Recent Posts

I hope it goes well for you. And if you do have bad luck there don't let it discourage you, God sees your effort to come to Him, and will provide for all those who honestly seek Him.

Signed, but not a fan of OCL.

I think it is mainly the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese that publicized it, but don't remember where I saw it. It's also publicized by a nearby Antiochian parish.

The issue has to do with the 2003 charter of the GOAA.

By "it" I meant the petition, rather than the OCL.

I believe that the custom of allowing the condemned to see a priest is an act of mercy.  The condemned, if he repents, can be forgiven for his crime and through execution will be with the Lord shortly.  Unfortunately, the victim (or the victims family in the case of murder) must suffer with the consequences of the crime for the rest of their lives.  As long as the execution is relatively quick and painless, who really gets the better deal?

Just for the record, I have not stated in this thread whether I am for or against the death penalty in any given situation. I am just trying to say that I don't think that the theology concerning Christ's death and resurrection has a real translation to abolishing the death penalty imposed by human law. That is all I'm trying to say - I don't see the connection made by the OP and find the reasoning used to reach the conclusion to be faulty.

I like it.  Sounds like good rational thinking to me.

I usually just use my own photos.

 

This could hurt a bit to drive to, but the last time I had communion was also March 31st.

Whenever someone out of town has come to my priest and said "I have been in a remote area for 6 months. I want to have communion, but of course I haven't been able to confess in that time either". He always says "come, have communion, and then come confess after the Liturgy".

I don't think it makes sense to drive a long distance to a church where you won't be required to confess to get passed it to get communion... Just present your need to the priest and unless they are a bad priest they will do their job of reconciling you to God and His Church, and find a way to bring you to Communion.

Thank you very much.

But you are saying that people are actively seeking persecution.  No?

You don't have to go and find quotes....just use your own words to explain the concept.

For example....A does this...so, they must be seeking persecution.

Who is an example of A, and what is "this"?

It's quite simple. The people who are denouncing tolerance on this thread are members of a tiny religious minority in their own country. They are able to practice their religion freely and openly thanks to toleration. They are therefore asking to be persecuted by denouncing tolerance. Obviously, they are not doing this consciously- that's just the sort of thing that happens when someone starts blustering without thinking things through. 

You have confused the concept of “tolerance” with equality under the law.  You have stained the Constitution with a political correctness attitude.  It doesn’t work that way.  The idea all men are created equal and be provided the same opportunities in no way, even a twisted way, promotes “tolerance” of anything or anyone.

Once again, you reveal your ignorance of the meaning of tolerance and its history. 

I was thinking the same thing about you.  Now what?

I guess that you guys are going to have to "agree to disagree"  Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaah . . .

I've seen more apologists of the Vatican try to equate Orthodoxy with Protestantism than I can shake a stick at.

Sadly, the Catholic Church has a lot of bad apologists.   

But I take comfort in the fact that she also has a lot of good apologists (many of whom are in positions of leadership IRL, like the papacy).

If it weren't for RC apologists showing me the defects with Protestantism, I probably wouldn't have discovered Orthodoxy, so I will always have a soft spot in my heart toward the RC for that.

This dilemma only makes sense to us. 

I don't know if Coptic priests hear confessions before the Liturgy, so I'd presume the answer to your question is yes. 

I'm not sure I understand the question. But most Coptic priests will be very accommodating with making time to hear a confession. If you can contact them ahead of time and make arrangements that is best, but many times I've just gone before Liturgy, and once he finishes dressing the Altar I've asked my priest if he has time before we start, and he's never said no. He even takes confessions on occasion during the Epistle readings if there is need.

If you go and they don't have time to hear your confession during the Liturgy, you can just approach for Communion and before partaking whisper in his ear that you need to confess something, will he give you permission to receive on the condition that you stay and confess after Liturgy.

If they aren't your priest though, there may be some more discussion needed... In general a Copt may not confess to any priest besides their father in confession without the permission of their father in confession. When someone is in our town for an extended period, if they ask my priest to confess, he always asks them who their father in confession is, and asks them to please email or call them and take their blessing to confess to him first. If you have no father in confession they are unlikely to turn you away from confession.

Of course this is the norm and the way it should be. In some of the big churches unfortunately priorities are different with quantity trumping quality, and you may find a priest who is "not taking new patients". Even in the bigger churches though if you look you'll almost always find at least one of the priests who is willing to help.

My priest is out of town, but someone else should be there. I think I may hurt to drive that far (a month ago it hurt to drive 10 minutes) and the other nearest Armenian one I only understand parts of the sermon.  The Coptic church is closer to me-10 minutes from home. I called ahead and meant to go a couple of weeks ago (and I emailed him a copy of my baptism and chrismation certificate), but then I missed service that weekend because I forgot the Easter schedule that weekend with my internship going on and not going to bed early enough (am not a morning person) and hurting at some point every day. I did not receive communion the only time I did go because I was chrismated Armenian but baptized Lutheran and did not ask ahead of time if I would be allowed. Otherwise I sat through a Catholic service and went to a short Antiochian service on that Easter weekend (if you were not attending church much and you also had to take your Catholic friend somewhere on a Sunday, you might too), but I think it would be good for me to participate in the church rather than watching other people where/when I cannot.

I've seen more apologists of the Vatican try to equate Orthodoxy with Protestantism than I can shake a stick at.

Sadly, the Catholic Church has a lot of bad apologists.   

But I take comfort in the fact that she also has a lot of good apologists (many of whom are in positions of leadership IRL, like the papacy).

Well, that is an excellent example of an argument from silence.

The silence is deafening.

You are alleging that James was written in 45AD, but somehow saying that it was not written after Christ's death? How does that work exactly?  When do you think Christ died?

Yes, James wrote his epistle after Christ's death, but BEFORE the meaning of His death had been given to the church. Until the meaning of Christ's death was revealed to Paul the first Christians had to remain under old covenant principles. Tertullian said, "God must be believed on in His own dispensation." The epistle of James was written while they were still under the dispensation of law. So they had to believe in God accordingly. But after Paul revealed the dispensation of grace they had to believe in God according to the new revelation given them. Therefore, the epistle of James was transitional.

Are you stating you believe that Paul instituted the new covenant and not Christ?

Paul was Christ's administrator of the new covenant appointed to do away the letter and to administer the spirit (2 Corinthians 3:5-6). James was letter and Paul was spirit.

Is this something you have just come up with?  Where has this hypothesis ever been taught in the Church or in any segment of Christianity?