October 23, 2014, 04:17:56 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 »
 on: Today at 03:14:21 PM 
Started by Heorot - Last post by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
This discussion is so fascinating. I feel like I am witnessing aliens debating the finer points some sort of alien transaction. How can the RC position on marriage relevant for human beings?

 on: Today at 03:04:19 PM 
Started by Maria - Last post by Maria

 on: Today at 03:02:22 PM 
Started by kelly - Last post by minasoliman

You people should still dress like that. Turbans are awesome.

The second and third pictures are turbans brown or black in color. All Christian men were forced to wear this spacific color to tell them from the Muslims (this remnant exists in our priests and bishops today). The first picture of Girgis el Gohari was an official working for Napoleon who would share the grievances of Copts.

If you visit the villages today in Egypt, that is still the norm, but there is no longer that color differentiation.

 on: Today at 02:58:08 PM 
Started by dhinuus - Last post by dhinuus
also, God never does anything 'in the hope that...'
He is all knowing and knows which path we will choose before we do.

Not to take the discussion off the topic. I have wondered about this. If God knows exactly what we will choose; then do we really have a "free will".  Also if if God knows the terrible evil and injustice we are going to commit on other fellow beings ahead of time and still allows it to happen even though it is fully with in His power not to allow it to happen; then isn't it fair to say 'everything including evil, originates from God; or God is the source of evil as well' ?

 on: Today at 02:52:30 PM 
Started by qawe - Last post by katherineofdixie
This was an obstacle for me and I researched it quite exhaustively. Most of the explanations, some of which have been offered here, frankly weren't convincing (forgive me!) This, from Fr. Alexander Schmemann, of blessed memory, was the most convincing - to me, at least.

"Dear Friend:
When you asked me to outline the Orthodox reaction to the idea of women's ordination to the priesthood, I thought at first that to do so would not be too difficult. It is not difficult, indeed, simply to state that the Orthodox Church is against women's priesthood and to enumerate as fully as possible the dogmatical, canonical, and spiritual reasons for that opposition.
On second thought, however, I became convinced that such an answer would be not only useless, but even harmful. Useless, because all such "formal reasons" - scriptural, traditional, canonical - are well known to the advocates of women's ordination, as is also well known our general ecclesiological stand which, depending on their mood and current priorities, our Western Brothers either hail as Orthodoxy's "main" ecumenical contribution or dismiss as archaic, narrow-minded, and irrelevant. Harmful, because true formally, this answer would still vitiate the real Orthodox position by reducing it to a theological context and perspective, alien to the Orthodox mind. For the Orthodox Church has never faced this question, it is for us totally extrinsic, a casus irrealis for which we find no basis, no terms of reference in our Tradition, in the very experience of the Church, and for the discussion of which we are therefore simply not prepared.
Such is then my difficulty. I cannot discuss the problem itself because to do so would necessitate the elucidation of our approach - not to women and to priesthood only - but, above all to God in his Triune Life, to Creation, Fall and Redemption, to the Church and the mystery of her life, to the deification of man and the consummation of all things in Christ. Short of all this it would remain incomprehensible, I am sure, why the ordination of women to priesthood is tantamount for us to a radical and irreparable mutilation of the entire faith, the rejection of the whole Scripture, and, needless to say, the end of all "dialogues." Short of all this my answer will sound like another "conservative" and"traditional" defense of the status quo, of precisely that which many Christians today, having heard it too many times, reject as hypocrisy, lack of openness to God's will, blindness to the world, etc. Obviously enough those who reject Tradition would not listen once more to an argument ex traditione...."


 on: Today at 02:52:24 PM 
Started by kelly - Last post by Alpo

You people should still dress like that. Turbans are awesome.

 on: Today at 02:50:02 PM 
Started by kelly - Last post by minasoliman
I like my version better.  Grin
I thought it was some sort of old pagan ritualistic boy that Sts. Cyril and Methodius came to end.

Ummm, Mina, your post doesn't make sense.  Huh

I thought it symbolized paganism of some sort.  I don't know.  Just a silly guess on my part.

Actually, you're right. What I said doesn't make sense. What I meant was I thought this was a representation of some old pagan ritualistic look that is symbolized in an immature boy that the saints came to abolish.

 on: Today at 02:49:10 PM 
Started by Heorot - Last post by Paisius
This popped into.my head as I read today's posts here in this thread. As Judge Judy entitled her first book, "Don't  ---- on me and tell me it's raining. "

So..if a Roman priest has doubts about the real presence, but offers Mass and distributes Communion anyway, according to Rome, the Mass is "valid" but if the lay "celebrants" of the marriage "ex post facto" are adjudicated to not have had the proper "understanding" of marriage, it never took place?

I have to be misunderstanding something here as that makes no sense.

As I understand it, if a priest has doubts about the "Real Presence" but nonetheless has the intent to do what the Church does when celebrating Mass, that intent suffices for a valid Mass.  

Does a couple getting married in the Church have the intent to do what the Church does when they get married?  

That's not the test applied to marriage as I understand it. A valid marriage requires objective understanding not just subjective intent (if that makes sense).

 on: Today at 02:46:18 PM 
Started by wainscottbl - Last post by katherineofdixie
We should only celebrate holidays that were made glorify Christ and the Saints and none other.

What about national holidays like Veterans' Day? Should the memory of those who gave their lives in service to their country be done away with?

Or Mother's Day?

Just try ignoring your mom on Mother's Day.

Or the 4th of July?

Or, (gasp!) Oxi Day?

 on: Today at 02:44:28 PM 
Started by qawe - Last post by minasoliman
I think priesthood isn't an option for women in the Orthodox Church simply because it goes against Tradition and the idea that Priest are to be a living representation of the Bridegroom, as someone else mentioned earlier.

The thing is, the Catholics also use this argument for why they insist on their priests being celibate. How can a priest be like the Bridegroom, who is married to the Bride, the Church, and yet also have a wife of his own?

Agreed! While the RCs seem to have figured it out, I don't think that's the real answer, or the complete answer, and we need to search within our tradition to figure out why this is the case. All mankind, male or female represent Christ. Christ came on behalf of all.  His maleness does not mean women are excluded.  The way we can know the answer is to study proper ecclesiological practices and the meaning behind them.  St. Ignatius leaves us with this, that the bishop represents the Father, the presbyter the apostles, and the Deacon Christ.  It is true at times he exhorts those to submit to the bishop as the Church submits to Christ, but essentially, we find that this relationship is very specific within a context of Christ-Church relationship.  But Christ being all in all, is represented best by the deacon, who can be male or female, and the presbyter represented by the Apostles, who were only male, and the bishop being the Father, who as a "father" is chosen as male.  This I think is the best explanation thus far I feel that would suffice for me.

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.