Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
61
Oriental Orthodox Discussion / Re: Question for the orientals
« Last post by Deacon Lance on Today at 04:49:11 PM »
Wgm:"What Pope Cyril IV did seems to me to simply have made the burning of the life-expired and unserviceable icons a public affair on one occasion to quash inappropriate worship of the icons rather than veneration, or dangerous superstitions regarding them, of the sort that are sadly rampant in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church."

And what would those be?
62
Try to get a low church Anglican and a high church Anglican in one room and start talking about what Anglicanism is and isn't. You'll be in for a lot of fun.
Okay. I'll narrow it down to High Church.

Most of the "high church" stuff was illegal in the Church of England for a long time. Iconoclasm and Calvinism were the norm in many parts.  A lot of things taken for granted in Anglican churches nowadays- vestments, crucifixes, processions, etc.- would have sent the early English reformers into a homicidal fit.
63
Oriental Orthodox Discussion / Re: Question for the orientals
« Last post by Deacon Lance on Today at 04:46:17 PM »
I don't believe John Watson's account of iconclasm in Egypt is at all accurate. There are contemporary accounts by Western visitors and eyewitnesses who do not describe it in such a manner at all. And as I have written elsewhere, he was responsible for building churches with iconstases and had icons produced for them.
What reason for the accusation then?
64
We don't. I have a soft spot for High Church Anglicans and clergy like NT Wright and Rowan Williams. However with the direction the Anglican Communion is taking and its tolerance for things contrary to Christianity like homosexuality. I have no problem with gay priests under the provision that these priests are aware of their disorder and struggle against it through God. However its tolerance of homosexuality and over accommodating stance is something that I can never accept. We don't play Via Media when it comes to our theology.
Does High Church Anglicanism claim to "infallibly" teach that homosexuality is not wrong?

I don't think so, at least from what I know. But if Anglicanism wants to be Orthodox, it must shed its Via Media stance that accommodates Protestantism and it's tendency to be flexible in issues such as homosexuality and abortion.

Well, if Anglicanism does not claim to teach infallibly, then I guess I don't have to believe them. :)
65
Convert Issues / Re: Being Orthodox in a Frozen Chosen House
« Last post by rakovsky on Today at 04:41:45 PM »
It would be better for everyone to return to the topic of this thread and abandon the various tangents that have emerged after the Domostroi was introduced into the conversation.  This is getting ridiculous.
Thank you. Can I still ask who are the Belokrinitsa and wives of Kitezh? It sounds like an Orthodox thing I never heard of.
66
Other Topics / Re: W.A.G.-word association game
« Last post by Maria on Today at 04:40:56 PM »
criminal
67
Convert Issues / Re: Catholic Searching for Truth
« Last post by Alxandra on Today at 04:38:59 PM »
Any good recommendations on practices to live the Orthodox life instead of merely studying it in books, etc.,???

Hello Landon :)

Visiting Orthodox monasteries and talking with some of the elders and monks is a great way to learn about Christ's truth since they are very wise.

68
Convert Issues / Re: Catholic Searching for Truth
« Last post by Landon13 on Today at 04:35:21 PM »
Any good recommendations on practices to live the Orthodox life instead of merely studying it in books, etc.,???
69
In addition, I thought that I could reject Protestantism just by supporting Apostolic Succession…until I learned that the Anglicanism also has an unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession. The Church of England was founded by bishops, and they ordained their ministers by the laying on of hands.

Since you brought it up, what is "apostolic succession"?

The Apostles appointed bishops as their successors by the laying on of hands. The bishops lay their hands on their successors. Etc. With an unbroken chain of bishops, the Church has valid Apostolic Succession.

Is this your own definition?  Or is it something you've been taught?  And is this enough for you, or are you open to considering a different definition?   

For the Orthodox, what you have described above is, at best, an incomplete definition of apostolic succession.   

I'm open to considering a different definition.
70
In addition, I thought that I could reject Protestantism just by supporting Apostolic Succession…until I learned that the Anglicanism also has an unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession. The Church of England was founded by bishops, and they ordained their ministers by the laying on of hands.

Since you brought it up, what is "apostolic succession"?

The Apostles appointed bishops as their successors by the laying on of hands. The bishops lay their hands on their successors. Etc. With an unbroken chain of bishops, the Church has valid Apostolic Succession.

Is this your own definition?  Or is it something you've been taught?  And is this enough for you, or are you open to considering a different definition?   

For the Orthodox, what you have described above is, at best, an incomplete definition of apostolic succession.   
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »