0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Having read a fair amount of Abbot Tryphon statements over the years, I do feel that the frequent contact with the public has an overall harmful effect, in that it creates an image of monasticism as a factory for inspirational quotes and cat pictures. As celebrity status is approached, a given monastic might feel emboldened to pronounce on matters far beyond his experience or knowledge and say some embarrassing things. I'm not saying the abbot should completely cut himself off from the public, but a severe curtailment is in order. At a certain point, a monk who is constantly in the public eye and interacting with "the world" is a monk in name only. Regarding the present statement, I find nothing objectionable about it, but maybe that's part of the problem. It's a generic, moral anti-racism that even the average Trump fanatic can nod his head to. It doesn't address the more pervasive expressions of racism in our society. It would be a lot bolder and better for him to say, "Black lives matter" (without the further qualification "all lives matter" or such rot). Can you imagine the howls that would elicit from all the right people? Instead of the tepid "likes" and "shares" this statement doubtless garnered from the same people who are happy to say "no race but the human race" while continuing to embrace police brutality targeted at blacks.
Quote from: Daedelus1138 on August 30, 2016, 12:45:24 PMSaying that homosexual desire is a sin seems very harsh. I'm not sure where you see the teaching that they are damned from birth. The general teaching is that it is the act, not the desire, which is sinful. I think Orthodox pastors are generally awakening to the understanding that it is not something to be switched on or off. We don't pick all our temptations, but we can choose how to respond to them. In this scenario, the Church is called to accept these people lovingly and aid them in their spiritual struggle, counseling them to celibacy. I think such an attitude is workable without the virulent homophobia that singles this sin out as the downfall of civilization. I myself have taken and struggled with this conception.However, as I witness the pain and exclusion which this teaching- however gently expressed- has brought to gay people trying to navigate their way into and in the Church, and when I see the good fruits that can be borne of these relationships, I am beginning to think this position too is untenable. I cannot, in good conscience, stand before friends and acquaintances in such loving relationships and inflict my understanding of a few historically hazy precepts on them, convincing myself that I am somehow speaking the truth in love.
Saying that homosexual desire is a sin seems very harsh.
Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.
Christianity does not claim to have the answer to this question. It starts from the position that there is inexcusable evil in the world, ultimately unjustified by any cosmic system. Rather we ask, given that evil, what can we do? Christ has given an answer, to identify with those suffering from that evil and kill a measure of that evil in our own deaths and thus open a door to something more. In fact Christ's death rejects theodicy in the sense that it rejects a justification for evil and death and demands vindication.
Quote from: DeniseDenise on November 01, 2016, 09:47:10 AMQuote from: Mor Ephrem on November 01, 2016, 09:21:35 AMQuote from: DeniseDenise on November 01, 2016, 03:46:07 AMThe Bishop is a monk. He should return to a monastic way of life.Not necessarily.well that's what we are discussing...so clearly anything here is opinion...since none of us (thank God) is a hierarch.My point was that Porter is wrong in his assessment of 'only two extremes' are being argued for....I should've been more clear. My comment had to do with this particular bishop's status as a monk. Is he a monk who was chosen from a monastery to which he could return? Or is he a monk who was made so perfunctorily as a step toward episcopal ordination but who would have no idea how to adjust to a life he has never really lived? Is he even a monk?"Only two extremes" is wrong, though I think Porter does raise an important point in suggesting "forgiveness" as a possible middle ground. As people, as "church people", we have a big problem with forgiveness. It's true that forgiveness doesn't necessarily require allowing someone to continue in a certain role, but we seem to have made that such an unshakable rule that we'd never accept today the kinds of people we accepted in the past and whose icons/relics we venerate. Maybe Bp Demetri should not be allowed to serve in the role he was just assigned (I certainly don't see what good could come of it), but more generally, we are a people who do not forgive, who perpetually identify certain people with their especially-egregious-to-us past sins even after repentance, who behave as if those sins necessarily flow from an unchangeable condition which will inevitably lead to more incidents ("once a _____, always a _____") unless we isolate them from the population, and so on. It's easy to re-retire a bishop. It's not easy to become a forgiving people, which is why, for all the hype about "the Church is a hospital", we only act that way toward the people whose sins we are able to tolerate. Other patients are just sent into quarantine to wait for death.
Quote from: Mor Ephrem on November 01, 2016, 09:21:35 AMQuote from: DeniseDenise on November 01, 2016, 03:46:07 AMThe Bishop is a monk. He should return to a monastic way of life.Not necessarily.well that's what we are discussing...so clearly anything here is opinion...since none of us (thank God) is a hierarch.My point was that Porter is wrong in his assessment of 'only two extremes' are being argued for....
Quote from: DeniseDenise on November 01, 2016, 03:46:07 AMThe Bishop is a monk. He should return to a monastic way of life.Not necessarily.
The Bishop is a monk. He should return to a monastic way of life.
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are
QuoteI like the gospel of Luke, and I like that you're using Scripture to buffet your valued opinion, do you have any more?1. Sure. Consider that later in that same chapter of the Gospel of St. Luke we see John the Baptist - among the very greatest of the Prophets according to the Word of Our Lord - leaps for joy in his mother's womb, "When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit" (Lk 1:41) when Mother Mary carrying Christ comes to visit St. Elizabeth. The evangelist tells us St. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit at this greeting and said "How is this given to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to visit me?" (Lk 1:43) which shows us the devotion, veneration and love the Saints have for the Mother of God. Even the Angelic promise that John the Baptist would, by a special grace, be annointed and filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb was fulfilled at the greeting of Mary, who was the the Ark carrying Christ Jesus Our Lord to that place. So St. Luke, after showing us the reverence the Prophets, the Saints, the Angels have for the Mother of God, instructs us about Mary being the Ark who gives grace to those who come to Christ through Her. As you may know, patristic exegesis of the Gospels and the Scriptures show us the Holy Virgin Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. There is a parallel here with David leaping for joy and asking "How can the Ark of the Lord come to me"? (2 Sam 6:9-13) the annointed man dancing for joy before it, "the Ark of the LORD continued in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months: and the LORD blessed Obed-edom, and all his household" like Mother Mary in the house of St. Elizabeth for 3 months brought the Lord God's blessings there. Recall that the Israelites had the highest reverence for the Ark in the old testament as the very Glory of God was held to have overshadowed it, the Ark housed the Presence of God and they carried it even into battle, they mourned if it was not found. In the New Testament, St. John the Apostle says the Ark of the Covenant is now in Heaven "Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the Ark of his covenant"2. This immediately precedes his description of the Woman clothed with the Sun, with the Moon under Her feet, a Crown of 12 Stars upon Her royal head (Rev 11:19-12:1). St. John, the same beloved Apostle to whom Christ Our Lord gave His Mother at the foot of the Cross saying, "Woman, behold your son", shows us subsequently that this Woman who dwells in the very light of God's glory and is clothed with the splendor of the sun is the Mother of God (Rev 12:5) and of all Christians (12:17).St. Athanasius, invincible champion of the Holy Trinity against Arianism, bears witness to the understanding of the early Church, "O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides."
I like the gospel of Luke, and I like that you're using Scripture to buffet your valued opinion, do you have any more?
Essence is a complicated term, but the Scriptures have many names for the essence of God: indescribable, unapproachable light, glory, fullness, power, everlasting/eternal, love. Perhaps one of the best way to describe "essence" is the name of God. What is God's name? "I Am" or "YHWH" or "Ego Eimi". When we worship the Father in the NAME of Jesus, we are saying that the NAME of Jesus is the same and equal essence of the Father.Can I worship God in the name of a prophet or angel? No I cannot. I challenge you to find me any reference in the Old Testament concerning worshipping in any other name other than "in the name of God". No where in the Old Testament was anyone allowed to pray other than in the name of God. Now St. Paul teaches us to worship "in the name of Jesus", at whose name "every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth" (Philippians 2:10).Therefore, the Bible teaches us the name of the Lord who we praise (psalm 138:2; 148:13) and honor (psalm 86:9). It says in Exodus 34:14, that you shall not worship anyone but God, whose name is Jealous. This very name Jesus has, for we worship God in that name. Therefore Jesus and God are one. The Scriptures are clear. We are to love the name of God (Psalm 119:132) and fear the name of God (Psalm 102:15). "Our Father who are in heaven, holy is Your name" (Matthew 6:9). "There is no one holy like you o Lord" (1 Samuel 2:2). Indeed if God is most holy, and His name is holy, and we worship God in the name of Jesus, then the name of Jesus is the name of God.So if Jesus owns the name of God, then truly as Christ testifies of Himself, "Before Abraham was, I AM!" He made Himself equal to God because He is of one name with God.So if you praise, honor, fear, and worship the name of God, you praise, honor, fear, and worship the name (also known as essence) of Jesus.
Page created in 0.086 seconds with 25 queries.