church were strictly for art and nothing else.
-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
|
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2007 at 23:12
I have an icon of St Barbara which is around- give or take ten years- 100 years old.
Who is this Saint and what did she do?
From what I undersand all believers are considered Saints in the Bible. I know the Catholics believe a Saint has to be Canonized but I do not think the Orthodox hold that belief.
-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 07:20
Originally posted by eaglecap
I have an icon of St Barbara which is around- give or take ten years- 100 years old.
Who is this Saint and what did she do?
From what I undersand all believers are considered Saints in the Bible. I know the Catholics believe a Saint has to be Canonized but I do not think the Orthodox hold that belief. |
Well, below is a link to a brief history as well as some short hymns devoted to the Great Martyr Barbara. Her feast day is actually coming up quite soon; her memory is celebrated on the same day as that of St. John of Damascus. Here is the link:
http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/saints.asp?contentid=321 - http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/saints.asp?contentid=321
As for how one becomes a saint, Orthodox praxis does, indeed, differ from Roman practice in a couple of ways. First, it is not necessary that a miracle be associated with an individual in order for that individual to become a saint. Second, the process is a bit more organic and localized.
In the beginning, a local cult develops, where locals who knew a particularly holy individual in life pray to that individual--much as we would pray to our departed relatives. If this practice spreads, the local Church hierarchy will take notice; if it spreads widely enough, the individual will be formally "glorified" by the Church. There are several examples of individuals in various stages of the process (although some of them may not ever be formally glorified). The last Tsar, Nicholas II, is venerated by some Russian Orthodox groups, and it is likely that this will spread. Among the Yupik peoples of Alaska, Blessed Mother Olga is widely venerated; I think this will also spread. Many monks and many in Russia have taken a liking to Fr. Seraphim Rose who, despite some of his much published controversial (and sometimes neo-gnostic) works, was generally a quite astute theologian with a great respect for the authority of the Church. This may spread, but it will encounter some resistance; some of his writings border on heresy, and these are the most discussed. Still, he had a gift for theodicy that continues to lead individuals to Christ, and encourage current Christians in their struggles with suffering. Anyway, I hope that was helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. 
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 07:39
|
eaglecap,
Incidentally, here is a link to an excerpt from Saint John of Damascus' treatise In Defense of the Divine Images:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/johndam-icons.html - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/johndam-icons.html
You will note that the term "worship" is used in several different ways, and that the distinctions are essential. I will try to find something more, but this excerpt is very helpful in explaining proper orthopraxy.
-Akolouthos |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2007 at 19:55
Akolouthos thanks for the info the icon belonged to my late Yia Yia who was from Korinthos but came to America in the 1920's. There is a lady at the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox church in Spokane who knows a lot about icons. It was funny when she pointed out a worn out area on the face of the icon and indicated that is where your late Yia Yia kissed her icon. It is probably this very icon she prayed over when my papoo did not come home one night. He worked in the forests of upstate New York gathering evergreens to sell to whole sellers, his own buisness. It turned out he had been mugged by some bad guys in the woods and left for dead. She had spent the whole night, I read, praying to God, Jesus and probably this saint and others.
The icon is from Greece- the motherland
-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 08-May-2008 at 07:16
|
No problem. Always happy to help someone acquaint themselves with the Fathers. Most of the opposition to orthodox Christian truth derives from people being unaware of or unacquainted with the finer points of the history of Christian theology. The issue of the veneration of icons is a perfect example. I trust your grandfather made it home safe that night?
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Nestorian
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 15:38
|
I dont believe in the use of icons myself personally, but neither do I have any opposition to it. But it interests me the role of images in religious life and practice. The Orthodox/Catholics are one end of the "image use" spectrum while the Protestants are on the opposite "no image use" end.
Me, I'm not too bothered about it. Sometimes I have a print out of a Medieval Roman (Byzantines - I hate that term!) icon in my room. I don't pray to it. I have it because I like it :)
I respect Orthodox Christianity very highly, I wanted to be one when I was 14yrs of age or so. Ended up being Pentecostal. Now, I'm non-denominational, but still practising.
-------------
Isa al-Masih, both God and Man, divine and human, flesh and spirit, saviour, servant and sovereign
|
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 16:56
Originally posted by Nestorian
I dont believe in the use of icons myself personally, but neither do I have any opposition to it. But it interests me the role of images in religious life and practice. The Orthodox/Catholics are one end of the "image use" spectrum while the Protestants are on the opposite "no image use" end.
Me, I'm not too bothered about it. Sometimes I have a print out of a Medieval Roman (Byzantines - I hate that term!) icon in my room. I don't pray to it. I have it because I like it :)
I respect Orthodox Christianity very highly, I wanted to be one when I was 14yrs of age or so. Ended up being Pentecostal. Now, I'm non-denominational, but still practising.
|
Hello Nestorian,
I couldn't agree with you more! I also very much so appreciate Orthodox Iconography. This may be a silly question, seeing as how you've already stated you are non-denominational, but are you opposed to praying to the actual saint that is depicted in the icon? Prayers are directed to the saint associated with the icon; not the actual icon itself. Just a lil clarification.
Abundant blessings,
arch.buff
-------------
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
|
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 17:16
I was born Orthodox (now I am not so sure) and i have a real problem with saints. They practically are just replacements of local deities and heroes of paganist times.
St. Nicholas protector of sailors
St. Ilias whose churches are always built on mountain peaks and he supposedly went to heaven on a fire chariot (smells of Apollo and the sun god or what?)
etc etc
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 18:21
Originally posted by Vorian
I was born Orthodox (now I am not so sure) and i have a real problem with saints. They practically are just replacements of local deities and heroes of paganist times.
St. Nicholas protector of sailors
St. Ilias whose churches are always built on mountain peaks and he supposedly went to heaven on a fire chariot (smells of Apollo and the sun god or what?)
etc etc
|
Well, the difference is that we do not pray to the saints for action, but for intercession. We do not believe they have any intrinsic power associated with their persons. We do believe that they are great intercessors by virtue of their close union with God. It really helps to view prayer to the saints as another form of asking others to pray for us, which we do on a daily basis. As for their association with specific topics of intercession, we must remember that they experienced the same ups and downs of life that we do, and it is this sympathy to which the power of God lends special significance. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to discuss them with you.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 18:51
I know what it's supposed to be but in essence most people believe that the saint himself performs miracles. In Greece there are churches everywhere for local saints, not mentioning the gazilions of different names for Holy Mother and the miraculous icons that bleed or cry.
I just can't see how it's much different from ancient hero or local god worshiping besides the fact that we believe in One God.
Personally I can't believe that any dead human can hear my prayers or intervene to God for me no matter what great Christianic deed he/she did.
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 19:18
I know what it's supposed to be but in essence most people believe that the saint himself performs miracles. In Greece there are churches everywhere for local saints, not mentioning the gazilions of different names for Holy Mother and the miraculous icons that bleed or cry.
I just can't see how it's much different from ancient hero or local god worshiping besides the fact that we believe in One God. |
I know, and I sympathize. The answer, however, is vigorous catechesis. There are many aberrant practices and beliefs regarding the veneration of the saints, but the answer is not to throw out proper orthopraxy with the false practices. The answer is to instruct people in precisely what orthodox practice is, and where they have been led astray. And the icons that bleed or cry are used by God to pour forth his grace unto the world. They are not, in themselves, holy; they are holy by virtue of the fact that they represent the divine and project His grace.
| Personally I can't believe that any dead human can hear my prayers or intervene to God for me no matter what great Christianic deed he/she did. |
But they are not dead, at least not from a Christian perspective, where the dead continue to live in Christ. They are spiritually very much alive in Him, and on the day of Ressurection will be reunited with their glorified human bodies. And they could not hear your prayers, much less answer them, unless God permitted it, which he does as evidenced by the miracles and testimony of the Church down through the ages. If you look to the Book of Revelation, you will note that the dead saints (or "holy ones") are not only alive in Christ, but are also intimately concerned about the well-being of the Church in the world. The Church militant and the Church triumphant are united in Christ who pours forth life upon both.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Nestorian
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 01:48
|
Hello Nestorian,
I couldn't agree with you more! I also very much so appreciate Orthodox Iconography. This may be a silly question, seeing as how you've already stated you are non-denominational, but are you opposed to praying to the actual saint that is depicted in the icon? Prayers are directed to the saint associated with the icon; not the actual icon itself. Just a lil clarification.
Abundant blessings,
Hey bud. I wouldn't say I'm opposed to praying to an actual saint. Although I've never actually prayed to one. Its something I don't really think about actually! I'd love to own though - although I think modern icons just don't have that "bling" I look for
My approach to Christianity is based on the Bible and not any tradition of the established churches. Mind you, this is no intended disrepect to the traditions of the Orthodox Church!
If I was suppose to join a denomination though, I'd probably go either:
a) Evangelical
b) Orthodox
c) Church of the East (Assyrian)
But for the meantime, I'm happy to be non-denominational.
Its a bit unfortunate these days that some churches closely identify themselves with a particular ethnic group, political party of a political state. I mean look at Georgia and Russia, both Orthodox Christian states.....I'd hate to think that both sides are claiming God on their side! Whats even worse if both sides are claiming intercession from their respective national patron saints in their wars!
Reading the Letter of James, one gets a clear command that Christians are suppose to live as good citizens of society by living as citizens of Heaven. There is no mention of political partisanship or favouritism towards a particular ethnic group by either Jesus or the apostles. Nor is there a hint of nationalism which was running rampant in Jesus' time with agitation for the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Israel.
Thats why i remain non-denominational, there is just too much baggage with a denominational tag.
 HTen again......maybe I just want to be free!
-------------
Isa al-Masih, both God and Man, divine and human, flesh and spirit, saviour, servant and sovereign
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 03:00
|
For the comment concerning that saints are just replacements for old dieties:
We don't actually pray for them to help us in the literal sense. It is like asking someone else to pray for us.
As for the comment saying that people that are "dead" can not hear us:
Death has been defeated. The veil has been split. There is no barrier between us and those that rest.
As for the comment "My approach to Christianity is based on the Bible and not any tradition of the established churches. Mind you, this is no intended disrepect to the traditions of the Orthodox Church!":
But the Bible does just that. It does talk about Tradition. The term gets a bad reputation if you study it through Protestant eyes which look at the many mistakes the papal church in the west made concerning indulgences and selling "shards of the true cross" etc. The bible specifies that we must follow tradition spoken and written. When choosing what christian faith you want to be a part of you must look at the church because the church isn't just a building you get in together. It is a living thing, the Body of Christ. And you must ask yourself does this Body of Christ reach back to Christ himself, and if it does not can it really be considered the body of Christ?
To explain a bit my perspective, I was born an Orthodox Christian but my parents were never really that faithful. We didn't go to church that often. When I was younger my mother worked for a Lutherin Church and we went to one of the services. And I said to my parents "I don't want to be Orthodox Christian anymore. Just Christian. Why split myself up from everyone else? We should be unified." I did my last two years of high school in a protestant private school and there is where I became closer to the Orthodox Church.
Going back to my statement of "Does this Body of Christ go back to Christ himself" which can also be said "Does this Church go back to Christ's Church or the Church of the 1st century itself." I challenge you to ask yourself this any time you go to a non Orthodox Church. The Bible says "The gates of hell shall NOT prevail against my Church." Meaning that there will never be a moment in which the Church shall fall under heresy, never falter, never cease to exist. Is the Church perfect? Now you may quickly say "But the Orthodox Church isn't perfect either." I say it is. What you are speaking of is the people in it, and all people are flawed. We are like flawed beads in a perfect bowl.
Next because the Orthodox Church is the Body of Christ and it is perfect, as God is perfect we must also consider that any tiny small deviation is no longer Orthodox, is no longer the Body of Christ, it is no longer of God. So while non denominational may seem like neutral ground, I personally consider it a form of theological purgatory. (Ironic huh) I'm not placing judgement on you, no where near that, just giving you my opinion. We are all on our journey.
Here's a story however. Several years ago I went to the Antiochian Village in PA and there I met a short Greek man. He must have been in his late 60s or 70s. He told me how he grew up Orthodox but by college left the Church. He wanted to be a psychiatrist. He became an atheist. Frued and Nietzsche were his gods. He himself said he was very arrogant and would often debate his peers. Even though he was very short and old he seemed very sharp and strong willed. After school he got a job as a psychoanalysis for the mental criminals on death row. After many years of doing that he concluded that there had to be a God. Something while doing that convinced him. So he went to a baptist church and met his wife and from there those two researched church history and they both returned to Orthodox Christianity. It took him a life time to find his place but he did it. I'll always remember that story and it's been inspiring to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0esAZfSOeqk - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0esAZfSOeqk
If you have any more questions post here and if I don't get to it in a few days PM me. I'd love to discuss it more and it probably keeps me from doing dumber things like worrying about crap in the politics section. :p It all comes and passes but God is Eternal.
|
Posted By: Nestorian
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 08:30
|
Yes, the Bible does specify about traditions. If I recall, Paul himself made mention of traditions of his day. However, they are reflections of contemporary practice in his times. Traditions are called traditions because of their complimentary nature to the commandments of scripture. Now whether they are observed from generation to generation is a different story. Indeed, traditions change over the centuries according to specific and localised influences over time.
My faith is simple. I don't follow any traditions, but I respect the right of other Christians to practise them.
As far as I'm concerned, the Church is the body of Christ regardless of sect, denomination or organisation. The problem of saying "my Church is the right church, yours is not" is the power struggle that inevitably occurs. I was once a Pentecostal who thought that any Christian who wasn't a Pentecostal was wrong. I am glad to admit, I am wrong. I appreciate the practices of Catholics, Orthodox and other Protestant groups. THey may have practices are contradictory in terms of tradition and teaching, but they all agree on matters of orthodoxy regarding the Trinity, Salvation, Eternal Life and person of Christ.
Choosing a denomination - especially one which asserts it is the only spokesperson of Christ - will mean I have to take sides in futile power-play.
Looking at the early history of the Church (after Constantine I), they were more concerned with the prestige of offices based on what Apostle visited where and who had the relics of such and such. All these things are so shallow and earthly. Patriarchs were more interested in defending the prestige of their See and involved themselves to vie for temporal influence.
You misunderstand me though. I'm not looking for a perfect church. I'm just not interested in affiliating with a particular Church. When I mean baggage, I'm not talking "bad deeds". I can tell the difference between those who are Christian and those who are "Christian".
As for my theological position, here it is.
I believe that:
1. Jesus is the Son of God, is God, is unbegotten, uncreated and is the Creator
2. There is only One God, there are no other gods
3. God is a Trinity
4. Jesus was crucified, died on the cross and rose from the dead
5. My only mediator is Christ alone
6. The only authority to whom I am accountable to is God
7. The Church is the body of Christ regardless of sect, denomination or traditions
Maybe the term "non-denominational" carries its own baggage too. I don't see the need or imperative to be part of a denomination. Do I need to be part of a denomination?
-------------
Isa al-Masih, both God and Man, divine and human, flesh and spirit, saviour, servant and sovereign
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 09:33
Originally posted by Nestorian
Yes, the Bible does specify about traditions. If I recall, Paul himself made mention of traditions of his day. However, they are reflections of contemporary practice in his times. Traditions are called traditions because of their complimentary nature to the commandments of scripture. Now whether they are observed from generation to generation is a different story. Indeed, traditions change over the centuries according to specific and localised influences over time.
My faith is simple. I don't follow any traditions, but I respect the right of other Christians to practise them. |
Perhaps Paul wasn't refering to the specific tradition of the times and many have survived from his time. But following tradition itself. For example crossing myself is a tradition and I try to do it before I eat, before I commence a task etc. To some this is pointless but to me, each time I do it it reminds me of God. As long as that tradition points toward God I think it is worth having.
Originally posted by Nestorian
As far as I'm concerned, the Church is the body of Christ regardless of sect, denomination or organisation. The problem of saying "my Church is the right church, yours is not" is the power struggle that inevitably occurs. I was once a Pentecostal who thought that any Christian who wasn't a Pentecostal was wrong. I am glad to admit, I am wrong. I appreciate the practices of Catholics, Orthodox and other Protestant groups. THey may have practices are contradictory in terms of tradition and teaching, but they all agree on matters of orthodoxy regarding the Trinity, Salvation, Eternal Life and person of Christ.
Choosing a denomination - especially one which asserts it is the only spokesperson of Christ - will mean I have to take sides in futile power-play. |
But they don't all agree on the Trinity, Salvation or Eternal life or Christ. Some say the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son. You may think of this as semantics but if you follow this conclusion you will lead yourself to a very un trinitarian theology. Father Son and Holy Spirit are all God and one, but they are 3 different persons with their own uniqueness about it. If both Father and Son have the same begotteness nature it destroys the Trinity. Papists realize this and because of it the Holy Spirit becomes more of an "aura" between Father and Son while installing Mary as the third person in the trinity. Salvation like wise, take baptism. Sprinkling or submersion. It is very clear concerning the latter. Likewise what is marriage and what role does it play, clergy and so on and so forth. When two things contradict they can not be both right and if you say that something that is wrong is part of Christ then Christ is inperfect, so he is not God. I mean this is what you are telling me.
I'm not denominational either. I'm pre denominational if you want to be technic about it. Being "non denominational" for the sake of not debating others I think is a poor choice in my humble opinion but yours to make.
I don't think the Orthodox Church has ever claimed to be the spokesperson for Christ. The Orthodox Church is like a hospital for sick souls, not a political house even though some corrupt emperors and bishops may have tried to use it as such.
Originally posted by Nestorian
Looking at the early history of the Church (after Constantine I), they were more concerned with the prestige of offices based on what Apostle visited where and who had the relics of such and such. All these things are so shallow and earthly. Patriarchs were more interested in defending the prestige of their See and involved themselves to vie for temporal influence.
You misunderstand me though. I'm not looking for a perfect church. I'm just not interested in affiliating with a particular Church. When I mean baggage, I'm not talking "bad deeds". I can tell the difference between those who are Christian and those who are "Christian". |
Which people were concerned with this? What Patriarchs? These are empty accusations unless you specify who and back it up. And even if these people made the mistakes that they did, even if some follow the Faith poorly does this mean the Faith is bad?
If you are not looking for a Perfect Church you are not looking for the Body of Christ (who is perfect.) A flawed church will teach a flawed faith. Am I wrong?
Originally posted by Nestorian
As for my theological position, here it is.
I believe that:
1. Jesus is the Son of God, is God, is unbegotten, uncreated and is the Creator
2. There is only One God, there are no other gods
3. God is a Trinity
4. Jesus was crucified, died on the cross and rose from the dead
5. My only mediator is Christ alone
6. The only authority to whom I am accountable to is God
7. The Church is the body of Christ regardless of sect, denomination or traditions
Maybe the term "non-denominational" carries its own baggage too. I don't see the need or imperative to be part of a denomination. Do I need to be part of a denomination?
|
You don't need to do anything. If you want to follow Christ's teachings as intended however you must find the Church that has maintained the Faith for 2,000 years. If not they are simply the ideas and notions of man.
|
Posted By: Nestorian
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 12:22
|
Perhaps Paul wasn't refering to the specific tradition of the times and many have survived from his time. But following tradition itself. For example crossing myself is a tradition and I try to do it before I eat, before I commence a task etc. To some this is pointless but to me, each time I do it it reminds me of God. As long as that tradition points toward God I think it is worth having.
Even if it is worth having, is it mandatory? I think not. The Pharisees had a lot of traditions themselves, good in intention, but was it mandatory?
But they don't all agree on the Trinity, Salvation or Eternal life or Christ. Some say the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son. You may think of this as semantics but if you follow this conclusion you will lead yourself to a very un trinitarian theology. Father Son and Holy Spirit are all God and one, but they are 3 different persons with their own uniqueness about it. If both Father and Son have the same begotteness nature it destroys the Trinity. Papists realize this and because of it the Holy Spirit becomes more of an "aura" between Father and Son while installing Mary as the third person in the trinity. Salvation like wise, take baptism. Sprinkling or submersion. It is very clear concerning the latter. Likewise what is marriage and what role does it play, clergy and so on and so forth. When two things contradict they can not be both right and if you say that something that is wrong is part of Christ then Christ is inperfect, so he is not God. I mean this is what you are telling me.
I refer to Churches with the specific meaning of those who accept the Chalcedonian and Nicene Creeds - regardless of current sectarian/denominationa differences. I know there are Christians who don't believe in the Trinity. As for micro-details like the filioque, I tend to agree more with the Orthodox side. But its a micro-detail, its inconsequential...Micro-details have caused a lot of stupid arguments and schisms to the detriment of laymen everywhere.
I am not telling you Christ is imperfect at all, you're trying to find a monster under a rock.
Which people were concerned with this? What Patriarchs? These are empty accusations unless you specify who and back it up. And even if these people made the mistakes that they did, even if some follow the Faith poorly does this mean the Faith is bad?
Aren't you aware of the competition between the Patriarchates for influence, prestige and power. Patriarch Nestorius was a victim of theological slander and was exiled from office thanks to the Alexandrian Patriarch.
Oh geez, what the heck are you on! I know the difference between religion and someone not following the religion...I'm not saying the Orthodox Church (or any Church) is bad at all....I'm just saying the behaviour of people - leadership - was pretty appalling and embarrassing.
I'm not denominational either. I'm pre denominational if you want to be technic about it. Being "non denominational" for the sake of not debating others I think is a poor choice in my humble opinion but yours to make.
Well good for you. I didn't choose the term "non-denominational" to make friends or please people. If you think its a poor choice....its really up to you. I couldn't care less about your pedantic technicalities.
I don't think the Orthodox Church has ever claimed to be the spokesperson for Christ. The Orthodox Church is like a hospital for sick souls, not a political house even though some corrupt emperors and bishops may have tried to use it as such.
If it doesn't speak for Christ what does it speak for? Or is the Catholic Church the true Church and only Church for God to do his will? The established ancient Churches all claim a singular exclusive right of being the sole and only true representative of the universal body of Christ.
If you are not looking for a Perfect Church you are not looking for the Body of Christ (who is perfect.) A flawed church will teach a flawed faith. Am I wrong?
Aw geez, here we go again. Makin assumptions about me again. I'm not looking for perfect Church means I'm not looking for a perfect flawless Church which is sinless and faultless. People think that I dont choose a denominational because no Church is sinless...thats rubbish if it was misinterpreted in that manner. And who says people have to rely on the Church to teach them about their faith anyway?
A Christian's journey is individual, they can't simply rely on the Church to teach them everything can they?
I choose not to become a part of a denomination simply because of the baggage that entails being part of a denomination such as its traditions. Am I doing something wrong by refusing to partake of the traditions?
You don't need to do anything. If you want to follow Christ's teachings as intended however you must find the Church that has maintained the Faith for 2,000 years. If not they are simply the ideas and notions of man.
If I want to folow Christ's teachings, a denomination is not important at all. Who says I need to join a denomination or Church? Traditions are also ideas and notions of man. They are complimentary practices alongside Biblical commandments developed by the faithful over time.
Is it so bad to be non-denominational? I'm not criticising any Church at all, I've made that clear.
I give up.......no wonder why Christians are doomed to fight each other.
-------------
Isa al-Masih, both God and Man, divine and human, flesh and spirit, saviour, servant and sovereign
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 19:04
|
Even if it is worth having, is it mandatory? I think not. The Pharisees had a lot of traditions themselves, good in intention, but was it mandatory?
Has anyone ever forced you to kiss an icon? To cross yourself? To confess?
I refer to Churches with the specific meaning of those who accept the Chalcedonian and Nicene Creeds - regardless of current sectarian/denominationa differences. I know there are Christians who don't believe in the Trinity. As for micro-details like the filioque, I tend to agree more with the Orthodox side. But its a micro-detail, its inconsequential...Micro-details have caused a lot of stupid arguments and schisms to the detriment of laymen everywhere.
I am not telling you Christ is imperfect at all, you're trying to find a monster under a rock.
These "micro-details" if incorrect lead to very macro problems concerning the theology. There is no opinion to be had on Truth. It either is or it is not.
Aren't you aware of the competition between the Patriarchates for influence, prestige and power. Patriarch Nestorius was a victim of theological slander and was exiled from office thanks to the Alexandrian Patriarch.
Oh geez, what the heck are you on! I know the difference between religion and someone not following the religion...I'm not saying the Orthodox Church (or any Church) is bad at all....I'm just saying the behaviour of people - leadership - was pretty appalling and embarrassing.
Nestorius was a heretic that taught the nature of Christ was split.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Nestorianism - http://orthodoxwiki.org/Nestorianism
Sometimes the leadership was bad. I don't disagree with that. Again how does this fault Orthodoxy? I believe it faults only the person. Just as I say Orthodoxy does not automatically make someone rightous, I also say the unrightous does not make Orthodoxy automatically flawed.
As a side note the Orthodox Church is set up is that when one of the Bishops falls into heresy a council can be held and the heresy can be discussed. When for example the pope falls into heresy, the entire papal church goes with it.
Well good for you. I didn't choose the term "non-denominational" to make friends or please people. If you think its a poor choice....its really up to you. I couldn't care less about your pedantic technicalities.
That's fine.
If it doesn't speak for Christ what does it speak for? Or is the Catholic Church the true Church and only Church for God to do his will? The established ancient Churches all claim a singular exclusive right of being the sole and only true representative of the universal body of Christ.
Why does it have to speak for anything? You're thinking is very western oriented in my opinion. Again the Church isn't a political building but a hospital. Yes the Orthodox Church claims to be the Body of Christ. And?
Aw geez, here we go again. Makin assumptions about me again. I'm not looking for perfect Church means I'm not looking for a perfect flawless Church which is sinless and faultless. People think that I dont choose a denominational because no Church is sinless...thats rubbish if it was misinterpreted in that manner. And who says people have to rely on the Church to teach them about their faith anyway?
A Christian's journey is individual, they can't simply rely on the Church to teach them everything can they?
But there is a Church that is faultless and sinless. The bible says so. The gates of hell shall not prevail against God's Church. The issues you have with man you must forgive and let go. The issues you have with the Church are simply due to misunderstanding.
Didn't the Ethiopian say "How will I know unless you teach me?" in scripture?
I choose not to become a part of a denomination simply because of the baggage that entails being part of a denomination such as its traditions. Am I doing something wrong by refusing to partake of the traditions?
I think you have to figure out for yourself what traditions you have a problem with and why. It states clearly in scripture to follow them, but at the same time they are not an end in and by themselves. It isn't "kiss the icon go to heaven." It is "Kiss the icon to aim yourself more toward God." All holy traditions point toward God.
If I want to folow Christ's teachings, a denomination is not important at all. Who says I need to join a denomination or Church? Traditions are also ideas and notions of man. They are complimentary practices alongside Biblical commandments developed by the faithful over time.
Alright if you are Holy enough to do everything for yourself more power to you. I hope to get to heaven with you.
Again the bible specifies we should follow tradition.
Is it so bad to be non-denominational? I'm not criticising any Church at all, I've made that clear.
I think there are better choices to be made that's all.
I give up.......no wonder why Christians are doomed to fight each other.
I'm not fighting anybody.
|
Posted By: Antioxos
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 20:55
|
In Orthodoxy Christianity praying in icons is very strong traditions.Thats why almost every orthodox family house s has iconostasis - icon corner usually in the bedroom where the icons are in a corner of the room .
Well here is my icon corner in the bedroom of my house with two icons and a cross .
In one from the icons i have also inside the crowns of my marriage .
http://img508.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc01092ahp5.jpg"> 
http://img508.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc01090ajv3.jpg"> 
http://img508.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc01095aiz6.jpg"> 
http://img508.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc01096ail6.jpg"> 
http://img508.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc01089amx3.jpg"> 
-------------
By http://profile.imageshack.us/user/antioxos - antioxos at 2007-08-20
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 23:56
|
And even then we do not pray to the paint or the wood but to God. An icon was first used to help people who could not read, understand the bible. In a way it is another form of writing and reading using pictures. Just as with the cross we do not worship the cross but God and the act of love he did for us.
I believe it was Saint John of Damascus who said "When the cross is whole I kneel down infront of it and pray, but when the wooden bars are broken apart, i throw it into fire for embers." This was done in refrence (IIRC) concerning the use of Icons.
|
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2008 at 01:07
|
But they are not dead, at least not from a Christian
perspective, where the dead continue to live in Christ. They are
spiritually very much alive in Him, and on the day of Ressurection will
be reunited with their glorified human bodies. And they could not hear
your prayers, much less answer them, unless God permitted it, which he
does as evidenced by the miracles and testimony of the Church down
through the ages. If you look to the Book of Revelation, you will note
that the dead saints (or "holy ones") are not only alive in Christ, but
are also intimately concerned about the well-being of the Church in the
world. The Church militant and the Church triumphant are united in
Christ who pours forth life upon both. |
@ Akolouthos
Yeah, but the question here is......how do we know which has God proclaimed saints? Cause it's the church that decides and not all decisions were right. Even emperor Constantine the Great and his mother was named a saint for PR reasons.
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2008 at 01:20
Originally posted by Vorian
|
But they are not dead, at least not from a Christian perspective, where the dead continue to live in Christ. They are spiritually very much alive in Him, and on the day of Ressurection will be reunited with their glorified human bodies. And they could not hear your prayers, much less answer them, unless God permitted it, which he does as evidenced by the miracles and testimony of the Church down through the ages. If you look to the Book of Revelation, you will note that the dead saints (or "holy ones") are not only alive in Christ, but are also intimately concerned about the well-being of the Church in the world. The Church militant and the Church triumphant are united in Christ who pours forth life upon both. |
@ Akolouthos
Yeah, but the question here is......how do we know which has God proclaimed saints? Cause it's the church that decides and not all decisions were right. Even emperor Constantine the Great and his mother was named a saint for PR reasons.
|
Actually, his mother, St. Helen, was quite pious. You will remember that it was she who likely had a good deal of influence on his conversion, and that she toured the Levant founding Churches, patronizing existing communities, and collecting relics. We trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, present in the Church, to determine who has been received as a saint. In a broader context, we are all saints, and indeed called to be saints.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2008 at 01:28
St. Helen was pious but so is my grandmother. She even gathered money to travel to Israel and pray in the Holy Lands, much greater sacrifice than the mother of an emperor.
And what St.Helen had was abundant imagination finding things and naming them relics from a time 3 centuries before her. I guess one of history's mysteries is whose poor soul's cross as the one that she dubbed as Christ's
And the Church. both Orthodox and Catholix has been ruled by really not pious men who judged people as saints. Do you see my doubts now?
|
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2008 at 04:30
Originally posted by Nestorian
Hey bud. I wouldn't say I'm opposed to praying to an actual saint. Although I've never actually prayed to one. Its something I don't really think about actually! I'd love to own though - although I think modern icons just don't have that "bling" I look for
My approach to Christianity is based on the Bible and not any tradition of the established churches. Mind you, this is no intended disrepect to the traditions of the Orthodox Church!
If I was suppose to join a denomination though, I'd probably go either:
a) Evangelical
b) Orthodox
c) Church of the East (Assyrian)
But for the meantime, I'm happy to be non-denominational.
Its a bit unfortunate these days that some churches closely identify themselves with a particular ethnic group, political party of a political state. I mean look at Georgia and Russia, both Orthodox Christian states.....I'd hate to think that both sides are claiming God on their side! Whats even worse if both sides are claiming intercession from their respective national patron saints in their wars!
Reading the Letter of James, one gets a clear command that Christians are suppose to live as good citizens of society by living as citizens of Heaven. There is no mention of political partisanship or favouritism towards a particular ethnic group by either Jesus or the apostles. Nor is there a hint of nationalism which was running rampant in Jesus' time with agitation for the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Israel.
Thats why i remain non-denominational, there is just too much baggage with a denominational tag.
HTen again......maybe I just want to be free! |
Hello again Nestorian!
Thank you for your response. I can certainly see how you would feel more free in your present non-denominational church. I myself am a member of the Catholic church and feel myself bound to those truths revealed through apostlic tradition. St. Ireneaus gives a good example of how we view this tradition:
"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (Ireneaus, Against Heresies 3:4:1)
When St. Ireneaus talks of -"those to who they entrusted the churches"- he is making an allusion to St. Paul's speech to Timothy:
"What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2)
This here is referred to as apostolic succession, a succession that is carried on today. This Tradition is not the same thing as human traditions, which are liable and able to change with the winds.
However, I whole heartedly agree with you in regards to nationalism. Especially when its taken to the max. That is, when certain peoples view themselves as "the elect nation", and hold themselves to be incomparably holy people. Such is the matter, if Im not mistaken, in the case of the Orthodox Church of Serbia in the mid 20th Century.
-------------
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2008 at 05:35
Originally posted by Vorian
St. Helen was pious but so is my grandmother. She even gathered money to travel to Israel and pray in the Holy Lands, much greater sacrifice than the mother of an emperor.
And what St.Helen had was abundant imagination finding things and naming them relics from a time 3 centuries before her. I guess one of history's mysteries is whose poor soul's cross as the one that she dubbed as Christ's
And the Church. both Orthodox and Catholix has been ruled by really not pious men who judged people as saints. Do you see my doubts now?
|
But who are you to say she simply named things randomly? And who are you to judge man if they are to be saints or not? You must trust the Church to be guided by the Holy Spirit as it is in scripture.
|
However, I whole heartedly agree with you in regards to nationalism. Especially when its taken to the max. That is, when certain peoples view themselves as "the elect nation", and hold themselves to be incomparably holy people. Such is the matter, if Im not mistaken, in the case of the Orthodox Church of Serbia in the mid 20th Century. |
Excuse me?
|
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2008 at 22:30
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf
Originally posted by Vorian
St. Helen was pious but so is my grandmother. She even gathered money to travel to Israel and pray in the Holy Lands, much greater sacrifice than the mother of an emperor.
And what St.Helen had was abundant imagination finding things and naming them relics from a time 3 centuries before her. I guess one of history's mysteries is whose poor soul's cross as the one that she dubbed as Christ's
And the Church. both Orthodox and Catholix has been ruled by really not pious men who judged people as saints. Do you see my doubts now?
|
But who are you to say she simply named things randomly? And who are you to judge man if they are to be saints or not? You must trust the Church to be guided by the Holy Spirit as it is in scripture.
|
Do you seriously believe that she found in Golgotha the specific cross that was used for Jesus, 3 centuries after and with the hill being used for this job for many decades after Jesus' death?
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2008 at 18:19
Originally posted by Vorian
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf
Originally posted by Vorian
St. Helen was pious but so is my grandmother. She even gathered money to travel to Israel and pray in the Holy Lands, much greater sacrifice than the mother of an emperor.
And what St.Helen had was abundant imagination finding things and naming them relics from a time 3 centuries before her. I guess one of history's mysteries is whose poor soul's cross as the one that she dubbed as Christ's
And the Church. both Orthodox and Catholix has been ruled by really not pious men who judged people as saints. Do you see my doubts now?
|
But who are you to say she simply named things randomly? And who are you to judge man if they are to be saints or not? You must trust the Church to be guided by the Holy Spirit as it is in scripture.
|
Do you seriously believe that she found in Golgotha the specific cross that was used for Jesus, 3 centuries after and with the hill being used for this job for many decades after Jesus' death?
|
Why not? Are you going to really rule out something Godly and Holy based on statistics? Does that make any sense?
|
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2008 at 01:21
More sense than Jesus caring if the wealthy of the next centuries get a piece of his cross.
And ok, let's say that God can make a piece of wood, left on the ground stay intact for 3 centuries.
How on earth did the cross stay there. Golgotha was a very busy place: executions, crowd seeing the victims, guards going around. Jesus' cross was more likely used again the next day or was used for fire. Or am I expected to believe that by some divine intervention the cross stayed there without anyone touching for 70 years (It was then that the Romans destroyed the city. 60 years later a city close to the spot was built Ailia Kapitolina which was renamed Jerusalem in the 3rd century. This is really funny cause the holy city everybody is fighting for is not even the original)
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2008 at 02:07
|
I never said Jesus Christ cared of someone got a piece of his cross. Saint John of Damascus speaks well concerning the Cross.
As for the rest, yea, why are you looking for reasons to doubt? I simply take it as is because I have no way or another to know exactly what happened until the end. If you're going to be so judgemental about a piece of wood why wouldn't you act the same toward God?
Let me ask you something. Is the cross she found being the actual cross one way or another have an affect on your salvation? No.
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2008 at 02:13
Originally posted by Vorian
St. Helen was pious but so is my grandmother. She even gathered money to travel to Israel and pray in the Holy Lands, much greater sacrifice than the mother of an emperor. |
Aye. Think of the "official" saints as a certain kind of holy "celebrities" who are honoured for their contribution to the Christian faith on a broad level. Only a few impious souls would state that there are not an equally holy class of unrecognized saints, and this is why the Church does not prohibit praying to the pious departed, such as -- I assume from your description -- your grandmother. That said, the Holy Spirit guides the Church according to the promise of Christ in determining official practice for the whole.
And what St.Helen had was abundant imagination finding things and naming them relics from a time 3 centuries before her. I guess one of history's mysteries is whose poor soul's cross as the one that she dubbed as Christ's
|
It could have been the sprig of basil that was sprouting on the Cross, or it could have been the fact that a sick man was healed when placed on the Cross, while those placed upon the two others were not (immediately). Whatever it was, you must at least acknowledge the traditions, even if you only wish to disparage them.
| And the Church. both Orthodox and Catholix has been ruled by really not pious men who judged people as saints. Do you see my doubts now? |
Would it surprise you to know that I share them? Of course I see your doubts. I live them out on a daily basis. I have simply concluded that the preponderance of revelatory evidence supports the position of the Church.
God never promised that the Church would always be ruled by holy individuals. He did promise that it would always preach holy doctrine, guided by the Holy Spirit.
If you wish to discuss anything related to the Church over PM, I am desperate to do so. In the open forum, we often seek to advance ourselves -- I am certainly always guilty. In private we may be much mores sincere. I would love to have a dialogue with you over PM, in which we may address any questions both of us may have.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2008 at 05:02
Unfortunately my exam period starts tommorow so I won't have time for lengthy discussions.....I might send you that PM but after they are over which means in late September-early October.
About the basil or the healed man....Christianity evolved and passed through the Middle Ages an era where the vast majority were illiterate peasants. Naturally it has been burdened with fairytales and fallacies born by simple minds.
Modern church preaches that all of them are true, all those healed people by supposed relics etc etc etc. My belief is that most are just stories that turned huge from mouth to mouth. The problem is where do the stories end and the real miracles begin?
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2008 at 05:12
Originally posted by Vorian
Unfortunately my exam period starts tommorow so I won't have time for lengthy discussions.....I might send you that PM but after they are over which means in late September-early October.
About the basil or the healed man....Christianity evolved and passed through the Middle Ages an era where the vast majority were illiterate peasants. Naturally it has been burdened with fairytales and fallacies born by simple minds.
Modern church preaches that all of them are true, all those healed people by supposed relics etc etc etc. My belief is that most are just stories that turned huge from mouth to mouth. The problem is where do the stories end and the real miracles begin?
|
And that, my dear Vorian, is the question the historian must answer.
You will find that there are several modern Orthodox historians who are up to the task. They don't always reconcile -- or even seek to reconcile -- myth with history, but they do provide a broader perspective in which the whole thing may be understood. The Church preaches them all, but doesn't necessarily preach all of them as true. One might look to Origen's comment that John conveys "spiritual realities" rather than historical realities to gather the meaning here. Good luck with the exams, and please PM me if you have lingering questions you wish to discuss. I always find myself much more able to discuss things with people one on one -- I can be such an arrogant ass in public.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2008 at 05:27
ok, mate got to go now...
It's 7 am here and I have an exam in 2 hours...spent the night studying that's why I talk about saints instead of dreaming of nude chics
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2008 at 05:43
Originally posted by Vorian
ok, mate got to go now...
It's 7 am here and I have an exam in 2 hours...spent the night studying that's why I talk about saints instead of dreaming of nude chics
|
Good luck with the exam!
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2008 at 20:15
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf
Excuse me? |
No problem, you're excused. Did you burp or something? Just kiddin with ya Carpathian!
But ya the issue of St. Sava and the Serbian national church should be taken as an extreme example. Some pretty gruesome things took place in that area and many faced martyrdom.
Aidan Nichols glosses over the matter in a short essay written:
"It is the close link between Church and national consciousness, patriotic consciousness, which renders Uniatism so totally unacceptable in such countries as Greece and Rumania, and it is this phenomenon of Orthodox nationalism which I find the least attractive feature of Orthodoxy today.
An extreme example is the widespread philosophy in the Church of Serbia which goes by the name of the mediaeval royal Serbian saint Sava - hence Svetosavlje, 'Saint-Sava-sm'. The creation of the influential bishop Nikolay Velimirovich, who died in 1956, it argues that the Serbian people are, by their history of martyrdom, an elect nation, even among the Orthodox, a unique bearer of salvific suffering, an incomparably holy people, and counterposes them in particular to their Western neighbours who are merely pseudo-Christians, believers in humanity without divinity.[6]
And if the origins of such Orthodox attitudes lie in the attempts of nineteenth century nationalists to mobilise the political potential of Orthodox peasantries against both Islamic and Catholic rulers, these forces, which I would not hesitate to call profoundly unChristian, can turn even against the interests of Orthodoxy itself - as we are seeing today in the embarrassing campaign on the Holy Mountain Athos, to dislodge non-Greek monks and discourage non-Greek pilgrims, quite against the genius of the Athonite monastic republic which, historically, is a living testimony to Orthodox interethnicity, Orthodox internationalism."(Nichols, Catholic view of Orthodoxy)
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/anichols/orthodox.html - http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/anichols/orthodox.html
Here is another paper that may provide some clarity/information:
"The programmatic statement of Svetosavlje ideology “Nationalism of St. Sava” was delivered
by Nikolaj Velimirović in 1935 as a lecture at the Kolarčev University during the week of
Eastern Christianity. In this lecture that was published the same year as a separate brochure
Velimirović discusses how St. Sava had created Serbian church, Serbian nation and basically
laid the foundations of the entire Serbian national culture.
The main argument goes as follows: since Sava was the founder of the Serbian national
church, he was also the creator of the Serbian nationalism as an idea.8 By ‘Serbian
nationalism’ the archbishop understood the ultimate results of the activities of Sava in the
filed of building Serbian nation. “This nationalism of Sava encompasses national church,
national dynasty, national state, national education, national culture, and national assertion.
The national church forms the basis and the center of the nationalism of Sava. The church acts
as a spirit that resuscitates the entire national organism, by illuminating it, inspiring it, and
uniting it by the one faith, one hope and one love”9. Hence, it is the national church in the
person of St. Sava that is given all credit for the creation, maintenance and survival of the
Serbian nation. Naturally, the definition of the national church is of outmost importance for
this argument. The national church “means an independent church organization with the
central authority coming from the nation /people and directed to the nation/ people, with the
national clergy, national language and national traditional expression of its faith. In opposition
to such national church stands non-national or international church, with its center outside the
nation, with the clergy coming from everywhere, with foreign language and with the unified,
uniform expression of its faith. What is more natural and wholesome? With no doubt, it is the
national church.»10 Clearly, Velimirovic contrasts here the Serbian Orthodox Church (or as a
matter of fact any Orthodox church) to the Roman Catholic Church, which is more
centralized. The hostile attitude towards the Catholic Church was not unique to Velimirovic’s
thinking. The animosity towards the Catholic Church and in the Yugoslav context this
primarily meant the Catholic Church in Croatia was shared by a vast majority of clergy and
common people in Serbia. These hostile feelings reached their climax in the period of 1935-
37 during the so-called Concordat crisis." (Falina, Svetosavlje: A case-study in the Nationalization of Religion)
http://www.timeandspace.lviv.ua/files/research/27_Falina_Druckfahnen_korr_59.pdf - http://www.timeandspace.lviv.ua/files/research/27_Falina_Druckfahnen_korr_59.pdf
Ive tried finding the book that Nichols references in his paper but with no success. Eh, it probably has no english translation anyhow.
Abundant blessings
arch.buff
-------------
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2008 at 05:16
|
You are confusing what nationalism is in Orthodoxy with what it is in the west. To us a nation is a symbol of our independence from the abuses of the papists and the moslems. Also if you look at the Traditional way that Church Sees were split up you would see it was done by language, by nations. But of course that was forgotten by the west even before 1054.
As for your claim that the Serbian Orthodox Church claims it is "chosen even amongst other Orthodox" this is non sense. Maybe you can find some wack job Serb who poses as an Orthodox to say this but by far and wide this is not a teaching of any Orthodox Church.
As for Orthodoxy being used to mobilize peasants against "catholic" and moslem rulers. This is also a non sense. There has always been an Orthodox conscience among the Orthodox people in the Balkans. And what is wrong with Orthodox people wanting to live in an Orthodox nation, and not be ruled by the pope and the kings he funded or the moslems?
No my friend you make a very grave error misunderstanding what nationalism really is to actual Orthodox. As a papist it may be difficult to realize but again jurisdictions were based on nationalities. Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Rome etc.
If you want to point a finger at adding church and nationalism together you don't need to look any further then the Ustashe regime of Croatia where clergy sawed Orthodox children alive, and spread their blood over others. This action was directly backed and allowed by the pope himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involvement_of_Croatian_Catholic_clergy_with_the_Ustasa_regime - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involvement_of_Croatian_Catholic_clergy_with_the_Ustasa_regime
=====
I had a very good Muslim friend from Lebanon where I used to live. And we met because there was a protestant preacher on campus. And he spoke some pretty silly things we both thought. And when the crowd cleared i spoke with him and when Orthodoxy was brought up he stated "Oh I don't know about Orthodoxy so I don't talk about that." And I respect people who are like that.
|
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 00:43
|
Before I begin my response, let me first start by offering Carpathian a once more look-over to my previous posts. Ive never wished to "point the finger" or offer the "perfections" of the Church of which I belong to; infact, quite the contrary. Nevertheless, I feel very acquainted with the motives and personality of the before-mentioned fellow poster. Keeping that always in mind, I shall begin my response.
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf
You are confusing what nationalism is in Orthodoxy with what it is in the west. To us a nation is a symbol of our independence from the abuses of the papists and the moslems. Also if you look at the Traditional way that Church Sees were split up you would see it was done by language, by nations. But of course that was forgotten by the west even before 1054.
|
Hm, perhaps you will have to explain for me the difference geography plays in regard to nationalism. Nationalism is different in Orthodoxy than it is in the West? Can you please elaborate?
So the pride you take in your national identity is derivative of "the abuses of the 'Papists' and the Moslems."? I was unaware that us "Papists" and Muslims had such a profound affect on all the Orthodox-majority nations. To view your religion, which in your case equates to-nation; which is exactly the problem you are oblivious of, as the one always being persecuted is truly the mark of partisanship.
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf
As for your claim that the Serbian Orthodox Church claims it is "chosen even amongst other Orthodox" this is non sense. Maybe you can find some wack job Serb who poses as an Orthodox to say this but by far and wide this is not a teaching of any Orthodox Church. |
Once again, I made no such claim; but rather offered some reflections by individuals who are far more knowledgeable than myself on the issue, for which they certainly would seem to find grounds in it.
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf
As for Orthodoxy being used to mobilize peasants against "catholic" and moslem rulers. This is also a non sense. There has always been an Orthodox conscience among the Orthodox people in the Balkans.
|
Oh, Ok. Youre right, I have no idea what I was thinking offering up sources that would attest to this.  Youve said it is nonsense because your bias tells you so. It must be an insane assertion.
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf
And what is wrong with Orthodox people wanting to live in an Orthodox nation, and not be ruled by the pope and the kings he funded or the moslems?
|
Exactly my point! Difference being, the Catholic psyche is that it wishes to live within a free state in a free church. "Orthodox nation, Orthodox people, Orthodox church"...you seeing a pattern here? Can you say Russia?
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf
No my friend you make a very grave error misunderstanding what nationalism really is to actual Orthodox. As a papist it may be difficult to realize but again jurisdictions were based on nationalities. Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Rome etc.
|
Wow, I can see why you feel such a need to defend nationalism within Orthodoxy. It pleases me very much to know that many notable Orthodox theologians do not share your zeal. You may wish to be uncharitable by referring to me, and the Catholic church as a whole, as "Papists", however, I will continue to address you and all other Orthodox church members as either- Eastern or Orthodox. The reason for this is not beause I view you to be orthodox, but rather because that is what you call yourselves, and there is one thing that Catholic and Orthodox alike can agree on: our conviction. Also, you may wish to review church history and more specifically the formations of the patriarchs. There were many factors that contributed to their formation.
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf
If you want to point a finger at adding church and nationalism together you don't need to look any further then the Ustashe regime of Croatia where clergy sawed Orthodox children alive, and spread their blood over others. This action was directly backed and allowed by the pope himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involvement_of_Croatian_Catholic_clergy_with_the_Ustasa_regime - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involvement_of_Croatian_Catholic_clergy_with_the_Ustasa_regime
=====
I had a very good Muslim friend from Lebanon where I used to live. And we met because there was a protestant preacher on campus. And he spoke some pretty silly things we both thought. And when the crowd cleared i spoke with him and when Orthodoxy was brought up he stated "Oh I don't know about Orthodoxy so I don't talk about that." And I respect people who are like that. |
Did you even read the Wiki article you posted? I also didnt find where it stated that it was backed by the Pope? Even if it had been, the Church has never claimed to be impeccable. The Church is a universal congregation made of people; sinful people. Whether you realise it or not, Im sure you would not want me bringing up any atrocities of the Patriarch of Constantinople; nor would I. It is not my prerogative to make this thread a flame war. It has become painfully apparent that you have set out on a hopeless journey to defend every facet of Orthodoxy, something you will not, without a doubt, find me doing for the Catholic church. If you have done as I have requested in many initial paragraph, you will see that I have acknowledged that even nationalism itself is not foreign to the Catholich church.
I gotta give it to you though, nice little story at the end. Now, this is the type of subtle uncourtliness I can appreciate!
Abundant blessings,
arch.buff
------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 01:32
Originally posted by arch.buff
Hm, perhaps you will have to explain for me the difference geography plays in regard to nationalism. Nationalism is different in Orthodoxy than it is in the West? Can you please elaborate?
So the pride you take in your national identity is derivative of "the abuses of the 'Papists' and the Moslems."? I was unaware that us "Papists" and Muslims had such a profound affect on all the Orthodox-majority nations. To view your religion, which in your case equates to-nation; which is exactly the problem you are oblivious of, as the one always being persecuted is truly the mark of partisanship. |
It isn't geography that makes the difference but the people and the situation they were in. Expansion played a much smaller role in the Orthodox nations.
The papists and moslems did have a large affect on us. I can give a half dozen examples off the top of my head from my country alone where we'd fight the Ottoman Turks and when we'd win too many, the Hungarians or the Poles or the Germans would stab us in the back (literally sometimes. See Mihai Viteazul).
You are the only one here saying that religion equates to nation for us.
The Orthodox Church did not carry out a systimatic persecution of papists or moslems in the same way the other two carried out against the Orthodox and each other. Can you remember the last time the Orthodox took a crusade to the papists? The papists sacked Constantinople, tried to destroy Novrogod, in Ardeal the Orthodox majority were dirt in the eyes of the papist nobility there. Examples go on and on.
Originally posted by arch.buff
Once again, I made no such claim; but rather offered some reflections by individuals who are far more knowledgeable than myself on the issue, for which they certainly would seem to find grounds in it. |
You yourself wrote that the Serb Orthodox Church considers itself special even amongst other Orthodox Churches. Sorry this sort of inter church notion of a "higher then thou" theology is quite unOrthodox.
Pots and kettles 
Originally posted by arch.buff
Oh, Ok. Youre right, I have no idea what I was thinking offering up sources that would attest to this. Youve said it is nonsense because your bias tells you so. It must be an insane assertion. |
I think my issue is with our interpretation more so then what you posted. Two different things.
Originally posted by arch.buff
Exactly my point! Difference being, the Catholic psyche is that it wishes to live within a free state in a free church. "Orthodox nation, Orthodox people, Orthodox church"...you seeing a pattern here? Can you say Russia? |
You're making non sense up now. When did I say that? No one forces you to be Orthodox in any Orthodox country. On the other hand we know far and wide the abuses of the papist church from the inquisition to the crusades. How many protestants were burned at the stake in germany and france? We won't even bring up what was done to Orthodox. Didn't they want a free country and church? I'll take the love of country and Church over a personality cult with the phrase "in the name of the pope" on my lips before I kill someone for believing differently any day.
What about Russia?
Originally posted by arch.buff
Wow, I can see why you feel such a need to defend nationalism within Orthodoxy. It pleases me very much to know that many notable Orthodox theologians do not share your zeal. You may wish to be uncharitable by referring to me, and the Catholic church as a whole, as "Papists", however, I will continue to address you and all other Orthodox church members as either- Eastern or Orthodox. The reason for this is not beause I view you to be orthodox, but rather because that is what you call yourselves, and there is one thing that Catholic and Orthodox alike can agree on: our conviction. Also, you may wish to review church history and more specifically the formations of the patriarchs. There were many factors that contributed to their formation. |
I feel the need to defend against misunderstanding which you are pushing forth as fact. What is exactly this "Orthodox nationalism" that you see? Is it because you see Orthodox people in parades waving their flag and a cross? That's something wrong? Then I guess Denmark and Norway should change their flag because it has a cross on it. They're equating nationalism with religion! Right?
No that is non sense. Your problem is with the jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church. This is just propaganda to throw around. If you read history you would know that in the canons of the church, before rome was its own church, it stated that there would be only one Patriarch per nation of people.
I consider myself Catholic. Catholic is a Greek word (no nationalism there, simply linguistics) meaning universal. Orthodox means correct beleiving. I am part of the Catholic and Apostolic Church and follow the Orthodox Faith. Theologically I consider that you follow an unOrthodox faith with a heretical theology centered around the papacy. I respect your right to believe what you want and I don't consider yourself better then me but i'm not going to use the name "Catholic Church" refering to the papacy when I do not consider it as such. I hope you are the type of person that can respect honesty in that sense. And though other Orthodox use the term Catholic for the papacy, I do not think anything negative toward them doing it. I just choose based on my personal faith not to use that term.
Originally posted by arch.buff
Did you even read the Wiki article you posted? I also didnt find where it stated that it was backed by the Pope? Even if it had been, the Church has never claimed to be impeccable. The Church is a universal congregation made of people; sinful people. Whether you realise it or not, Im sure you would not want me bringing up any atrocities of the Patriarch of Constantinople; nor would I. It is not my prerogative to make this thread a flame war. It has become painfully apparent that you have set out on a hopeless journey to defend every facet of Orthodoxy, something you will not, without a doubt, find me doing for the Catholic church. If you have done as I have requested in many initial paragraph, you will see that I have acknowledged that even nationalism itself is not foreign to the Catholich church. |
I did read it.
Here's the problem with what i see in the papacy simply from a secular point of view. When your pope makes a mistake, the whole church is in error. When the pope turned a blind eye to Hitler, that brought the whole papal church into error. When we have a patriarch do something stupid, the others correct him on it or he is gotten rid of.
Your whole post seemed out of the blue "oh by the way the Orthodox are overly nationalistic says this guy." What was the point of that?
Originally posted by arch.buff
I gotta give it to you though, nice little story at the end. Now, this is the type of subtle uncourtliness I can appreciate!
Abundant blessings,
arch.buff |
An arrogant man is insulted by wisdom. I was humbled by my friend's words and will remember them always.
Asalam alaikum
ICXC
NIKA
BBBB
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 02:42
|
Originally posted by arch.buff
Did you even read the Wiki article you posted? I also didnt find where it stated that it was backed by the Pope? Even if it had been, the Church has never claimed to be impeccable. The Church is a universal congregation made of people; sinful people. Whether you realise it or not, Im sure you would not want me bringing up any atrocities of the Patriarch of Constantinople; nor would I. It is not my prerogative to make this thread a flame war. It has become painfully apparent that you have set out on a hopeless journey to defend every facet of Orthodoxy, something you will not, without a doubt, find me doing for the Catholic church. If you have done as I have requested in many initial paragraph, you will see that I have acknowledged that even nationalism itself is not foreign to the Catholich church. |
Well, the Roman Church did beatify Stepinac.
While you may not have "pointed the finger", you did untenably single out Orthodoxy in general, and the Serbian Church in particular. The problem is, you have confused ethnophiletism with nationalism, when they are two separate issues, and you have implied that the Orthodox Church is more susceptible to both because of its nature. If you research the situation, however, you will find that the two problems are influenced more by geography than they are by ecclesiology, and you will also find that the Roman Church faces the same problems in the same regions. Ethnophiletism is not the issue at all in the case we are discussing; that is an issue that affects the Church internally, through the relation between the hierarchs, and has been repeatedly condemned. The bottom line is, because of the theological tension that runs through Eastern Europe -- a tension which has been exacerbated, both deliberately and accidentally, by the Roman Church over the course of the past several centuries -- religious violence is not uncommon, and the Roman Church in this region is no less guilty. The case of the Uniates and the Orthodox in Eastern Europe is an example of religious conflict, but in the Balkans we are dealing with something separate still: nationalism, and the enthronement of racial ideology over faith. The case of Stepinac, and much of the violence in the Balkans is influenced more by culture than by religious ideology; religious ideology is used -- both by Catholics and Orthodox nationalists -- as an unjust justification for that violence.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 06:29
|
Sorry it took so long for my response, been swamped lately.
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf
The papists and moslems did have a large affect on us. I can give a half dozen examples off the top of my head from my country alone where we'd fight the Ottoman Turks and when we'd win too many, the Hungarians or the Poles or the Germans would stab us in the back (literally sometimes. See Mihai Viteazul).
The Orthodox Church did not carry out a systimatic persecution of papists or moslems in the same way the other two carried out against the Orthodox and each other. Can you remember the last time the Orthodox took a crusade to the papists? The papists sacked Constantinople, tried to destroy Novrogod, in Ardeal the Orthodox majority were dirt in the eyes of the papist nobility there. Examples go on and on.
|
And I admire and praise the Easterns for safeguarding their faith against the Turks, it is one of the noblest qualities that the Easterns have, in my opinion. However, it is this vulnerable position that would characterize their history for quite some time. You like to throw around accusations of atrocities without knowing the particulars. The Pope condemned the sacking of Constantinople and ex-communicated all those taking part; he gave instructions that Constantinople was not to be disturbed. Their constant vulnerable and dangerous situation would prompt many Orthodox to try and explain away the reunion councils in which for a brief time they really turned to their Orthodox Catholic roots.
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf
You are the only one here saying that religion equates to nation for us.
|
I disagree, others would to:
“some of them commented that the sequence of the words in the name of the Serbian Orthodox Church reflects the sequence of the values prevailing in the SOC, i.e. Serbdom comes first, then Orthodoxy and, finally, if there is still some room, Christianity (as the faith shared with other, non-Orthodox churches).” (Tomani, Serbian Orthodox Church in War)
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf
Sorry this sort of inter church notion of a "higher then thou" theology is quite unOrthodox.
|
That may be the case, but there is no denying that the Orthodox church(es) with their lack of a univeral primate has rendered such themes non-surprising. Why is it surprising when a national church views itself better than another national church, when nations themselves do the same?
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf
You're making non sense up now. When did I say that? No one forces you to be Orthodox in any Orthodox country. On the other hand we know far and wide the abuses of the papist church from the inquisition to the crusades. How many protestants were burned at the stake in germany and france? We won't even bring up what was done to Orthodox. Didn't they want a free country and church? I'll take the love of country and Church over a personality cult with the phrase "in the name of the pope" on my lips before I kill someone for believing differently any day.
|
Wow. never ending in your arsenal of atrocities. The Catholic church always the persecuter eh. If you feel like church-bashing then would you be kind enough to open a new thread about it. Concolidates things; I'll be sure to reply.
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf
What about Russia?
|
Do a little historical research first; also you may wish to delve into some of the issues surrounding their patriarch and the "Ecumenical Patriarch". We can speak of these after.
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf
I feel the need to defend against misunderstanding which you are pushing forth as fact. What is exactly this "Orthodox nationalism" that you see? Is it because you see Orthodox people in parades waving their flag and a cross? That's something wrong? Then I guess Denmark and Norway should change their flag because it has a cross on it. They're equating nationalism with religion! Right?
|
In all seriousness, do some research. Its rather a hard task to discuss with someone an issue that they believe is so absurdly non-existant. Start at the ground level; try googling "Nationalism and Orthodoxy", or something of the sort. Also try reading some of the Orthodox theologians' ideas about the issue.
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf
If you read history you would know that in the canons of the church, before rome was its own church, it stated that there would be only one Patriarch per nation of people.
|
Can you please provide any canons of the undivided church that speaks of: "there would be only one Patriarch per nation of people."
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf
I consider myself Catholic. Catholic is a Greek word (no nationalism there, simply linguistics) meaning universal. Orthodox means correct beleiving. I am part of the Catholic and Apostolic Church and follow the Orthodox Faith. Theologically I consider that you follow an unOrthodox faith with a heretical theology centered around the papacy. I respect your right to believe what you want and I don't consider yourself better then me but i'm not going to use the name "Catholic Church" refering to the papacy when I do not consider it as such. I hope you are the type of person that can respect honesty in that sense. And though other Orthodox use the term Catholic for the papacy, I do not think anything negative toward them doing it. I just choose based on my personal faith not to use that term.
|
It is certainly your right to use any language you wish for another(so long as it doesnt break with AE CofC), and I too view your church as being unorthodox, however I will refrain from using terms that may be seen as derogatory. Just different ways of approaching the same issue I presume.
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf
I did read it.
Here's the problem with what i see in the papacy simply from a secular point of view. When your pope makes a mistake, the whole church is in error. When the pope turned a blind eye to Hitler, that brought the whole papal church into error. When we have a patriarch do something stupid, the others correct him on it or he is gotten rid of.
Your whole post seemed out of the blue "oh by the way the Orthodox are overly nationalistic says this guy." What was the point of that?
|
First off, stating that "When the pope turned a blind eye to Hitler", only shows your biasness more plainly, if that is possible. However, it is an issue that has many viewpoints. I would strongly encourage you to open a discussion on the matter if you feel so strongly about it; in fact, I may just do that sometime in the future, time permitting.
Above all, you show again your misunderstanding about the Church. Allow me to quote my previous post:
"the Church has never claimed to be impeccable. The Church is a universal congregation made of people; sinful people."-arch.buff
And if you would wish to view your own church as less sinful, then this train of thought would be everyway surely to be condemned by mine.
I dont see how my post seemed "out of the blue". Nationalism is a reality in the Orthodox church(es), whether you would realize it or not. Its a shame we have to speak of only the negatives, but Im left with scarcely any time as it is just replying. Truly, there are many great aspects to Eastern Christianity; many indeed.
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf
An arrogant man is insulted by wisdom. I was humbled by my friend's words and will remember them always.
Asalam alaikum
ICXC
NIKA
BBBB |
Yes, you are humbled by your friends speech; now only if you would employ his words.
Abundant blessings,
arch.buff ------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
|
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 07:06
Originally posted by Akolouthos
Well, the Roman Church did beatify Stepinac.
While you may not have "pointed the finger", you did untenably single out Orthodoxy in general, and the Serbian Church in particular. The problem is, you have confused ethnophiletism with nationalism, when they are two separate issues, and you have implied that the Orthodox Church is more susceptible to both because of its nature. If you research the situation, however, you will find that the two problems are influenced more by geography than they are by ecclesiology, and you will also find that the Roman Church faces the same problems in the same regions. Ethnophiletism is not the issue at all in the case we are discussing; that is an issue that affects the Church internally, through the relation between the hierarchs, and has been repeatedly condemned. The bottom line is, because of the theological tension that runs through Eastern Europe -- a tension which has been exacerbated, both deliberately and accidentally, by the Roman Church over the course of the past several centuries -- religious violence is not uncommon, and the Roman Church in this region is no less guilty. The case of the Uniates and the Orthodox in Eastern Europe is an example of religious conflict, but in the Balkans we are dealing with something separate still: nationalism, and the enthronement of racial ideology over faith. The case of Stepinac, and much of the violence in the Balkans is influenced more by culture than by religious ideology; religious ideology is used -- both by Catholics and Orthodox nationalists -- as an unjust justification for that violence.
-Akolouthos |
I wouldnt presume to no more than the Church on his beatification. Would you presume to know why in the Orthodox church the Empress Theodora is, not just beatified or anything of the like, but an actual "Saint"?
You state that: "you have confused ethnophiletism with nationalism", but how far off are they really? Would you not consider one just a dangerous step below the other? Certainly it is the source of our discussion involving Svetosavlje, which really falls in line with both if you have researched the matter. Or maybe it is because you refer to-'ethnophiletism', which you say is only found within church hierarchs. Allow me to offer a definition of 'philetism': Giving precedence to the national idea over the unity of religion is called philetism.
Orthodoxy by its formation is more susceptible to nationalism, and we can see just where this can be taken in the case Svetosavlje. We must not dull the complexities of the issue at hand. Can you provide some parallels, and here Im referring to extreme cases that equate to Svetosavlje, that can be shown for the Catholic church, as you have suggested? To my knowledege, Ive never heard of such extreme phenomenon. It certainly would run counter to the universality of the Catholic communion that sees beyond national borders.
There were certainly bad things taking place in the area; I have never, nor would I ever, say that the Church was innocent on certain of these atrocities.
-------------
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 03:23
Originally posted by arch.buff
I wouldnt presume to no more than the Church on his beatification. Would you presume to know why in the Orthodox church the Empress Theodora is, not just beatified or anything of the like, but an actual "Saint"? |
Well, if your answer is "you too," we'll just keep going around in circles, and I might as well add another one. The only reason I brought it up in the first place is because I felt you were applying a bit of a double standard. On a side note, I assume your speaking of Theodora, wife of Justinian, not Theodora the anti-iconoclast. If you don't know why the latter was canonized, you might need to start hitting those books. As for the case of the former, I might need to start hitting those books, as I am not all that familiar with the case. I read an article on it once, somewhere. The basic gist is that, once we ignore the ridiculous propaganda of Procopius' Secret History, and look at other sources, we find that she wielded a great deal of influence in the dialogue with the Monophysites (Procopius, I believe, accused her of being one), aided the poor and downtrodden, and activism on behalf of the women of Constantinople.
| You state that: "you have confused ethnophiletism with nationalism", but how far off are they really? Would you not consider one just a dangerous step below the other? Certainly it is the source of our discussion involving Svetosavlje, which really falls in line with both if you have researched the matter. Or maybe it is because you refer to-'ethnophiletism', which you say is only found within church hierarchs. Allow me to offer a definition of 'philetism': Giving precedence to the national idea over the unity of religion is called philetism. |
The two terms are certainly related, but they are used to describe two different things. Nationalism is generally used to refer to a secular bias toward one's ethnic group. Ethnophiletism is generally used to refer to a religious bias toward one's ethnic group based upon a sense of divine mission. And yes, this term is applicable to certain aspects of the situation in the Serbian Church; what I objected to was your desire to overemphasize the difference between Rome and Orthodoxy on this matter. It seemed to me that your posts in response to Carpathian were written in the tone of an apologist rather than that of a historian, and, since I know that you can do so much better than that, I decided to encourage it.
| Orthodoxy by its formation is more susceptible to nationalism, and we can see just where this can be taken in the case Svetosavlje. We must not dull the complexities of the issue at hand. Can you provide some parallels, and here Im referring to extreme cases that equate to Svetosavlje, that can be shown for the Catholic church, as you have suggested? To my knowledege, Ive never heard of such extreme phenomenon. It certainly would run counter to the universality of the Catholic communion that sees beyond national borders.
There were certainly bad things taking place in the area; I have never, nor would I ever, say that the Church was innocent on certain of these atrocities. |
Once again, we do not disagree on the underlying assertion that Orthodoxy is more susceptible to ethnophiletism. My disagreement is defined in terms of degree, emphasis, and tone, rather than kind. This paragraph is a much more objective analysis. As for parallels, look to the case of Croatia. Once again, the nationalistic conflicts are generally a matter of geography. Unfortunately religion is often used to justify vile and violent actions that are taken on behalf of secular interests.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 20:13
Originally posted by Akolouthos
Well, if your answer is "you too," we'll just keep going around in circles, and I might as well add another one. The only reason I brought it up in the first place is because I felt you were applying a bit of a double standard. On a side note, I assume your speaking of Theodora, wife of Justinian, not Theodora the anti-iconoclast. If you don't know why the latter was canonized, you might need to start hitting those books. As for the case of the former, I might need to start hitting those books, as I am not all that familiar with the case. I read an article on it once, somewhere. The basic gist is that, once we ignore the ridiculous propaganda of Procopius' Secret History, and look at other sources, we find that she wielded a great deal of influence in the dialogue with the Monophysites (Procopius, I believe, accused her of being one), aided the poor and downtrodden, and activism on behalf of the women of Constantinople. |
Yeah, I was referring to the former; sorry, I presumed that you would have read it that way, and I think you rightly have. I am familiar why the latter is truly a saint.
She did hold great influence in regards to the Monophysite faction, most would say too much, and there is much historical evidence to suggest she was more than a sympathizer. When Pope Ageptus repaired to Constantinople at the request of Theodehad, he came to find Anthimus seated at the place of patriarch of Constantinople. He had risen to this rank by the favour of Theodora and at the violence of the canons. Consequently, at the fervent suggestions of the clergy, Ageptus ordered a definition of faith and the return to his rightful see of Anthimus. Anthimus refused and would have nothing to do with the Pope. He was deposed and Ageptus consecrated Mennas in his place. Anthimus was to be held in Theodora's quarters until the ripe time. This time came about when Pope Silverius was then the holder of the bishopric of Rome. She wrote Silverius to request his lifting of the anathema directed at Anthimus by Ageptus. Obviously Silverius would not accomodate such a request and Theodora had documents forged that would lead to his unrightful deposition. She ordered Belisarius to see this through, and keeping with the consistency of being the excellent soldier he was, he reluctantly agreed. Vigilius was set up in his place, and always remembering the affair of Boniface II and his succession, he was all too happy to be where he so long ambitioned he would be. He owed this exalted place to Theodora precisely because of their agreement that Vigilius would do as he promised; that is: undermine Chalcedon and set up Theodora's pet Anthimus as patriarch. Fortunately Vigilius did not accomodate her, and from what we know of the 'Three-Chapters', quite the opposite. The upholding of Chalcedon was to be a main casue for hindrance in regards to the Three-Chapters.
This is one historical example, but there are more still. Having said that, I would not venture to know more than the Eastern church on this matter. We may seek to 'examine' Theodora in this historical light, but that is all it is- historical. Our churches see beyond this historical character and delves in, always through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, into what she herself knows to be true. The Eastern churches see her as a saint, while the Catholic church does not. It would seem that the Catholic church has not seen any reason that she would be considered a saint.
Originally posted by Akolouthos
It seemed to me that your posts in response to Carpathian were written in the tone of an apologist rather than that of a historian, and, since I know that you can do so much better than that, I decided to encourage it.
|
Allow me to speak freely for a moment. First, let me state that all of us here at AE have a different style and spirit of writing, which is great. Carpathian and you are very different in your rhetoric, style, sharpness etc... Maybe me employing more of an apologist stance can be seen as inconsistency, but I have felt that employing the same character as I do with you has lead to a severe ineffectiveness as goes my discussion with Carpathian. Had Carpathian responded to my replies with any sense of historical character-- provide historical examples to refute why he believes nationalism is not an issue within Orthodoxy and more specifically Svetosavlje--, I could have countered/agreed, however he has not accomodated me in this regard. I am left with only ramblings of how sinful the Catholic church has been through the years, and in Carpathian's view, this is why she is "in error". One of the reasons why our correspondence is so harmonious is precisely because of the respect we show each other and the historical emphasis we employ. None of the "Your church did this -insert atrocity here-" is ever forthcoming in our discussion, unless it regards our historical position/interpretation.
You might remember me stating in one of my above posts that:
"It has become painfully apparent that you have set out on a hopeless journey to defend every facet of Orthodoxy, something you will not, without a doubt, find me doing for the Catholic church." -arch.buff
And while I still feel this way, I hope you can understand why I must at least speak out about certain of the sinful actions of the Catholic church, which are far more than one would like to recollect. Often times I find that historical examples can be twisted to set the church in a negative light because she is supposed to be held on a higher moral level; which I might add is something that I enthusiastically agree with. However, far too many wield a fairly large axe to grind.
Originally posted by Akolouthos
Once again, we do not disagree on the underlying assertion that Orthodoxy is more susceptible to ethnophiletism. My disagreement is defined in terms of degree, emphasis, and tone, rather than kind. This paragraph is a much more objective analysis. As for parallels, look to the case of Croatia. Once again, the nationalistic conflicts are generally a matter of geography. Unfortunately religion is often used to justify vile and violent actions that are taken on behalf of secular interests.
-Akolouthos |
In all honesty, I cant see a real parallel in Croatia, at least not in the level with that of Svetosavlje. However, it is certainly not beyond me to have failed to research the matter well enough, I can be rather slow at times
On a personal note, I owe you a great deal of thanks. You have directed my gaze inward, and constructive criticism is always something that I am in dire need of. Keeps me on my toes
Abundant blessings,
arch.buff ------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 21:48
|
I really don't think you took the whole of the point (which is just as likely a result of my general lack of clarity, as it may be a result of any confusion on your part), and I'm afraid that I don't have the energy to go over it in any great depth. Suffice it to say that I don't think that Carpathian was the only one who was being unfair in this discussion, and I don't really see the value in a pundit talk-show style prolonged tu quoque conversation, especially on a topic that is so complex. I think the misunderstanding might concern the nature of my distinction between an apologist and a historian. Ah well; you two may have whatever conversation you wish. It's a free forum, after all.
God bless, arch.buff and Carpathian Wolf.
-Akolouthos
|
|
... We simply don't believe in the icon "itself" but in the saint which is represented... But i can ensure you that it is seriously believed that some relicsof saints( such as saint Demetrios in Thessalonici , snt Rafael in Lesvos) and icons(like taxiarchis in Lesvos Panaghia in Tinos (holy Marry) ) have divine power.
