Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
41
Faith Issues / Re: The Jesus prayer in a group setting
« Last post by Asteriktos on Today at 08:37:23 AM »
A few years ago I stayed a few days at Saint Tikhon's monastery and in the evening the monks gathered in a chapel, sat in a circle, and took turns reciting the Jesus prayer. I have since then not heard of or seen such a practice occurring elsewhere, and I wonder how common it is, and whether it also has been done in a parish setting.

I recall from a half dozen years ago an Antiochian parish doing this after Vespers, but the Jesus prayer wasn't said aloud, and people just sort of stayed put in the pews.
42
Other Topics / Re: W.A.G.-word association game
« Last post by biro on Today at 08:37:20 AM »
Therapy
43
Faith Issues / Parousia and Matthew 24:32-35
« Last post by Lepanto on Today at 07:22:14 AM »
Quote:
"From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

The obvious problem is the little word "this" in front of "generation" in 34.
The whole passage seems to be influenced by Parousia, yet here we are some 2000 years later and many passed away generations without a Second Coming.
I did some reading and research on this already, but will not share anything yet as to not bias your immediate thoughts.

What is your personal interpretation of the above?
44
Orthodox Family Forum / Re: Holding kids back in school
« Last post by rakovsky on Today at 05:47:21 AM »

There's a difference between preschool and kindergarten? You lot sure are weird.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
45
Faith Issues / Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Last post by rakovsky on Today at 05:36:56 AM »
BUT, if the Eucharist, even if only in part, can be traceable to the ritual meals of various Jewish chaburot (a kind of spiritual fellowship-group) in existence in the 1st century - of which our Lord and His Twelve may have been one instantiation - then perhaps your father may have inherited a memory, passed down only orally or non-officially, that there were, indeed two 'drinkings' of wine at the Last Supper, one of which was private, represented by the private recitation of the obligatory Jewish berakha, the other of which was corporate, represented by our Lord reciting The Berakha for all.

So, given that, even in our modern day, the Jews still practice the former while we Christians continue to corporately enact the latter, it is possible that your father is the recipient of an unofficial memory of this two-fold wine blessing-drinking: a Jewish-y one which is associated, perhaps less with the OT and more with the Talmudic or Mishnaic tradition, and the other Christian-y one being inherited by the NT tradition.

Some food for thought. It is, at the very least, an entertaining idea.


This was the theory I mentioned:



There is a theory the Last Supper included a certain kind of vegetarian Barakoth meal IIRC, a blessing meal of bread and wine.
46
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion / Re: Apokatastasis and Purgatory
« Last post by beebert on Today at 04:21:06 AM »
One of my principle disagreements with Catholicism has been the teachings concerning purgatory, temporal punishment due for sin, and indulgences.

Modern Catholic apologists often misrepresent what the RCC actually teaches purgatory to be. They use misleading metaphors and analogies that present a completely different picture from what the actual teachings consist of.

Purgatory exists solely for the forgiveness of venial sin and for the expiation of temporal punishment due for sin. That's it. Modern RC apologists have transformed purgatory into a kind of spiritual rehab where anyone affected by sin in some negative way goes to heal before entering Heaven. This simply isn't consistent with traditional teaching. One could live a horrendously sinful life, and be totally corrupted by possessing sinful appetites of all sorts; if however such a person is baptized on their death bed, they are going straight to Heaven in RC teaching in spite of all of their still existent spiritual or moral frailties. This is the case because purgatory in Catholicism is principally about a satisfaction of justice; the Baltimore catechism says as much:

Quote
Q. 1386. Since God loves the souls in Purgatory, why does He punish them?

A. Though God loves the souls in Purgatory, He punishes them because His holiness requires that nothing defiled may enter heaven and His justice requires that everyone be punished or rewarded according to what he deserves.

This brings me to my objection to the Catholic conception of "temporal punishment" due for sin. Temporal punishment in my view is an arbitrary perforation of God's forgiveness. A Catholic confesses the sin of lust, a mortal sin in RC theology; in confession the eternal punishment (Hell) is removed but temporal punishment remains. This is like facing jail time for not paying your debts and the bank forgives you in the sense that they won't get you sent to prison, but they still expect you to personally pay back the money in some fashion.

When it comes to temporal punishment for the RCC, the Catholic must make personal satisfaction for this punishment either through acts of penance (indulgences or otherwise) or personal suffering in this life or the next (purgatory). Begging pardon but wasn't one of the entire points of Christ's sacrifice that Christ suffered personally for our sake so that we did not have to suffer personally in payment of a debt that we could never repay?

This doesn't mean we are immune from the CONSEQUENCES of our sins, but this is not synonymous with the Catholic idea of temporal punishment which is rooted in a legal framework. If I am a recreational drug abuser, I'm doing harm to my body, I'm sinning. When I repent I still have to deal with the consequences of my sin; I may have health problems that last me my entire life, but this 'punishment' is not the same as the legal punishments imposed under the Catholic conception of temporal punishment due for sin. This is why I call it an arbitrary perforation of God's forgiveness; the sinner repents, and God decrees that Jesus' sacrifice is only applicable to satisfy only most of the injustice? The other leftover bit of punishment for the injustice done to God has to be personally satisfied by the sinner himself? It begs the question: how can any human deed satisfy any iota of an injustice done to God? This takes us to the problem of indulgences.

The RCC teaches that indulgences are one method of expiating the temporal punishment due for our sins thereby satisfying the 'leftover' injustice done to God after the eternal punishment has been remitted. How does an indulgence remove temporal punishment and satisfy God's demand for justice? Well according to the RCC indulgences apparently apply the merits of Christ and the Saints to your 'debt' thus remitting your temporal punishments in part or in whole. Now the problem with this to me is first off, it is a crude anthropomorphization of the spiritual, likening the merits of Christ and the Saints to a kind of supernatural currency that gets applied to our accounts with our spiritual debts. Moreover, there is an inexplicable inconsistency in the applicability of Christ's merits. So on the one hand, Christ's merits normally apply to us in the expiation of our eternal punishment, but our temporal punishment is leftover for us to satisfy personally. Despite this, we can also get Christ's merits applied to us again... this time for our temporal punishment too, but in the form of an indulgence. Once again, this entire system is based on an arbitrary perforation of God's forgiveness.

The logic of the indulgence quickly spirals into the absurd. Working under the framework of purgatory as a kind of prison one serves "time" in, indulgences used to have a certain number of 'days' attached to them. The function was that for an indulgence worth 100 days, it was akin to having the works of the indulgence be worth the merits of 100 days of Earthly penance which would then be applied to the soul in some mysterious and ambiguous way. The indulgence worth 100 days might equate to 1,000 purgatory days; or if there is no time in purgatory it might lessen the suffering to some degree or another. These strange notions led to the ludicrous creation (possibly forgeries or unauthorized indulgences in some cases) of indulgences claiming to be worth hundreds or even thousands of years of Earthly penance. One of the more ridiculous was a claim of an indulgence worth 14,000 years in the 1300s. With such craziness is it any wonder Pope Paul VI did away with this entire system of calculation in the 1960s? Most Catholics don't even know about this aspect of the history of indulgences.

Ultimately, I see the Catholic conceptions of all three of these ideas: purgatory, temporal punishment, and indulgences as fatally flawed and when one leg of this three legged stool is knocked away, the entire thing falls down because they logically feed off of each other.
Is God 's justice greater than his love? Why create life just in order to be policeman?
47
Orthodox Family Forum / Re: Holding kids back in school
« Last post by Arachne on Today at 04:19:38 AM »
Send him to kindergarten. Then, if at the end of the year he doesn't seem ready to progress into grade school, hold him back. Kindergarten is about learning the first degree of independence from the parents, coexistence with other kids and functioning in an organised environment, none of which will improve if he's simply kept at home.

My guess is that he is already in a preschool since the OP mentions "class" in his post. I worked at a preschool before having kids. Parents that didn't send their kids onto kindergarten just had their kids remain in preschool another year. It was fairly common to do this with kids born on the edge of the age cutoff, I'd say that the mix was about 50/50 between kids going off to kinder and just staying in preschool. If the preschool is a good one (the one I worked at was NAEYC accredited) staying "back" a year didn't mean a lack of challenge for the child. None of the parents that decided to hold off on kinder regretted it. On the other hand, at least half of the parents that decided to enroll early wished they hadn't (they had younger kids still at the center so we chatted). The ones that didn't regret it were the ones that coached their kids at home literally for years so they would pass the IQ tests and be eligible for enrollment in the expensive private schools.

Also, repeating kinder is considered regression or stagnation in my experience. You are "held back" to repeat kinder because kids generally don't spend a couple years in kinder. Whereas it is pretty normal to do 2 years of preschool.

There's a difference between preschool and kindergarten? You lot sure are weird.
49
Orthodox Family Forum / Re: Holding kids back in school
« Last post by Quinault on Today at 03:41:31 AM »
As a teacher (I taught classes and tutored kids thru the Boys and Girls Club for years before having my own children) I really hated seeing kids that started school young only because they were just old enough for first grade (and not because they were ready). The impact continues for the entire academic career, not just that first year. Emotional and social readiness aren't something that comes entirely from practice, it is part of the development of a child and as such it is a spectrum. Practice helps, but it can't create skills that aren't at least in some form already in place. Proper socialization isn't just about speaking with a wide variety of people; it is also about having the ability to know how one should behave. A 2 year old can't comprehend that passing gas is rude, whereas my 3-almost-4 year old understand I don't appreciate it when he farts in my face. :D
50
Orthodox Family Forum / Re: Holding kids back in school
« Last post by Quinault on Today at 03:24:56 AM »
Send him to kindergarten. Then, if at the end of the year he doesn't seem ready to progress into grade school, hold him back. Kindergarten is about learning the first degree of independence from the parents, coexistence with other kids and functioning in an organised environment, none of which will improve if he's simply kept at home.

My guess is that he is already in a preschool since the OP mentions "class" in his post. I worked at a preschool before having kids. Parents that didn't send their kids onto kindergarten just had their kids remain in preschool another year. It was fairly common to do this with kids born on the edge of the age cutoff, I'd say that the mix was about 50/50 between kids going off to kinder and just staying in preschool. If the preschool is a good one (the one I worked at was NAEYC accredited) staying "back" a year didn't mean a lack of challenge for the child. None of the parents that decided to hold off on kinder regretted it. On the other hand, at least half of the parents that decided to enroll early wished they hadn't (they had younger kids still at the center so we chatted). The ones that didn't regret it were the ones that coached their kids at home literally for years so they would pass the IQ tests and be eligible for enrollment in the expensive private schools.

Also, repeating kinder is considered regression or stagnation in my experience. You are "held back" to repeat kinder because kids generally don't spend a couple years in kinder. Whereas it is pretty normal to do 2 years of preschool.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »