Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion / Re: Traditional Catholicism
« Last post by AlioshaKaramazov on Yesterday at 10:01:52 PM »
From what I've seen while being a traditional RC, not all traditional Catholics believe in a Feeneyite version of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" where everyone outside of their little sect is condemned to Hell no matter what (that is, some are saved through invincible ignorance or Baptism of Desire/Blood). As for the Orthodox, they'll be able to give you a better answer, but I think they too see the Orthodox Church as the Ark of Salvation outside of which there's no, well, salvation. But it doesn't seem to be a rigorist version of "EENS" either.
Faith Issues / Re: Profession of renunciation
« Last post by Porter ODoran on Yesterday at 09:41:51 PM »
What is the Tanya?
I was an American expatriate in England. My history as a Protestant and my adopted history as an Anglophile and Anglican priest was Western. My roots were in Rome, not Constantinople.

I had another observation and criticism of  those who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. Not wishing to judge them, but it seemed to me that like the good Protestants they were, they were still choosing the church they liked best. There was something “denominational” about their choice. Was it really Catholic to choose “which” Catholic church you were going to join? Was it really Catholic to sniff around and pick the one you thought best?

It's hilarious that people who choose Orthodoxy are making a "denominational" choice, but if you choose Catholicism then it's fine to make arguments about your roots and you're definitely not picking the church you like best.

And as for whether it's really Catholic to pick the church you think is best- how else do you do it? For me, the church I think is best is the church I think is The Church. That's how I made my choice. I assume people who convert to Roman Catholicism make that choice for the same reason- they seek to join what they believe to be the ark of salvation. Why assume less of people?

"Not wishing to judge them, but it seemed to me..." is just the smug ecclesial version of "Not to be a racist, but..."

He does it here, too:

But I never considered becoming Eastern Orthodox because it seemed to me to be too intrinsically interconnected with particular nationalism and ethnicity. I was done with that when I left Anglicanism.

In that respect there were many similarities between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism. To be really Anglican I think you have to be English. To be really Orthodox you have to be Greek or Russian or Bulgarian. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not slighting those who have converted to Orthodoxy. God bless them, and I wish them well.

Sure you are. You're taking an assumption you made from the outside looking in and now you're peddling it definitively: "To be really Orthodox you have to be Greek or Russian or Bulgarian." But two can play at this game: "To be really Catholic, you have to be Roman." Isn't this fun?

An excellent breakdown.

I don't know how anyone who understands Christian history would think the British Isles have any special affinity with Rome. Further, he's not even British. A bizarrely poor argument all around -- altho it has the propagan, jingoistic version of Orthodoxy to make an emotion-based argument against, in itself it has nothing really to make a good argument for.
Oriental Orthodox Discussion / Re: Oriental Orthodox Picture of the Day
« Last post by RaphaCam on Yesterday at 09:36:08 PM »
I always wonder how it would be if the West never abandoned Latin. We'd probably use a simpler form of Ecclesiastical Latin, full of loans and modern words, and while places like England or Germany would have very clear boundaries between formal and colloquial language, we might still find code-switching on formal occasions, and Romance-speaking countries would have many levels, from completely vulgar to merely accented Latin, with a wide spectrum inbetween.
Faith Issues / Re: Profession of renunciation
« Last post by Faithseeker on Yesterday at 09:32:44 PM »
I hold great appreciation for aggadah - parables, spiritual nuggets - and yes indeed,  they are found throughout the writings of the Church Fathers.

To say that the Talmud is on par with Scripture would be wrong from both the Jewish and Christian perspective. It expounds upon the text of Scripture.

Having already stated the obvious - that the fundamental separation is the belief in the Incarnation and in turn,  the Trinity - it might be of interest to some that the Shema (Deut. 6:4) Shema Yisroel, Adonoy Eloheinu, Adonoy Echod - Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, is one God - has been expounded ad infinitum regarding the oneness of the Godhead - Echod (infinitely one) as opposed to Yachid (numerical one). Why is the name of God repeated 3 times culminating in Echod? For Christians,  the answer is obvious. It has been expounded for centuries within Judaism to the effect in the most advanced texts, the 3 "most powerful" (for lack of a better English phrase) aspects or essences of God, including the Shekhinah (Most Holy Spirit) make up the Person of the Godhead.

Have I ever said that the writings found in Judaism have equal status to the Church?  No - indeed,  I've stated that Judaism lays behind a veil.  One that is actually more transparent in the mystical writings - one of the fundamental texts of Chabad Chassidus - Likutei Amorim Tanya - when studied alone from an Orthodox perspective, is replete with references to the Living Torah,  the Messiah and the essence of the Trinity.
Yet, veiled behind centuries of persecution and bias against Christianity (based on historical persecution in the name of Christ),  the commentaries on the Tanya are incomplete due to this veil.

I actually began studying the Tanya from an Orthodox Christian perspective about 20 years ago and I was amazed to find such transparency but this is not one that will be revealed to the Jewish people until Our Lord's Second Coming.
I read this a few minutes after it appeared on Google News yesterday morning. I have no problem with it. He never really explored Orthodoxy and he is satisfied with Roman Catholicism. I never heard of him before.
I don't think MSA and the colloquial Egyptian dialects would be mutually intelligible though, there's probably a lot of language interaction, but if we could pick an Egyptian from an isolate village with no exposition to MSA and make him watch the news in al-Jazeera, I don't think he'd grasp it. Dominika may correct me if I'm wrong.

I can tell you clearly from my experience, yes.  I can only understand colloquial Egyptian Arabic.  MSA is very difficult for me.  But that's also because I'm born and raised American.  An educated Copt would know MSA (usually a good high school graduate).

Thanks Mina and RaphaCam
Arabic, like Chinese, has a number of dialects.  Chinese dialects, generally speaking, aren't mutually intelligible (and thus the creation of Mandarin based off the dialects of Northern China) and thus my interest in the topic of Arabic dialects. 8)
Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion / Traditional Catholicism
« Last post by JonathanSantiago on Yesterday at 09:09:18 PM »
According to traditional Catholics (mostly sedevacantists ) the Vatican 2 church is a false church. All the Vatican 2 popes are antipopes. I agree with traditional Catholicism that the Roman Catholic Church lost so much with the change of the mass. The current mass is very bland in comparison etc. But something bothers me about traditional Catholics . Traditional Catholics believe that there isn't salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church and since the current Roman Catholic Church is false that means almost every person in the world will be condemned to hell by default. That's right Orthodox christians are condemned to hell , protestants are condemned to hell. Vatican 2 Catholics are condemned to hell. And of course every person of all other religions are condemned to hell by default , atheists and nonbeliever included of course. This doctrine bothers me because isn't fair.  Most  people don't choose were when and which religion to be born. What's the Orthodox Church take of this doctrine? Do the Orthodox Church believe that all non orthodox will be condemned to hell by default ? For something most people don't have control ?
Prayer Forum / Re: Wife's final days
« Last post by Opus118 on Yesterday at 08:53:50 PM »
May her memory be eternal.
Reviews / Re: What TV shows are you watching?
« Last post by Antonious Nikolas on Yesterday at 08:42:04 PM »
To be honest some of the old cast returning is a bit jarring as they readjust to their characters, like Lucy and Andy are obviously not played by career actors which I'm forced to wince at certain moments.

Still seeing how awful Bobby's fake tears seeing Laura's picture again is pure fan service, so I'm not against their inclusion but some of the newer characters are more intriguing to me.

Also give Michael Cera an Emmy, ALL OF THEM.

I'm still waiting for Lynch to coax/bribe Michael Ontkean out of retirement to play the Sheriff Truman in at least one scene of him withering away in a hospital or something.

And to each his own of course, but Lucy, Andy, and Bobby weren't half as wince worthy for me as Cera.  I'm hoping we don't see much more of him.

How awesome is it that Lynch trolled the hell out of Michael J Anderson by replacing him with a giant electric tree with a bubblegum wad head. MJ Anderson has been talking all sorts of crap about Lynch on his personal Facebook for years so it was fantastic seeing him getting so thoroughly dunked on, even some of the dialogue jabs at him "NON-EXIS-TENT!"

Are you sure you're getting the timeline straight?  You probably know better than me since I don't keep up with the behind the scenes drama too much, but I thought Anderson's bizarre tirade was a result of Lynch's not wanting to use him, not the other way around.

And Kyle MaClachlan has knocked it out of the park so far.


Naomi Watts is amazing as always, funny she is playing another character who has to take care of someone who has amnesia. Soooo clever lol.

Yeah, she was good.

I was mesmerized whenever Tracey was on screen and she's not even the hottest chick in the show so far (that would be Darya). I think what made that face shredder scene even more horrifying was how she had this aura of innocence around her and she was a sweetheart with those two lattes!

She'll always be that little girl from The Nanny to me.

But hey she and Sam made a pretty good looking photo for the FBI after their deaths LOL.


$100000000000000 Audrey owns that glass box thing and tried to use it in order to bring back Cooper from the Black Lodge!

Will she be deformed after the bank vault incident?  Will she and Coop finally get together?  What happened to Annie?  Questions abound.

The one movie I left out, cause I didn't see Episode 3 at the time I posted that, is definitely Inland Empire. Ep3 first 15 minutes is literally an Inland Empire outtake.

Can't say I liked Inland Empire but that's not a firm opinion because I watched it on a pirated copy at low res on a tube TV. So it looked like garbage and you know when Laura Dern made that Francis Bacon face in the end, it was so goofy I laughed.

And that's the thing I don't understand the criticisms of the SFX in this show. Like it's clear to me the "lower quality" effects are intentional but they have never bothered me once, I really dig that style.

I've been meaning to go back and watch that again myself.

Maybe Lynch spent his entire SFX budget on that huge purple ocean LOL. Can you imagine that Showtime negotionation when Lynch pulled the plug the first time...

I know you're kidding, but I doubt that was that expensive.

The skyline is gorgeous, but I mean just all the scenes leading up to them dying. Those long shots ARE TO DIE FOR. And the sound design with that droning ambient in the background.

Seriously I don't mind less Angelo so far because I think the droning works so well

Agreed. The whole sequence was masterfully done.

Agreed.  There are so many moments to gush over.  Ms. Devastated Sarah Palmer unable to take her eyes off a pride of lions devouring a cape buffalo, that black thing two cells down from Bill Hastings, Matthew Lillard's performance as Hastings, Doppleganger Cooper's relentless evil diffused over two and a half decades of freedom contrasting with how Bob used to operate when he could only indulge his vices sporadically back in Leland's day, the fact that Robert Forster isn't the Sheriff Truman, and oh my gosh, the poignant final performance of Catherine Coulson as the Log Lady.  Even the Chromatics song was evocative but not derivative of Julee Cruise.
This this this.

I even liked those kids who sounded like the Everly Brothers.  I can't wait for the soundtrack to drop.

They truly give you a lot to think about.  I loved Bob/Cooper's line to Hasting's wife: "You did good. You followed human nature perfectly."  It's the perfect echo of Bob's dismissal and abuse of Earle, demonstrating the contempt the devils have for those who idolize/cooperate with them, and it made the point without being ham-fisted or preachy about it.
Yep exactly.

They're running 3 and 4 again tonight.  Who do you think the menacing force behind the casino is?
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »