July 24, 2014, 11:40:40 AM *
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 08:41:01 AM 
Started by JamesR - Last post by Ansgar
§4 gives no hint that Onesiphorus's household have died. There is no prayer for the dead in scripture, except in the Maccabees passage you cite.

How would you, as a protestant, respond to this interpretation of the passage?

[Because Paul speaks of Onesiphorus only in the past tense, wishes blessings upon his house (family), and mercy for him "in that day", some scholars believe that Onesiphorus had at this point died.[5] Towards the end of the same letter, in 2 Timothy 4:19, Paul sends greetings to "Prisca and Aquila, and the house of Onesiphorus", again apparently distinguishing the situation of Onesiphorus from that of the still living Prisca and Aquila. Paul's reference to Onesiphorus is sometimes cited by Catholics as an early example of prayer for the dead,[6] while some Protestants opposing this practice reject such an interpretation.[7]/quote]

 on: Today at 08:39:37 AM 
Started by JamesR - Last post by TheTrisagion
Mor and kelly both have bees in their bonnets lately. Ignore them!


I'm allergic to bees, wasps, etc.  I've been stung by them and almost died twice.  Are you wishing for my death?  If it is not a death wish, I'm not sure what this is, because I'm a man and do not wear a bonnet.  Asking for my death is a new low, even for you.  


Now I know that you have the curse of exaggerating.  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
How could  I have known that you must wear a bee bonnet to avoid being stung?

I also wear a bee bonnet when gardening, but even still, those miniature green sweat bees have gotten inside the bonnet and stung me. Nasty critters.


I'm not sure why you insist on dismissing and even ridiculing my medical condition and making me out to be a cross-dresser.  I do not wear women's clothing, and I really wish you would stop insinuating otherwise.  


Your exaggerations are something else. Are you under the influence of some substance?

Bee bonnets are not something that only females wear. Beekeepers wear those white wire mesh bonnets for protection. Those are definitely not a he/she issue, but unisexual. I also have an insect screen that I purchased from Sports Chalet. It has elastic in it and it slips over one of those boonie hats, that men wear.

Please get some sleep.
Geez Maria, I spent all night last night comforting a sobbing Mor Ephrem who had a mental breakdown from accusations transexuality and death wishes.  The only way I could comfort him was by processing around his room with the icon of St. Dioscorus, but now my own salvation is in peril for venerating a miaphysite heretic.  This whole thing goes from bad to worse.

 on: Today at 08:32:40 AM 
Started by Jetavan - Last post by TheTrisagion

Other than some people getting hurt feelings about the name, how is the team name "Redskins" causing injury?  If we revoked patents anytime someone got hurt feelings, I can think of a whole bunch of stuff that could suddenly have patents revoked. The purpose of patents is to protect intellectual property. Someone drew the Redskins logo. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but someone is still entitled to protect their property. You can't just decide to withdraw patents on offensive items because deciding what is offensive and what is not is extremely subjective.

Since you  are bringing up the issue of injury, it seems you can look this up yourself. In regard to the rest of the post, how can Redskins be a patent? It makes no sense to me. Are we talking trademarks?

Off the cuff, I do think there is a distinction between Redskins versus braves, warriors and Indians, in that the latter have known, admirable, attributes. I have not seen this with Redskins, but you have the opportunity to correct me.
You are correct, I should have said trademark, not patent. The question is not whether Redskin can be interpreted in a positive light, the question is, does the federal government get to determine what is offensive and revoke trademark based on the premise. I have no problem with people criticizing the Redskins for maintaining the name even though I personally find it to be an argument in triviality, but I do have a problem with the federal government intervening in the dispute for what I can only presume to be an effort at scoring cheap political points.

 on: Today at 08:30:24 AM 
Started by scamandrius - Last post by Ekdikos

On a side note, does the OC recognize the validity of the other Anglican/Episcopalian sacraments?

No. Except baptism in most of cases.

Anyway, I think at one point Patriarchates of Constantinople and of Romania, recognised validity of Anglican orders, whatever they meant under that. None of Orthodox Churches, not even those who at one point recognised Anglican orders, ever accepted Anglican bishop/priest/deacon as ordained.

 on: Today at 08:07:26 AM 
Started by Porter ODoran - Last post by Maximum Bob
Glory to God,  indeed.

 on: Today at 07:39:50 AM 
Started by Raylight - Last post by Gebre Menfes Kidus
I think the blessed New Testament female saints set the precedent for all Christian women. The served Christ and labored for the Gospel, but not one of them made any demands to be ordained. The example of Phoebe seems a reasonable biblical case for Deaconesses, but I don't see any biblical precedent for female Bishops or female priests.

I also think that the natural, biological differences between men and women are a significant reason. It would be quite difficult for a pregnant woman to fulfill all of her priestly duties, for example. And the call of the priesthood is by no means a higher calling than the call of motherhood.


 on: Today at 07:17:17 AM 
Started by IsmiLiora - Last post by Gebre Menfes Kidus
I kid, "Cops" is fun when there's nothing on TV, especially when I can say, "Hey, I've lived there!"

"First 48" is good too.

Every time I see a 'Cops' episode from some city in which I've lived, I have to smile. Smiley (Never been arrested, I just like to see stuff I know on TV.)

'The First 48' is really good, too. I find some parts hard to watch, like when they first tell the family of the person who died, and everyone just mills around in shock in front of the house.

The First 48 is very good, although very disturbing.


 on: Today at 07:04:11 AM 
Started by Raylight - Last post by Ekdikos

Even St. Basil the Great said his sister, St. Macrina, knew and practiced the faith so well that she was his teacher, not the other way around.

It was Saint Gregory of Nyssa who wrote about her, all three are syblings. And Saint Gregory also call Saint Basil his teacher.

 on: Today at 06:52:30 AM 
Started by William - Last post by Ekdikos
Agreed. Considering that he's so foundational for much of Orthodox Christianity, and was retroactively condemned because of unfortunate distortions centuries after his death, it's really no surprise.
I've heard Orthodox priests/theologians speak very highly of him, seemingly pretty unhappy with his condemnation.

He was not condemned. And, (Eastern) Orthodox theologians usualy quote him as "Venerable". Point of this thread is wheather somebody could confirm his cult on basis of feast day or icon.

Before entering in further discussions, here are canons of V Ecumenical Council:

Canon XIII concerning  Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus
  If anyone shall defend the impious writings of Theodoret, directed
  against the true faith and against the first holy Synod of Ephesus and
St. Cyril and his XII. Anathemas, and [defends] that which he
  has written in defence of the impious Theodore and Nestorius, and of
  others having the same opinions as the aforesaid Theodore and
  Nestorius, if anyone admits them or their impiety, or shall give the
  name of impious to the doctors of the Church who profess the hypostatic
  union of God the Word; and if anyone does not anathematize these
  impious writings and those who have held or who hold these sentiments,
  and all those who have written contrary to the true faith or against
  St. Cyril and his XII. Chapters, and who die in their impiety:  let him
  be anathema.

And now how Theodore of Mpsuestia or Nestorius and Origen were condemned:

Canon XII on Theodore of Mopsuestia
If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who has said that
  the Word of God is one person, but that another person is Christ, vexed
  by the sufferings of the soul and the desires of the flesh, and
  separated little by little above that which is inferior, and become
  better by the progress in good works and irreproachable in his manner
  of life, as a mere man was baptized in the name of the Father, and of
  the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and obtained by this baptism the grace
  of the Holy Spirit, and became worthy of Sonship, and to be worshipped
  out of regard to the Person of God the Word (just as one worships the
  image of an emperor) and that he is become, after the resurrection,
  unchangeable in his thoughts and altogether without sin.  And, again,
  this same impious Theodore has also said that the union of God the Word
  with Christ is like to that which, according to the doctrine of the
  Apostle, exists between a man and his wife, "They twain shall be in one
  flesh."  The same [Theodore] has dared, among numerous other
  blasphemies, to say that when after the resurrection the Lord breathed
  upon his disciples, saying, "Receive the Holy Ghost," he did not really
  give them the Holy Spirit, but that he breathed upon them only as a
  sign.  He likewise has said that the profession of faith made by Thomas
  when he had, after the resurrection, touched the hands and the side of
  the Lord, viz.:  "My Lord and my God," was not said in reference to
  Christ, but that Thomas, filled with wonder at the miracle of the
  resurrection, thus thanked God who had raised up Christ.  And moreover
  (which is still more scandalous) this same Theodore in his Commentary
  on the Acts of the Apostles compares Christ to Plato, Manichaeus,
  Epicurus and Marcion, and says that as each of these men having
  discovered his own doctrine, had given his name to his disciples, who
  were called Platonists, Manicheans, Epicureans and Marcionites, just so
  Christ, having discovered his doctrine, had given the name Christians
  to his disciples.  If, then, anyone shall defend this most impious
  Theodore and his impious writings, in which he vomits the blasphemies
  mentioned above, and countless others besides against our Great God and
  Saviour Jesus Christ, and if anyone does not anathematize him or his
  impious writings, as well as all those who protect or defend him, or
  who assert that his exegesis is orthodox, or who write in favour of him
  and of his impious works, or those who share the same opinions, or
  those who have shared them and still continue unto the end in this
  heresy:  let him be anathema.

Canon XI on Origen, Nestorius and others:

  If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius,
  Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious
  writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and
  anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the
  aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally
  anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety
  persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just
  mentioned:  let him be anathema.

 on: Today at 06:49:04 AM 
Started by Orest - Last post by Ekdikos
What I said is that Father Nicholas' words should not be summarily dismissed.

Which father Nicholas? He is layman, from point of view of Body of Christ. And, yes his words should be summarily dismissed, since he never bothered to prove his words by anything. He is party involved.

 First, note that I started my contribution by clearly stating "if (the report is) true, this fits with the policy of Moscow since 1921."
That is historical inaccuracy. To whom Russian Church offered integration in 1921? Then, group of priests consecrated "bishop". He was not accepted as bishop by any Orthodox Church.
If you want to discuss reasons why Church of Ukraine should be autocephalous, study Church History,, Dogmatics, Canon Law, and then offer opinion somewhere else.

The conversation then started to get a bit more complex, as shown in Reply #9. As history shows, not every saint is automatically granted respect for all of his teachings or actions, nor, as the cased with Origen of Alexandria, not every sinner's teachings or actions are automatically condemned. With a priest or bishop of the Orthodox Church, one starts with giving him the courtesy of hearing him out. The fact that this priest is a member of a church in schism does not automatically invalidate his witness.
Fact that he is in schysm automaticaly invalidate his claim to be priest, which in turn invalidate your claim he should be trusted since he is priest. That was point of professor al Misry.

That said, would you tell me what is the serious and persistent heresy that caused Moscow to anathematize Patriarch Filaret.

First, you obviouls have no clue what is anathema, and when it is applied. Second, monk Filaret was was tried for his constant disobidience for Mother Church, which first suspended him, then defrocekd, and at end excomunicated him. Excomunication is in most cases proffessed in form of anthema. Now thank you for offering your opinion on something you dont understand.

Мonk Filaret (in world Mikhail), was excomunicated on basis of following canons:
14th Canon of Sardican council
4th  Canon of Council of Antioch.
88th Canon of Saint Basil the Great

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 0.052 seconds with 17 queries.