OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 16, 2014, 05:57:22 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: New Age  (Read 1575 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,120



« on: June 22, 2012, 11:29:27 AM »

I've been reading recently about how (in a nutshell) Catholics need to beware of New Age stuff, and how there have even been some New Age cults (e.g. the Church Universal and Triumphant) that appeal specifically to Catholics.

This got me to thinking, are Orthodox also concerned about the New Age Movement?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,105


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2012, 12:23:39 PM »

I've been reading recently about how (in a nutshell) Catholics need to beware of New Age stuff, and how there have even been some New Age cults (e.g. the Church Universal and Triumphant) that appeal specifically to Catholics.

This got me to thinking, are Orthodox also concerned about the New Age Movement?

Yes, they are.  See Michael Whelton's book False Gods http://www.amazon.com/False-Gods-Michael-Whelton/dp/1928653103/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340382031&sr=1-3&keywords=michael+whelton.

Fr. Seraphim Rose also wrote quite a bit about the dangers of the New Age Movement.  Can't remember the specifics at the moment, but if I do I'll let you know, unless someone else beats me to it.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,105


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2012, 12:32:43 PM »

Just remembered--Fr. Seraphim addresses it some in this book, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future http://stherman.com/Catalog/Writings_of_Father_Seraphim/orf_book.htm.  If I remember correctly, he's also quoted at length in this book http://stherman.com/Catalog/Writings_of_Father_Seraphim/fsr_book.htm

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,227


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2012, 11:13:58 PM »

I know I'll get jumped on for this, but I just gotta say it.  It's a personal observance.

I'm speaking in the terms of MOST but not all.

Some Orthodox Christians are VERY aware of the New Age stuff.

For the most part though, the Orthodox Christians are blind to the depths of New Age propaganda.  Many Orthodox Christians for example would think that Death Metal, most mainstream music, country music, hiphop/rap, violent and occultic video games, and most Hollywood movies are okay.

I think there is are people who understand how dangerous this stuff is to the soul, but MOST will deny the magnitude of the New Age movement in "media".   If they don't deny, they make excuses.

I'll give you an example.

The movie "The Matrix".   It's a complete Gnostic film.  I could argue the technicalities of the dangers of this movie showing how Gnostic it is, with many EO who would ridicule the points (and have even here on the forum).... (Many would consider Gnostic "new age" as well).   So I could go on and on about this guy who gets a "gnosis", and eventually becomes a God of himself.  Of course enslaved by a mean "God" or the architect/designer of the matrix.  That and "wake up Neo", and all the biblical references through the entire movie.     Many EO responses would love to cut down any point.

But then....

The entire movie was completely full of violence, blood shed, hatred, and had elements of lust, deceit, witchcraft....  TO that nobody can argue....

"The eye is the lamp of the body".

I do believe the Orthodox should become very educated on just how corrupt much of the media is.

Check out a web site called "dove.org" and plug in just a regular family movie.  I'll put in the movie "RV" rated PG

Results:
Sex: Some sexual innuendo. Kissing between couples.
Language: A-2; D-1; H-3; Just short of SOB-1; SOB-1; B-1; Slang for male genitalia; G-6; Mother of God-1; The word "turd" is used several times.
Violence: Girl throws liquid on Bob's boss; man grabs Bob's daughter in anger; Bob's son flips his boss to the ground.
Drugs: Smoking and drinking briefly.
Nudity: Cleavage. Very strong in a few scenes with one character.
Occult: None

Since I believe the New Age religions first need to "RIP" family values, hurt our love for God, and corrupt the soul, I give this above example. 
In 1.5 hours if I let my children watch this, they'd be exposed to at least 10 bad words, and the Lord's name taken in vain 6 times, and the Theotokos taken in vain once.  Also immodest clothing.

Is this allowed in your home or do we let the "winds of the world" blow through our home with the New Age promoting media.

I guess you'd have to define exactly the "New Age" that you are speaking of.  But TV is full of the regular witchcraft stuff to (even cartoons).
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,424



WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2012, 11:52:37 PM »

I know I'll get jumped on for this, but I just gotta say it.  It's a personal observance.

I'm speaking in the terms of MOST but not all.

Some Orthodox Christians are VERY aware of the New Age stuff.

For the most part though, the Orthodox Christians are blind to the depths of New Age propaganda.  Many Orthodox Christians for example would think that Death Metal, most mainstream music, country music, hiphop/rap, violent and occultic video games, and most Hollywood movies are okay.

I think there is are people who understand how dangerous this stuff is to the soul, but MOST will deny the magnitude of the New Age movement in "media".   If they don't deny, they make excuses.

I'll give you an example.

The movie "The Matrix".   It's a complete Gnostic film.  I could argue the technicalities of the dangers of this movie showing how Gnostic it is, with many EO who would ridicule the points (and have even here on the forum).... (Many would consider Gnostic "new age" as well).   So I could go on and on about this guy who gets a "gnosis", and eventually becomes a God of himself.  Of course enslaved by a mean "God" or the architect/designer of the matrix.  That and "wake up Neo", and all the biblical references through the entire movie.     Many EO responses would love to cut down any point.

But then....

The entire movie was completely full of violence, blood shed, hatred, and had elements of lust, deceit, witchcraft....  TO that nobody can argue....

"The eye is the lamp of the body".

I do believe the Orthodox should become very educated on just how corrupt much of the media is.

Check out a web site called "dove.org" and plug in just a regular family movie.  I'll put in the movie "RV" rated PG

Results:
Sex: Some sexual innuendo. Kissing between couples.
Language: A-2; D-1; H-3; Just short of SOB-1; SOB-1; B-1; Slang for male genitalia; G-6; Mother of God-1; The word "turd" is used several times.
Violence: Girl throws liquid on Bob's boss; man grabs Bob's daughter in anger; Bob's son flips his boss to the ground.
Drugs: Smoking and drinking briefly.
Nudity: Cleavage. Very strong in a few scenes with one character.
Occult: None

Since I believe the New Age religions first need to "RIP" family values, hurt our love for God, and corrupt the soul, I give this above example. 
In 1.5 hours if I let my children watch this, they'd be exposed to at least 10 bad words, and the Lord's name taken in vain 6 times, and the Theotokos taken in vain once.  Also immodest clothing.

Is this allowed in your home or do we let the "winds of the world" blow through our home with the New Age promoting media.

I guess you'd have to define exactly the "New Age" that you are speaking of.  But TV is full of the regular witchcraft stuff to (even cartoons).


Ah, yes: dove.org. I'll occasionally navigate my way over there when I feel homesick for the days of "I can't believe they put stuff like that in movies, now let's watch Days of Our Lives" in Mississippi. Seriously, any group that feels they can't recommend The Lord of the Rings to "children over the age of twelve" because it's "too violent" needs to up the dosage on their medication.

This post does not meet the Dove Family Seal of Approval due to one reference too many to abusing prescription drugs (darn! make that two references). This post also contains a "darn" (whoops, make that two).
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Nicene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 602


« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2012, 11:58:45 PM »

Theres always someone whose concerned about it. The really bad aspect about the new age that annoys is that it influences this idea in culture that there is "your religion" and "my religion" and that no one is objectively right.
Logged

Thank you.
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,173


« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2012, 12:38:31 AM »

A Coptic sermon on this topic: Fr. Pishoy Salama of St. Maurice & St. Verena Coptic Orthodox Church of Toronto, Canada on the New Age movement
Logged

neon_knights
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 513


My political hero.


« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2012, 01:10:10 AM »

For the most part though, the Orthodox Christians are blind to the depths of New Age propaganda.  Many Orthodox Christians for example would think that Death Metal, most mainstream music, country music, hiphop/rap, violent and occultic video games, and most Hollywood movies are okay.

You can't kill the metal! The metal will live on!
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,285


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2012, 04:25:44 AM »

I know I'll get jumped on for this, but I just gotta say it.  It's a personal observance.

I'm speaking in the terms of MOST but not all.

Some Orthodox Christians are VERY aware of the New Age stuff.

For the most part though, the Orthodox Christians are blind to the depths of New Age propaganda.  Many Orthodox Christians for example would think that Death Metal, most mainstream music, country music, hiphop/rap, violent and occultic video games, and most Hollywood movies are okay.

I think there is are people who understand how dangerous this stuff is to the soul, but MOST will deny the magnitude of the New Age movement in "media".   If they don't deny, they make excuses.

I'll give you an example.

The movie "The Matrix".   It's a complete Gnostic film.  I could argue the technicalities of the dangers of this movie showing how Gnostic it is, with many EO who would ridicule the points (and have even here on the forum).... (Many would consider Gnostic "new age" as well).   So I could go on and on about this guy who gets a "gnosis", and eventually becomes a God of himself.  Of course enslaved by a mean "God" or the architect/designer of the matrix.  That and "wake up Neo", and all the biblical references through the entire movie.     Many EO responses would love to cut down any point.

But then....

The entire movie was completely full of violence, blood shed, hatred, and had elements of lust, deceit, witchcraft....  TO that nobody can argue....

"The eye is the lamp of the body".

I do believe the Orthodox should become very educated on just how corrupt much of the media is.

Check out a web site called "dove.org" and plug in just a regular family movie.  I'll put in the movie "RV" rated PG

Results:
Sex: Some sexual innuendo. Kissing between couples.
Language: A-2; D-1; H-3; Just short of SOB-1; SOB-1; B-1; Slang for male genitalia; G-6; Mother of God-1; The word "turd" is used several times.
Violence: Girl throws liquid on Bob's boss; man grabs Bob's daughter in anger; Bob's son flips his boss to the ground.
Drugs: Smoking and drinking briefly.
Nudity: Cleavage. Very strong in a few scenes with one character.
Occult: None

Since I believe the New Age religions first need to "RIP" family values, hurt our love for God, and corrupt the soul, I give this above example.  
In 1.5 hours if I let my children watch this, they'd be exposed to at least 10 bad words, and the Lord's name taken in vain 6 times, and the Theotokos taken in vain once.  Also immodest clothing.

Is this allowed in your home or do we let the "winds of the world" blow through our home with the New Age promoting media.

I guess you'd have to define exactly the "New Age" that you are speaking of.  But TV is full of the regular witchcraft stuff to (even cartoons).



Good points my friend. As expected, the ridicule has already begun. Don't be discouraged. Keep shining the light (the light of Christ that is, not the New Age luciferian "light".) Smiley


Selam
« Last Edit: June 26, 2012, 04:26:37 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,962


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2012, 06:00:08 AM »

Quote
most mainstream music, country music, hiphop/rap
I'm not saying that you are wrong, but could you please give some examples?

Quote
and most Hollywood movies.
I prefer to judge the individual film. Hollywood have made some very good films.

Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
WeldeMikael
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 506


« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2012, 06:08:51 AM »

It seems quite... hyperdox, no ?

Sure on some points you're right, but in my opinion you are going a bit too far, no ?
Logged
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,173


« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2012, 07:17:04 AM »

I do not think it is wrong or an exaggeration to say that the majority of popular media expresses an anti-Christian view. I think the problem is in arguing that this is part of an organized movement or cabal or what have you. Believe me...members of my immediate family have been involved in the major/mainstream entertainment industry (specifically, the music industry) for a combined ~60 years, so I know how terrible a lot of it is. I would never dispute that. But there is little overall motive for it to be that way beyond the profit motive (which is itself anti-Christian, of course; money is not more important than morals), and as such it reinforces anti-Christian views in the attempt to appeal to the widest cross-section of the world as possible: non-Christians, agnostics, atheists, apathetic Christians, etc. In a way, the entertainment industry both pushes and reflects the larger societal belief in the perfectability of man and the progress of culture and civilization in lieu of strong belief in a particular religion. It wasn't always this way, of course. In music, for instance, mainstream artists like Elvis, Tennessee Ernie Ford, Johnny Cash, the Byrds, etc. recorded material with explicit religious content and were not relegated to sub-labels or particular media outlets catering to the religious, because of course there was not an assumed division between the believer and the rest of society (the "normal", the status quo...whatever you want to call it). It was considered normal to not only believe in God, but to reinforce or strengthen that belief by reading Christian books, watching Christian films, listening to Christian music, etc. This was not a conceit to a particular demographic, as Christians were the majority of the society anyway, and of course producing Christian (or at least Christian-sensitive) material did not prevent the major companies (many of which were incidentally run by non-Christians) from also producing other religious material in order to grab those non-Christian (primarily Jewish) markets, too. So it was good for business to make religious consumables.

Of course, today this has largely changed. There is still plenty of Christian media out there, but it is exactly that: "Christian media", as something separate from...uh...media. "Regular" (i.e., secular) media, I guess you could call it. Much of it is of poor quality relative to the large expenditures tied to the production and distribution of non-religious media, and the two are so far apart in terms of their spheres of influence that we have, for instance, a thread posted right now on OC.net that talks about a soap opera actors' Emmy acceptance speech which included some Orthodox religious content as being "just another 'thank you Jesus' guy" and potentially throwing pearls before swine. Thanking Jesus for awards (and football victories, and finding a penny on the street in movies, etc.) is another phenomenon, but it strikes me that what would seem normal in a normally Christian society (i.e., in one where the faith were not compartmentalized as it is in the USA) is now odd even to Orthodox Christians. That's heartbreaking and disturbing, but I would not blame the media for that at all. Or rather, I would blame the thoroughly Protestant and practically secular culture that pervades the West, as it is a hallmark of Protestant Evangelicalism to set up parallel "Christian" versions of everything under the sun in an attempt to create an Evangelical culture that is somehow separate from the mainstream, despite taking its forms from that same essentially atheistic mainstream. TV too immoral? That's okay; watch TBN instead of ABC or whatever. Books and films too lurid? Don't worry -- we've got the "Left Behind" series and other Christian books/movies to throw money at. Need music with a good message? K-LOVE is here for you! Granted, all of these things isolate believers from non-believers and make the former look crazy, but hey...that's the price of being righteous in an unrighteous world, no?  Roll Eyes

Somehow I don't think this is quite the way to go about it. Our forefathers baptized those elements of culture that could be baptized, in order to bring them to their pinnacle in the proper re-presentation of all God-given talent to God. Instead, today we aim low (so low as to bypass any idea of appealing to anyone outside of our little club of fellow churchy people), "succeed", and then wonder why the rest of the world just doesn't get it. It's strange, because this is definitely not the attitude that produced heavenly, transcendent liturgies, icons, writings, and other things that were the product of Christianity when it was still flourishing around the world, in a multitude of cultures (including in the West). We are to bring our best sacrifice before the Lord. To reconnect this rant to the OP, when people see that (exceptional work being made for our God and our faith), they want in; when they do not, they turn to things like New Age that seek to answer this inherent desire for beauty, transcendence, awe, etc.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2012, 07:31:13 AM by dzheremi » Logged

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2012, 07:22:21 AM »

The entire movie was completely full of violence, blood shed, hatred, and had elements of lust, deceit, witchcraft....  TO that nobody can argue....


AFAIR in "The Matrix" there was very little blood and lust.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
WeldeMikael
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 506


« Reply #13 on: June 26, 2012, 07:23:01 AM »

I do not think it is wrong or an exaggeration to say that the majority of popular media expresses an anti-Christian view. I think the problem is in arguing that this is part of an organized movement or cabal or what have you. Believe me...members of my immediate family have been involved in the major/mainstream entertainment industry (specifically, the music industry) for a combined ~60 years, so I know how terrible a lot of it is. I would never dispute that. But there is little overall motive for it to be that way beyond the profit motive (which is itself anti-Christian, of course; money is not more important than morals), and as such it reinforces anti-Christian views in the attempt to appeal to the widest cross-section of the world as possible: non-Christians, agnostics, atheists, apathetic Christians, etc. In a way, the entertainment industry both pushes and reflects the larger societal belief in the perfectability of man and the progress of culture and civilization in lieu of strong belief in a particular religion. It wasn't always this way, of course. In music, for instance, mainstream artists like Elvis, Tennessee Ernie Ford, Johnny Cash, the Byrds, etc. recorded material with explicit religious content and were not relegated to sub-labels or particular media outlets catering to the religious, because of course there was not an assumed division between the believer and the rest of society (the "normal", the status quo...whatever you want to call it). It was considered normal to not only believe in God, but to reinforce or strengthen that belief by reading Christian books, watching Christian films, listening to Christian music, etc. This was not a conceit to a particular demographic, as Christians were the majority of the society anyway, and of course producing Christian (or at least Christian-sensitive) material did not prevent the major companies (many of which were incidentally run by non-Christians) from also producing other religious material in order to grab those non-Christian (primarily Jewish) markets, too. So it was good for business to make religious consumables.

Of course, today this has largely changed. There is still plenty of Christian media out there, but it is exactly that: "Christian media", as something separate from...uh...media. "Regular" (i.e., secular) media, I guess you could call it. Much of it is of poor quality relative to the large expenditures tied to the production and distribution of non-religious media, and the two are so far apart in terms of their spheres of influence that we have, for instance, a thread posted right now on OC.net that talks about a soap opera actors' Emmy acceptance speech which included some Orthodox religious content as being "just another 'thank you Jesus' guy" and potentially throwing pearls before swine. Thanking Jesus for awards (and football victories, and finding a penny on the street in movies, etc.) is another phenomenon, but it strikes me that what would seem normal in a normally Christian society (i.e., in one where the faith were not compartmentalized as it is in the USA) is now odd even to Orthodox Christians. That's heartbreaking and disturbing, but I would not blame the media for that at all. Or rather, I would blame the thoroughly Protestant and practically secular culture that pervades the West, as it is a hallmark of Protestant Evangelicalism to set up parallel "Christian" versions of everything under the sun in an attempt to create an Evangelical culture that is somehow separate from the mainstream, despite taking its forms from that same essentially atheistic mainstream. TV too immoral? That's okay; watch TBN instead of ABC or whatever. Books and films too lurid? Don't worry -- we've got the "Left Behind" series and other Christian books/movies to throw money at. Need music with a good message? K-LOVE is here for you! Granted, all of these things isolate believers from non-believers and make the former look crazy, but hey...that's the price of being righteous in an unrighteous world, no?  Roll Eyes

Somehow I don't think this is quite the way to go about it. Our forefathers baptized those elements of culture that could be baptized, in order to bring them to their pinnacle in the proper re-presentation of all God-given talent to back God. Instead, today we aim low (so low as to bypass any idea of appealing to anyone outside of our little club of fellow churchy people), "succeed", and then wonder why the rest of the world just doesn't get it. It's strange, because this is definitely not the attitude that produced heavenly, transcendent liturgies, icons, writings, and other things that were the product of Christianity when it was still flourishing around the world, in a multitude of cultures (including in the West). We are to bring our best sacrifice before the Lord. To reconnect this rant to the OP, when people see that (exceptional work being made for our God and our faith), they want in; when they do not, they turn to things like New Age that seek to answer this inherent desire for beauty, transcendence, awe, etc.


Thanks.
Across the Atlantic we have the same problem. Is it typically western  ?
Logged
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,962


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #14 on: June 26, 2012, 07:29:12 AM »

I do not think it is wrong or an exaggeration to say that the majority of popular media expresses an anti-Christian view. I think the problem is in arguing that this is part of an organized movement or cabal or what have you. Believe me...members of my immediate family have been involved in the major/mainstream entertainment industry (specifically, the music industry) for a combined ~60 years, so I know how terrible a lot of it is. I would never dispute that. But there is little overall motive for it to be that way beyond the profit motive (which is itself anti-Christian, of course; money is not more important than morals), and as such it reinforces anti-Christian views in the attempt to appeal to the widest cross-section of the world as possible: non-Christians, agnostics, atheists, apathetic Christians, etc. In a way, the entertainment industry both pushes and reflects the larger societal belief in the perfectability of man and the progress of culture and civilization in lieu of strong belief in a particular religion. It wasn't always this way, of course. In music, for instance, mainstream artists like Elvis, Tennessee Ernie Ford, Johnny Cash, the Byrds, etc. recorded material with explicit religious content and were not relegated to sub-labels or particular media outlets catering to the religious, because of course there was not an assumed division between the believer and the rest of society (the "normal", the status quo...whatever you want to call it). It was considered normal to not only believe in God, but to reinforce or strengthen that belief by reading Christian books, watching Christian films, listening to Christian music, etc. This was not a conceit to a particular demographic, as Christians were the majority of the society anyway, and of course producing Christian (or at least Christian-sensitive) material did not prevent the major companies (many of which were incidentally run by non-Christians) from also producing other religious material in order to grab those non-Christian (primarily Jewish) markets, too. So it was good for business to make religious consumables.

Of course, today this has largely changed. There is still plenty of Christian media out there, but it is exactly that: "Christian media", as something separate from...uh...media. "Regular" (i.e., secular) media, I guess you could call it. Much of it is of poor quality relative to the large expenditures tied to the production and distribution of non-religious media, and the two are so far apart in terms of their spheres of influence that we have, for instance, a thread posted right now on OC.net that talks about a soap opera actors' Emmy acceptance speech which included some Orthodox religious content as being "just another 'thank you Jesus' guy" and potentially throwing pearls before swine. Thanking Jesus for awards (and football victories, and finding a penny on the street in movies, etc.) is another phenomenon, but it strikes me that what would seem normal in a normally Christian society (i.e., in one where the faith were not compartmentalized as it is in the USA) is now odd even to Orthodox Christians. That's heartbreaking and disturbing, but I would not blame the media for that at all. Or rather, I would blame the thoroughly Protestant and practically secular culture that pervades the West, as it is a hallmark of Protestant Evangelicalism to set up parallel "Christian" versions of everything under the sun in an attempt to create an Evangelical culture that is somehow separate from the mainstream, despite taking its forms from that same essentially atheistic mainstream. TV too immoral? That's okay; watch TBN instead of ABC or whatever. Books and films too lurid? Don't worry -- we've got the "Left Behind" series and other Christian books/movies to throw money at. Need music with a good message? K-LOVE is here for you! Granted, all of these things isolate believers from non-believers and make the former look crazy, but hey...that's the price of being righteous in an unrighteous world, no?  Roll Eyes

Somehow I don't think this is quite the way to go about it. Our forefathers baptized those elements of culture that could be baptized, in order to bring them to their pinnacle in the proper re-presentation of all God-given talent to back God. Instead, today we aim low (so low as to bypass any idea of appealing to anyone outside of our little club of fellow churchy people), "succeed", and then wonder why the rest of the world just doesn't get it. It's strange, because this is definitely not the attitude that produced heavenly, transcendent liturgies, icons, writings, and other things that were the product of Christianity when it was still flourishing around the world, in a multitude of cultures (including in the West). We are to bring our best sacrifice before the Lord. To reconnect this rant to the OP, when people see that (exceptional work being made for our God and our faith), they want in; when they do not, they turn to things like New Age that seek to answer this inherent desire for beauty, transcendence, awe, etc.

I like this.
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #15 on: June 26, 2012, 07:36:55 AM »

Me fiancee's mother is into this New Age movement. It is scary stuff. Any Orthodox priest who does it, I would not commune with.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 26, 2012, 07:38:09 AM »

Any Orthodox priest who does it, I would not commune with.

Validity of Eucharist depending on personal opinion of a priest? Isn't that a heresy?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,491



« Reply #17 on: June 26, 2012, 07:47:52 AM »

Any Orthodox priest who does it, I would not commune with.

Validity of Eucharist depending on personal opinion of a priest? Isn't that a heresy?
I'm going to side with celticfan1888 on this one. If my priest were practising (or even dabbling) in another religion, I would not commune with him - but would inform the bishop that he might investigate.
Logged
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,173


« Reply #18 on: June 26, 2012, 07:54:11 AM »

Thanks.
Across the Atlantic we have the same problem. Is it typically western  ?

In so far as the Protestant Evangelical culture that does this is typically Western, I suppose it is. It's not as though Eastern or Orthodox societies don't have a distinction between the religious and the secular in art, but that their traditional non-religious art is still generally "folk" rather than "pop" (I'm using music terms because this is what I am familiar with, though I don't doubt that a similar contrast exists for literature, etc.), and as such reaffirms its own roots in the culture, rather than being a self-consciously separate thing, as in the Protestant Evangelical case described in my other post.

At some point, it seems like many Christians (and not all Protestant, I'm afraid) confused being counter-cultural, in the sense of not conforming to the shifting mores of this world, with being anti-cultural, and hence looking at anything that wasn't produced from within their particular community as inherently evil, bad, destructive, irredeemable, etc. I hope I'm wrong on this, but that's what I've seen at work, even among people whose commitment to Christianity and evangelism is beyond reproach. There is probably a fine line to be observed here.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,120



« Reply #19 on: June 26, 2012, 10:50:57 AM »

It seems quite... hyperdox, no ?

Not so much hyperdox as teledox.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #20 on: June 26, 2012, 12:35:12 PM »

Any Orthodox priest who does it, I would not commune with.

Validity of Eucharist depending on personal opinion of a priest? Isn't that a heresy?

It isn't personal opinion, it is about who is, or isn't orthodox. If they are obviously dabbing into non-orthodox beliefs, they are NOT orthodox.

So you would commune with a heretic? Say if your priest became a Gnostic?

Actually, in your opinion, we should just commune with Rome.

The saints broke communion with heretics all the time.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 26, 2012, 01:21:26 PM »

It isn't personal opinion, it is about who is, or isn't orthodox. If they are obviously dabbing into non-orthodox beliefs, they are NOT orthodox.

So you would commune with a heretic? Say if your priest became a Gnostic?

Actually, in your opinion, we should just commune with Rome.

The saints broke communion with heretics all the time.

The only one authority to determine whether a priest is in heresy is his bishop. It's he who checks that and penalises the priest properly. Lay people like you have no right to do that. Until the bishop does that there are no reasons to refuse taking Commung from such a priest, to be more precise that is a heresy of Donatism or Novatianism.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2012, 01:21:53 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2012, 08:47:45 PM »

It isn't personal opinion, it is about who is, or isn't orthodox. If they are obviously dabbing into non-orthodox beliefs, they are NOT orthodox.

So you would commune with a heretic? Say if your priest became a Gnostic?

Actually, in your opinion, we should just commune with Rome.

The saints broke communion with heretics all the time.

The only one authority to determine whether a priest is in heresy is his bishop. It's he who checks that and penalises the priest properly. Lay people like you have no right to do that. Until the bishop does that there are no reasons to refuse taking Commung from such a priest, to be more precise that is a heresy of Donatism or Novatianism.

Novatianism refuses readmission to communion (Which is not what I said). Donatists were rigorists, holding that the church must be a church of "saints," not "sinners," and that sacraments, such as baptism, administered by sinners were invalid (Which is not what I said).

Your argument that it is heresy doesn't make sense. Please try again.  Smiley
Logged

Forgive my sins.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2012, 08:48:41 PM »

Donatists were rigorists, holding that the church must be a church of "saints," not "sinners," and that sacraments, such as baptism, administered by sinners were invalid (Which is not what I said).

Your argument that it is heresy doesn't make sense. Please try again.  Smiley

You said the Communion will be invalid. What's the difference, then?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2012, 10:57:16 PM »

Donatists were rigorists, holding that the church must be a church of "saints," not "sinners," and that sacraments, such as baptism, administered by sinners were invalid (Which is not what I said).

Your argument that it is heresy doesn't make sense. Please try again.  Smiley

You said the Communion will be invalid. What's the difference, then?

Try again. You like putting words in my mouth?

That's not what I said. I said I would not personally commune with him, if the priest is doing very obviously heretical things, and justifying them.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2012, 10:58:35 PM »

Donatists were rigorists, holding that the church must be a church of "saints," not "sinners," and that sacraments, such as baptism, administered by sinners were invalid (Which is not what I said).

Your argument that it is heresy doesn't make sense. Please try again.  Smiley

You said the Communion will be invalid. What's the difference, then?

Try again. You like putting words in my mouth?

That's not what I said. I said I would not personally commune with him, if the priest is doing very obviously heretical things, and justifying them.

So according to you what'd be wrong with that Communion then that wouldn't allow you to participate?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #26 on: June 27, 2012, 12:13:45 AM »

Any Orthodox priest who does it, I would not commune with.

Validity of Eucharist depending on personal opinion of a priest? Isn't that a heresy?
Nope.  CF1888 has it 100%.  If you know a priest is practicing another religion, or incorporating other religions into his beliefs, that ain't opinion.  So who can be sure that said priest isn't hiding crystals on the altar table somewhere?  Who can be sure he isn't reciting some sort of mantra instead of the prayers?  I agree with you that this is all highly unlikely, but if a priest is practicing two religions, he's got both of them wrong; ergo, I would not commune with him either.  And that ain't heresy, or opinion.
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,163


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #27 on: June 27, 2012, 12:31:20 AM »

Any Orthodox priest who does it, I would not commune with.

Validity of Eucharist depending on personal opinion of a priest? Isn't that a heresy?
Nope.  CF1888 has it 100%.  If you know a priest is practicing another religion, or incorporating other religions into his beliefs, that ain't opinion.  So who can be sure that said priest isn't hiding crystals on the altar table somewhere?  Who can be sure he isn't reciting some sort of mantra instead of the prayers?  I agree with you that this is all highly unlikely, but if a priest is practicing two religions, he's got both of them wrong; ergo, I would not commune with him either.  And that ain't heresy, or opinion.
Then you're saying that the vitality of the Sacramental Mysteries is dependent upon the personal sanctity of the priest, which is the heresy of Donatism. The Holy Mysteries are the work of the Church, not the personal work of the priest, so until such time that the priest is excommunicated/deposed by his bishop for heresy, the Sacramental Mysteries he dispenses are still valid and filled with grace.

Now, if you choose to break communion with him, that's your business. There's certainly precedent for that, as well, and you wouldn't necessarily be blameworthy for doing so.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2012, 12:48:24 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #28 on: June 27, 2012, 12:42:18 AM »

Donatists were rigorists, holding that the church must be a church of "saints," not "sinners," and that sacraments, such as baptism, administered by sinners were invalid (Which is not what I said).

Your argument that it is heresy doesn't make sense. Please try again.  Smiley

You said the Communion will be invalid. What's the difference, then?

Try again. You like putting words in my mouth?

That's not what I said. I said I would not personally commune with him, if the priest is doing very obviously heretical things, and justifying them.

So according to you what'd be wrong with that Communion then that wouldn't allow you to participate?

In Christian ecclesiology, full communion is a relationship between church organizations or groups that mutually recognize their sharing the essential doctrines. So if the priest is dabbling into New Age teachings, such as the Charismatic Movement, he is no longer sharing the essential doctrinal teachings. If this was something that he did and he realized it was wrong, that is different. But if it is something he believes is orthodox, that is crossing that fine line.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #29 on: June 27, 2012, 12:42:18 AM »

would inform the bishop that he might investigate.

THIS
Logged

Forgive my sins.
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #30 on: June 27, 2012, 12:42:18 AM »

It isn't personal opinion, it is about who is, or isn't orthodox. If they are obviously dabbing into non-orthodox beliefs, they are NOT orthodox.

So you would commune with a heretic? Say if your priest became a Gnostic?

Actually, in your opinion, we should just commune with Rome.

The saints broke communion with heretics all the time.

The only one authority to determine whether a priest is in heresy is his bishop. It's he who checks that and penalises the priest properly. Lay people like you have no right to do that. Until the bishop does that there are no reasons to refuse taking Commung from such a priest, to be more precise that is a heresy of Donatism or Novatianism.

Canon 15, 8th Ecumenical Council: But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions
Logged

Forgive my sins.
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #31 on: June 27, 2012, 12:57:31 AM »

Any Orthodox priest who does it, I would not commune with.

Validity of Eucharist depending on personal opinion of a priest? Isn't that a heresy?
Nope.  CF1888 has it 100%.  If you know a priest is practicing another religion, or incorporating other religions into his beliefs, that ain't opinion.  So who can be sure that said priest isn't hiding crystals on the altar table somewhere?  Who can be sure he isn't reciting some sort of mantra instead of the prayers?  I agree with you that this is all highly unlikely, but if a priest is practicing two religions, he's got both of them wrong; ergo, I would not commune with him either.  And that ain't heresy, or opinion.
Then you're saying that the vitality of the Sacramental Mysteries is dependent upon the personal sanctity of the priest, which is the heresy of Donatism.
Don't believe I said that.  Certainly didn't mean that.

The Holy Mysteries are the work of the Church, not the personal work of the priest,
I agree 100%, yet if there are crystals and mantras involved, then it isn't the Holy Mysteries. 

so until such time that the priest is excommunicated/deposed by his bishop for heresy, the Sacramental Mysteries he dispenses are still valid and filled with grace.
Not if I see it first.  Again, it's highly unlikely, but if there are other religious practices being mixed in the Mysteries, then they're not the Mysteries.  If we're 100% sure, then we shouldn't need to wait for the bishop's decree.

Now, if you choose to break communion with him, that's your business. There's certainly precedent for that, as well, and you wouldn't necessarily be blameworthy for doing so.
Then then, is it heresy or not?
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,163


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #32 on: June 27, 2012, 01:01:05 AM »

Any Orthodox priest who does it, I would not commune with.

Validity of Eucharist depending on personal opinion of a priest? Isn't that a heresy?
Nope.  CF1888 has it 100%.  If you know a priest is practicing another religion, or incorporating other religions into his beliefs, that ain't opinion.  So who can be sure that said priest isn't hiding crystals on the altar table somewhere?  Who can be sure he isn't reciting some sort of mantra instead of the prayers?  I agree with you that this is all highly unlikely, but if a priest is practicing two religions, he's got both of them wrong; ergo, I would not commune with him either.  And that ain't heresy, or opinion.
Then you're saying that the vitality of the Sacramental Mysteries is dependent upon the personal sanctity of the priest, which is the heresy of Donatism.
Don't believe I said that.  Certainly didn't mean that.

The Holy Mysteries are the work of the Church, not the personal work of the priest,
I agree 100%, yet if there are crystals and mantras involved, then it isn't the Holy Mysteries. 

so until such time that the priest is excommunicated/deposed by his bishop for heresy, the Sacramental Mysteries he dispenses are still valid and filled with grace.
Not if I see it first.  Again, it's highly unlikely, but if there are other religious practices being mixed in the Mysteries, then they're not the Mysteries.  If we're 100% sure, then we shouldn't need to wait for the bishop's decree.

Now, if you choose to break communion with him, that's your business. There's certainly precedent for that, as well, and you wouldn't necessarily be blameworthy for doing so.
Then then, is it heresy or not?
Heresy is fundamentally a choice, so if you choose to be a heretic, you choose to be a heretic. That's your choice.
Logged
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,313


« Reply #33 on: June 27, 2012, 01:27:35 AM »

Good points my friend. As expected, the ridicule has already begun. Don't be discouraged. Keep shining the light (the light of Christ that is, not the New Age luciferian "light".) Smiley


Selam

He'd probably include reggae in his list of New Age music.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,120



« Reply #34 on: June 27, 2012, 06:57:44 AM »

Any Orthodox priest who does it, I would not commune with.

Validity of Eucharist depending on personal opinion of a priest? Isn't that a heresy?
Nope.  CF1888 has it 100%.  If you know a priest is practicing another religion, or incorporating other religions into his beliefs, that ain't opinion.  So who can be sure that said priest isn't hiding crystals on the altar table somewhere?  Who can be sure he isn't reciting some sort of mantra instead of the prayers?  I agree with you that this is all highly unlikely, but if a priest is practicing two religions, he's got both of them wrong; ergo, I would not commune with him either.  And that ain't heresy, or opinion.
Then you're saying that the vitality of the Sacramental Mysteries is dependent upon the personal sanctity of the priest, which is the heresy of Donatism.
Don't believe I said that.  Certainly didn't mean that.

I don't remember you saying that either (for what it's worth).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,105


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #35 on: June 27, 2012, 09:26:00 AM »

It isn't personal opinion, it is about who is, or isn't orthodox. If they are obviously dabbing into non-orthodox beliefs, they are NOT orthodox.

So you would commune with a heretic? Say if your priest became a Gnostic?

Actually, in your opinion, we should just commune with Rome.

The saints broke communion with heretics all the time.

The only one authority to determine whether a priest is in heresy is his bishop. It's he who checks that and penalises the priest properly. Lay people like you have no right to do that. Until the bishop does that there are no reasons to refuse taking Commung from such a priest, to be more precise that is a heresy of Donatism or Novatianism.

Canon 15, 8th Ecumenical Council: But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions

It may be a fine distinction, perhaps even one that doesn't matter so much, but is there not a difference between you somehow "knowing" your priest is into New Age garbage and him preaching and teaching it publicly?

By the way, fwiw, if I knew my priest was into that crap, I would discuss it with the bishop and most likely find a new priest or parish.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #36 on: June 27, 2012, 09:55:07 AM »

Good points my friend. As expected, the ridicule has already begun. Don't be discouraged. Keep shining the light (the light of Christ that is, not the New Age luciferian "light".) Smiley


Selam

He'd probably include reggae in his list of New Age music.

That's an ad hominem.

Not to mention I'm sick of all the idiotic attacks of Gebre by everyone.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 27, 2012, 12:25:24 PM »

Donatists were rigorists, holding that the church must be a church of "saints," not "sinners," and that sacraments, such as baptism, administered by sinners were invalid (Which is not what I said).

Your argument that it is heresy doesn't make sense. Please try again.  Smiley

You said the Communion will be invalid. What's the difference, then?

Try again. You like putting words in my mouth?

That's not what I said. I said I would not personally commune with him, if the priest is doing very obviously heretical things, and justifying them.

So according to you what'd be wrong with that Communion then that wouldn't allow you to participate?

In Christian ecclesiology, full communion is a relationship between church organizations or groups that mutually recognize their sharing the essential doctrines. So if the priest is dabbling into New Age teachings, such as the Charismatic Movement, he is no longer sharing the essential doctrinal teachings. If this was something that he did and he realized it was wrong, that is different. But if it is something he believes is orthodox, that is crossing that fine line.

Are you a bishop?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #38 on: June 27, 2012, 12:34:04 PM »

It isn't personal opinion, it is about who is, or isn't orthodox. If they are obviously dabbing into non-orthodox beliefs, they are NOT orthodox.

So you would commune with a heretic? Say if your priest became a Gnostic?

Actually, in your opinion, we should just commune with Rome.

The saints broke communion with heretics all the time.

The only one authority to determine whether a priest is in heresy is his bishop. It's he who checks that and penalises the priest properly. Lay people like you have no right to do that. Until the bishop does that there are no reasons to refuse taking Commung from such a priest, to be more precise that is a heresy of Donatism or Novatianism.

Canon 15, 8th Ecumenical Council: But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions

It may be a fine distinction, perhaps even one that doesn't matter so much, but is there not a difference between you somehow "knowing" your priest is into New Age garbage and him preaching and teaching it publicly?

By the way, fwiw, if I knew my priest was into that crap, I would discuss it with the bishop and most likely find a new priest or parish.

Pretty sure a priest running an Orthodoc Charismatic group in the church is public.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,105


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #39 on: June 27, 2012, 12:39:42 PM »

It isn't personal opinion, it is about who is, or isn't orthodox. If they are obviously dabbing into non-orthodox beliefs, they are NOT orthodox.

So you would commune with a heretic? Say if your priest became a Gnostic?

Actually, in your opinion, we should just commune with Rome.

The saints broke communion with heretics all the time.

The only one authority to determine whether a priest is in heresy is his bishop. It's he who checks that and penalises the priest properly. Lay people like you have no right to do that. Until the bishop does that there are no reasons to refuse taking Commung from such a priest, to be more precise that is a heresy of Donatism or Novatianism.

Canon 15, 8th Ecumenical Council: But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions

It may be a fine distinction, perhaps even one that doesn't matter so much, but is there not a difference between you somehow "knowing" your priest is into New Age garbage and him preaching and teaching it publicly?

By the way, fwiw, if I knew my priest was into that crap, I would discuss it with the bishop and most likely find a new priest or parish.

Pretty sure a priest running an Orthodoc Charismatic group in the church is public.

Okay, now's another chance to fill a gap in my education  Wink.  What, precisely is an "Orthodox Charismatic" group, and what makes it either New Age and/or heretical?  Honest question, btw.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,163


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #40 on: June 27, 2012, 01:29:34 PM »

Any Orthodox priest who does it, I would not commune with.

Validity of Eucharist depending on personal opinion of a priest? Isn't that a heresy?
Nope.  CF1888 has it 100%.  If you know a priest is practicing another religion, or incorporating other religions into his beliefs, that ain't opinion.  So who can be sure that said priest isn't hiding crystals on the altar table somewhere?  Who can be sure he isn't reciting some sort of mantra instead of the prayers?  I agree with you that this is all highly unlikely, but if a priest is practicing two religions, he's got both of them wrong; ergo, I would not commune with him either.  And that ain't heresy, or opinion.
Then you're saying that the vitality of the Sacramental Mysteries is dependent upon the personal sanctity of the priest, which is the heresy of Donatism.
Don't believe I said that.  Certainly didn't mean that.
Okay. I stand corrected, then. I suppose I read more into your words than you intended.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,163


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #41 on: June 27, 2012, 01:33:34 PM »

It isn't personal opinion, it is about who is, or isn't orthodox. If they are obviously dabbing into non-orthodox beliefs, they are NOT orthodox.

So you would commune with a heretic? Say if your priest became a Gnostic?

Actually, in your opinion, we should just commune with Rome.

The saints broke communion with heretics all the time.

The only one authority to determine whether a priest is in heresy is his bishop. It's he who checks that and penalises the priest properly. Lay people like you have no right to do that. Until the bishop does that there are no reasons to refuse taking Commung from such a priest, to be more precise that is a heresy of Donatism or Novatianism.

Canon 15, 8th Ecumenical Council: But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions

It may be a fine distinction, perhaps even one that doesn't matter so much, but is there not a difference between you somehow "knowing" your priest is into New Age garbage and him preaching and teaching it publicly?

By the way, fwiw, if I knew my priest was into that crap, I would discuss it with the bishop and most likely find a new priest or parish.

Pretty sure a priest running an Orthodoc Charismatic group in the church is public.
But has Charismaticism, whatever that is, been formally declared a heresy, or is it just something you deem heretical. If the former, then you are certainly justified in breaking communion with a priest involved in the activity you describe. If the latter, then you beak communion at the risk of putting yourself in schism from the Church. That's why the decision of a bishop is so important here.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,780



« Reply #42 on: June 27, 2012, 02:28:32 PM »

Good points my friend. As expected, the ridicule has already begun. Don't be discouraged. Keep shining the light (the light of Christ that is, not the New Age luciferian "light".) Smiley


Selam

He'd probably include reggae in his list of New Age music.

That's an ad hominem.

Not to mention I'm sick of all the idiotic attacks of Gebre by everyone.

Would you please allow the moderators to determine if something is ad hominem and therefore against the forum rules? If you or anyone else believes that ad hominem has been employed,please report this to the moderators by using the link on the lower right corner of each post. Thanks, Second Chance
« Last Edit: June 27, 2012, 02:28:53 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,120



« Reply #43 on: June 27, 2012, 04:03:52 PM »

It isn't personal opinion, it is about who is, or isn't orthodox. If they are obviously dabbing into non-orthodox beliefs, they are NOT orthodox.

So you would commune with a heretic? Say if your priest became a Gnostic?

Actually, in your opinion, we should just commune with Rome.

The saints broke communion with heretics all the time.

The only one authority to determine whether a priest is in heresy is his bishop. It's he who checks that and penalises the priest properly. Lay people like you have no right to do that. Until the bishop does that there are no reasons to refuse taking Commung from such a priest, to be more precise that is a heresy of Donatism or Novatianism.

Canon 15, 8th Ecumenical Council: But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions

It may be a fine distinction, perhaps even one that doesn't matter so much, but is there not a difference between you somehow "knowing" your priest is into New Age garbage and him preaching and teaching it publicly?

By the way, fwiw, if I knew my priest was into that crap, I would discuss it with the bishop and most likely find a new priest or parish.

Pretty sure a priest running an Orthodoc Charismatic group in the church is public.
But has Charismaticism, whatever that is, been formally declared a heresy, or is it just something you deem heretical. If the former, then you are certainly justified in breaking communion with a priest involved in the activity you describe. If the latter, then you beak communion at the risk of putting yourself in schism from the Church. That's why the decision of a bishop is so important here.

This is something I've been wondering about. If someone suspects heresy without being certain, what's the standard/recommended practice? Simply refraining from communing from that priest but without condemning him, perhaps?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #44 on: June 27, 2012, 04:23:07 PM »

This is something I've been wondering about. If someone suspects heresy without being certain, what's the standard/recommended practice? Simply refraining from communing from that priest but without condemning him, perhaps?

Take Communion if you had intended and inform the bishop after the Liturgy.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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 0.193 seconds with 72 queries.