Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Maybe because of Arianism, it was felt that the Lord’s human nature was sufficiently stated and to avoid any further problems. He is divine first & foremost eternal.
Welcome to the forum- I see that you are relatively new. We have some other Armenians on the forum.

In this thread, I see you as implying that since the Nicene Creed mentions Christ's divine essence but does not mention Christ's human nature, then maybe belief that Christ has a human nature is not a belief of the Church in the time of Nicea. As I recall, you and I were discussing Abp. Petrosian's summary in his book where, as you found, he said that Christ has "only one nature, the divine one." So my basic question to you is whether in the middle of the book, or any place elsewhere in the book, he quoted Church figures who took this view.

I am really asking you though for an explanation of an OO author's viewpoint and sources, so from here on, I will just ask you about it in that section.
Good job, Sarkis. It is very hard to get in the US. I was able to get the conclusion in Russian, but it would be very helpful if I could see if he quoted in the body of the book from other earlier writers who shared his ideas that we were discussing.
Since you and I are talking about an OO book on a specifically OO topic from an OO point of view, may I please ask that we continue our conversation on a thread in the OO section of the forum like:
Difficulties regarding 1 and 2 natures,40784
I prefer not to shift from the topic, otherwise we can loose the thread of thought. Actually, this topic also is about natures. If you have a specific question close to the topic, please write shortly, and I'll try to address it.
Well, I have one foot out of Orthodoxy at this point. If I leave it will be to the Catholic Church. My ex-wife was verbally and psychologically abusive, and my marriage was ultimately finished off in conjunction with an assault by my former priest (see my thread in Convert Issues if need be). It was not a legitimate marriage by any measure. And I refuse to spend the rest of my life alone and unhappy because "the Church", be it Orthodox or Catholic, says otherwise.
Ah, if only you had listened to what i told you....

When you said to pray for him? I wouldn’t pray for him if Christ himself appeared before me and said my salvation depended on it. And I’m better off out of that marriage and away from that church and priest. Painful and horrific as it was. I just don’t want it to taint the rest of my life.

I apologise for this long post, brother, but I have a question for you.  Why remain Christian?  I've seen many of your posts recently, and I can't help but wonder if you actually care about who Jesus is, what He thinks, and how important forgiveness is to Him.  Whether Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant, all of this would simply be LARPing Christian identity if you expect forgiveness from God for your sins without forgiving others.  If you don't think forgiveness is something important enough to even strive to one day be able to do, why is being an active Christian still important to you?  How can you stand in the temples of God, no matter what denomination, and offer with other Christians the Holy Sacrifice, when Christ Himself said:

Matthew 5:24 : "Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift."

I would be fearful to even approach because of this commandment of our Master.  Do you not love Christ?  Don't you want to obey Him and become the person He wishes you to be (forgiving, self-sacrificing, etc.)? 

You don't understand that the same human weakness that was in your ex-wife, your ex-priest, your ex-parish, etc. is also in you, whether or not you have the same struggles?  Are you so pure and confident of your own morality that you think it's so below your dignity to forgive these people who have hurt you?  How can you pray the Lord's prayer with a clean conscience? "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

No matter what Church you go to, all Churches will preach that salvation is conformity to Christ, the same Christ who forgave his torturers and preferred to suffer on the cross so that this forgiveness could be extended to all bearers of human nature.  If you don't even desire to be like Christ (being forgiving, humble, etc.) why do you want to be a Christian?  I understand if you say, "It's something I can't do right now," or "I don't have the strength to do it yet," or "Not now, but maybe one day."  However, you are saying, "Never."  Catholic or Orthodox, this pride is the old man in you, which you had put to death in baptism. 

For example, I have been aware of having same-sex attraction for years, despite being brought up in a traditional Catholic family, and for years, I have put off conversion to Orthodoxy for this reason in order to discern and truly converse with Jesus to understand what He wants of me in this life.  Years.  Yet, how easily people convert in and out of Churches (just because so and so Church is conservative enough, hate SJWs enough, is anti-Western enough, is theological enough, has an ancient/beautiful enough liturgy, is English enough, is convert-friendly enough, etc.) and stand in the temples of God before all the angels and saints without a care in the world that they're wearing rags instead of wedding garments!  How can this be? 

Why do you think it will be easy, simple as that, to simply convert to Catholicism with no discernment or prayer or speaking with Jesus about what He wants of you?  Do you also no longer believe that we must take all things to Him first, so that He will speak His will to us? 

Surely, understanding the importance of forgiveness is just as important, if not more, than being 100% sure on the doctrines that condemn LGBTQ+?  I will pray for you brother.  In the past, I kept silent and had very little to say to you, because of something you said about LGBT hegemony in magazines.  (It shouldn't have hurt me, but I am a sensitive person without a thick skin, and I did post something at the time, but Christian charity forbade me from retaliating in anger.)  However, now that you say you are leaving the Church, I wish to tell you, my brother, that I don't wish for you to leave Orthodoxy, and that whatever your opinions are concerning me, I hope you will re-examine your heart closely.  Christ's commandments are not a heavy yoke, although they may seem so at first.  But when you learn to obey them, at first stumbling and crawling, in time you will run in the swift course of His commandments, finding wisdom, joy and the love of God in fulfilling them.  This holds true, even for (and maybe especially for) the commandment to forgive.

I remain a Christian because I retain my faith in Christ and no drunken priest or abusive spouse will ever take that away from me. But I am not a saint, and never will be. I evidently do not have the capacity for forgiveness that is held as the ideal, in Orthodoxy or any other branch of Christianity. I would not be able to emulate St. Seraphim and go appeal for clemency for some robbers who assaulted me. I now get chronic headaches, vision, and memory problems that I never experienced before that blow to the head. And that is notwithstanding the final destruction of my marriage it wrought.  I will not forgive the person who did that, particularly given that, the one time I spoke to him in person after it happened, he was once again drunk, withdrew the apology that he initially sent me via text, and told me to keep my mouth shut and stop complaining. I will also not forgive Archbishop Gabriel, who has all the evidence he needs to take action but who chose not to do his job, nor the junior priest who now has his own mission parish in Niagara, who also denigrated this priest in person and yet has his seminarian son training with him, nor the laypeople in the parish who know what happened but keep going there and associating with him. This is not an isolated case of one problematic priest. It is an entire array of people who have demonstrated themselves to be beneath contempt.

I should add that this is not just a “rage quit” because of what happened at that parish. I have doctrinal and theological issues with Orthodoxy. But I also disagreed with tenets of Protestantism, and do with Catholicism as well. I went to Orthodoxy because it seemed, on the surface, to be the closest to the original church, but found nothing but industrial-scale misery there. For me, there is simply no longer any redeeming factor. It is gone, and after a year and a half of praying and struggling, I have come around to the idea that it is not coming back. But as I said, I still retain faith in Christ, and want to be part of a church body that still preserves essential elements, like the sacraments, the body of saints, the Eucharist, apostolic succession. Whether or not others feel that it is the best course of action for me is not their problem. It is my problem. I always appreciate the prayers and support, but at the end of the day, the consequences are mine and mine alone.
Foreign Languages Forum / Re: Finnish
« Last post by sestir on Today at 10:36:05 AM »
Thanks great!
A year ago I was sure that it was "Constantinople" ) But there is no, racial arrogance emerged have Greeks long.

There is more wrong with EP ecclesiology than just their self-imposed deception of supremacy


By the way, I have heard that it is only in around the past 100 years that the EP actually started using the title "Ecumenical" regularly
Foreign Languages Forum / Re: Finnish
« Last post by FinnJames on Today at 08:38:20 AM »
Does Finnish concatenate words such that the first has and retains a case-ending?

For example, would it be possible to form a word like koiraatalo in the sense of 'kennel'(a small cottage for a dog in the garden)?

Like Swedish kyrkogårdsgång 'churchyard path' where the first part is fossilized ablative, the second genitive and the whole word nominative.
And if you do, which are the most useful cases for the first part?

Alpo2 will know better than me, but while waiting: Finnish has compound words built on the first stem in the nominative (dictionary) case and nouns built on the genitive/accusative case:
rautatieasema 'railroad/way station' rauta(nom.)+tie(nom)+asema(nom) iron+road+station
kahvinkeitin 'coffee maker' kahvi=n(gen)+keit=in(nom) coffee=gen/acc+cook=thing that does
(but kahvimylly 'coffee grinder' kahvi(nom)+mylly(nom) coffee(nom)+mill(nom) -- so there's little logic to it)

Of course a fair number of Finnish compounds are calques/loan translations based Swedish because Swedish was once the main language of administration and education in Finland:
Fi aasinsilta aasi=n+silta ass=gen+bridge < Sw åsnebrygga '(more or less) non-logical link between unrelated topics'
Good job, Sarkis. It is very hard to get in the US. I was able to get the conclusion in Russian, but it would be very helpful if I could see if he quoted in the body of the book from other earlier writers who shared his ideas that we were discussing.
Since you and I are talking about an OO book on a specifically OO topic from an OO point of view, may I please ask that we continue our conversation on a thread in the OO section of the forum like:
Difficulties regarding 1 and 2 natures,40784
I think that I may have corresponded with you on the Kuraev or Orthodoxy.Cafe forum. Have you posted there as "Sarkis"? If so, thanks for your help with Abp. Petrosian's book.
Yes, it was me. I'am glad if the book helped you.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10