Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
51
Other Topics / Re: W.A.G.-word association game
« Last post by William T on Yesterday at 09:26:33 PM »
Navy
52
Non-Religious Topics / Re: How did you like Episode 7?
« Last post by byhisgrace on Yesterday at 09:02:02 PM »
^LOL  ;D
53
Other Topics / Re: W.A.G.-word association game
« Last post by HaydenTE on Yesterday at 08:57:56 PM »
sailors
54
Faith Issues / Re: Stations of the Cross
« Last post by Theophania on Yesterday at 08:50:19 PM »

How funny is that! You citing Mor and me in support of your peculiar interpretation of lex orandi, lex credendi, when Mor and I have been the two most vocal critics of your application of the principle. Are you trying to make us look self-contradicting? We have argued consistently against your practice of citing our liturgics as evidence to grant dogmatic authority to even the most picayune of historic claims. No self-contradiction there.

I am indeed using your and Mor's words to contradict your and Mor's repeated criticism of what I post on this principle. It's obvious both of you subscribe to the lex orandi principle, just as I do.

When you describe lex orandi, lex credendi, you endow it with a lot more meaning and authority than the Church does.  That's why I criticise you.

Well that comes when you have 70+ years experience across 14 different jurisdictions.
55
Other Topics / Re: W.A.G.-word association game
« Last post by Gamliel on Yesterday at 08:47:15 PM »
ships
56
Faith Issues / Re: Stations of the Cross
« Last post by Mor Ephrem on Yesterday at 08:34:51 PM »

How funny is that! You citing Mor and me in support of your peculiar interpretation of lex orandi, lex credendi, when Mor and I have been the two most vocal critics of your application of the principle. Are you trying to make us look self-contradicting? We have argued consistently against your practice of citing our liturgics as evidence to grant dogmatic authority to even the most picayune of historic claims. No self-contradiction there.

I am indeed using your and Mor's words to contradict your and Mor's repeated criticism of what I post on this principle. It's obvious both of you subscribe to the lex orandi principle, just as I do.

When you describe lex orandi, lex credendi, you endow it with a lot more meaning and authority than the Church does.  That's why I criticise you. 
57
Oh my goodness, this has gone on for over 200 posts.

I think things would be easier if people better understood where Rakovsky was coming from.  I don't want to read the whole thread, so I'm going to ask if anyone has asked Rakovsky if he still holds to the Christology he articulated here:


...

So now we have to consider what the basic practical meaning of "deification" is. I outlined this practical meaning in my last post. It means in practice that a person is spiritually united with God and Christ and becomes godlike, taking on divine properties like immortality. It does not mean that the person actually becomes God, the Trinity. Naturally, Theodore would agree with what I just wrote as it can obviously be shown to repeat scripture.

Of course deification does partly involve imitation. We must imitate the example of Christ, as it says we must take up our cross and follow him. Deification also in practice means uniting with God, and Theodore would admit that we do that too. In fact, Theodore taught a "hypostatic union", and hence in practice Jesus was also united with God.
https://books.google.com/books?id=tH6tOMAyRhkC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=hypostatic+union+theodore+mopsuestia&source=bl&ots=AYh78zvnKH&sig=Gug-EyhMVhFSOYrpDtTyHO1KR1Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij09WP5MPKAhVIcz4KHaRXAkoQ6AEIPTAG#v=onepage&q=hypostatic%20union%20theodore%20mopsuestia&f=false

Sure, God did give Jesus salvation, as it says in the Bible that God "raised" Him. In Psalm 22, it describes God saving the narrator - the Messiah. Of course God aids in "moral progress". Further, in practice, Jesus did become further deified, became further like God, and underwent change in this record. His flesh was mortal but became immortal.

So in practice, Theodore's theology means that Jesus is united with God, saved, became more like God, etc., thereby meeting the practical meaning of what we EOs consider Deification.

Theodore for all I know might even deny that the hypostasis of Jesus deified, but at the moment we are still operating on the premise that Orthodox formulas, logic, and terminology are not decisive and that we read these writers in an "Orthodox way."

Quote
Yes, deification, to be exact, is through the incarnate Word, fully divine and fully human.  The divinity was communicated to us through the human in the Word.  That's the point that is rejected by Nestorianism.  One of the important points of doctrine is the communicato idiomatum, also rejected by Nestorianism.
Sure, Theodore would accept that we are consubstantial with the human in Christ, and that this consubstantiality is important for having what we EOs see as deification (union with and becoming like God)
Whether Theodore would deny that we are consubstantial with Christ's divine essence (he might call it nature), which I don't think we are anyway, does not mean that he would deny that Jesus and Christians are united with God and become like him. Thus it could be that in practice and effect, on this point Theodore is in agreement, even though abstractly and in terms of formula he wouldn't be.

Further, when you write that Nestorius rejected that "The divinity was communicated to us through the human in the Word", perhaps you imply that Nestorius accepted that the salvation was only communicated through the human of Jesus' human side? But it is true that it is due to our consubstantiality with Jesus' humanity that we are united with God ourselves. We do not have consubstantiality with the divine essence, I think. So indeed, since he teaches consubstantiality of the human essence, in fact this communication of salvation can still occur as such:

The Word is divine, it is united with the Human in Christ through the "hypostatic union", both are saved and united with God, and our consubstantiality means that we also receive communication of the unity through our human essence, as we lack divine essence.

Quote
The question is are there in fact Protestants trying to rehabilitate Theodore?  Yes.  They are the same ones that are trying to rehabilitate Nestorius because of a "misunderstanding".  So, if one investigates what this misunderstanding is, it is the idea that Nestorius did not believe in two persons.  Okay, fine.  Let's grant this possibility.  Nestorius still did not believe in a communicato idiomatum, and as a result, rejected deification because of this (there's no divine properties given through the human nature).  If one modifies his terminology just to say there's full humanity and full divinity, but rejects the communication of properties,
Hold on, Mina. At the moment we are still working on the premise that terminology and formulas don't really matter, just like you asserted that Nestorius didn't believe in two persons. So Nestorius could in practice accept deification as I outlined earlier, and he could in practice accept properties - he would of course accept that Christ is human and divine and that we get divine properties like immortality too. And we have those properties communicated to us.

Quote
...and sees salvation as a mere imitation and moral progress in Jesus, then it makes no difference whether one says Christ was one or two persons, it still destroys the point of the salvation in Christ. ...
"The point of salvation in Christ" is uniting us with God, cleaning our sins away, making us like God, etc. right? And of course Theodore would agree with all of those things, and on top of that he would see the hypostatic union as well, allowing for these unifications.

You asserted: "St. Cyril even attacks Nestorian theology of the Eucharist, calling their sacrament a real cannibalism, and not the partaking of divine flesh and blood." But would Theodore admit to that? Or would he say that we do partake of divine flesh and blood? Perhaps that can occur because of the hypostatic union and because of the capability of a mystical divine presence in something that is physical like food. In fact, even if there were two persons, the divine one could still descend and create a divine change, as divinity is not limited in space and can have physical properties.

So in conclusion, if we take the premise that formulas and terms like "hypostases" and "natures" and "deification" are so fluid and relative that we can accept that opposite logic systems can still have the "Orthodox faith", and that Theodore did not actually believe in an absolutist way there were two separate persons or subjects of Christ side by side with all that entails (two totally separate souls and spiritual bodies, etc.), but was only making abstractions and follow a principle of reading authors in an "Orthodox way", then of course this can be done with Nestorius, Theodore, and others, as a result of their agreement with the real fundamentals of Christianity in the Bible, the Church fathers preceding them, and the first few Councils.

If however we must strictly follow rules of reasonable logic and terminology to conclude that a writer's propositions lead to unChristian results that the writers themselves reject, then we would be starting from a different premise.

So this all goes back to what method we must use when reviewing the major schisms from the Orthodox Church starting in the 5th century when differences seemed to start appearing in very abstract arguments and formulas. If our Church demands that we follow simple, reasonable logic about these terms (natures, wills, deification, hypostases, persons) then it is much harder to see foreign Churches and figures as Orthodox. If we make those formulas and terms so relative and only focus on whether we reach the same proclaimed practical results and just listen to the other sides defenses about how they are in accordance with our common fundamentals on scripture, then perhaps we could consider Theodore and the Nestorians "Orthodox".


(Some of the emphasis added by me.)
58
Mike,

Blessed feast day of the Mother of God of the Inexhaustible Chalice! (New Calendar)

Thank you very much for clarifying about how the original icon must have looked like.

It appears that the original may not have been lost or destroyed and is currently in a private collection. Abbess Alexia makes reference to this in two previous interviews:

Quote
— Говорят, что та самая чудотворная икона, обретенная на колокольне Георгиевского храма Владычнего монастыря в 1878 году, находится ныне в частной коллекции. Имеет ли смысл ее искать и бороться за возвращение?

— Думаю, на данном этапе смысла в этом нет, потому что очень много чудотворений от ее чтимых списков. Прошло достаточно времени с момента открытия монастыря, с момента написания копии. Проблема остро не стоит. Но, конечно, хочется знать, где подлинник, утерян он или нет.

Source: http://www.e-vestnik.ru/church/igumeniya_aleksiya_petrova_7973/

Quote
- Расскажите немного поподробнее о судьбе иконы Божией Матери «Неупиваемая Чаша», явленной во Введенском Владычном монастыре.
- По записям и по документам известно, что, когда в 1919 году закрывался наш монастырь, Серпуховской владыка епископ Мануил (Лемешевский) перенес две чудотворные иконы в храмы города. Образ Божией Матери «Неупиваемая Чаша» - в собор Николы Белого, а чудотворную икону Георгия Победоносца - в Ильинский храм, который, кстати, никогда не закрывался. Когда в дальнейшем закрывали храм Николы Белого, почти все иконы были сожжены на берегу реки Нары. На этом след иконы «Неупиваемая Чаша» теряется.
Еще до закрытия храма Николы Белого, по благословению Серпуховского владыки, было написано восемь точных списков этой иконы. Сейчас неизвестно ни местонахождение этих списков, ни местонахождение самого подлинника, который до закрытия монастыря находился у нас. По предположению одного искусствоведа, подлинник находится в Москве в частной коллекции. Насколько это верно, я не могу сказать. Дело в том, что хозяин этой коллекции - человек абсолютно далекий от Бога. Почувствовав интерес к иконе, он заломил совершенно неимоверную сумму.
Она настолько велика, что искусствовед даже побоялся произнести ее вслух. Я контактировала с этим искусствоведом через священника, чьим духовным чадом тот является и кому он хотел пожертвовать икону. Батюшка, хорошо зная о нашем монастыре, хотел бы, в свою очередь, подарить ее нам. Я подумала, что, несмотря на всю величину суммы, можно было бы объявить всенародный сбор. Наверное, икону просто выкупили бы всем миром. Через батюшку такое предложение сделано, но ответа пока никакого нет. К тому же, в силу того, что, как я сказала, коллекционер - человек неверующий, мы боимся, что по мере сбора денег, он будет постоянно увеличивать сумму «выкупа».

Source: http://www.vidania.ru/palomniki/palomnichestvo_vo_vladychnuy_monastyr.html

I hope and pray that this holy icon will return to its rightful place.
59
Other Topics / Re: W.A.G.-word association game
« Last post by William T on Yesterday at 08:16:21 PM »
Phoenicians!
60
Faith Issues / Re: Stations of the Cross
« Last post by LBK on Yesterday at 07:53:20 PM »

How funny is that! You citing Mor and me in support of your peculiar interpretation of lex orandi, lex credendi, when Mor and I have been the two most vocal critics of your application of the principle. Are you trying to make us look self-contradicting? We have argued consistently against your practice of citing our liturgics as evidence to grant dogmatic authority to even the most picayune of historic claims. No self-contradiction there.

I am indeed using your and Mor's words to contradict your and Mor's repeated criticism of what I post on this principle. It's obvious both of you subscribe to the lex orandi principle, just as I do.

Here is another statement I have made in a number of posts over the years:

Quote

What the Orthodox Church teaches and proclaims is expressed in its liturgical services (Divine Liturgy, Vespers, Matins, Compline, etc), and, in visual form, in its icons. Individual fathers may well contradict each other (even saints are not infallible), but the liturgical material is the distillation, the essence, the core of scripture, patristic writings, of Apostolic teachings, and other accepted sources such as the ecumenical councils. Even the prayers in an Orthodox prayer book are stuffed full of scripture, they are not merely "the words of men". Liturgics and iconography are the most accessible and clearest means what the whole Orthodox Church espouses and proclaims, irrespective of geographic location or jurisdiction. If one were to spend a year attending as many Orthodox services as possible, keeping one's ears open to what is read, said and sung, and one's eyes open to see the actions of clergy and to absorb what is depicted in iconography, one would learn practically all that was necessary about the faith. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

What I express there is no different to what I have quoted from you and Mor's posts above.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »