Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
61
I don't find this surprising at all. John Calvin himself ruled over Geneva with an Iron Fist, enforcing his strict rules and denying dancing, drinking and gambling to the populace. Calvinism itself contributed to the rise of Capitalism through feeding upon the fear and anxiety of the people. Hard work and wealth become signs of the elect. People fearful of being the reprobate work hard to exhibit these "signs" so that they would be the "elect".

You seriously think that? Please, read the Old Testament, and the Four Gospels while you are working at that.
It is clear that all who were rich were closer to God.
In spite of what the Prophets screamed about. And then there is Him showing up! The Beatitudes are still a Mystery.
According to the world, the poor ain't got nuttin' comin' and it has nothing to do with capitalism.
God, save us from the socialist teachers of this world!

Well, if you're going to denigrate the Prophets, sweep the Beatitudes aside as irrelevant, and....


Take a look in this excerpt from a text written by a 9 Marks pastor:

''In this context, the word “Christian” can be particularly problematic. To much of the Muslim world, America, Europe, and Russia are “Christian” societies, and whatever is true for those countries is true of Christianity. Thus, when a Central Asian Muslim asks me if I am a Christian, what they mean by “Christian” is an alcohol-drinking, pornography-watching, sexually promiscuous, picture-worshipping Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic person who is part of the culture that has attempted to conquer and oppress them for centuries. Therefore, I never simply say yes. However, since Christian is a biblical word, neither do I say no. I define who I am in biblical terms apart from their historical experience.''

The link of the complete text.
http://9marks.org/article/putting-contextualization-its-place/

Lately I wish I was that, with chocolate & meat eating too!

....say things like this, then who are we to judge?  :P
62
Rome no longer applies the labels schismatic and heretic to any of the Eastern Churches then or now.  Why is it a double standard for Rome but not the EO/OO when they do the same?

Most prominent EO/OO theologians agree that our churches share the same Faith.  That is not the case with Rome.  Many of us find it patronizing when Rome tells us that we are in some imperfect way a part of the Roman Church which erroneously regards itself as being the Catholic Church.

At the recent OO/Roman dialogue in India the Romans pretty much said flat out that we have resolved all of the doctrinal differences between us and need to start moving past the dialogue phase and start acting as if we're one Church.  The OO delegates weren't convinced.  This is where the disconnect is.  We - most of us anyway, including our leading theologians - simply don't believe we share the same faith with you.

I know. I wasn't talking about Theodore. I was thinking primarily of Severus, but OOs would say the same about Leo.

So you'd be comfortable some day communing in a Church where Severus is considered to have been in heresy when he rejected Chalcedon as long as you don't have to say that about him? Because that seems to be the situation the Assyrians are currently in with regards to Theodore.

The point is, the Romans are in full on ecumenism mode because of their flawed conception of what their church is and what its role is the Christian East.  This St. Gregory thing is just the most recent example of that attitude.  Rome wrongly regards itself as being the Catholic Church and as such it thinks it can reconcile all of the disparate elements of Apostolic Christianity whether the rest of us agree or not and hold in tension theological concepts that are mutually contradictory.  My Church does not agree.

I don't think the EO are going to make some grand gesture of declaring Pope St. Timothy II or St. Severus Pillars of the Church anytime soon to coincide with the commemoration of the 21 Coptic Martyrs of Libya or the commemoration of the Sayfo, and they shouldn't.  It would be patronizing.  If we (the EO and OO) truly share the same Faith, we don't have make over-the-top schmaltzy gestures to drive that point home.

As for the OO, I'd like to believe they're the same but I'm growing skeptical. It's hardly a universal opinion. The monks of Athos tend to be stridently of the view that the OOs are not Christian.

That's not as true as it once was.



http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2014/05/high-level-coptic-orthodox-delegation-pays-historic-visit-to-the-monastic-republic-of-mount-athos/

Brothers in Christ separated by: differences in language and theological outlook, politics both civic and ecclesial.  Again, setting aside the additional differences between the West and East

Easier said than done.

why can the EO and OO declare miaphysitism and dyophysitism are compatible but Rome cannot?

It depends on what you mean by "dyophysitism".  If your definition of this term is expansive enough to include communities that still commemorate Nestorius, I think that's a bridge too far.  Its fantasies aside, Rome will not be the universal arbiter that unites Alexandria and the Church of the East.

That being said, I think the Chalcedonian position was the more Catholic, and therefore is the more correct. (Based on what the Fathers, like Irenaeus and St. Vincent of Lerins say...) Alexandrian Christology was just seemingly not as Catholic as Antiochene Christology, which was upheld by most of the Eastern Churches and by the Western Church.

I couldn't disagree more.  I think it's telling that most churches beyond the reach of the Imperium declined to accept the dyophysite formula, but this has been threshed out enough elsewhere on this board, particularly in the private fora.

Salpy,

Saw this article today: 
Catholic World Report: St. Gregory of Narek : Was the New Doctor of the Church Catholic?
It contains the following quote:

Quote
The question remains of his adherence or rejection of Chalcedon. I do not have any definitive evidence one way or another, but many people are claiming that St. Gregory upheld Chalcedon. Here is one example: “The hieromonks of the monastery of Narek, from among whom we have the remarkable mystic St. Gregory of Narek, are indisputably for the two natures in Jesus Christ” (citing J. Mecerian, La Vierge Marie dans la Littérature médiévale de l’Arménie [Beyrouth, 1954], 9).

The full context of that quote comes from this source:

Quote
Under Catholicos Ezr (630-641), at the synod of Karin (633-634), convoked under the patronage of Heraclius, and later, during the patriarchate of Nerses III (641-661), when this hierarch felt himself free of the pressure of the Armenian prince Theodore Restuni, the ecclesiastical communion with the Greeks was re-established. [3] Later, also the Catholicoi of the second half of the 7th century, Anastasius, Israel, Sahak III, are for Chalcedon. Catholicos John Oznetzi (717-728), declared himself dyophysite though prudently abstaining from using the name of Chalcedon. [4] No writings or acts against the 4th Council are found in the name of the Catholicoi who governed the Armenian Church during the period from 728 to 855. The hieromonks of the monastery of Narek, from among whom we have the remarkable mystic St. Gregory of Narek, are indisputably for the two natures in Jesus Christ. [5] During the Catholicossate of Zacharias (855-877), the synod convoked at Shirakavan in 862 with the participation of the delegate of Patriarch Photius of Constantinople, Vahan-Ohan, Archbishop of Nicaea, openly adhered to the formula of Chalcedon of the two natures and one person (prosopon), though it avoided mention of the 4th Council in order not to excite the susceptibilities of the Armenians.
Source: http://www.stgregoryarmenian.org/the-armenian-church/

The source is an Armenian Catholic source, and it is therefore going to try to view Armenian Ecclesiastical history through a lens that is favorable toward their own faith.  I'm not saying there are no bits of truth in the above statements, but they seem to be stretching things a bit far.  Also, some of the statements are vague and seem misleading.

During the period mentioned above, the Armenians at various times came under a great deal of "pressure" to accept Chalcedon.  (I'm putting it nicely by saying "pressure" because I don't want to wax polemical.  Anyone who wants to get into the details of this should ask for admission to the private forum.)  This pressure came from the Imperial powers and it of course resulted in some Church leaders considering the possibility of accepting Chalcedon, or at least making some sort of compromise.  The Catholicos Ezr was one such leader.  Nothing permanent came of it though, but his willingness to compromise resulted in his reputation being harmed.  In fact, I read somewhere that for a long time afterward scribes would write his name with the first letter inverted.


Next, there is a curious statement about St. John Otsnetsi:

Quote
Catholicos John Oznetzi (717-728), declared himself dyophysite though prudently abstaining from using the name of Chalcedon.

He was the Catholicos during the time of the Council of Manzikert, which dealt with the issue of Julianism.  That council came up with a statement of common faith that was signed by both the Armenians and the Syriac Orthodox.  This statement was entirely Miaphysite. 

I don't know what the Catholic authors mean by "declared himself dyophysite though prudently abstaining from using the name of Chalcedon."  What does that mean?  We have no problem acknowledging that Christ is fully human as well as fully divine.  Is that what is meant?  That doesn't mean St. John was Chalcedonian. 


Then there is this statement:

Quote
No writings or acts against the 4th Council are found in the name of the Catholicoi who governed the Armenian Church during the period from 728 to 855.

What does that mean?  "No writings or acts against" Chalcedon does not necessarily mean the Catholicoi during that period were in favor of Chalcedon.  The Armenian Church's opposition to Chalcedon was a settled matter, and there was no need for repeated "writings or acts." 

As for the bolded statement:

Quote
The hieromonks of the monastery of Narek, from among whom we have the remarkable mystic St. Gregory of Narek, are indisputably for the two natures in Jesus Christ.

This is literally the first time I have heard this.  Which hieromonks?  When?  And again, what is meant by "for the two natures in Jesus Christ?"  This is a vague, and therefore misleading, statement.  I would, at the very least, like some details.  I know I can absolutely say with total confidence that the Monastery of Nareg was not Chalcedonian.

And finally:

Quote
During the Catholicossate of Zacharias (855-877), the synod convoked at Shirakavan in 862 with the participation of the delegate of Patriarch Photius of Constantinople, Vahan-Ohan, Archbishop of Nicaea, openly adhered to the formula of Chalcedon of the two natures and one person (prosopon), though it avoided mention of the 4th Council in order not to excite the susceptibilities of the Armenians.

This is what the website of Holy Etchmiadzin says about the Council of Shirakavan:

Quote
The Council of Shirakavan

The primary reason for convening the Council of Shirak was a letter to the Armenians received from Patriarch Photius of Constantinople concerning the adoption of chalcedony. Patriarch Photius had repeatedly tried to convert the Armenians living in his territory to Chalcedony and had unleashed persecution against Armenians. Catholicos Zachariah I of Dzak wrote a letter to Patriarch Photius stating that the Armenian faith was in agreement with the decisions of the first three Ecumenical Councils. In his reply letter Patriarch Photius tried to prove the orthodox character of Chalcedony and once again suggested that the Armenians should adopt Chalcedony. The Council of Shirak renounced Patriarch Photius’ suggestion and after stating the faith of the Armenian Church in 15 anathema, sent the reply to Patriarch Photius.

http://www.armenianchurch.org/index.jsp?sid=1&id=4094&pid=59

^ POM.
63
I don't find this surprising at all. John Calvin himself ruled over Geneva with an Iron Fist, enforcing his strict rules and denying dancing, drinking and gambling to the populace. Calvinism itself contributed to the rise of Capitalism through feeding upon the fear and anxiety of the people. Hard work and wealth become signs of the elect. People fearful of being the reprobate work hard to exhibit these "signs" so that they would be the "elect".

You seriously think that? Please, read the Old Testament, and the Four Gospels while you are working at that.
It is clear that all who were rich were closer to God.
In spite of what the Prophets screamed about. And then there is Him showing up! The Beatitudes are still a Mystery.
According to the world, the poor ain't got nuttin' comin' and it has nothing to do with capitalism.
God, save us from the socialist teachers of this world!
64
Take a look in this excerpt from a text written by a 9 Marks pastor:

''In this context, the word “Christian” can be particularly problematic. To much of the Muslim world, America, Europe, and Russia are “Christian” societies, and whatever is true for those countries is true of Christianity. Thus, when a Central Asian Muslim asks me if I am a Christian, what they mean by “Christian” is an alcohol-drinking, pornography-watching, sexually promiscuous, picture-worshipping Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic person who is part of the culture that has attempted to conquer and oppress them for centuries. Therefore, I never simply say yes. However, since Christian is a biblical word, neither do I say no. I define who I am in biblical terms apart from their historical experience.''

The link of the complete text.
http://9marks.org/article/putting-contextualization-its-place/

Lately I wish I was that, with chocolate & meat eating too!
65
Other Topics / Re: Picture of the Day
« Last post by Maximum Bob on Today at 11:26:45 AM »
Hecma, what's the story behind that icon?
66
Other Topics / Re: What are your pet peeves and OCD's?
« Last post by Gebre Menfes Kidus on Today at 11:23:20 AM »
My biggest pet peeve: People calling me "Pete". >:(

I understand that. You have a blessed name, and it should be honored and respected.


Selam
67
Other Topics / Re: Word of the day
« Last post by LenInSebastopol on Today at 11:18:14 AM »
Retromyngent: the ability to urinate while simultaneously walking backwards.

The above was a neologism used by a British explorer in the 19th century when reporting his observation of a specific tribal practice in Africa; fallen into disuse for some odd reason.
68
Other Topics / Re: Picture of the Day
« Last post by biro on Today at 11:04:01 AM »
69
Faith Issues / Re: the question of self defense
« Last post by Alxandra on Today at 10:53:55 AM »
But strictly speaking doesn't the Gospel enjoin us to give him our wallet,,and perhaps offer him our jacket also?

Yes it does in Luke 6:29 :)
70
No second thought about after death.
How is what worries me. Pain is a drag, if I may paraphrase St. Augustine.
And i am a lot closer to death, naturally, than most here.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »