OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 03, 2014, 12:36:45 AM *
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 »
 21 
 on: Today at 12:03:24 AM 
Started by Maria - Last post by Maria
This is an interesting thought I had. Are moral principles bound to our scientific understanding and cultural awareness?

For instance, if someone before the knowledge of the female egg, spilled his seed believing he was effectively killing a human life, wouldn't that be sinful regardless of the fact that he is not in fact killing anyone? Christ seemed to teach that it is not the act in itself but the state of the heart that condemns you.

This seems to me to fit well into some OT commandmenrs , for instance against eating certain foods.

Interesting. Yes, the ancient world thought that the sperm were completely formed persons who just needed to grow mentally and physically to full stature.

the microscope showed sperm is living creatures.

St. John Chrysostom, who lived in the 4th Century AD even stated that killing sperm was an act of homicide because he ascribed to that belief in sperm being little people.

Zacharias Jansen's invention of the first light microscope took place in the 1590's, long after St. John Chrysostom died.

 22 
 on: Today at 12:01:27 AM 
Started by Nephi - Last post by Mor Ephrem
I have a variant of the first.  I like St John the Baptist.  He probably would not like me too much.  Tongue

 23 
 on: Yesterday at 11:58:49 PM 
Started by TSchristian - Last post by Mor Ephrem
Maybe nobody really cares about my opinion, but here's the definitive truth. I've had too many beers tonight and am feeling friendly. I infallibly decree that the OO and the EO hold the same faith and I think that it's all good. So be at peace. Copts rule. Such a nice people. Even in this state, I still don't trust the Latins!

I haven't had beer in a long time...   Cry

 24 
 on: Yesterday at 11:52:56 PM 
Started by TSchristian - Last post by rakovsky
Quote
Quote
My question is if this reception and hindsight is a necessity for a council to be ecumenical and infallible, how do the Eastern Orthodox explain that the subsequent councils after the first three are ecumenical and infallible without the acceptance of the Oriental Churches?
The best answer I can think for how our church explains their ecumenicity is (1) or (2),

The OP does include this:

Quote
If their consent is required as well since they [OO] also are full churches in the Eucharistic Ecclesiology, I'm having a hard time seeing how the four councils in question could have been elevated to ecumenical/infallible status without using a universal ecclesiology.
But frankly I'm not interested in tit-for-tat exchanges, so I'll bow out of this "what did the OP really ask" now.

LOL

 25 
 on: Yesterday at 11:52:55 PM 
Started by Maria - Last post by Porter ODoran
This is an interesting thought I had. Are moral principles bound to our scientific understanding and cultural awareness?

For instance, if someone before the knowledge of the female egg, spilled his seed believing he was effectively killing a human life, wouldn't that be sinful regardless of the fact that he is not in fact killing anyone? Christ seemed to teach that it is not the act in itself but the state of the heart that condemns you.

This seems to me to fit well into some OT commandmenrs , for instance against eating certain foods.

Interesting. Yes, the ancient world thought that the sperm were completely formed persons who just needed to grow mentally and physically to full stature.

This was actually an early modern idea, after the microscope showed sperm is living creatures. The ovum was already known about and was also considered the possible "homunculus."

 26 
 on: Yesterday at 11:49:46 PM 
Started by TSchristian - Last post by Porter ODoran
...

Does the Holy Spirit remain with Schismatic Bishops? This is the prickly question in regards to the OO (and the Latin Church for that matter). Traditionally (from what I understand), the answer is no. If so, than Pope Dioscoros and his successors are devoid of Grace, and not the Church. Therefore their rejection of later councils is irrelevant, because they are not in the Church anyway.

...

This seems like cyclical reasoning.
No, it isn't circular.

If Dioscorus was mistaken in his break with the Church and left the community in a spiritual sense, then his rejection of its council or its later ones does not mean that they were not ecumenical.

For example, if five members of a club are upset over financial mismanagement and leave, but it turns out that their criticisms were totally baseless, then it doesn't matter organizationally if they reject the treasurer's report: the club can continue and "unanimously" adopt the treasurer's report without them.

When the Fourth Council is taken into consideration (and how can it not be), then the reasoning is circular.

 27 
 on: Yesterday at 11:48:44 PM 
Started by Maria - Last post by Maria
This is an interesting thought I had. Are moral principles bound to our scientific understanding and cultural awareness?

For instance, if someone before the knowledge of the female egg, spilled his seed believing he was effectively killing a human life, wouldn't that be sinful regardless of the fact that he is not in fact killing anyone? Christ seemed to teach that it is not the act in itself but the state of the heart that condemns you.

This seems to me to fit well into some OT commandmenrs , for instance against eating certain foods.

Interesting. Yes, the ancient world thought that sperm were completely formed persons who just needed to grow mentally and physically to full stature.

 28 
 on: Yesterday at 11:47:52 PM 
Started by TSchristian - Last post by Alveus Lacuna
STOP IGNORING ME!!!!

 29 
 on: Yesterday at 11:46:07 PM 
Started by CopticDeacon - Last post by kijabeboy03
SO, Can we venerate icons of EO saints in the understanding that our Theology and Christology is indeed the same, but semantically different? I was thinking about adding an icon of St. Gregory Palamas or St. Joseph the Elder to my prayer corner, but I'm not sure if EO saints are taboo. I checked and confirmed that hesychasm is universally orthodox, so then I find no fault with those fathers. Certainly they intercede and pray for all but then there's the slight issue of the lack of communion in our churches. Do you EO have OO saints in your corners/hearts? And do any of us OO have EO saints in our corners/hearts? Most likely, but I'd like some clarification and detail. Thank you for your time.

NOTE: I don't mean an OO with an EO icon of the Theotokos. I have 2 EO icons of the Theotokos, I don't question that. I mean specifically orthodox saints after Chalcedon, that are not in communion with your church.

Coming from the other side of things, I have icons of St. Tekle Haimanot, the Nine Roman Saints, St. Simon al-Kharraz, Pope St. Cyril VI, and St. Gebre Menfes Qidus. I had them blessed by the priest at my old Sunday parish (an American Orthodox/OCA church), but I know the priest at my feast day parish (a Russian Orthodox/ROCOR mission) would probably have refused to bless them :-/. So it really depends on the person, no? If it were up to me I would commune wherever I'm at (Eastern or Oriental Orthodox), but some clergy allow this and others don't, which is why I was baptized Eastern Orthodox when I converted - I knew I would be moving to North America and that it would be easier to find Eastern Orthodox churches there than Oriental Orthodox ones. I hope someday we will definitively heal this schism and not have silly icons with St. Dioscorus being guided by a demon and arguments over whether Fathers like St. Severus were right or wrong...

 30 
 on: Yesterday at 11:43:35 PM 
Started by TSchristian - Last post by rakovsky
...

Does the Holy Spirit remain with Schismatic Bishops? This is the prickly question in regards to the OO (and the Latin Church for that matter). Traditionally (from what I understand), the answer is no. If so, than Pope Dioscoros and his successors are devoid of Grace, and not the Church. Therefore their rejection of later councils is irrelevant, because they are not in the Church anyway.

...

This seems like cyclical reasoning.
No, it isn't circular.

If Dioscorus was mistaken in his break with the Church and left the community in a spiritual sense, then his rejection of its council or its later ones does not mean that they were not ecumenical.

For example, if five members of a club are upset over financial mismanagement and leave, but it turns out that their criticisms were totally baseless, then it doesn't matter organizationally if they reject the treasurer's report: the club can continue and "unanimously" adopt the treasurer's report without them.


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 0.044 seconds with 17 queries.