Old believers?

[PeterTheAleut]

I'll admit it, I'm considering joining a schismatic group because I cannot accept the heresy of ecumenism. Do you got any feedback yeshuasim?

Just a friendly piece of advice from an old (well, not that old yet) fart: You might want to first grow up and develop the maturity and constancy needed to overcome your youthful, impetuous extremism before you start exploring other jurisdictions.

[JamesR]

Maybe you are right. Why am I even involving myself in this crap when I am still a dumb kid? My Priest is a good devout man who's teaching me and I have a comfortable spiritual home with the Sacraments. Why go beyond that? That's sufficient for me at the moment.

[orthonorm]

Maybe you are right. Why am I even involving myself in this crap when I am still a dumb kid? My Priest is a good devout man who's teaching me and I have a comfortable spiritual home with the Sacraments. Why go beyond that? That's sufficient for me at the moment.

Emphasis mine.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I'll admit it, I'm considering joining a schismatic group because I cannot accept the heresy of ecumenism. Do you got any feedback yeshuasim?

That's sad. I really hope to God that you aren't considering that and it is just a joke.

Would you rather him worship here?

I don't see what your point is. Metropolitan Jonah never concelebrated with Roman Catholics. You're stupid wrong if you think he did.

"ecumenism' is a great and wonderful thing. "Ecumenism" is a heresy. Brotherly dialogue, discussion and meetings are a wonderful thing and isn't a heresy.
Inter-Communion, Concelebration and seeking reunion before theological unity is a heresy.

No major Orthodox figure in the present has committed the latter. Therefore, none are guilty of ecumenism.

Who are you to accuse them of Ecumenism anyway? You have no right to do so.

Fixed it for you. You are confusing people by your use of "stupid" whenever you disagree with them. Folks are starting to think that you are violating the rule on respecting others. Carl Kraeff

[Alpo]

What is "the heresy of Ecumenism" anyway? There seems to be a lot of fuss about it but I don't think I've ever seen a well-reasoned definition of it. Just a lot of talk about how wrong it is.

[yeshuaisiam]

@yeshuaisiam: Can you answer to the 3 questions by me?

After a night of thinking and to cool off I have a few statements on this thread:

First-
MK hijacked this thread.  He was completely off topic bringing the Anabaptists into this.   He provoked all of this.  This is called a troll. (Troll Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29) He threw up what would be emotionally objectionable content to dig into my skin, I bought it, I argued back, and it started a huge controversy causing me to argue with many.   This is not befitting of a moderator on a forum IMHO.   This isn't an issue of moderator authority or discipline action either.   This is an issue of a thread hijack which is frowned upon on practically every forum online, as well as being a troll.

Next -
MK decides after a few squabbles back and forth between me and others, to rip me apart somehow.   There is no doubt there is confusion and valid points I have made about the faith.  It is obvious that I am not giving straw man arguments, as it riles up and makes people extremely upset.   I am a victim of witnessing ecumenism first hand, after a lifelong dedication to the EO faith.   Until you have witnessed the Eucharist celebrated after a pagan ritual, followed by some funky Tribal ritual later, nobody should be telling me it is just "dialog".  I was crushed by ecumenism, and it made me question many things of the church.  My trust the bishops is practically gone.  MK knows this.   It made me re-question everything about the church (icons, father/master, etc.) when my bishop betrayed my staunch Orthodox footing.


So I will humor MK.  I will answer his 3 questions.

First I'll state, that instantly I was not going to jump on board with the old believers.  This is words thrown at me.  I posted a video, and thought this was some form of Orthodoxy that I could cling to some.  There are no Old believers in Texas (or much Orthodox for that matter).

Question 1:
Neither affects me.  I will not be joining Old believers, but figured there was some things I could learn from them.

Question 2:
I won't be meeting them in real life.   This is because I actually have a life.  I don't have the time or willpower to do it.   I am married, I have 5 children, and a farm.  I am self employed, I have an established business in my community.  I am not going to up my roots and leave just to join them.  I have a ton of responsibility in my life where I can't just up and leave.  I have older relatives that need me here.  My livestock needs me here.

Question 3:
Again, I will not be meeting them and I would correct anybody who does not believe in the real name of Christ.  I'd even say it directly to a Patriarch, because frankly, I could care less.  If a Patriarch did not that his Aramaic name differs from "Jesus", then he's flat wrong.   He's as human as anybody else.

I hope this satisfies MK's questions.

So, if all this other JUNK can be taken back from dumb me who allowed MK to troll sucker me into another dialog -

To the OP:
The Eastern Orthodox church prior to the 1600's crossed themselves with TWO fingers.  This is why the Old Believers do this.

[JamesR]

Ecumenism is a heresy because it rejects the authority of the Eastern Orthodox Church even though we pledge loyalty to it in the Nicene Creed. Let me explain.

Ecumenism--in its broadest sense--is a movement within Protestant Christianity to unite 'all the Churches/brethren in Christ' together with the intention of better understanding each other and eventually creating one universal Church.

This is heretical because 1) it asserts that there are more than one Church in Christ, even though as Orthodox, there is no "you're Church and my Church" there is only THE one Church that we swear allegiance to in the Creed. To adopt this ecumenist view would be to undermind the Church's authority as the one Church. 2) it wants to 'create' a universal Church. This is blatantly heretical. It is a total rejection of the authority of the Orthodox Church. We don't seek to create any 'new universal Church'--that just leads to further schism. We believe that the Orthodox Church is THE Church and that it is universal. There is no need to create a new universal Church, because in doing so we would be rejecting the authority of the Orthodox Church. The only solution to creating a 'universal Church' is to convert back to Orthodoxy and leave behind your heresies.

[mike]

MK hijacked this thread.

Really?

Well,  I'll open the can of worms.

First I'll state, that instantly I was not going to jump on board with the old believers.  This is words thrown at me.  I posted a video, and thought this was some form of Orthodoxy that I could cling to some.  There are no Old believers in Texas (or much Orthodox for that matter).

Question 1:
Neither affects me.  I will not be joining Old believers, but figured there was some things I could learn from them.

I know these are some old believers, and this group really appeals to me.

However, I have next to a zero chance of finding something like this in the USA.

Is there anything even close to this in the USA?  I may even be willing to relocate be it God's will.

emphasis mine

[PeterTheAleut]

@yeshuaisiam: Can you answer to the 3 questions by me?

After a night of thinking and to cool off I have a few statements on this thread:

First-
MK hijacked this thread.  He was completely off topic bringing the Anabaptists into this.   He provoked all of this.  This is called a troll. (Troll Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29) He threw up what would be emotionally objectionable content to dig into my skin, I bought it, I argued back, and it started a huge controversy causing me to argue with many.   This is not befitting of a moderator on a forum IMHO.   This isn't an issue of moderator authority or discipline action either.   This is an issue of a thread hijack which is frowned upon on practically every forum online, as well as being a troll.

Mike did not hijack the thread. He merely pointed out how you presume to tell the Orthodox what parts of their faith are true to the Gospel and which are heretical, even though you have forfeited your authority to do so by departing from the Orthodox faith and embracing a hodgepodge of Anabaptist, Orthodox, and other unnamed faith traditions as you do. What Mike did was totally within his rights as a poster and as a moderator, was totally appropriate to the discussion, and I would even say was necessary. You are no longer Orthodox, therefore you no longer have any authority to teach us.

Next -
MK decides after a few squabbles back and forth between me and others, to rip me apart somehow.   There is no doubt there is confusion and valid points I have made about the faith.  It is obvious that I am not giving straw man arguments, as it riles up and makes people extremely upset.   I am a victim of witnessing ecumenism first hand, after a lifelong dedication to the EO faith.   Until you have witnessed the Eucharist celebrated after a pagan ritual, followed by some funky Tribal ritual later, nobody should be telling me it is just "dialog".  I was crushed by ecumenism, and it made me question many things of the church.  My trust the bishops is practically gone.  MK knows this.   It made me re-question everything about the church (icons, father/master, etc.) when my bishop betrayed my staunch Orthodox footing.

So you value your opposition to ecumenism even over steadfast adherence to the Orthodox faith? In striving to be more orthodox than the Orthodox, you have fallen to the paradox of embracing the teachings of the heterodox, thus falling into the ranks of the cacodox.

[yeshuaisiam]

MK hijacked this thread.

Really?

Well,  I'll open the can of worms.

First I'll state, that instantly I was not going to jump on board with the old believers.  This is words thrown at me.  I posted a video, and thought this was some form of Orthodoxy that I could cling to some.  There are no Old believers in Texas (or much Orthodox for that matter).

Question 1:
Neither affects me.  I will not be joining Old believers, but figured there was some things I could learn from them.

I know these are some old believers, and this group really appeals to me.

However, I have next to a zero chance of finding something like this in the USA.

Is there anything even close to this in the USA?  I may even be willing to relocate be it God's will.

emphasis mine

Yes REALLY.

My "can of worms" was a can of worms dealing exactly with the subject.
My response, stating an ORTHODOX FACT that dealt EXACTLY of what the OP was speaking of.

He was confused with the child crossing himself with two or three fingers.

I said I'll open a can of worms, and said that the EO crossed themselves this way before the 1600's which is why the old believers (what the OP was confused about) crossed themselves this way.

Your response to me was going after the ANABAPTISTS, that has NOTHING to do with the subject at hand.

MK everybody can plainly see YOU hijacked this thread, by a trollish maneuver.

A troll is somebody who injects a non-subject or off topic issue to rise an emotional response to cause arguments.  By going after me this way, after I stated a FACTUAL issue completely IN CONTEXT of the subject dialog, you wanted to incept an emotional response from me.  Obviously, I bought it, and responded without hostility of why the Anabaptists do not cross themselves (from their perspective).

This roused the entire thread, and attacks went off the handle on both sides.

I made a simple factual statement, that is already a can of worms in the EO faith to many people.   It is a can of worms, and has been an issue since the mid 1600's.

Anabaptists crossing themselves or not has NOTHING to do with the issue between the Old Believers and other EO Christians.

That my friend, is a hijack by a trollish injection, based in sarcastic question format.

Whether anybody agrees or not with some of my views or arguments that happened after the fact - I think anybody can plainly see that the "can of worms" has existed since the 1600's, was in context, and that the Anabaptist injection was extremely trollish.

It roused hostility, anger, and disconnect between people on this forum, including myself.


Footnote, the word *MAY* in the English language, is not conclusive when spoken like that.

[yeshuaisiam]

@yeshuaisiam: Can you answer to the 3 questions by me?

After a night of thinking and to cool off I have a few statements on this thread:

First-
MK hijacked this thread.  He was completely off topic bringing the Anabaptists into this.   He provoked all of this.  This is called a troll. (Troll Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29) He threw up what would be emotionally objectionable content to dig into my skin, I bought it, I argued back, and it started a huge controversy causing me to argue with many.   This is not befitting of a moderator on a forum IMHO.   This isn't an issue of moderator authority or discipline action either.   This is an issue of a thread hijack which is frowned upon on practically every forum online, as well as being a troll.

Mike did not hijack the thread. He merely pointed out how you presume to tell the Orthodox what parts of their faith are true to the Gospel and which are heretical, even though you have forfeited your authority to do so by departing from the Orthodox faith and embracing a hodgepodge of Anabaptist, Orthodox, and other unnamed faith traditions as you do. What Mike did was totally within his rights as a poster and as a moderator, was totally appropriate to the discussion, and I would even say was necessary. You are no longer Orthodox, therefore you no longer have any authority to teach us.

Next -
MK decides after a few squabbles back and forth between me and others, to rip me apart somehow.   There is no doubt there is confusion and valid points I have made about the faith.  It is obvious that I am not giving straw man arguments, as it riles up and makes people extremely upset.   I am a victim of witnessing ecumenism first hand, after a lifelong dedication to the EO faith.   Until you have witnessed the Eucharist celebrated after a pagan ritual, followed by some funky Tribal ritual later, nobody should be telling me it is just "dialog".  I was crushed by ecumenism, and it made me question many things of the church.  My trust the bishops is practically gone.  MK knows this.   It made me re-question everything about the church (icons, father/master, etc.) when my bishop betrayed my staunch Orthodox footing.

So you value your opposition to ecumenism even over steadfast adherence to the Orthodox faith? In striving to be more orthodox than the Orthodox, you have fallen to the paradox of embracing the teachings of the heterodox, thus falling into the ranks of the cacodox.

Start at the beginning of the thread.

I said in response to the OP, that "I'll open a can of worms"
and that "The Orthodox crossed themselves with two fingers pre-1600".

Completely in Context with why the Old Believers cross themselves this way.
It is also a COMPLETE FACT that they did this.

Period. I was done.

THIS WAS NOT TELLING THE ORTHODOX which part of their beliefs are heretical.

FOLLOWING Mike's slinging at me, and the Anabaptists, I answered him from the way Anabaptists view crossing themselves, which lit up the room.

FOLLOWING THAT, -- THEN it goes into the huge argument, where I defend the dress etc etc etc.
That was a troll move, and a hijack, that created a huge argument on this thread.

What I said was a fact, dating back to the mid 1600's.  It is a can of worms.  But an on topic one.

This has nothing to do with being a moderator or not.

To the 2nd part of your question, I think there should be another thread for that some other time.  YES I know, it's confusing.

[PeterTheAleut]

@yeshuaisiam: Can you answer to the 3 questions by me?

After a night of thinking and to cool off I have a few statements on this thread:

First-
MK hijacked this thread.  He was completely off topic bringing the Anabaptists into this.   He provoked all of this.  This is called a troll. (Troll Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29) He threw up what would be emotionally objectionable content to dig into my skin, I bought it, I argued back, and it started a huge controversy causing me to argue with many.   This is not befitting of a moderator on a forum IMHO.   This isn't an issue of moderator authority or discipline action either.   This is an issue of a thread hijack which is frowned upon on practically every forum online, as well as being a troll.

Mike did not hijack the thread. He merely pointed out how you presume to tell the Orthodox what parts of their faith are true to the Gospel and which are heretical, even though you have forfeited your authority to do so by departing from the Orthodox faith and embracing a hodgepodge of Anabaptist, Orthodox, and other unnamed faith traditions as you do. What Mike did was totally within his rights as a poster and as a moderator, was totally appropriate to the discussion, and I would even say was necessary. You are no longer Orthodox, therefore you no longer have any authority to teach us.

Next -
MK decides after a few squabbles back and forth between me and others, to rip me apart somehow.   There is no doubt there is confusion and valid points I have made about the faith.  It is obvious that I am not giving straw man arguments, as it riles up and makes people extremely upset.   I am a victim of witnessing ecumenism first hand, after a lifelong dedication to the EO faith.   Until you have witnessed the Eucharist celebrated after a pagan ritual, followed by some funky Tribal ritual later, nobody should be telling me it is just "dialog".  I was crushed by ecumenism, and it made me question many things of the church.  My trust the bishops is practically gone.  MK knows this.   It made me re-question everything about the church (icons, father/master, etc.) when my bishop betrayed my staunch Orthodox footing.

So you value your opposition to ecumenism even over steadfast adherence to the Orthodox faith? In striving to be more orthodox than the Orthodox, you have fallen to the paradox of embracing the teachings of the heterodox, thus falling into the ranks of the cacodox.

Start at the beginning of the thread.

I said in response to the OP, that "I'll open a can of worms"
and that "The Orthodox crossed themselves with two fingers pre-1600".

Completely in Context with why the Old Believers cross themselves this way.
It is also a COMPLETE FACT that they did this.

Period. I was done.

THIS WAS NOT TELLING THE ORTHODOX which part of their beliefs are heretical.

FOLLOWING Mike's slinging at me, and the Anabaptists, I answered him from the way Anabaptists view crossing themselves, which lit up the room.

FOLLOWING THAT, -- THEN it goes into the huge argument, where I defend the dress etc etc etc.
That was a troll move, and a hijack, that created a huge argument on this thread.

What I said was a fact, dating back to the mid 1600's.  It is a can of worms.  But an on topic one.

This has nothing to do with being a moderator or not.

And yet you continue to derail this thread by arguing in such great detail your point that Mike trolled you?

[Cyrillic]

This thread is epic fail.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

It has gone way off course. I am therefore locking for the duration of the Nativity Fast.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: Old believers?