Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
Faith Issues / Re: Tempted Just As We Are
« Last post by Georgii on Today at 05:51:03 PM »
"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin." - Heb. 4:15

What does "tempted" mean here? What does it not mean?

Just offhand, Jesus' temptation in the desert after His baptism, His Agony in the Garden, and the various humiliations before and on the Cross, which He could have avoided.

What does "tempted" not mean? Again speaking offhand, He did have perfect knowledge of the consequences if He did sin. We sinners do not have such perfect knowledge about the consequences of our sins, though I for one know them well enough, and stand accused.

I know it's only under special circumstances, but infallibility is kind of a non-communicable attribute of God under any circumstances, is it not?

I admit I could be wrong on this.
Not a canonical one.  The Orthodox as a courtesy in fact have, along with the Roman Catholics, generally avoided creating bishoprics in Western Europe that overlap in name with existing Roman Catholic or Anglican bishophrics.  Thus the Greek Orthodox ordinary in the UK is the Metropolitan of Thyateira, assisted by the suffragan or "auxiliary" Metropolitan of Diokleia, who we all know and love so well.   The Greek Orthodox have a Metropolis of Italy, Malta and San Marino.

There is or was an Old Calendarist Bishop of Aqueila, which used to be a very important see in the Western Church before losing its distinction to Venice.

But I don't think any of the canonical churches want to have a Bishop of Rome for the obvious harm this would do to ecumenical relations.  Or even Archbishops of Canterbury or York, however much the disaffected Anglicans among us would rejoice at that thought.
IIRC it's actually against British law to have a non Anglican bishop named in those sees. Which is why Rome never tried to reclaim the title

Interesting. I wonder how that works ...

If I start a blog calling myself Archbishop of Canterbury, will they shut it down?
Liturgy / Re: Latin in Liturgy, prayers, etc
« Last post by Volnutt on Today at 05:35:38 PM »

Also side question; in the first couple of centuries, were services as elaborate as today and what language did the first Christians use?

If anything, they were more elaborate (or, at the very least, they were longer; about six hours!) Services tended to get shorter and simpler over time, with few exceptions. I call this process "ecclesial entropy". It's quite the opposite of what many Protestants think happened (they think the early church was "plain and simple" until the "traditions of men" came and made everything complicated and Catholic-y. But the actual history shows the opposite as having occurred).

How does this square with Pliny the Younger's report, though (a meeting at sunrise followed by a break and then another meeting for the Eucharist)? Did they then spend the entire afternoon worshipping?

I'd like to hear from Minnesotan what he had in mind when he wrote the quote above, particularly with regard to how he is using "elaborate". 

In any case, there is a historical progression in which we get to what you describe (more or less, "a meeting at sunrise followed by a break and then another meeting for the Eucharist") from what Minnesotan describes ("longer...about six hours!").

How? What I was talking about is way early.
As to 'forcing' a photographer to film this or that he finds abhorrent, if he finds biracial marriage contrary to God's law can he rightly decline to photograph it, or if he runs a bed and  breakfast decline to rent a room or serve a meal? May he decline to cater a non Kosher reception for a Jewish couple married in a Reform Temple? Be careful before you answer this.

If an Orthodox church in Indiana were to run a hospital which serves the public like a Catholic one, may it refuse to hire a Jewish physician or an unbeliever? Even if, as is the case in Catholic health care, the professional employee agrees contractually  to abide by the restrictions on practice required by the Catholic faith?

Long ago Brandeis aptly observed that hard cases make bad law. These cases are indeed hard and i fear that the ambiguities in these laws will lead to either bad law, or like the laws dealing with pornography, they will remain on the books but be ineffective and of little practical use.

Do you want my opinion on these paragraphs?  I ask because I cannot guarantee what percentages of this opinion will be based on solid legal precedent or just talking out of my bum.   

"Of course there is some nuance here but anyone who thinks this is simple is deluded."  You ain't kiddin', homedad.

EDIT/ADDENDUM - Regardless, I am going to spend some time thinking about this.  If I have veered towards politics (in a polemical/ideological fashion) that was not my intent.  I have been trying to look at the legal situation as I don't think we can really talk about the religious implications without reaching an understanding of what this law is and does.
If I am reading this right (legislation and sausages indeed!) -

Section 9: This law can be used as a defense even if the the government entity is not a party.  So, Joe Bob vs First Crystal Methodist Church, the State of Indiana is not a party, they did not do the interfereing in religion, but this law can still be used as a defense by the First Crystal Methodist Church.  The .govs would then be unconditionally required to intervene due to convocation of this law as defense.

I think this is more recognition of things that can exist - two private entities suing one another.  (E.g. - the Colorado gay cake case - Craig vs Masterpiece Cakeshop.) 

Section 11 states: This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee. 

I am not 100% fluent in Legalese but this sounds like it is trying to NOT make a case for private action.

Faith Issues / Re: do you keep the Wednesday and Friday fast?
« Last post by PeterTheAleut on Today at 05:14:30 PM »
I am amazed at how many people say they only stay away from meat. Is that even considered fasting? Why pick and choose what you want, how prideful and self-willed is that! Follow what the Church tells you to follow.

*grumble grumble*

So what does your fasting regimen look like?  I don't recall you volunteering that information in this thread...

I avoid eating dog and koala bears every 6th Tuesday of the month

No, be serious.  You are the one judging others' fasting disciplines for being prideful and self-willed, so obviously you must be a humble and obedient faster.  Edify us that we may learn from your good example.

Do you ever post anything except snarky aggressive remarks?
Marc, whatever conflict you may be having with another poster on the Politics board needs to stay on the Politics board. Don't bring it here.
Faith Issues / Tempted Just As We Are
« Last post by Justin Kissel on Today at 05:12:36 PM »
"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin." - Heb. 4:15

What does "tempted" mean here? What does it not mean?
Oriental Orthodox Discussion / Re: Reconciliasion with God, Question
« Last post by wgw on Today at 05:09:13 PM »
The OSB isn't contradicting that doctrine however.  In confession you are confessing directly to God, to Christ, the Highest Priest, and the human Priest hearing your confession is a witness; and then in the person of Christ using the power to bind and lose, he absolves you.  But by witnessing your confession a good confessor can make sure you confess everything and help you overcome spiritual problems.  The church has a vast array of wisdom on how to overcome different spiritual diseases and the really talented comfessors who are mainly found in monasteries can apply these.  Most parish priests are in the diaspora very busy and in my experience almost invariably absolve you with an encouraging word. 

But in Ethiopia for example I think you would find at some churches that are centers of pilgrimage some blessed priests; there is a rock hewn church dedicated to St. Michael that has large vats that contain holy water, and the priests using bungee cords or other mechanisms lower those suffering from demons into these pools for curing, and I suspect it works.  You can see this in the final segment of Episode 3 of Around the World in 80 Faiths on YouTube.

Now I know very little about the Ethiopian church by the way, and much more about the Egyptian Coptic church, but am by no means an expert (Antonious Nikolais and MinaSoliman and qawme of the top of my head are expert in that church at least compared to me), for me the Ethiopian Church remains enigmatic.  But I do think there is some treasure there.  And I think this is witnessed by the fact that the Ethiopians maintain their faith in spite of a great deal of poverty and temporal misery.  So you probably should try to cross check the info I've given with your clergy at some point if this continues to bother you.

But speaking from a generic Orthodox perspective I think what the OSB is saying in no respect contradicts the priest acting in the person of Christ, but rather, that's how the two dots you refer to connect.  If you're in the U.S. you could call one of the three or so Coptic monasteries which are not specifically Ethiopian but which do have, at least in the case of St. Anthonys, very nice monks who probably have the time to answer your question.  St. Anthonys also gets a lot of Ethiopian pilgrims since the completion of the majestic Cathedral of St. Moses the Black, which is awe inspiring.
The main difference between the interracial marriage question and the filming porn has to do with how the courts recognize the need for "protected status".  The argument is that members of minority groups need protection because of historical discrimination but also, and mostly, because allowing discrimination would effect members of the minority disproportionately.  As of right now we don't base that on what people do but who they are.  "People who like being filmed having sex" is not a recognized minority group but the future shall see.  Now one could argue that extending marriage rights and in turn protecting that from discrimination is forcing somebody to participate in an act they find morally wrong.  But here is the flip side...  if the state does not allow some kind of civil union then they are technically saying to one group of people that the only way they can access certain benefits (like tax benefits, benificiary status, bickering, lack of sex, horrible in-laws...) is to act against their conscience and marry a person of the opposite sex.  Of course there is some nuance here but anyone who thinks this is simple is deluded.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »