OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 08:08:26 AM *
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: Protestants Using Orthodox Symbols?  (Read 2854 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,226


« Reply #45 on: August 10, 2012, 05:54:31 PM »

I'm not sure I understand where the confusion is, but fwiw, so far as I remember how things went...

In 325 a creed (based on earlier baptismal creeds) was adopted at Nicea, guarding the consubstantiality of Jesus with the Father and condemning those who say that Jesus was created or that there was a time when he did not exist. In 381 at Constantinople certain statements added to the creed, including some that defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Several centuries later the filioque became an issue on a very local level in the west (Spain?). By the 9th century the filioque issue was known about by both eastern and western Church leaders, and easterners like St. Photius wrote against it, but the issue was still not something that caused a lasting division. By the 11th century things had progressed and Rome officially accepted the filioque as part of the creed. Today most Catholics and Protestants, if they use it at all, use a version of the creed which has the filioque in it, while the Orthodox and some others do not.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2012, 05:55:34 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
Pan Michał
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church
Posts: 477



« Reply #46 on: August 10, 2012, 05:59:59 PM »

Thank You I understand that but...
" The Nicene Creed, Christian statement of faith, used by most (all???) protestant churches is the same used by the Catholic Church, which they changed from the original the Orthodox Church uses.  This was part of the reason for the Great Schism.  I pointed this out some Baptist friends and they looked confused and horrified.  I don't think they ever put two and two together when they read the creed.  I did, however, discuss this with a Catholic friend and she was very aware of it.  I found the same creed on many Protestant churches denominational home pages while I was doing my research prior to conversion.  I was, and still am, overwhelmed at the amount of information I did not know existed as a Baptist."

... now I'm confused to Kerdy's reply. Emphasis added.


I understand. Alas I have no knowledge about protestantism, just catholic/orthodox, so I'm afraid I can't go any further in a specific discussion.

EDITED - for clarity I've added quotation marks instead of quote inside of quote.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2012, 06:07:31 PM by Pan Michał » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #47 on: August 10, 2012, 06:04:59 PM »

I'm not sure I understand where the confusion is, but fwiw, so far as I remember how things went...

In 325 a creed (based on earlier baptismal creeds) was adopted at Nicea, guarding the consubstantiality of Jesus with the Father and condemning those who say that Jesus was created or that there was a time when he did not exist. In 381 at Constantinople certain statements added to the creed, including some that defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Several centuries later the filioque became an issue on a very local level in the west (Spain?). By the 9th century the filioque issue was known about by both eastern and western Church leaders, and easterners like St. Photius wrote against it, but the issue was still not something that caused a lasting division. By the 11th century things had progressed and Rome officially accepted the filioque as part of the creed. Today most Catholics and Protestants, if they use it at all, use a version of the creed which has the filioque in it, while the Orthodox and some others do not.

You can make anything boring including the exciting world of creed wars.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2012, 06:05:10 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,226


« Reply #48 on: August 10, 2012, 06:07:08 PM »

I'm not sure I understand where the confusion is, but fwiw, so far as I remember how things went...

In 325 a creed (based on earlier baptismal creeds) was adopted at Nicea, guarding the consubstantiality of Jesus with the Father and condemning those who say that Jesus was created or that there was a time when he did not exist. In 381 at Constantinople certain statements added to the creed, including some that defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Several centuries later the filioque became an issue on a very local level in the west (Spain?). By the 9th century the filioque issue was known about by both eastern and western Church leaders, and easterners like St. Photius wrote against it, but the issue was still not something that caused a lasting division. By the 11th century things had progressed and Rome officially accepted the filioque as part of the creed. Today most Catholics and Protestants, if they use it at all, use a version of the creed which has the filioque in it, while the Orthodox and some others do not.

You can make anything boring including the exciting world of creed wars.

I aspire to the dryness of a modern ecclesiastical historian and the blandness and uncreativity of a Byzantine theologian!  Grin
Logged
alanscott
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant
Jurisdiction: Wesleyan
Posts: 309



« Reply #49 on: August 10, 2012, 06:08:01 PM »

I'm not sure I understand where the confusion is, but fwiw, so far as I remember how things went...

In 325 a creed (based on earlier baptismal creeds) was adopted at Nicea, guarding the consubstantiality of Jesus with the Father and condemning those who say that Jesus was created or that there was a time when he did not exist. In 381 at Constantinople certain statements added to the creed, including some that defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Several centuries later the filioque became an issue on a very local level in the west (Spain?). By the 9th century the filioque issue was known about by both eastern and western Church leaders, and easterners like St. Photius wrote against it, but the issue was still not something that caused a lasting division. By the 11th century things had progressed and Rome officially accepted the filioque as part of the creed. Today most Catholics and Protestants, if they use it at all, use a version of the creed which has the filioque in it, while the Orthodox and some others do not.

Oh, I think that's it. I won't assume on Kerdy's behalf but guessing he was referring to the filioque.

Thank You! (For your help as well Pan Michal)
Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,156



WWW
« Reply #50 on: August 10, 2012, 06:12:13 PM »

This is why I always cross myself with three bars when praying.

1) Cross head to belly
2) Cross right shoulder to left shoulder
3) Cross from lower left stomach to upper right
4) Move hand across throat for finish


That way you get disemboweled and have your throat slit.
Did you know that making those kinds of signs over yourself is part of Mas.inititian for revealing secrets?

Anyway, where does this strange drawing come from?
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #51 on: August 10, 2012, 06:16:01 PM »

I'm not sure I understand where the confusion is, but fwiw, so far as I remember how things went...

In 325 a creed (based on earlier baptismal creeds) was adopted at Nicea, guarding the consubstantiality of Jesus with the Father and condemning those who say that Jesus was created or that there was a time when he did not exist. In 381 at Constantinople certain statements added to the creed, including some that defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Several centuries later the filioque became an issue on a very local level in the west (Spain?). By the 9th century the filioque issue was known about by both eastern and western Church leaders, and easterners like St. Photius wrote against it, but the issue was still not something that caused a lasting division. By the 11th century things had progressed and Rome officially accepted the filioque as part of the creed. Today most Catholics and Protestants, if they use it at all, use a version of the creed which has the filioque in it, while the Orthodox and some others do not.

Oh, I think that's it. I won't assume on Kerdy's behalf but guessing he was referring to the filioque.

Thank You! (For your help as well Pan Michal)

I was.  Sorry for the confusion
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,156



WWW
« Reply #52 on: August 10, 2012, 06:16:19 PM »

Actually such an elaborate sign of the cross exsists to certain extent; in Iberia and Latin America there is tradition of tradition of tracing a small cross on the forehead, one on the chest and one on the lips.
Isn't it standard in R.Catholic churches to rub one's thumb in a fist over the forehead and lips at one point in the R.C. Mass?
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #53 on: August 10, 2012, 06:18:19 PM »

This is why I always cross myself with three bars when praying.

1) Cross head to belly
2) Cross right shoulder to left shoulder
3) Cross from lower left stomach to upper right
4) Move hand across throat for finish


That way you get disemboweled and have your throat slit.
Did you know that making those kinds of signs over yourself is part of Mas.inititian for revealing secrets?

Anyway, where does this strange drawing come from?

I bet Mr. * did it himself.

He is the hot thing in outsider digital art.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,226


« Reply #54 on: August 10, 2012, 06:39:39 PM »

I bet Mr. * did it himself.

He is the hot thing in outsider digital art.

Indeed, I made it in a basic MS paint program. None of that rich-kid paintshop pro for me! However, I used the curving technique rather than straight lines. Straight lines are so scholastic and western! In Orthodoxy we move and bend and curve!
Logged
Pan Michał
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church
Posts: 477



« Reply #55 on: August 10, 2012, 06:42:54 PM »

Indeed, I made it in a basic MS paint program. None of that rich-kid paintshop pro for me! However, I used the curving technique rather than straight lines. Straight lines are so scholastic and western! In Orthodoxy we move and bend and curve!

You should be careful with those, as MS stands for "Mormons & Scientology" Wink
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,018



« Reply #56 on: August 10, 2012, 07:14:36 PM »

Actually such an elaborate sign of the cross exsists to certain extent; in Iberia and Latin America there is tradition of tradition of tracing a small cross on the forehead, one on the chest and one on the lips.
Isn't it standard in R.Catholic churches to rub one's thumb in a fist over the forehead and lips at one point in the R.C. Mass?

Yes, but more like what Tallitot said: forehead, lips, heart.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,018



« Reply #57 on: August 10, 2012, 07:17:37 PM »

O.K. now I'm confused  Huh
The revisions of Constantinople include the teachings about The Holy Spirit, and His relation to the Holy Trinity and how He "interracts" with us. They were included because at that time the Orthodoxy was dogmatically confronted with Arianism. Thus we accept it as our Creed.
Thank You I understand that but...
Quote
The Nicene Creed, Christian statement of faith, used by most (all???) protestant churches is the same used by the Catholic Church, which they changed from the original the Orthodox Church uses.  This was part of the reason for the Great Schism.  I pointed this out some Baptist friends and they looked confused and horrified.  I don't think they ever put two and two together when they read the creed.  I did, however, discuss this with a Catholic friend and she was very aware of it.  I found the same creed on many Protestant churches denominational home pages while I was doing my research prior to conversion.  I was, and still am, overwhelmed at the amount of information I did not know existed as a Baptist.

... now I'm confused to Kerdy's reply. Emphasis added.

You probably figured this out already (I was eating supper while the last several posts were posted) but when we say "Nicene Creed", we almost always mean either the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed or the Nicene-Constantinopolitan-Creed-with-filioque-added.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Nicene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 574


« Reply #58 on: August 11, 2012, 06:20:41 AM »

I would prefer if they started using orthodox symbols, IE the cross, IE the Icons, IE anything which we call holy as it means a step in the right direction and they aren't just heading deeper and deeper into Iconoclasm or something worse.
Logged

Thank you.
alanscott
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant
Jurisdiction: Wesleyan
Posts: 309



« Reply #59 on: August 11, 2012, 10:15:39 AM »

No worries! Learning (for me anyway) often comes out of such confusion. Not you, but my ignorance caused the confusion. You have simply helped suggest the next door of study I should enter. Thank You and God bless!

You probably figured this out already (I was eating supper while the last several posts were posted) but when we say "Nicene Creed", we almost always mean either the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed or the Nicene-Constantinopolitan-Creed-with-filioque-added.
Yea, it sometimes takes me a while but I finally caught on!  Smiley 

Thanks Peter!
« Last Edit: August 11, 2012, 10:32:43 AM by alanscott » Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.
Pan Michał
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church
Posts: 477



« Reply #60 on: August 12, 2012, 06:32:44 AM »

Logged
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 678


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #61 on: August 12, 2012, 06:14:43 PM »

I have a little bit of a religious pet-peeve and I was wondering if anyone here has any thoughts about this topic. How do you feel about Protestants using Orthodox symbols? To be more specific, those who use the Greek 'fish' symbol that the Orthodox used in its early days during persecution. I've noticed a trend among zealous Evangelicals to use this symbol very often as some way to commemorate their 'persecuted ancestors' and I have to say, I find this rather offensive. Evangelicals were not the ones being persecuted when this symbol was used; in fact, they were not even around during the time this symbol came out. Yet, they still wear it as if they had some type of connection with the Church during these early times when clearly they did not. I just find it kind of offensive to see Evangelicals wear one of our symbols that represents our ancestors' persecution as if they were the ones whose ancestors were persecuted. It is like a White person calling his White friends the N-word; a Black person would find it offensive because that White person never understood what it's like to be an N-word yet they still drop it as if they understand entirely or as if it affected them in any negative way. Maybe I'm just being too serious. What are your thoughts about this?

Whether the Early Church would be more resembled by modern Orthodoxy or Evangelicalism is not really that important in this case. Just as all trace races and nations are traced to Adam and Noah, so all Christians trace their roots to the Early Church. Let 'em have it
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 678


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #62 on: August 12, 2012, 06:19:15 PM »

You know what other ancient Orthodox symbol they use?

The cross.  Roll Eyes

Ah but not the three bar cross!

The one bar cross is a Protestant symbol police

Same old Protestants always throwing out what they don't like. Anything for a laugh!
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
kevlev
Site Supporter
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 116


Lord have mercy


« Reply #63 on: August 12, 2012, 07:25:41 PM »



Byzantine Rite Lutheranism?
Logged

From my youth have many passions warred against me, but do Thou Thyself defend and save me, O Saviour.
neon_knights
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 513


My political hero.


« Reply #64 on: August 12, 2012, 07:42:13 PM »

Byzantine Rite Lutheranism?

Yes sir. It's pretty common in Ukraine I believe
Logged
kevlev
Site Supporter
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 116


Lord have mercy


« Reply #65 on: August 12, 2012, 07:49:14 PM »

Byzantine Rite Lutheranism?

Yes sir. It's pretty common in Ukraine I believe

Interesting.
I had heard of it before, but information on its history and development appears to be rather scant. Does anyone know anything about BRL, aside from what the wikipedia page provides us with?
Logged

From my youth have many passions warred against me, but do Thou Thyself defend and save me, O Saviour.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,790



« Reply #66 on: August 12, 2012, 07:57:06 PM »

Byzantine Rite Lutheranism?

Yes sir. It's pretty common in Ukraine I believe

Interesting.
I had heard of it before, but information on its history and development appears to be rather scant. Does anyone know anything about BRL, aside from what the wikipedia page provides us with?

The one group was Byzantine Rite Catholics but in the 1920s they were being forced to adopt Latinizations.  They did not want to join the Moscow Patriarchate (because of the Revolution) and so they became Byzantine Rite Lutherans using a modified form of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom while adding things like a confession of sins at the beginning of the Liturgy, getting rid of the megalynarion and truncating the canon.  Their singing is still in the tradition of the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches which is very nice.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
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 0.112 seconds with 50 queries.