October 01, 2014, 02:29:26 PM *
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 11:11:29 AM 
Started by GabrieltheCelt - Last post by Incognito777
I thought Orthodoxy discouraged laughter. I don't think Scripture does, but I believe Orthodoxy does.

 on: Today at 11:11:29 AM 
Started by BrethrenBoy - Last post by Incognito777
To the author of this thread, of course not. It's called having an opinion. If everyone having an opinion meant we are forcing our religion on others, the world would be full of Jihadists. Scripture teaches us to stand for truth. Who cares what people think? We out to obey God rather than men.

You can also ask:     
Is being FOR legal abortion, gay marriage forcing one's religion on others?

 on: Today at 11:09:20 AM 
Started by lovesupreme - Last post by jewish voice
My opinion is no, even though we do have a Coptic Church on the other side of the river in Council Bluffs.  However, it's a very small community and not very noticeable.

If I'm asked about my faith, I say I'm Greek Orthodox.  Some will ask if that is the same as Russian Orthodox and I say it is with the differences being language and the small "t" traditions (not counting the calendar).  I think the term "Orthodox" all by itself implies Jewish to many people, especially here in the Midwest.
ha ha I'm just going through council bluffs

 on: Today at 11:09:05 AM 
Started by Maximum Bob - Last post by Maximum Bob
I know how excited you must be. Getting even closer!

I can especially understand since Fr. M made it "official" for us (the other catechumen and I) to set dates. We've had our last class, though we've been welcomed to attend any of the other series as he opens them.

I'm pretty excited too, so I know how you feel. Smiley
Congratulations to you also then. Yes, the time is getting short and the excitement is growing.   Grin

Thank you Alter Server.

 on: Today at 11:02:35 AM 
Started by Maximum Bob - Last post by Altar Server
Congrats! Cheesy

 on: Today at 10:51:52 AM 
Started by EY - Last post by xariskai
Arguments from Florence as some sort of kill shot to Orthodoxy are somewhere near the apex of stupidity (and/or nadir of lhistorical awareness and literate engagement) within the maze of contemporary amateur RC apologetics.

I file this sort of thing somewhere near attempts of young age creationists to convert university professors with proofs that the earth is 6000 years old.

I don't spend a whole lot of time talking to walls.

 on: Today at 10:50:56 AM 
Started by Fabio Leite - Last post by ialmisry
^In the comment section this little thing caught my eye:
The US presents a particularly divided picture of Orthodoxy given the separate streams of immigrants that came to the US. Catholicism likewise had many streams of immigrants coming to the US from many foreign countries. Yet it dealt with that by having the Pope of Rome appoint bishops to oversee the various territorial jurisdictions in the US irrespective of the constituent ethnicities flowing into the territory (except, of course, for our own Eastern (Uniate) brethren). Then it didn't matter where the immigrant Catholic came from. The Irish immigrants' bishop in NY was the same as the Italian immigrant's bishop, etc.

The Orthodox, by contrast, have held onto their original ethnic distinctions. For example, the Russian patriarch named bishops here in the US for Russian immigrants (and then with the Russian Revolution even more complexities came into the Russian Orthodox Church in the USA) and Serb immigrants had a bishop appointed for them out of the Serbian Orthodox Church, etc. The question must be asked, though: what jurisdiction did any "home country" bishop or synod have over immigrants once they left the territorial jurisdiction of the home country? Did Christ somehow confer on, say, the Muscovite patriarch a universal jurisdiction over Russian immigrants wherever in the world they might be found?

Why him, by the way, instead of the Archbishop of Kiev given that Kiev was the capital of Russian Christianity long before Moscow became politically important? And now that Kiev is independent of Moscow on a political basis, why should Moscow have any remaining role in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church? Was there something special about Russian control over Ukraine in the 20th Century that gives Muscovy a continuing say in Ukraine? At earlier times, Ukraine has found itself controlled in part by the Turks, the Poles, the Swedes, the Tatars and the Austrians as well as by the Russians.

Given the ephemeral nature of political control and of borders, it is clear that Christ's Church should go out to all the nations, baptizing and teaching them as a single communion (See Matt. 28:18-20) and not as groups of separate peoples subject to jurisdictional breakdowns as ephemeral as the old Soviet Union, the Russian Empire or the Byzantine Empire before it.
I replied
A little correction is in order.
No Russian Patriarch named bishops here in the US, as no such office was filled when the Orthodox Church came and was being built up in America 1738-1904 (the first date is the reception of the Virginian Philip Ludwell III, the first known Orthodox, into the Russian Orthodox Church; the second date I'll get to). The first Russian Patriarch in 200 years, St. Tikhon, had served as Archbishop of North America before, and was elected in the All Russian Council of 1917, modeled in part on the All American Sobor St. Tikhon instituted in North America in 1907.
The bishops-all the bishops-here were named by the Most Holy Governing Synod of Russia, because they were the ones who received Philip Ludwell and commissioned him to translate the catechism and to take the Eucharist back to the New World from the priests at the Russian Embassy in London, and who sent the mission to Russian America (and thence to the West Coast and towards the East) in 1794, its jurisdiction recognized by the US by Treaty when Alaska was incorporated into the US (Canada followed suit in 1903).  Until 1908 no other Church even made a claim of jurisdiction over North America, and no bishop not sent or consecrated by the Russian Synod set foot in North America to make a claim to jurisdiction until 1918.
All bishops-in 1904 the Russian bishops in America (St. Tikhon at their head) consecrated St. Raphael, a Syro-Lebanese Arab, as bishop of Brooklyn and for the Arab Orthodox in North America. Per Canon 8 of Ephesus, such an act could not be taken unless the Russian Church had always held jurisdiction in North America. Which it did.
Serbs and Greeks formed a large part of the parishes of the Russian bishops.  The parish of the Cathedral of San Francisco-the Mother Church of North America after the sale of Alaska until 1905-was incorporated with Serbs (including George Fisher, the Serb Consul for the Kingdom of Greece) joining the earlier Russians who had been in the Bay Area for decades, including those who came from Fort Ross and its Church, the Russian colony founded in 1812 (causing the Spanish to build up San Francisco). The Greeks continued to go to the Russian Cathedral until they built and named one after it for themselves in 1903-and asked the Russian bishop, St. Tikhon,'s blessing through his Serbian American (he was the first priest of European extraction born in America) priest Fr. Sebastian Dabovitch. Even the sole exception, Holy Trinity in New Orleans, founded the Greek Consul, received the patronage of the Russian Czar and Church.  The first cracks appeared in 1905, when the trustees of Holy Trinity in New York incorporated under New York statute as “The Hellenic Eastern Orthodox Christian Church of New York," to "distinguish it" from the "Church of Russia" AND "the Church of Greece" of "the Greek Church of the Eastern Confession" i.e. the Orthodox Church (New York law required Orthodox parishes to incorporate under Russian auspices; the New York statute incorporating the HEOCCNY also violated NY Constitutional requirements, making it void).  Congregationalism isn't Orthodoxy, however. When the Greeks of that ilk expelled the Albanians, they were received by the Russian bishop, who set up what is now the Albanian Archdiocese of the OCA-the Mother Church of the Orthodox Church of Albania (whose founder celebrated the first Albanian Divine Liturgy ever in the world in Boston)
You seem to impute some sinister jurisdiction over persons-at least Russians.  As indicated above, the Greeks were the first to assert it, not the Russians. Everyone went to the Russian bishop's Churches, and he had priests (and then bishops) to the various nationalities. And sometimes it was innocent-in New Orleans the Greek Consul went with what he knew.
As for your tangent (tantrum?) having nothing to do with America, to wit:
"Why him, by the way, instead of the Archbishop of Kiev given that Kiev was the capital of Russian Christianity long before Moscow became politically important? And now that Kiev is independent of Moscow on a political basis, why should Moscow have any remaining role in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church?"
The Metropolitanate (not Archbishoprick, btw) of Kiev and All Rus' had been translated to Moscow centuries before the New World was found. Kiev had been destroyed.  It was rebuilt almost two centuries after the Church of All Rus' had become autocephalous under Moscow, and after the latter had been elevated to Patriarchal status.
In case you don't know, the Turkish and Tartar rulers were Muslims, the Polish and Austrians in submission to the Vatican, and the Swedish Lutherans. Except for the Soviet ones (and somehow I feel I should mention that Stalin was Georgian and Khrushchev Ukrainian) the Russians were Orthodox.
As to your last paragraph-The Church of Russia gave North America the Tomos for Autocephaly to forge its own destiny (and, to go off topic again, it should issue one for Ukraine). And that was under the old Soviet Union. But were you talking about North America?
That last part is the question. For too many, North America is not a topic in its own right, but some battlefield for some proxy war overseas. I have no problem being concerned for other Churches in the world-we must. However, we do not solely exist for that: we exist here to establish Orthodoxy in North America, not solve jurisdictional battles elsewhere.

 on: Today at 10:48:02 AM 
Started by RichC - Last post by Adela
Will the mission priest allow you to do self-study? There are plenty of good resources online from various Orthodox sites. Just because you don't know of plans for a catechumens class doesn't mean they can't make a path for you to move forward. 

 on: Today at 10:45:22 AM 
Started by JamesR - Last post by Jonathan Gress
Anyone who doesn't like the direction a thread is going is free to put on some big boy/girl pants and stop posting on it. We're all adults here, and 'But they started it!' doesn't fly.

Girl pants?! Outrage!

You would prefer women not to wear underwear?

This explains so much

Are you British? That's not what pants means in American.

I am not.

But the person who posted the pants reference makes her home there.

Ps. It's not an exclusively American forum.

Ah I see. I suppose it actually makes more sense if she meant "underwear".

 on: Today at 10:38:16 AM 
Started by RichC - Last post by TheTrisagion
Are there any other parishes in the area that have a priest you could contact? I would certainly continue attending whatever services you are able.  Lord have mercy.

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 0.047 seconds with 17 queries.