OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 22, 2014, 04:25:48 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 1 
 on: Today at 04:22:47 PM 
Started by Maria - Last post by Skydive
When seeing a pattern of "instability" whereby the person frequently changes churches, Metropolitan Joseph of the Antiochians will often ask catechumens to wait a year to three years or more before being received into the Antiochian Church. Some of these catechumens will ultimately leave.

Really?

I would leave also if I were in the same circumstance. It is outrageous!


 2 
 on: Today at 04:21:40 PM 
Started by Fabio Leite - Last post by Fabio Leite
From my experience here, which is in some respects similar to the US, and from reading and listening to what people post on the net on the subject, I think that truly there may be a problem at the hierarchs level, but there may be another in the laity.

Not every ethnic community feels comfortable to under a bishop not of the same ethnicity, or, if a convert, that has been with them for so long as to be considered "one of us".

In practice, in large cities, people from ethnicities Y and Z would feel "conquered" by the ethnicity of bishop X and that they are lacking something. It is very prestigious to have your own bishop and to be a friend or even acquaitance of the bishop. A bishop that is commited to the Church universal, but just more weakly to the social network of that ethnicity is as good as no bishop to many people.

I believe that only when natives become 1) the vast majority of Orthodox in a certain region, at least more than 80%; 2) If these natives instead of being just "clients" who use the "services" of the Church take up leadership positions of increasing responsibility - including episcopal positions in the mother churches - while at the same time creating infrastructures that are not depedent on the status quo infrastructure; 3) If they do this with all due respect and gratitude to the peoples who brought Orthodoxy to the New World;

then local churches will emerge in the Americas.

I'm speechless on this one. I think I understand your point, but it is expressed in language that is easily misunderstood and in terms that many here would take offense to. Correct me if I am in error, but don't you strongly object to 'multiculturalism'? Since assimilation of immigrant cultures into a 'melting pot' as has been the case historically in North America and perhaps in Brazil (?), are you suggesting that until three or four generations pass from the 'old world' immigrants that a truly new national church is not likely to emerge?  How do you reconcile this seeming contradiction? (Again, if my recollections are in error, I apologize.) We are three or four generations into the post European immigration phase in the United States, yet we have hardly begun to reconcile such matters.

That's not what I am suggesting. It can take 20 generations and nothing changes. It's not related to any particular generation or even to a frame of mind of "cradles" or "converts". To put it simple, Orthodox churches in the new world depend politically on their motherlands, even if in some cases the motherlands may rely strongly on economic support from the US.

This political and cultural infrastructure, which goes beyond formal positions and includes networks of influence, is far deeper than both the economic and the ideal aspects.

The only way that political and cultural networks of power change is if the interests and/or the people in whom these networks are materialized change.

Margareth Thatcher has a famous quote: “Being a leader is like being a lady. If you have to remind people you are, you aren’t.” The same goes for any kind of autonomy. If you have to ask for it, to negotiate for it, then you don't have it. Negotiations, talks and meetings will "progress" only whe autonomy and union is an underlying irreversible reality. Then negotiations will be happening full steam on how to acknowledge that without loosing face and in the smoothest way possible.

As the Tomos of OCA is a point in case, documents, agreements and consensus do not make a person or an institution an autonomous, independent entity. Freedom is never acquired by permission, you just make it happen. You grab that sword out of the stone or you don't, nobody will just give it to you. There is no "convincing" anyone.

People are convinced enough by a de facto accomplished irreversible new status quo.You achieve that or achieve nothing.

 3 
 on: Today at 04:19:28 PM 
Started by Indocern - Last post by Skydive
A man can have a few Guardian Angels.

Maybe not everybody have Guardian Angel.

Every baptized Orthodox Christian has one.

The question becomes how many Angels are there in the first place?

Does God still create angels even at this time?



Particularly monarchs are referred as "angels" in flesh.

How many angels are there? I don't know.

If actual angels are still being created I don't know precisely. I think I saw some Orthodox source once say not, but not sure.

Then again, does God create human souls perpetually? If so why not angelic ones?

 4 
 on: Today at 04:05:45 PM 
Started by Maria - Last post by Maximum Bob
When seeing a pattern of "instability" whereby the person frequently changes churches, Metropolitan Joseph of the Antiochians will often ask catechumens to wait a year to three years or more before being received into the Antiochian Church. Some of these catechumens will ultimately leave.

Really?
Our Priest,  having had some bad experiences of people converting rapidly and then leaving has gone to a relatively long inquiry period and not a short catechumenate period. 

On another point we have greeters with name tags.  No uniforms yet though.  Cheesy

 5 
 on: Today at 04:02:29 PM 
Started by Jetavan - Last post by Fabio Leite
This happened last year in my city:




That is in the city center. The shorter trees behind my bulding all had webs in varying degrees of covering.

But these are innofensive. The local nasty one is the webless brown spider:



This little fellow hides behind furniture and its bite can cause serious necrotic harm. That's why if I find one I cause them serious smashing harm.

But you enjoy a video of the spider rain here:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mTOsdp2vWg

 6 
 on: Today at 03:55:30 PM 
Started by Fabio Leite - Last post by podkarpatska
From my experience here, which is in some respects similar to the US, and from reading and listening to what people post on the net on the subject, I think that truly there may be a problem at the hierarchs level, but there may be another in the laity.

Not every ethnic community feels comfortable to under a bishop not of the same ethnicity, or, if a convert, that has been with them for so long as to be considered "one of us".

In practice, in large cities, people from ethnicities Y and Z would feel "conquered" by the ethnicity of bishop X and that they are lacking something. It is very prestigious to have your own bishop and to be a friend or even acquaitance of the bishop. A bishop that is commited to the Church universal, but just more weakly to the social network of that ethnicity is as good as no bishop to many people.

I believe that only when natives become 1) the vast majority of Orthodox in a certain region, at least more than 80%; 2) If these natives instead of being just "clients" who use the "services" of the Church take up leadership positions of increasing responsibility - including episcopal positions in the mother churches - while at the same time creating infrastructures that are not depedent on the status quo infrastructure; 3) If they do this with all due respect and gratitude to the peoples who brought Orthodoxy to the New World;

then local churches will emerge in the Americas.

I'm speechless on this one. I think I understand your point, but it is expressed in language that is easily misunderstood and in terms that many here would take offense to. Correct me if I am in error, but don't you strongly object to 'multiculturalism'? Since assimilation of immigrant cultures into a 'melting pot' as has been the case historically in North America and perhaps in Brazil (?), are you suggesting that until three or four generations pass from the 'old world' immigrants that a truly new national church is not likely to emerge?  How do you reconcile this seeming contradiction? (Again, if my recollections are in error, I apologize.) We are three or four generations into the post European immigration phase in the United States, yet we have hardly begun to reconcile such matters.

 7 
 on: Today at 03:51:19 PM 
Started by Jetavan - Last post by Maria
Hey, these spiders, living in large colonies as they do, created the social--ahem--web long before the Internet came along. Grin

Great post, PtA!

And the yellow sac spider creates webs all over the walls, and leaves trails everywhere.

 8 
 on: Today at 03:49:02 PM 
Started by Nephi - Last post by podkarpatska
This may have been mentioned in a previous post. My priest will commune people by a double name, e.g. Tyler Barnabas (entirely fictitious).

I've seen the same at baptisms as well. Before the OUTRAGE button is pushed, just how do you all think names like those from pre Christian antiquity got into the books in the first place anyway? The western Council of Trent dictated that within the jurisdiction of the church of Rome clergy and parents stop using non-Christian folk names in baptisms.....that was during the counterreformation in the late 16th century. Is there a similar eastern edict on the subject or did this whole controversy kind of slip into the east following Trent?

 9 
 on: Today at 03:48:48 PM 
Started by Fabio Leite - Last post by Fabio Leite
From my experience here, which is in some respects similar to the US, and from reading and listening to what people post on the net on the subject, I think that truly there may be a problem at the hierarchs level, but there may be another in the laity.

Not every ethnic community feels comfortable to under a bishop not of the same ethnicity, or, if a convert, that has been with them for so long as to be considered "one of us".

In practice, in large cities, people from ethnicities Y and Z would feel "conquered" by the ethnicity of bishop X and that they are lacking something. It is very prestigious to have your own bishop and to be a friend or even acquaitance of the bishop. A bishop that is commited to the Church universal, but just more weakly to the social network of that ethnicity is as good as no bishop to many people.

I believe that only when natives become 1) the vast majority of Orthodox in a certain region, at least more than 80%; 2) If these natives instead of being just "clients" who use the "services" of the Church take up leadership positions of increasing responsibility - including episcopal positions in the mother churches - while at the same time creating infrastructures that are not depedent on the status quo infrastructure; 3) If they do this with all due respect and gratitude to the peoples who brought Orthodoxy to the New World;

then local churches will emerge in the Americas.

 10 
 on: Today at 03:42:55 PM 
Started by Jetavan - Last post by Maria
Spider time, that favorite time of year.

http://www.spiderzrule.com/spiderphotos.htm

Feeling itchy? I have accomplished my purpose.  laugh

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.046 seconds with 17 queries.