Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion / Re: Supremacy of Rome.
« Last post by Wandile on Today at 12:57:08 PM »
So why do our communions both teach he entered time at the incarnation?

Because he did.  Or do you think that God is contained in heaven?
If heaven was in time, then he didn't enter time at the incarnation... Because he would have already been in time prior to the incarnation. Ding Ding Ding

Heaven as in the dwelling of God is properly speaking, not a place but a state of being.

" a state of being" is one way of explaining how we experience being in the presence of God.

That is essentially what heaven is. Heaven is not a place. Heaven is God and us joined to him. The only possible aspect of something being created here is the occasion, not the actual object , the life of God (which is eternal and what heaven really is).
Liturgy / Re: Fellow clerics: How do you swing your censers?
« Last post by brlon on Today at 12:32:32 PM »
Perhaps a more salient point to address is how the particular censer performs and behaves during use and that can be influenced by several factors:
the weight of said censer (very important factor in determining how it moves and how much effort is required);
the length and robustness of the chains and the type of grip available;
the space available between the person censing and the person/object being censed (crashing the censer into the ikonostas or the bishop is not to be recommended);
the distance between the person censing and what is being censed - a bigger swing is needed for more distant things;
the amount of noise desired or not at the time of censing.   A joyous clanging of bells may be fine at Pascha when the people are responding to the Paschal greeting, or during the singing of the Canon, but is less suitable at a child's funeral or during an ektenia or litany for the departed when the names are being read by a barely audible priest.

It's often worth checking the censer too before use - a chain snapping at an inappropriate moment (or at any time) can have quite devastating results.

Censing whilst walking backwards needs special care too!

The orthodox church is the "the pillar and ground of the truth" according to the Bible.
And it is the only one who is the true church and it is pure and cannot be mixed with heresies.
Faith Issues / Re: Strange icons
« Last post by Theophania on Today at 12:12:50 PM »
At a certain point in time the Theotokos of Vladimir or the Rublev Trinity would have probably looked a bit odd too.

I'm sure there was an LBK back then too.
Faith Issues / Re: Strange icons
« Last post by Iconodule on Today at 12:02:32 PM »
At a certain point in time the Theotokos of Vladimir or the Rublev Trinity would have probably looked a bit odd too.
Faith Issues / Re: Strange icons
« Last post by Cognomen on Today at 11:57:44 AM »
I'm not sure what's wrong with it, per se (and I'm no authority), but it does seem strange, as in the "Strange Icons" thread, to have a pregnant Theotokos and unborn Christ.

So in that sense, it does seem to differ and be anomalous to most accepted traditional depictions. Perhaps that's what LBK's criticism is.
Liturgy / Re: Fellow clerics: How do you swing your censers?
« Last post by Bob2 on Today at 11:54:37 AM »
Not a cleric, but when I hold the censer and swing it in Church, I grap both rings in my hand and seems to allow more control.

I'm somewhat confused about why those below deacon swing the censor in church. I think I've seen this done in Greek and Antiochian parishes during the Great entrance but I'm not sure why, does this happen at other points of the service too?
Liturgy / Re: translations of the Creed
« Last post by RaphaCam on Today at 11:44:51 AM »
Thanks all. Is there one particular translation that's generally considered to be quite accurate? Or not really?

All the ones everyone has posted so far seem to have have "maker of heaven and earth" Has anyone seen it with "creator of heaven and earth" or "who created heaven and earth"?
Is there a semantic difference between creator and maker?
The Greek word in the Creed is ποιητὴν which means "maker". I suppose the council fathers could have used δημιουργός for "creator". I don't know Greek enough to know if there is a linguistic nuance here. The Bohairic Coptic version used today has vethafthamio enetve nem epkahi which is "who created heaven and earth". I'm not sure if other OO versions change the Greek grammar like this. I wouldn't consider this grammatical change inaccuarate.
Is "vethafthamio" "who created" altogether? Would it be usual to make a more literal translation into Coptic?
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion / Re: The Creed and the Filioque
« Last post by Xavier on Today at 11:41:46 AM »
Whether or not Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople thought of the procession "per Filium" as eternal or temporal is something that cannot be determined from the acts of II Nicaea.

Again, with due respect, you are contradicting yourself. Does ekporeuomenon refer only to eternal procession, in Scripture and Tradition, or doesn't it? Isn't this the basis on which you say that that word in Greek cannot be used to describe a merely temporal relation? That it therefore cannot be used in the Creed to describe the Spirit's relation to the Son? or do you say there is no difference between ekporeuomenon and processio, both can be used in a temporal sense? Patriarch Tarasius contradicts that because he speaks of the Spirit as "του Πατροσ δια του Υιου εκπορευομενον ("tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon"). Granted that ekporeuomenon always refers to an ontological eternal relation, it follows that Patriarch Tarasius manifestly confesses the doctrine that the Spirit's eternal procession from the Father is mediated through the Word.

Rome defended the formula of Patriarch Tarasius when it was attacked in the West as insufficiently Catholic. Pope St. Leo III who wrote, "The Father, complete God in Himself, the Son, complete God begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit, complete God proceeding from the Father and the Son" defended the complementarity of the two formulations using from and through to confess the same mystery. So did St. Thomas Aquinas ("because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, which has the same meaning") and so does the Council of Florence ("Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words.")

The Latin Church has innumerable ancient authorities clearly testifying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, Pope St. Hormisdas, "it is characteristic of the Father to generate the Son, characteristic of the Son of God to be born of the Father equal to the Father, characteristic of the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son in one substance of deity", Pope St. Gregory the Great, "The Spirit proceeds essentially from the Son", St. Fulgentius, "Believe most firmly, and never doubt, that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles", St. Isidore, "The Holy Spirit is called God because He proceeds from the Father and the Son and has Their essence ... There is, however, this difference between the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both." ("Spiritus sanctus ideo praedicatur Deus, quia ex Patre Filioque procedit, et substantiam eorum habet ...Hoc autem interest inter nascentem Filium et procedentum Spiritum sanctum, quod Filius ex uno nascitur; Spiritus sanctus ex utroque procedit."  etc etc Do you wish to claim the Greek Fathers are in opposition to this Tradition?

While I'm more than willing to let it be a matter of opinion as to whether the Spirit's procession through the Son is either temporal or eternal

But it isn't a matter of opinion, that is the point. It is something we must "believe most firmly and never doubt" in the words of St. Fulgentius. Pope St. Hormisdas' confession of faith describes it as foundational to faith in the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

the Spirit proceeded not from the persons but from the essence

Show me any competent theologian (a king who wrote about in passing doesn't count) in the Latin Church who held that the Spirit proceeds from the Essence, St. Thomas denies it and so does the Fourth Lateran Council, "The substance neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds; the Father begets, the Son is begotten and the holy Spirit proceeds. Thus there is a distinction of persons but a unity of nature."

It is denial of the Filioque which leads to Sabellianism. Tell me how, in eternity, the Spirit is to be distinguished from the Son? If there is no mutual relationship between the Son and the Spirit, they would collapse into a single Person, since it is the relations between the Persons that distinguish Them. But this is heretical and leads to Sabellianism. Thus there must be an eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit.

Will answer the point about the fount of Life proceeding from God and the Lamb later. Just one point for consideration now, like St. Ambrose, St. Athanasius also taught that the Spirit is Life and that the Father and the Son are His fount, "David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the fount of Life;'because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the fount of the Holy Spirit"
Liturgy / Re: translations of the Creed
« Last post by MalpanaGiwargis on Today at 11:27:41 AM »
Why do you add the phrase "God of God"? The Greek text reads "Φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεόν ἀληθινόν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ" = "Light of Light, true God of true God"

The liturgical version of the Latin has it; it was present in the Creed of 325, but not present in that of 381. Since the Gelasian Sacramentary omits it, I don't know how it found its way back into the Latin.
Not really, the first Nicaean creed reads "κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς μονογενῆ, τοὐτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ..» = Lord Jesus Christ, the son of God, only-begotten of the father, that is of the substance of the father, God of true (or very) God..

The text of the creed of 325 I am looking at omits ἀληθινοῦ. Perhaps a textual variant?
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »