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.
The Church's bridegroom was never the Byzantine Empire.
Mor has spoken through George... this is the faith of the fathers!
"Latreia" means "serve". "Proskene" means "bow down". Both words can be translated into "worship", but the word "worship" has lost its ancient English meaning and has been "Protestantized" to mean something only given to God. So here's a shocker, the word "worship" as is understood today seems to have never existed in ancient Christianity. Every word to describe what we do for God is ABSOLUTE, while the SAME WORDS can be used towards creation in RELATIVE terms. Let me explain.There is no one good except God. But God is said to have created all things "good". Is there a contradiction? No! There's a difference in emphasis. God ALONE is good by His nature. He is ABSOLUTELY GOOD. We are good relatively speaking.Let's use the word "existence". God alone is the existent one, but we also exist. Once again, God is ABSOLUTE EXISTENCE, but our existence is relative.The word "father". Call no man father, not even your biological father is "true father". Only God is ABSOLUTE FATHER. Your biological and spiritual fathers are relative fathers.The word "light". Only God is TRUE and ABSOLUTE LIGHT. We are only the mirrors to reflect that absolute light into something relative with us.Only God is TRUE. All men are false, but we can be relatively true with God's grace.There are many words you ABSOLUTELY USE for "worship": service, honor/reverence, bowing down. It is to God and God ALONE these are ABSOLUTELY done (read John chapter 4, where only to the Father there is "true proskene"). But relatively speaking, you can also serve, honor, and bow down to others, but not in the same absolute sense as you do to God. Even the word "worship" was used differently before Protestants came along. It was very common to say that one can worship his own biological father, because worship meant "honor", and the fifth commandment also commanded us to "worship our father and mother". Yes, WORSHIP. It was practically no different than reverence or honor.Another word: FRIEND. We have no TRUE OR ABSOLUTE FRIENDS except God Himself. All others who call themselves friends are relatively so, but not PERFECTLY SO in the same way God is. Therefore, it can also be said, "call no man or woman friend. Only God is FRIEND".THEREFORE...anytime Christ is said to be worshipped or honored or bowed down to, it was done so not in relative terms, but in ABSOLUTE TERMS, and this lead to the Pharisees to kill Christ because that was "blasphemy", which is no different than what you, Andrew think. You think just like the Pharisees, but you delude yourself to believing Christ spoke in relative terms. Once again, the key issue here is the use of the term "name". Once you speak about yourself to be done in "your name", that is not relative, it is ABSOLUTE.Do the research my friend. God bless.
A spiritual father once said to me, "If you slap God in the face, how would you feel bad afterwards? Do you say nothing, or do you immediately pray 'sorry'?"
Quote from: genesisone on January 02, 2017, 08:25:02 PMQuote from: RaphaCam on January 02, 2017, 07:56:53 PMI found out recently that the Revised Julian calendar doesn't actually calculate the moveable dates by the Gregorian method, but rather by a much more astronomically precise one. The Old Calendar delays one day in 128 years, the Gregorian one in 3236, the New Calendar in 31250. I'm sure many of you already know it, but it's news to me.Still, the Old Calendarist schism saddens me truly. There seem to be so many bright people in their churches and synods who could be a voice against much more dangerous stuff than bisexts going on inside the mainstream Church.And I'm sure you're equally aware that no Church uses the proposed Revised Julian Paschalion. Of course the exact determination of the date of Pascha is more complex than that as it also includes definitions of the equinox and of a full moon. The Revised Julian, as you point out, is the most exact of these choices for determining when March 21 should fall.It's not really as complex as people make it out to be. There are three conditions:1. First look for when Spring begins (also known as the vernal equinox). This requires solar accuracy.2. Then look for when the first full moon after Spring is. This requires lunar accuracy.3. Finally, after that, look for that first Sunday. This is Easter.I think the complexity is simply explaining this, but I try to explain this to my Sunday school class and they seem to "get it". Why is it complex? Because we don't dumb it down. This is essentially how we calculate Easter. So far, we are using numerical complexities so that we don't have to look at the sky or a telescope all the time. HOWEVER, that old numerical method (the Julian calendar as was passed down to us by the ancient Church of Alexandria) is admittedly behind by about 13 days today.However, the problem is we seem to say "let's change the calendar to find solidarity with Catholics and Protestants". That to me is a huge problem, and it leads many ignorant folks to think "we must be one body with all other Christians". No joke, there are Copts who when hearing that Pope Tawadros wants to change the dates are saying "oh, now are are united with other churches". I say thirteen days is not a big deal. Keep it as it is now and let's strengthen our Orthodoxy. When we become competent in Orthodoxy, then we can consider astronomical accuracy.What is amazing is that Coptic proponents to changing the calendar not once mentions any of the sister African churches (or any of the OO sister churches for that matter). They mention Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Catholics, and then as an afterthought the EOs, as if they follow the same calendar, not realizing there is such a thing as "revised Julian calendar".
Quote from: RaphaCam on January 02, 2017, 07:56:53 PMI found out recently that the Revised Julian calendar doesn't actually calculate the moveable dates by the Gregorian method, but rather by a much more astronomically precise one. The Old Calendar delays one day in 128 years, the Gregorian one in 3236, the New Calendar in 31250. I'm sure many of you already know it, but it's news to me.Still, the Old Calendarist schism saddens me truly. There seem to be so many bright people in their churches and synods who could be a voice against much more dangerous stuff than bisexts going on inside the mainstream Church.And I'm sure you're equally aware that no Church uses the proposed Revised Julian Paschalion. Of course the exact determination of the date of Pascha is more complex than that as it also includes definitions of the equinox and of a full moon. The Revised Julian, as you point out, is the most exact of these choices for determining when March 21 should fall.
I found out recently that the Revised Julian calendar doesn't actually calculate the moveable dates by the Gregorian method, but rather by a much more astronomically precise one. The Old Calendar delays one day in 128 years, the Gregorian one in 3236, the New Calendar in 31250. I'm sure many of you already know it, but it's news to me.Still, the Old Calendarist schism saddens me truly. There seem to be so many bright people in their churches and synods who could be a voice against much more dangerous stuff than bisexts going on inside the mainstream Church.
Do you think David hated absolom ? No but was he saved ? Probably not Did Jesus hate judas ? No he called him friend Does Jesus/God hate the devil ? No but he is not saved Does Michael the archangel hate the devil ? No he did not revile him but said the Lord rebuke you
Page created in 0.138 seconds with 25 queries.