OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 23, 2014, 01:06:37 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 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Old believers?  (Read 8174 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 3,000


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« on: November 15, 2012, 06:18:55 PM »

I wasn't really sure, where to put this but...

I found this short article about a small russian village. What I can't seem to figure out is whether these people are old believers or not. On one of the pictures, it seems like that one of the boys are crossing himself with three fingers, but I'm not sure.


http://riowang.blogspot.dk/2011/11/poteryaevka.html
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
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2012, 11:37:51 PM »

Well,  I'll open the can of worms.

Up until the 1600's the EO church widely used only two fingers to cross themselves.

There was a schism in the mid 1600's.  This fully apostolic group crosses themselves with two fingers.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2012, 11:40:25 PM »

There was a schism in the mid 1600's.  This fully apostolic group crosses themselves with two fingers.

How many fingers do Anabaptist use?
Logged
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2012, 12:07:59 AM »

Well,  I'll open the can of worms.

Up until the 1600's the EO church widely used only two fingers to cross themselves.

There was a schism in the mid 1600's.  This fully apostolic group crosses themselves with two fingers.

Nothing like the contribution of someone who isn't even Orthodox.

No, they aren't fully apostolic, and those groups which haven't reunited with the MP don't even have Priests or Bishops. They are schismatics.

There are some Old Believers in communion with worldwide Orthodoxy, but there are still a lot of schismatic groups out there.

Also, the way of crossing oneself has varied throughout Christian history and we aren't restorationists. All forms of crossing oneself are valid, but the common practice of today is to use three fingers and from right to left.

I'll say what I've said before, the schismatic Old Believers are nothing more than "Orthodox" pharisees. They have turned some things about the Christian faith into virtual idols, and treat tradition as though they were Pharisaic Jews adhering to the Law of Moses in the First Century.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 12:08:11 AM by 88Devin12 » Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,859


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2012, 06:50:53 AM »

Now now, I think you are being a little difficult on the Old Believers. I admit, I am no expert on the subject, but, it is a fact that Russians had been crossing themselves with two fingers for a VERY long time until some Greek guy (can't remember his name) came along and made a ton of unnecessary reforms and forced them to adopt the Greek three-fingered model of crossing yourself.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2012, 07:15:00 AM »

Now now, I think you are being a little difficult on the Old Believers. I admit, I am no expert on the subject, but, it is a fact that Russians had been crossing themselves with two fingers for a VERY long time until some Greek guy (can't remember his name) came along and made a ton of unnecessary reforms and forced them to adopt the Greek three-fingered model of crossing yourself.

The reforms were introduced by Patriarch Nikon, who was Russian not Greek. He was trying to bring the practices in Russia into line with those in Greece, but he certainly wasn't Greek.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2012, 07:17:39 AM »

The reforms were introduced by Patriarch Nikon, who was Russian not Greek. He was trying to bring the practices in Russia into line with those in Greece, but he certainly wasn't Greek.

The Greek Patriarchs actually warned Patriarch Nikon not to make the reforms matters of dogma and a cause for division. If only he had listened.
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: 3,000


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2012, 07:21:10 AM »

Can anybody see if they are crossing themselves with three or two fingers?
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
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2012, 10:37:00 AM »

The reforms were introduced by Patriarch Nikon, who was Russian not Greek. He was trying to bring the practices in Russia into line with those in Greece, but he certainly wasn't Greek.

The Greek Patriarchs actually warned Patriarch Nikon not to make the reforms matters of dogma and a cause for division. If only he had listened.

I don't think Patriarch Nikon was the one who made it a matter of division, the Old Believers were the ones who split off unnecessarily.

I'm not being hard on them because little individual traditions of how to do things aren't matters to schism over. Just because something is more "ancient" doesn't mean we should drop everything and go back to it.
Logged
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2012, 11:13:14 AM »

Just because something is more "ancient" doesn't mean we should drop everything and go back to it.

That was exactly what Patriarch Nikon's error was. He assumed Greek books and practice to be more ancient, and therefore declared that the entire Russian Church should drop everything and go back to them.
Logged
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2012, 11:57:10 AM »

Just because something is more "ancient" doesn't mean we should drop everything and go back to it.

That was exactly what Patriarch Nikon's error was. He assumed Greek books and practice to be more ancient, and therefore declared that the entire Russian Church should drop everything and go back to them.

And that was also exactly what the Old Believer's error was. They believed their older "traditions" were worth splitting off.

Both were wrong, this isn't a good vs. evil, right vs. wrong issue. Both Patriarch Nikon and the Old Believers were wrong.
Logged
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2012, 11:59:01 AM »

The reforms were introduced by Patriarch Nikon, who was Russian not Greek. He was trying to bring the practices in Russia into line with those in Greece, but he certainly wasn't Greek.

The Greek Patriarchs actually warned Patriarch Nikon not to make the reforms matters of dogma and a cause for division. If only he had listened.
.

I don't think Patriarch Nikon was the one who made it a matter of division, the Old Believers were the ones who split off unnecessarily.

I'm not being hard on them because little individual traditions of how to do things aren't matters to schism over. Just because something is more "ancient" doesn't mean we should drop everything and go back to it.

I don't think Fr Avvakum Petrov saw it that way.
Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2012, 12:02:28 PM »

The reforms were introduced by Patriarch Nikon, who was Russian not Greek. He was trying to bring the practices in Russia into line with those in Greece, but he certainly wasn't Greek.

The Greek Patriarchs actually warned Patriarch Nikon not to make the reforms matters of dogma and a cause for division. If only he had listened.
.

I don't think Patriarch Nikon was the one who made it a matter of division, the Old Believers were the ones who split off unnecessarily.

I'm not being hard on them because little individual traditions of how to do things aren't matters to schism over. Just because something is more "ancient" doesn't mean we should drop everything and go back to it.

I don't think Fr Avvakum Petrov saw it that way.

You're point? As far as I am aware, he's not an EO Saint, even if he is one amongst the Old Believers. Even if he was, the opinion of one Saint doesn't become law.

If you all are so favorable towards the Old Believers, why don't you become one and enter schism with worldwide Orthodoxy and therefore separate yourself from God himself?

They are nothing more than "Orthodox" Pharisees. The few groups that are in communion with the MP are okay, but the rest of them that remain in schism are not justified and are, as I've said many times, pharisees and idolaters of what they call "holy tradition".

Nothing justifies schism, nothing.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 12:04:26 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2012, 12:03:17 PM »

A wise priest once said, the church always persecutes her saints.
There are many examples of this from St. Nicholas of Myra all the way down to St. Justin Popovic ( who's grave site still resides outside the church grounds, although that is being fixed as we speak).
Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2012, 12:07:57 PM »

A wise priest once said, the church always persecutes her saints.
There are many examples of this from St. Nicholas of Myra all the way down to St. Justin Popovic ( who's grave site still resides outside the church grounds, although that is being fixed as we speak).

simplygermain, those are saints in our church. Fr. Avvakum has been dead for over 300 years and, as far as I know, has never been canonized by the canonical Orthodox Church. St. Justin was canonized just 31 years after his death, and St. Nicholas was probably canonized not too long after his death in 343 AD.

Like I said, if you love the schismatic Old Believers so much, why don't you join them? No matter how much dancing around you do, they are still heterodox and are still schismatics.

We Orthodox aren't restorationists and it doesn't matter if their practices are "older", they aren't justified, no matter how much they've suffered. Everyone has suffered, and the Orthodox Church has persecuted many people throughout history who were heterodox, heretics, apostates or pagans. Just because people in our Church have persecuted them doesn't mean jack.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 12:10:00 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2012, 12:09:37 PM »

IMO, this is one of most tragic events in the history of the Orthodox Church. I am providing some links but I caution everyone that there are many interpretations of this tragedy. In any case, it looks like the ROC has rescinded the old anathemas and recognizes the Old Believers as a valid part of the Church. I do not see why folks outside Russia should keep on reopening old wounds.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Believers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/426794/Old-Believer

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2001-11-24/article/8516?headline=Three-centuries-on-Russian-Old-Believers-hang-on-in-Oregon--By-Andrew-Kramer-The-Associated-Press
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2012, 12:11:14 PM »

IMO, this is one of most tragic events in the history of the Orthodox Church. I am providing some links but I caution everyone that there are many interpretations of this tragedy. In any case, it looks like the ROC has rescinded the old anathemas and recognizes the Old Believers as a valid part of the Church. I do not see why folks outside Russia should keep on reopening old wounds.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Believers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/426794/Old-Believer

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2001-11-24/article/8516?headline=Three-centuries-on-Russian-Old-Believers-hang-on-in-Oregon--By-Andrew-Kramer-The-Associated-Press

You aren't entirely correct. They've recognized that Patriarch Nikon was wrong. However there are Old Believers out there who are not a valid part of the church and willingly remain in schism. There are also other Old Believers who have reunited with the Moscow Patriarchate, and they are okay and are canonical.

Like I said, nothing ever justifies willing schism from the one and only true Church of Christ.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 12:11:51 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2012, 12:12:23 PM »

The reforms were introduced by Patriarch Nikon, who was Russian not Greek. He was trying to bring the practices in Russia into line with those in Greece, but he certainly wasn't Greek.

The Greek Patriarchs actually warned Patriarch Nikon not to make the reforms matters of dogma and a cause for division. If only he had listened.
.

I don't think Patriarch Nikon was the one who made it a matter of division, the Old Believers were the ones who split off unnecessarily.

I'm not being hard on them because little individual traditions of how to do things aren't matters to schism over. Just because something is more "ancient" doesn't mean we should drop everything and go back to it.

I don't think Fr Avvakum Petrov saw it that way.

You're point?

Is that holiness sometimes resides outside the church. Try to keep in mind that he was burned at the stake for rejecting innovations which even now in the MP are not pushed as dogma.

 As far as I am aware, he's not an EO Saint, even if he is one amongst the Old Believers. Even if he was, the opinion of one Saint doesn't become law.

If you all are so favorable towards the Old Believers, why don't you become one and enter schism with worldwide Orthodoxy and therefore separate yourself from God himself?


You know, just because I regard Old Believers as (o)rthodox, does not mean I regard them as (O)rthodox. I love them as those who have a sincerity of heart and Love for God. You are such a hothead 88DEVIN12
Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2012, 12:14:07 PM »

IMO, this is one of most tragic events in the history of the Orthodox Church. I am providing some links but I caution everyone that there are many interpretations of this tragedy. In any case, it looks like the ROC has rescinded the old anathemas and recognizes the Old Believers as a valid part of the Church. I do not see why folks outside Russia should keep on reopening old wounds.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Believers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/426794/Old-Believer

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2001-11-24/article/8516?headline=Three-centuries-on-Russian-Old-Believers-hang-on-in-Oregon--By-Andrew-Kramer-The-Associated-Press

You aren't entirely correct. They've recognized that Patriarch Nikon was wrong. However there are Old Believers out there who are not a valid part of the church and willingly remain in schism. There are also other Old Believers who have reunited with the Moscow Patriarchate, and they are okay and are canonical.

Like I said, nothing ever justifies willing schism from the one and only true Church of Christ.
Devin, please do calm down your rhetoric.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2012, 12:14:35 PM »

A wise priest once said, the church always persecutes her saints.
There are many examples of this from St. Nicholas of Myra all the way down to St. Justin Popovic ( who's grave site still resides outside the church grounds, although that is being fixed as we speak).

simplygermain, those are saints in our church. Fr. Avvakum has been dead for over 300 years and, as far as I know, has never been canonized by the canonical Orthodox Church. St. Justin was canonized just 31 years after his death, and St. Nicholas was probably canonized not too long after his death in 343 AD.

Like I said, if you love the schismatic Old Believers so much, why don't you join them? No matter how much dancing around you do, they are still heterodox and are still schismatics.

We Orthodox aren't restorationists and it doesn't matter if their practices are "older", they aren't justified, no matter how much they've suffered. Everyone has suffered, and the Orthodox Church has persecuted many people throughout history who were heterodox, heretics, apostates or pagans. Just because people in our Church have persecuted them doesn't mean jack.

Devin--Please reread the articles that I provided. They indicate that the Old Believers are no longer considered schismatic or heterodox by the Russian Orthodox Church. If after you have reread them, you continue to maintain your position, i will ask you to justify your position. Thanks, Carl Kraeff
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2012, 12:16:08 PM »

The reforms were introduced by Patriarch Nikon, who was Russian not Greek. He was trying to bring the practices in Russia into line with those in Greece, but he certainly wasn't Greek.

The Greek Patriarchs actually warned Patriarch Nikon not to make the reforms matters of dogma and a cause for division. If only he had listened.
.

I don't think Patriarch Nikon was the one who made it a matter of division, the Old Believers were the ones who split off unnecessarily.

I'm not being hard on them because little individual traditions of how to do things aren't matters to schism over. Just because something is more "ancient" doesn't mean we should drop everything and go back to it.

I don't think Fr Avvakum Petrov saw it that way.

You're point?

Is that holiness sometimes resides outside the church. Try to keep in mind that he was burned at the stake for rejecting innovations which even now in the MP are not pushed as dogma.

 As far as I am aware, he's not an EO Saint, even if he is one amongst the Old Believers. Even if he was, the opinion of one Saint doesn't become law.

If you all are so favorable towards the Old Believers, why don't you become one and enter schism with worldwide Orthodoxy and therefore separate yourself from God himself?


You know, just because I regard Old Believers as (o)rthodox, does not mean I regard them as (O)rthodox. I love them as those who have a sincerity of heart and Love for God. You are such a hothead 88DEVIN12

You are treating them as though the schismatic groups are somehow justified in their schism. No matter how "orthodox" they are, and no matter how "holy" they are, doesn't mean they are justified.

I'm sure there were many heretics who were honest in their faith and who suffered torture and persecution at the hands of the Roman Empire (or even the Russian Empire). Just because they were particularly moral or suffered persecution doesn't many anything.

If being moral and suffering persecution were grounds for being "orthodox" and "holy" or justified in their views, then every other group out there from the Jews & Muslims to the Hindus and Buddhists would be "justified" and "holy".
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2012, 12:16:35 PM »

I m going to call for a short recess to allow Devin to do his homework. We will reconvene tomorrow. Thanks, Carl Kraeff
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #22 on: November 17, 2012, 11:45:41 AM »

Back in session.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2012, 12:28:38 PM »

IMO, this is one of most tragic events in the history of the Orthodox Church. I am providing some links but I caution everyone that there are many interpretations of this tragedy. In any case, it looks like the ROC has rescinded the old anathemas and recognizes the Old Believers as a valid part of the Church. I do not see why folks outside Russia should keep on reopening old wounds.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Believers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/426794/Old-Believer

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2001-11-24/article/8516?headline=Three-centuries-on-Russian-Old-Believers-hang-on-in-Oregon--By-Andrew-Kramer-The-Associated-Press
There remains a problem with the priestlesss Bespopovtsy, who are somewhat Protestants with icons (and in some ways even worse in that than Episcopalians), but the priestly Popovtsy is a different story, some already reconciled over two centuries ago to the Russian Patriarchate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yedinoveriye
Then there are those who are somewhat in the same grey area as Old Calendarist Churches:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Old-Orthodox_Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belokrinitskaya_hierarchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Old-Rite_Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Old-Orthodox_Church
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Lipovan_Orthodox_Old-Rite_Church
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Russian_Orthodox_Old-Rite_Church
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Russian_Old-Orthodox_Church
and have similar canonical problems.

I agree with Solzhenitsin, that the Bolshevik Yoke was divine pay back for the treatment of the Old Ritualists.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 12:29:43 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #24 on: November 17, 2012, 12:37:00 PM »

Going back to my earlier statements...

What people must understand, is that even while the Old Believers have been found "okay" in the eyes of Moscow, there are some groups who have willingly re-entered the Holy Orthodox Church by way of Moscow (or ROCOR). However, there are also some groups who have willingly remained in schism with the Orthodox Church.

In fact, a very large portion of the Old Believer community has remained at schism with worldwide Orthodoxy. So despite the rescinding of the anathemas against them, because they willingly remain in schism, they are to be regarded as schismatics by Eastern Orthodox Christians.

If you refer to Carl's links, you'll see that there are only about 1-10 million Old Believers throughout the world. Out of that number, they are all members of various Old Believer groups. Of those groups, only two really treat each other respectfully and the rest barely even acknowledge that each other exists.

Also, if you refer to Carl's links, the Old Believers aren't even united in their views.

The Old Believers lack Priests and Bishops (and therefore, apostolic succession) because only 1 Bishop followed the Old Believers in their schism (and that Bishop was executed).

You have the Popovtsy branch of Old Believers, who have Priests. They accept the Russian Priests who convert to their sects. The other main reason they still have Priests is due to their acceptance of a deposed Greek Bishop in the 19th Century and that Bishop consecrated several Priests as Bishops. This group is called the Belokrinitskaya hierarchy, which isn't universally recognized amongst Old Believers. There were groups other than the Belokrinitskaya hierarchy, but several of them are now extinct. This is the only Old Believer group which has Priests and has Bishops.
However, going by Orthodox ecclesiology, according to Eastern Orthodox tradition, they do not have apostolic succession because their Priests & Bishops were ordained by a Bishop who had been defrocked in the Greek Church (and thus his right to succession and to ordain was lost).

You also have the Bespopovtsy of Old Believers who don't have any Priests or Bishops. This group believes that the "true Church" no longer exists and therefore they reject all Priests and all sacraments except for Baptism. Therefore, this group has no eucharist (and for the most part, no marriage).

The canonical group, the group which has entered communion with worldwide Orthodoxy is referred to as Edinovertsy.

The main groups, Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church (Belokrinitskaya), Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite Church (Belokrinitskaya), Russian Old-Orthodox Church (Novozybkov Hierarchy) and Pomorian Old-Orthodox Church (Bespopovtsy) are not in communion with worldwide Orthodoxy and are not considered canonical by Eastern Orthodox. They are regarded, by Moscow and by Eastern Orthodox Christians as schismatic.

It should be noted that as far as I'm aware, the Edinovertsy, the Old Believers who re-entered communion with the MP, do not form an individual church within the MP, but rather are integrated into the MP.

The Old Rite isn't wrong, and to practice it as a different rite isn't wrong. What is wrong, is entering and maintaining schism over it. As I said earlier in this discussion, the groups which remain separated from Moscow are regarded as schismatic, and they form (as far as we can tell) the majority of Old Believers out there.
Logged
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2012, 12:38:02 PM »

IMO, this is one of most tragic events in the history of the Orthodox Church. I am providing some links but I caution everyone that there are many interpretations of this tragedy. In any case, it looks like the ROC has rescinded the old anathemas and recognizes the Old Believers as a valid part of the Church. I do not see why folks outside Russia should keep on reopening old wounds.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Believers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/426794/Old-Believer

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2001-11-24/article/8516?headline=Three-centuries-on-Russian-Old-Believers-hang-on-in-Oregon--By-Andrew-Kramer-The-Associated-Press
There remains a problem with the priestlesss Bespopovtsy, who are somewhat Protestants with icons (and in some ways even worse in that than Episcopalians), but the priestly Popovtsy is a different story, some already reconciled over two centuries ago to the Russian Patriarchate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yedinoveriye
Then there are those who are somewhat in the same grey area as Old Calendarist Churches:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Old-Orthodox_Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belokrinitskaya_hierarchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Old-Rite_Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Old-Orthodox_Church
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Lipovan_Orthodox_Old-Rite_Church
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Russian_Orthodox_Old-Rite_Church
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Russian_Old-Orthodox_Church
and have similar canonical problems.

I agree with Solzhenitsin, that the Bolshevik Yoke was divine pay back for the treatment of the Old Ritualists.

It also may have been divine paypack for westernization and for toying with the occult by the Royal Family.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #26 on: November 17, 2012, 01:06:29 PM »

There remains a problem with the priestlesss Bespopovtsy, who are somewhat Protestants with icons (and in some ways even worse in that than Episcopalians)

Not to mention all the sects that evolved from them.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2012, 03:18:22 PM »

There was a schism in the mid 1600's.  This fully apostolic group crosses themselves with two fingers.

How many fingers do Anabaptist use?

They don't cross themselves.  They do not believe that crossing themselves increases their faith, good works, following god's will, or their dedication to Christ.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #28 on: November 17, 2012, 03:26:06 PM »

Well,  I'll open the can of worms.

Up until the 1600's the EO church widely used only two fingers to cross themselves.

There was a schism in the mid 1600's.  This fully apostolic group crosses themselves with two fingers.

Nothing like the contribution of someone who isn't even Orthodox.

No, they aren't fully apostolic, and those groups which haven't reunited with the MP don't even have Priests or Bishops. They are schismatics.

Devin it does not matter if I'm a practicing Orthodox Christian at the moment.  I am sorting things out.  I've been Orthodox most of my life.

But you are not correct, as the Old believers have full apostolic succession thus making them an apostolic group. 

Being member of "world Orthodoxy" is not what makes a church 'apostolic' unless you are prepared to speak against:   HOTCA, HOCNA, Milans, etc.

Old believers have their full group of bishops, with full succession, that merely split.

From their viewpoint it is WORLD Orthodoxy that is not doing something right.
From HOTCA's viewpoint, WORLD Orthodoxy is not doing something right (full bishops as well)

It's not fair to call all of these groups non-apostolic, when their roots and fundamental beliefs are extremely close.

In my Orthodox Viewpoint, my beliefs are that of the Old Believers and very similar to HOTCA.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2012, 03:31:05 PM »

The group mentioned in the documentary you posted is the priestless one. Make up your mind whether you are interested in theology of long beards and fancy clothes.
Logged
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #30 on: November 17, 2012, 03:42:07 PM »

Well,  I'll open the can of worms.

Up until the 1600's the EO church widely used only two fingers to cross themselves.

There was a schism in the mid 1600's.  This fully apostolic group crosses themselves with two fingers.

Nothing like the contribution of someone who isn't even Orthodox.

No, they aren't fully apostolic, and those groups which haven't reunited with the MP don't even have Priests or Bishops. They are schismatics.

Devin it does not matter if I'm a practicing Orthodox Christian at the moment.  I am sorting things out.  I've been Orthodox most of my life.

But you are not correct, as the Old believers have full apostolic succession thus making them an apostolic group. 

Being member of "world Orthodoxy" is not what makes a church 'apostolic' unless you are prepared to speak against:   HOTCA, HOCNA, Milans, etc.

Old believers have their full group of bishops, with full succession, that merely split.

From their viewpoint it is WORLD Orthodoxy that is not doing something right.
From HOTCA's viewpoint, WORLD Orthodoxy is not doing something right (full bishops as well)

It's not fair to call all of these groups non-apostolic, when their roots and fundamental beliefs are extremely close.

In my Orthodox Viewpoint, my beliefs are that of the Old Believers and very similar to HOTCA.

No, they have no apostolic succession. In Orthodox Christianity, you lose your apostolic succession once you begin teaching heresy and/or once you split from the church.

Therefore, All those groups you cite, according to Eastern Orthodox Christianity, do not have valid apostolic succession.

It doesn't matter if you've spent your life as Orthodox. You aren't one now and therefore cannot speak to what Orthodoxy is or isn't.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2012, 07:18:53 PM »

The group mentioned in the documentary you posted is the priestless one. Make up your mind whether you are interested in theology of long beards and fancy clothes.


There are many with priests.  Video was an example.

Not seen fancier clothes than that on a EO bishop....  Just food for thought.

The Anabaptists (along with some of the people in the video, and pious Orthodox, and monastic Orthodox) dress this way for modesty, and being plain.  They don't want to be in competition with their neighbors or brothers in Christ by "costly array".
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2012, 07:30:16 PM »

There are many with priests.  Video was an example.

Of what? Funny clothes and beards? Do you consider converting to Sikhism too? Or Orthodox Judaism? Hinduism? Islam? They all have funny clothes and beards since it alongside old-fashioned clothes is the most important factor in theology for you. I'm pretty sure there are very nice films about them on the Internet too.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2012, 07:41:36 PM »

Well,  I'll open the can of worms.

Up until the 1600's the EO church widely used only two fingers to cross themselves.

There was a schism in the mid 1600's.  This fully apostolic group crosses themselves with two fingers.

Nothing like the contribution of someone who isn't even Orthodox.

No, they aren't fully apostolic, and those groups which haven't reunited with the MP don't even have Priests or Bishops. They are schismatics.

Devin it does not matter if I'm a practicing Orthodox Christian at the moment.  I am sorting things out.  I've been Orthodox most of my life.

But you are not correct, as the Old believers have full apostolic succession thus making them an apostolic group. 

Being member of "world Orthodoxy" is not what makes a church 'apostolic' unless you are prepared to speak against:   HOTCA, HOCNA, Milans, etc.

Old believers have their full group of bishops, with full succession, that merely split.

From their viewpoint it is WORLD Orthodoxy that is not doing something right.
From HOTCA's viewpoint, WORLD Orthodoxy is not doing something right (full bishops as well)

It's not fair to call all of these groups non-apostolic, when their roots and fundamental beliefs are extremely close.

In my Orthodox Viewpoint, my beliefs are that of the Old Believers and very similar to HOTCA.

No, they have no apostolic succession. In Orthodox Christianity, you lose your apostolic succession once you begin teaching heresy and/or once you split from the church.

Therefore, All those groups you cite, according to Eastern Orthodox Christianity, do not have valid apostolic succession.

It doesn't matter if you've spent your life as Orthodox. You aren't one now and therefore cannot speak to what Orthodoxy is or isn't.

Devin, I know its an ah ha point you like to make that I am not a practicing Orthodox Christian.... I get it.

I spoke to a fact of what the Orthodox FAITH PRACTICED.  It's a fact.  Pre 1600 they used TWO fingers to cross themselves.

How long have you been a practicing Orthodox?  I have about 32 years.  I've been to Mt. Athos, attended St. Vlad's seminary in New York, my "father" (like as in my dad) was a priest in the OCA and ROCOR.  I've seen tons of monasteries and believe I can speak to many of the things I've learned as an Orthodox Christian.  My family frequented the supper table with Alexander Schmemann (Fr. Schmemann from the OCA) in the early 80's.  I was baptized under Bishop Dmitri in the 70's.

If you believe "schismatic" groups who BREAK (not split) from the bishops for reasons of what they believe is heresy ruins their succession, there are ones who'd highly disagree with you.  Even the administrator of this forum is in HOTCA, one such "break away" group.    By the way, they didn't BREAK, they "continued" without heresies the other bishops practiced.

You need to look at the reasons for schism rather than just say "because several bishops left and joined together, they aren't succession any more".

Perhaps you should wonder why an Orthodox Patriarch practices liturgy with Roman Catholic clergy present and honored in their churches (fully vested).   It may make your head spin, but some Eastern Orthodox bishops DO NOT approve of this and decide to continue without that Patriarch or the Bishops under that Patriarch.

We aren't talking about rogue priests here, we are talking about fully ordained bishops that together decide to not participate in communion with other bishops who are practicing something they disagree with.

Please don't be insulted though if I answer questions about Orthodoxy.  I'm just trying to help others.

I don't know where I am in my faith, or if I will return to Orthodoxy.  I don't know if you can imagine the hurt I've been through in the EO church.   I invested my entire life and understanding into something, just to have it CRUSHED by the WCC and ecumenism...  It hurts where it counts in the worst places.

Met a very wonderful, kind, and faith filled Mennonite woman, and I married her.   They are strong people of faith.  Incredibly similar to Orthodox in some ways, yet, not Orthodox.  But their faith I would not question for a second.   Perhaps they don't have so much mysticism in their church, but their beliefs are not hokey at all.   They LIVE by their faith.  Their lives embedded in it.

So I don't mind answering questions about Orthodoxy.  I love the faith, and don't know if I'll make it back.   That's why the Old believers are appealing.   HOTCA is as well (for their old calendar & anti-ecumenism stance), but unfortunately, the drive to the Gilstrap family's home/church is extremely far for me. (They are wonderful people and I met them LONG ago...)

So please brother... I will have questions that will upset you.  They bother me too.   I do try to help others though.  Somebody simply asked about 2 vs. 3 fingers, so I answered.

Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,859


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #34 on: November 17, 2012, 07:49:06 PM »

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?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 07:49:51 PM by JamesR » Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2012, 07:54:27 PM »

Well,  I'll open the can of worms.

Up until the 1600's the EO church widely used only two fingers to cross themselves.

There was a schism in the mid 1600's.  This fully apostolic group crosses themselves with two fingers.

Nothing like the contribution of someone who isn't even Orthodox.

No, they aren't fully apostolic, and those groups which haven't reunited with the MP don't even have Priests or Bishops. They are schismatics.

Devin it does not matter if I'm a practicing Orthodox Christian at the moment.  I am sorting things out.  I've been Orthodox most of my life.

But you are not correct, as the Old believers have full apostolic succession thus making them an apostolic group. 

Being member of "world Orthodoxy" is not what makes a church 'apostolic' unless you are prepared to speak against:   HOTCA, HOCNA, Milans, etc.

Old believers have their full group of bishops, with full succession, that merely split.

From their viewpoint it is WORLD Orthodoxy that is not doing something right.
From HOTCA's viewpoint, WORLD Orthodoxy is not doing something right (full bishops as well)

It's not fair to call all of these groups non-apostolic, when their roots and fundamental beliefs are extremely close.

In my Orthodox Viewpoint, my beliefs are that of the Old Believers and very similar to HOTCA.

No, they have no apostolic succession. In Orthodox Christianity, you lose your apostolic succession once you begin teaching heresy and/or once you split from the church.

Therefore, All those groups you cite, according to Eastern Orthodox Christianity, do not have valid apostolic succession.

It doesn't matter if you've spent your life as Orthodox. You aren't one now and therefore cannot speak to what Orthodoxy is or isn't.

Devin, I know its an ah ha point you like to make that I am not a practicing Orthodox Christian.... I get it.

I spoke to a fact of what the Orthodox FAITH PRACTICED.  It's a fact.  Pre 1600 they used TWO fingers to cross themselves.

How long have you been a practicing Orthodox?  I have about 32 years.  I've been to Mt. Athos, attended St. Vlad's seminary in New York, my "father" (like as in my dad) was a priest in the OCA and ROCOR.  I've seen tons of monasteries and believe I can speak to many of the things I've learned as an Orthodox Christian.  My family frequented the supper table with Alexander Schmemann (Fr. Schmemann from the OCA) in the early 80's.  I was baptized under Bishop Dmitri in the 70's.

If you believe "schismatic" groups who BREAK (not split) from the bishops for reasons of what they believe is heresy ruins their succession, there are ones who'd highly disagree with you.  Even the administrator of this forum is in HOTCA, one such "break away" group.    By the way, they didn't BREAK, they "continued" without heresies the other bishops practiced.

You need to look at the reasons for schism rather than just say "because several bishops left and joined together, they aren't succession any more".

Perhaps you should wonder why an Orthodox Patriarch practices liturgy with Roman Catholic clergy present and honored in their churches (fully vested).   It may make your head spin, but some Eastern Orthodox bishops DO NOT approve of this and decide to continue without that Patriarch or the Bishops under that Patriarch.

We aren't talking about rogue priests here, we are talking about fully ordained bishops that together decide to not participate in communion with other bishops who are practicing something they disagree with.

Please don't be insulted though if I answer questions about Orthodoxy.  I'm just trying to help others.

I don't know where I am in my faith, or if I will return to Orthodoxy.  I don't know if you can imagine the hurt I've been through in the EO church.   I invested my entire life and understanding into something, just to have it CRUSHED by the WCC and ecumenism...  It hurts where it counts in the worst places.

Met a very wonderful, kind, and faith filled Mennonite woman, and I married her.   They are strong people of faith.  Incredibly similar to Orthodox in some ways, yet, not Orthodox.  But their faith I would not question for a second.   Perhaps they don't have so much mysticism in their church, but their beliefs are not hokey at all.   They LIVE by their faith.  Their lives embedded in it.

So I don't mind answering questions about Orthodoxy.  I love the faith, and don't know if I'll make it back.   That's why the Old believers are appealing.   HOTCA is as well (for their old calendar & anti-ecumenism stance), but unfortunately, the drive to the Gilstrap family's home/church is extremely far for me. (They are wonderful people and I met them LONG ago...)

So please brother... I will have questions that will upset you.  They bother me too.   I do try to help others though.  Somebody simply asked about 2 vs. 3 fingers, so I answered.



It doesn't matter, nothing justifies schism. It is schism.

Also, if you would actually read about the Old Believers you'd learn that they had no Bishops and their Priests were dead or dying off. The only reason there are some Old Believer groups with Bishops and Priests is because they accepted a Greek Bishop who had been defrocked (therefore completely losing his succession and everything in the EO Church). Anything that defrocked Greek Bishop did after he was deposed is irrelevant because he did not have the ability to create Bishops or Priests. However, the Old Believers allowed him to do so, and so all their Priests & Bishops aren't canonically ordained and don't have apostolic succession.

That is the fact.

As for how it was before the schism, it doesn't matter! You don't understand that it doesn't matter how they did it in ancient times. We aren't restorationists and we never will be. So what if they used two fingers before? The early church used their thumb on their forehead! Should we go back to that as well? No. It doesn't matter what the more ancient practice is.

In fact, the Orthodox faith is not founded upon traditions and traditions don't ever justify schism.

As for ecumenism, nothing the EP or any others have done can be considered Ecumenism. If they were to seek reunion immediately and if they were to encourage inter-communion or concelebrate with heretical clergy, then that would be Ecumenism. However, that is not something the EP has done..

Oh and yeshuaism, yes, I am saying the HOTCA is non-canonical and is in schism. That is what every single other EO Christian believes. Just because you don't or didn't doesn't mean jack. Yes, I know that the admin here is a member of a non-canonical group. Does that mean I have to automatically accept that group? No.

In fact, I made friends with an Old Calendarist over in Greece. I respectfully declined all his invitations to attend services because his church was in schism and I would not be able to receive communion there. In fact, I attended the very parish that he was telling me was so "Ecumenist" and heretical. I spoke to other Orthodox in the town, and they reinforced what I believed, that his group was overreacting and that church was not Ecumenist, and in fact, that group actually assaulted and whipped the Bishop for being an "Ecumenist".

Like I said, nothing justifies schism, and you really need to read about something before you speak about it. It doesn't matter if you were once Orthodox or even if you were currently Orthodox, your view are not in conformity with Orthodox Christianity and your views about apostolic succession and "canonical" status are certainly not in conformity with Orthodoxy.
Logged
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #36 on: November 17, 2012, 07:55:08 PM »

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.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #37 on: November 17, 2012, 08:01:19 PM »

There are many with priests.  Video was an example.

Of what? Funny clothes and beards? Do you consider converting to Sikhism too? Or Orthodox Judaism? Hinduism? Islam? They all have funny clothes and beards since it alongside old-fashioned clothes is the most important factor in theology for you. I'm pretty sure there are very nice films about them on the Internet too.

So I just say "there are many priests" and get this....

Okay, there are many priests in the Old believer Eastern Orthodox Church.
as well as
Many bishops in the Old believer Eastern Orthodox church.

I don't know where this turned into a "funny clothes" thread.

There is a difference between "old fashioned" and "plain".    If this is an attack on the Anabaptists, they wear plain clothes, beards, and head coverings for the same reasons that monks & nuns do in the Eastern Orthodox church.
  
The difference is a hard truth - most lay people of the EO church do not follow the scriptures, and go ahead and wear costly array - even to church.   Many women in EO do not practice covering their heads during prayer either.  (many DO, many don't).

Orthodox Nun:


Amish lay woman & husband:  (Note the husband even follows the "oath of the Nazarite" with is beard, as do many Orthodox clergy & monks)


Our scriptures command us to dress modestly, not in costly array, women to cover their heads, and not wearing gold.

Typical Orthodox Church "here":   Please note the scriptures and if the lay people are following them.


The old believer ORTHODOX practice this.  It's not about the "funny clothes", it's about following the scriptures, not exploiting sweat shops overseas by buying "made in China, Vietnam, etc." clothing.
There are many reasons to wear clothing made from home...


I believe the Old Believer Eastern Orthodox church is really following the scriptures.  It's not about funny clothes. They dress modestly, women cover their heads, most men are in beards.  
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 08:04:38 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #38 on: November 17, 2012, 08:02:26 PM »

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?

Well first you'd have to stop saying "Schismatic" because its actually derogatory in ways.

In America, I would seek a HOTCA church as they hold much tradition to Orthodoxy.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #39 on: November 17, 2012, 08:07:18 PM »

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?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 08:09:50 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,363


fleem
WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 17, 2012, 08:08:46 PM »

Who are you to say "most laypeople in the Orthodox Church do not follow the Scriptures"?

Who do you think you are?

« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 08:09:23 PM by biro » Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #41 on: November 17, 2012, 08:14:21 PM »

Who are you to say "most laypeople in the Orthodox Church do not follow the Scriptures"?

Who do you think you are?


Now from my example, WHERE am I wrong?   Are the women covering their heads?
Read 1 Corinthians 11.

Are they dressed modestly?  NOT entirely.

Even icons of the Theotokos and Female Saints they are dressed modestly & their heads covered.

This isn't an argument.  This is me getting vented on.

I am a human being capable of logic.  They are not following the scriptures in that example.

In the OCA I witnessed at least 70% of the church dressed this way.  It is not part of the commands of the scriptures.

In ROCOR, it was much more following the scriptures.

« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 08:15:45 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #42 on: November 17, 2012, 08:14:50 PM »

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 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.
Logged
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #43 on: November 17, 2012, 08:16:16 PM »

Who are you to say "most laypeople in the Orthodox Church do not follow the Scriptures"?

Who do you think you are?

Would you please quote me where I said that?
I thought the word I said was "many".

Now from my example, WHERE am I wrong?   Are the women covering their heads?
Read 1 Corinthians 11.

Are they dressed modestly?  NOT entirely.

Even icons of the Theotokos and Female Saints they are dressed modestly & their heads covered.

This isn't an argument.  This is me getting vented on.

I am a human being capable of logic.  They are not following the scriptures in that example.

In the OCA I witnessed at least 70% of the church dressed this way.  It is not part of the commands of the scriptures.

In ROCOR, it was much more following the scriptures.

Please do not plug words into my fingers.

You're an idiot if you think those are important parts of the faith. In fact, you are just like many Old Believers, you are absolutely idolizing small-t "traditions" and putting them up to the level of theology and doctrine.

Who CARES if women don't cover their heads, who cares if we cross ourselves with three fingers? It doesn't matter!
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #44 on: November 17, 2012, 08:18:57 PM »

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 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.

Interesting Dialog


I do have a right to say so.  It's the reason I am not a practicing Eastern Orthodox Christian right now.

Twice now I've been asked "who am I".

Well, I'm a guy with a lot of EO history that left the church because I believed it to be practicing heresy and live mega far from HOTCA & Old believers.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,859


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #45 on: November 17, 2012, 08:19:14 PM »

I got a question, how exactly do we define 'modest'? I oftentimes notice that many people who advocate dressing 'modestly' seem to confuse 'modest' with old-fashioned. Modest is defined by society and the times. The scriptures order us to dress modestly, but never defines modest other than headcoverings. That is because modesty changes from time to time. We should dress modest in the sense of modesty that our culture determines, not goin by the standard of modesty that people of a particular area might have had in the past. In fact, doing the latter might even be a bad thing, because the foreign type of apparel could draw attention to yourself and thus distract the people around you from worship.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #46 on: November 17, 2012, 08:21:39 PM »

I got a question, how exactly do we define 'modest'? I oftentimes notice that many people who advocate dressing 'modestly' seem to confuse 'modest' with old-fashioned. Modest is defined by society and the times. The scriptures order us to dress modestly, but never defines modest other than headcoverings. That is because modesty changes from time to time. We should dress modest in the sense of modesty that our culture determines, not goin by the standard of modesty that people of a particular area might have had in the past. In fact, doing the latter might even be a bad thing, because the foreign type of apparel could draw attention to yourself and thus distract the people around you from worship.

You hit the nail on the head there.

Going by the ancient Roman Empire, if we wanted to be "modest", we'd be wearing togas, and pants (even for men) would be taboo.

Don't the Old Believers also dress very "old fashioned" similarly to the Amish in the U.S.? That is just weird.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 08:21:49 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #47 on: November 17, 2012, 08:22:38 PM »

Who are you to say "most laypeople in the Orthodox Church do not follow the Scriptures"?

Who do you think you are?

Would you please quote me where I said that?
I thought the word I said was "many".

Now from my example, WHERE am I wrong?   Are the women covering their heads?
Read 1 Corinthians 11.

Are they dressed modestly?  NOT entirely.

Even icons of the Theotokos and Female Saints they are dressed modestly & their heads covered.

This isn't an argument.  This is me getting vented on.

I am a human being capable of logic.  They are not following the scriptures in that example.

In the OCA I witnessed at least 70% of the church dressed this way.  It is not part of the commands of the scriptures.

In ROCOR, it was much more following the scriptures.

Please do not plug words into my fingers.

You're an idiot if you think those are important parts of the faith. In fact, you are just like many Old Believers, you are absolutely idolizing small-t "traditions" and putting them up to the level of theology and doctrine.

Who CARES if women don't cover their heads, who cares if we cross ourselves with three fingers? It doesn't matter!

I guess you believe the scriptures are small t then.  Because covering, modesty, and non-costly array are all in the scriptures AND in the TRADITION of the Eastern Orthodox church.   MODERN Orthodoxy (post 1940) has a lot of this, as well as ecumenism.

Crossing yourself two or three is a different fight.  It matters to the Old believers.

Well, I'm glad I'm not an idiot by that definition, because I don't believe its the most  important part of faith.  It is important, but not the most.   Living by the commands of the scriptures as best as you can is important, but not the MOST.

Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,363


fleem
WWW
« Reply #48 on: November 17, 2012, 08:23:22 PM »

Quote
The difference is a hard truth - most lay people of the EO church do not follow the scriptures, and go ahead and wear costly array - even to church.   Many women in EO do not practice covering their heads during prayer either.  (many DO, many don't).

Yes, I can quote you where you said that.

What is it with your obsession with women, prudishness and clothing? If a parish has a dress code, let the ushers and administrators worry about it. Let them publish a letter or put a sign about it in the lobby. It is not your business to get in everyone's face and tell them what to do. It's a sin to judge.

I repeat: who do you think you are?
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #49 on: November 17, 2012, 08:23:52 PM »

Who are you to say "most laypeople in the Orthodox Church do not follow the Scriptures"?

Who do you think you are?

Would you please quote me where I said that?
I thought the word I said was "many".

Now from my example, WHERE am I wrong?   Are the women covering their heads?
Read 1 Corinthians 11.

Are they dressed modestly?  NOT entirely.

Even icons of the Theotokos and Female Saints they are dressed modestly & their heads covered.

This isn't an argument.  This is me getting vented on.

I am a human being capable of logic.  They are not following the scriptures in that example.

In the OCA I witnessed at least 70% of the church dressed this way.  It is not part of the commands of the scriptures.

In ROCOR, it was much more following the scriptures.

Please do not plug words into my fingers.

You're an idiot if you think those are important parts of the faith. In fact, you are just like many Old Believers, you are absolutely idolizing small-t "traditions" and putting them up to the level of theology and doctrine.

Who CARES if women don't cover their heads, who cares if we cross ourselves with three fingers? It doesn't matter!

I guess you believe the scriptures are small t then.  Because covering, modesty, and non-costly array are all in the scriptures AND in the TRADITION of the Eastern Orthodox church.   MODERN Orthodoxy (post 1940) has a lot of this, as well as ecumenism.

Crossing yourself two or three is a different fight.  It matters to the Old believers.

Well, I'm glad I'm not an idiot by that definition, because I don't believe its the most  important part of faith.  It is important, but not the most.   Living by the commands of the scriptures as best as you can is important, but not the MOST.



You're virtually a Protestant in your view of the Scriptures. Protestants are heretics. Protestants are nothing like the Early Christians. That includes the heretical Anabaptists.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #50 on: November 17, 2012, 08:24:13 PM »

I got a question, how exactly do we define 'modest'?

Here is a start:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,39871.0.html
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,859


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #51 on: November 17, 2012, 08:24:57 PM »

You're an idiot if you think those are important parts of the faith. In fact, you are just like many Old Believers, you are absolutely idolizing small-t "traditions" and putting them up to the level of theology and doctrine.

Hey hey now stop the name-calling. While I may disagree with some of his theology, I wouldn't insult the man personally. He's a good guy, works hard, takes care of his family. Don't insult the man personally, that's a lowblow move. Anyway, playing Devil's advocate, that popular distinction between 'small-t' and 'big T' tradition doesn't really authoritively exist as far as I know in the Church's official doctrine, it is just a common phrase among the American Orthodox that is used to minimalize the importance of external things so that Protestant converts don't get overwhelmed.

Quote
Who CARES if women don't cover their heads, who cares if we cross ourselves with three fingers? It doesn't matter!

I don't care, but I wouldn't say it doesn't matter. I also don't care about the Calendar controversy and find it very stupid, but I wouldn't say it doesn't matter.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #52 on: November 17, 2012, 08:26:00 PM »

I got a question, how exactly do we define 'modest'? I oftentimes notice that many people who advocate dressing 'modestly' seem to confuse 'modest' with old-fashioned. Modest is defined by society and the times. The scriptures order us to dress modestly, but never defines modest other than headcoverings. That is because modesty changes from time to time. We should dress modest in the sense of modesty that our culture determines, not goin by the standard of modesty that people of a particular area might have had in the past. In fact, doing the latter might even be a bad thing, because the foreign type of apparel could draw attention to yourself and thus distract the people around you from worship.

You hit the nail on the head there.

Going by the ancient Roman Empire, if we wanted to be "modest", we'd be wearing togas, and pants (even for men) would be taboo.

Don't the Old Believers also dress very "old fashioned" similarly to the Amish in the U.S.? That is just weird.

88Devin, modesty can be defined by the early Christians, not by the pagan Romans.    The early Christians were the ones against costly array, dressing modestly, and women covering.   Even the EO icons depict women & men this way.

It's not about old fashioned.  It's about plain.  It's about not dressing "worldly" (since the scriptures command us not to be of this world).   Old believers practice this, as do Amish.  
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #53 on: November 17, 2012, 08:26:57 PM »

Let me summarise a few things:

A guy with some Orthodox backgrounds abandon his faith in favor of some Amish Protestantism. In many threads he writes he is an iconoclast, judaiser, does not believe in Jesus prayer, authority of the clergy etc. He also has outdated views on clothing and family models.

That's understandable and OK.

What is not understandable it's that he keeps saying what is Orthodox and what is not. According to him, the Orthodox things are: headscarves, calendars and antiecumenism. Funnily, icon veneration is not.

And here goes the most funny part:

He watches a documentary about a religious group he never was in contact before and that exists dozens of thousands of kms far from him. He immediately decides they are perfectly Orthodox and plans to join them after watching the film. He also products some arguments for their Orthodoxy and Apostolic succession and whatever.

After he is explained the group captured in the film has no priests he answers there are groups that dress similarly but have priests. That makes think that the most important factors of deciding whether a group is Orthodox or not are (in order of seniority): beards, funny clothes, old calendar, and antiecumenism.

I'm interested in 3 things:

- How will he unite his own iconoclasm and their iconodulism?
- How will he react if he meets them in real life and notices not all of them are medieval cosplayers?
- How will he react when he realises how they call Jesus in their language and not with some "Jeshua" name?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 08:29:53 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #54 on: November 17, 2012, 08:28:37 PM »

I got a question, how exactly do we define 'modest'? I oftentimes notice that many people who advocate dressing 'modestly' seem to confuse 'modest' with old-fashioned. Modest is defined by society and the times. The scriptures order us to dress modestly, but never defines modest other than headcoverings. That is because modesty changes from time to time. We should dress modest in the sense of modesty that our culture determines, not goin by the standard of modesty that people of a particular area might have had in the past. In fact, doing the latter might even be a bad thing, because the foreign type of apparel could draw attention to yourself and thus distract the people around you from worship.

You hit the nail on the head there.

Going by the ancient Roman Empire, if we wanted to be "modest", we'd be wearing togas, and pants (even for men) would be taboo.

Don't the Old Believers also dress very "old fashioned" similarly to the Amish in the U.S.? That is just weird.

88Devin, modesty can be defined by the early Christians, not by the pagan Romans.    The early Christians were the ones against costly array, dressing modestly, and women covering.   Even the EO icons depict women & men this way.

It's not about old fashioned.  It's about plain.  It's about not dressing "worldly" (since the scriptures command us not to be of this world).   Old believers practice this, as do Amish.  

Where the hell do you think you've got the right to judge the pure and undefiled Church of Christ?

No, it isn't about plain, again, you are putting your personal, Protestant-esque interpretation of the Bible onto the Early Christians. The Early Christians were neither Protestants, nor Amish, nor Old Believers.

Of course, I'm sure you believe St. Constantine is a bane on Christianity and led to the "great apostasy"...
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #55 on: November 17, 2012, 08:30:14 PM »

Let me summarise a few things:

A guy with some Orthodox backgrounds abandon his faith in favor of some Amish Protestantism. In many threads he writes he is an iconoclast, judaiser, does not believe in Jesus prayer, authority of the clergy etc. He also has outdated views on clothing and family models.

That's understandable and OK.

What is not understandable it's that he keeps saying what is Orthodox and what is not. According to him, the Orthodox things are: headscarves, calendars and antiecumenism. Funnily, icon veneration is not.

And here goes the most funny part:

He watches a documentary about a religious group he never was in contact before and that exists dozens of thousands of kms far from him. He immediately decides they are perfectly Orthodox and plans to join them after watching the film. He also products some arguments for their Orthodoxy and Apostolic succession and whatever.

After he is explained the group captured in the film has no priests he answers there are groups that dress similarly but have priests. That makes think that the most important factors of deciding whether a group is Orthodox or not are (in order of seniority): beards, funny clothes, old calendar, and antiecumenism.

I'm interested in two things:

- How will he unite his own iconoclasm and their iconodulism?
- How will he react if he meets them in real life and notices not all of them are medieval cosplayers?
- How will he react when he realises they do call Jesus in their language and not with some "Jeshua" name?

Well put.

And by the way, your English it becoming ridiculously good.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,859


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #56 on: November 17, 2012, 08:33:53 PM »

Plain doesn't equal old fashioned. In fact, I imagine that going through the trouble to dress old-fashionedly like the 'early Christians' would probably be more costly and lead to a great deal more trouble for both you and those around you than it would be to dress 'plain' and 'modestly' by our modern society's standards.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #57 on: November 17, 2012, 08:34:34 PM »

You're virtually a Protestant in your view of the Scriptures. Protestants are heretics. Protestants are nothing like the Early Christians. That includes the heretical Anabaptists.

I don't agree, and neither do many Eastern Orthodox Christians.   Nor do those who are pictured in icons who are dressed exactly as the scriptures say to.  Nor do the Eastern Orthodox Nuns or Monks.

These Russian Orthodox Christians seem to be following the scriptures.


I'm not against you Devin, nor am I against the Orthodox Church.   There are ones who follow the scriptures those who don't.  Those who follow the canon, those who don't (ecumenism( and WORSHIPING with the non-Orthodox is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles - PLAIN & CLEAR))

There are many EO Christians who really do a wonderful job in this.   I would find HOTCA a wonderful example of a "modern" Orthodox church who adheres to the Canon & Scriptures. (from what I've seen)

Old believers from what I can tell, have a wonderful adherence as well.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #58 on: November 17, 2012, 08:36:33 PM »

@yeshuaisiam: Can you answer to the 3 questions by me?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 08:36:45 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #59 on: November 17, 2012, 08:37:34 PM »

You're virtually a Protestant in your view of the Scriptures. Protestants are heretics. Protestants are nothing like the Early Christians. That includes the heretical Anabaptists.

I don't agree, and neither do many Eastern Orthodox Christians.   Nor do those who are pictured in icons who are dressed exactly as the scriptures say to.  Nor do the Eastern Orthodox Nuns or Monks.

These Russian Orthodox Christians seem to be following the scriptures.


I'm not against you Devin, nor am I against the Orthodox Church.   There are ones who follow the scriptures those who don't.  Those who follow the canon, those who don't (ecumenism( and WORSHIPING with the non-Orthodox is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles - PLAIN & CLEAR))

There are many EO Christians who really do a wonderful job in this.   I would find HOTCA a wonderful example of a "modern" Orthodox church who adheres to the Canon & Scriptures. (from what I've seen)

Old believers from what I can tell, have a wonderful adherence as well.

You're so weird, and stupid, and wrong.

Why the hell don't you go become a heretical Protestant?

You're not Orthodox, and it doesn't matter if you once were and it doesn't matter how long you were. You aren't Orthodox and therefore you cannot say what Orthodoxy is and is not. You've lost that right.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,363


fleem
WWW
« Reply #60 on: November 17, 2012, 08:38:40 PM »

Notice the only thing to which he refers as 'following the Scriptures' relates to women and head-coverings?

Would he have turned up his nose at St. Mary of Egypt?
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #61 on: November 17, 2012, 08:40:11 PM »

Notice the only thing to which he refers as 'following the Scriptures' relates to women and head-coverings?

Would he have turned up his nose at St. Mary of Egypt?

I also love how he ignores the clothing of all the Priests, Bishops and Civil Authorities in Icons. Or how he ignores the clothing of many others in iconography which isn't simple.

If he thinks the clothing shown on men like St. Paul, St. Peter, the Theotokos and others was "plain" for their day, he obviously knows nothing about history. They are displayed in clothing which would have been pretty "rich" for their day.
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,859


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #62 on: November 17, 2012, 08:41:03 PM »

Only direct instructions for how to dress 'modestly' in the Scriptures is headcoverings and not dressing costly. I don't really see how wearing a headcovering and not dressing costly automatically translates to dressing like someone out of Little House on the Prairie. You can follow these direct instructions and then dress modestly by society's standard.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #63 on: November 17, 2012, 08:43:53 PM »

You're virtually a Protestant in your view of the Scriptures. Protestants are heretics. Protestants are nothing like the Early Christians. That includes the heretical Anabaptists.

I don't agree, and neither do many Eastern Orthodox Christians.   Nor do those who are pictured in icons who are dressed exactly as the scriptures say to.  Nor do the Eastern Orthodox Nuns or Monks.

These Russian Orthodox Christians seem to be following the scriptures.


I'm not against you Devin, nor am I against the Orthodox Church.   There are ones who follow the scriptures those who don't.  Those who follow the canon, those who don't (ecumenism( and WORSHIPING with the non-Orthodox is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles - PLAIN & CLEAR))

There are many EO Christians who really do a wonderful job in this.   I would find HOTCA a wonderful example of a "modern" Orthodox church who adheres to the Canon & Scriptures. (from what I've seen)

Old believers from what I can tell, have a wonderful adherence as well.

You're so weird, and stupid, and wrong.

Why the hell don't you go become a heretical Protestant?

You're not Orthodox, and it doesn't matter if you once were and it doesn't matter how long you were. You aren't Orthodox and therefore you cannot say what Orthodoxy is and is not. You've lost that right.

Before you post in anger in the future, watch the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAShaI2vgV8

It's right up your alley being about Halo and might help you Walk on Sunshine.

Tootles!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #64 on: November 17, 2012, 08:45:31 PM »

You're virtually a Protestant in your view of the Scriptures. Protestants are heretics. Protestants are nothing like the Early Christians. That includes the heretical Anabaptists.

I don't agree, and neither do many Eastern Orthodox Christians.   Nor do those who are pictured in icons who are dressed exactly as the scriptures say to.  Nor do the Eastern Orthodox Nuns or Monks.

These Russian Orthodox Christians seem to be following the scriptures.


I'm not against you Devin, nor am I against the Orthodox Church.   There are ones who follow the scriptures those who don't.  Those who follow the canon, those who don't (ecumenism( and WORSHIPING with the non-Orthodox is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles - PLAIN & CLEAR))

There are many EO Christians who really do a wonderful job in this.   I would find HOTCA a wonderful example of a "modern" Orthodox church who adheres to the Canon & Scriptures. (from what I've seen)

Old believers from what I can tell, have a wonderful adherence as well.

You're so weird, and stupid, and wrong.

Why the hell don't you go become a heretical Protestant?

You're not Orthodox, and it doesn't matter if you once were and it doesn't matter how long you were. You aren't Orthodox and therefore you cannot say what Orthodoxy is and is not. You've lost that right.

Before you post in anger in the future, watch the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAShaI2vgV8

It's right up your alley being about Halo and might help you Walk on Sunshine.

Tootles!

Just shut up orthonorm, please...

Like I said, why don't you just tell us if you are Orthodox or not? If you aren't, your opinion doesn't matter.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 08:46:07 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #65 on: November 17, 2012, 08:47:04 PM »

Let me summarise a few things:

A guy with some Orthodox backgrounds abandon his faith in favor of some Amish Protestantism. In many threads he writes he is an iconoclast, judaiser, does not believe in Jesus prayer, authority of the clergy etc. He also has outdated views on clothing and family models.

That's understandable and OK.

What is not understandable it's that he keeps saying what is Orthodox and what is not. According to him, the Orthodox things are: headscarves, calendars and antiecumenism. Funnily, icon veneration is not.

And here goes the most funny part:

He watches a documentary about a religious group he never was in contact before and that exists dozens of thousands of kms far from him. He immediately decides they are perfectly Orthodox and plans to join them after watching the film. He also products some arguments for their Orthodoxy and Apostolic succession and whatever.

After he is explained the group captured in the film has no priests he answers there are groups that dress similarly but have priests. That makes think that the most important factors of deciding whether a group is Orthodox or not are (in order of seniority): beards, funny clothes, old calendar, and antiecumenism.

I'm interested in 3 things:

- How will he unite his own iconoclasm and their iconodulism?
- How will he react if he meets them in real life and notices not all of them are medieval cosplayers?
- How will he react when he realises how they call Jesus in their language and not with some "Jeshua" name?

Finally somebody formalizes the Paradox.

How do you worship in communion with Bishops who engage in ecumensim?

How can you receive communion from the Orthodox in violation of that Canon of the Holy Apostles?
(clergy worshiping with non-Orthodox calls for deposing & excommunicating via Canon of Holy Apostles)

How do you venerate that which GOD has forbidden man to create?

So as much as I may be confused, perhaps there are no answers.

Sorry guys, I don't just get spoon fed something and go with it.   I don't care who you are, you know some of the stuff I post has rough points, or else it would not arouse such hostile responses.

yes I have problems with icons.  Read the 10 commandments.
yes I love the Orthodox worship & prayers in many ways.
yes I believe we should not call priests "father" bishops "master", because God told us not to.
yes I believe above all ecumenism is the greatest of all heresy.
yes I like how the old believers and Amish adhere more to the scriptures in their daily lives.

So rather than trying to rip apart my "confusion", perhaps if somebody would like to answer one simple question without hostility.

IF your bishop engages in WORSHIP with non-Orthodox that violates the Canons of the Holy Apostles, which calls for them to be defrocked and deposed - then HOW can you justify being with that bishop?

Can you really blame me for being confused?

Perhaps I'm just a person brave enough to walk away to re-analyze "what in the world" is going on.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,859


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #66 on: November 17, 2012, 08:48:18 PM »

To think, all this could be avoided if we just came to Church naked Smiley I could get more sleep in the morning too because I wouldn't have to iron my clothes and get dressed.

EDIT: Okay yeshuasiam, I lost you after ecumenism. I mean, I support your anti-ecumenism, but all those other doubts seem downright silly and I got over those a long time ago.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 08:51:15 PM by JamesR » Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #67 on: November 17, 2012, 08:49:07 PM »

Only direct instructions for how to dress 'modestly' in the Scriptures is headcoverings and not dressing costly. I don't really see how wearing a headcovering and not dressing costly automatically translates to dressing like someone out of Little House on the Prairie. You can follow these direct instructions and then dress modestly by society's standard.

This is true.  Often home-made clothing does appear this way.  Also its about not being in competition with fellow church goers (this is an Amish practice).   Somebody doesn't wear "loud" colors to stand out.

I don't fully agree with the Anabaptists, I just want to make this point.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #68 on: November 17, 2012, 08:50:21 PM »

Quote
Even the EO icons depict women & men this way.

St Basil the Holy Fool of Moscow, to whom the largest church in Red Square is dedicated:





Sts Onuphrius the Great and Peter of Athos:



St Mary of Egypt:




« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 09:00:02 PM by LBK » Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #69 on: November 17, 2012, 08:50:55 PM »

Notice the only thing to which he refers as 'following the Scriptures' relates to women and head-coverings?

Would he have turned up his nose at St. Mary of Egypt?

Kind of like when I referred to the Oath of the Nazarite?

I guess I was talking about women sticking their beards into a head scarf.
I also referred to monks following the modest dress as well, along with many clergy (which are men).
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,363


fleem
WWW
« Reply #70 on: November 17, 2012, 08:51:20 PM »

Judge not, lest ye be judged: for the judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged.

Yesh wants to follow the Scriptures, let him follow that one.
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #71 on: November 17, 2012, 08:52:50 PM »

Judge not, lest ye be judged: for the judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged.

Yesh wants to follow the Scriptures, let him follow that one.

He wants to follow the Protestant "Sola Scriptura" scriptures where they are infallible and to be interpreted absolutely literally. He is a heretic just like they are.
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,859


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #72 on: November 17, 2012, 08:53:21 PM »

How about St. George the Dragonslayer who's depicted wearing fancy armor war-garments?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #73 on: November 17, 2012, 08:54:24 PM »

Quote
Even the EO icons depict women & men this way.

St Basil the Holy Fool of Moscow, to whom the largest church in Red Square is dedicated:



Sts Onuphrius the Great and Peter of Athos:



St Mary of Egypt:






It's funny how people make points, and take the 5% examples to make them....

Okay show me baptism icons to show me men half naked.... Go ahead.
Show me martyr icons and those oppressed to make a point.

Why not just show me an icon of Christ and how immodest he was while being baptized?  
This isn't what I was talking about.

Examples from the rarest of the rare of women icons will be next.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #74 on: November 17, 2012, 08:55:16 PM »

Judge not, lest ye be judged: for the judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged.

Yesh wants to follow the Scriptures, let him follow that one.

He wants to follow the Protestant "Sola Scriptura" scriptures where they are infallible and to be interpreted absolutely literally. He is a heretic just like they are.

That's why I talk about the church canon on NUMEROUS posts now.
Devin... WOW.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,363


fleem
WWW
« Reply #75 on: November 17, 2012, 08:57:19 PM »

Yesh reminds me of the Pharisee, who rambled on about how glad he was that God made him better than the ordinary slobs, where the Publican just asked God for mercy.
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #76 on: November 17, 2012, 08:57:52 PM »

How about St. George the Dragonslayer who's depicted wearing fancy armor war-garments?

Did he really wear it?  Did he really ride a horse and kill a serpent?

There are always examples to make a point.

Look in general at icons.

Plain dress.  Not costly array.  Modest.  Women covering heads.  (still waiting for the RARE example of the woman not covering their head).
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #77 on: November 17, 2012, 08:58:06 PM »

Yeah St. Mary of Egypt is a real low profile figure in Orthodoxy.

Glad someone posted an icon of her, otherwise I would have never known she existed.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #78 on: November 17, 2012, 08:59:48 PM »

In any case, it looks like the ROC has rescinded the old anathemas and recognizes the Old Believers as a valid part of the Church.

OBs in union with Moscow or ROCOR are. Not others.
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
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #79 on: November 17, 2012, 09:00:01 PM »

How about St. George the Dragonslayer who's depicted wearing fancy armor war-garments?

Did he really wear it?  Did he really ride a horse and kill a serpent?

There are always examples to make a point.

Look in general at icons.

Plain dress.  Not costly array.  Modest.  Women covering heads.  (still waiting for the RARE example of the woman not covering their head).

You lack an understanding of what an icon is (that's OK most people do, but you are more wronger than most).

They are not illustrations on what is in fashion for this eon.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,363


fleem
WWW
« Reply #80 on: November 17, 2012, 09:00:11 PM »

Yes, Yesh, St. George really did ride a horse and kill things. That was his job. He served his country.
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,655


WWW
« Reply #81 on: November 17, 2012, 09:01:55 PM »

So rather than trying to rip apart my "confusion", perhaps if somebody would like to answer one simple question without hostility.

IF your bishop engages in WORSHIP with non-Orthodox that violates the Canons of the Holy Apostles, which calls for them to be defrocked and deposed - then HOW can you justify being with that bishop?

That is not a good question.  Define "engages in Worship?"  You say that you are a son of a EO Priest - did you see your Bishop engage in what you describe?  If so, name the date, place and occasion.

There is nothing that anyone can say that will change your attitude. 

Can you really blame me for being confused?

Perhaps I'm just a person brave enough to walk away to re-analyze "what in the world" is going on.

There must be that one incident that incensed you so much to take the hard-line approach and even refer to the Bishop's vestments as icons not worthy of veneration.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #82 on: November 17, 2012, 09:03:11 PM »

Yesh reminds me of the Pharisee, who rambled on about how glad he was that God made him better than the ordinary slobs, where the Publican just asked God for mercy.

I'm sorry if I came off that way to you.

Then I will stop "rambling".

I AM DONE WITH THIS THREAD.
It's not helping anything...
I think we've all made our points.


AGAIN, I'M DONE with the thread.

Chill.
Please chill.

God bless all of you.  

I'm going to go make some ice cream.  Ice cream is simple.

Please always keep me in your prayers.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #83 on: November 17, 2012, 09:05:34 PM »

Quote
Okay show me baptism icons to show me men half naked.... Go ahead.
Show me martyr icons and those oppressed to make a point.

Why not just show me an icon of Christ and how immodest he was while being baptized? 
This isn't what I was talking about.



Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #84 on: November 17, 2012, 09:09:57 PM »

Quote
Okay show me baptism icons to show me men half naked.... Go ahead.
Show me martyr icons and those oppressed to make a point.

Why not just show me an icon of Christ and how immodest he was while being baptized? 
This isn't what I was talking about.





Figure you would pull some example up. I might not be Orthodox enough for Devin, but even I have see such examples.

What the general consensus on clothing (with or without) for Baptism through the history of "Christianity"?

Was there time and place where the Baptized were naked and then given their robe after?

My memory isn't very keen on this, but I vaguely recall this being practiced at one time somewhere.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,363


fleem
WWW
« Reply #85 on: November 17, 2012, 09:12:36 PM »

I think so. They used to have the baptistry in another room, so no one but the priest and deacon would see you at the moment in question.
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,820


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #86 on: November 17, 2012, 09:21:49 PM »

Hippolytus, in On the Apostolic Tradition, records in detail how baptism was done in the early Church.  No clothes allowed.
Logged

William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #87 on: November 17, 2012, 09:27:08 PM »

How about St. George the Dragonslayer who's depicted wearing fancy armor war-garments?

Did he really wear it?  Did he really ride a horse and kill a serpent?

There are always examples to make a point.

Look in general at icons.

Plain dress.  Not costly array.  Modest.  Women covering heads.  (still waiting for the RARE example of the woman not covering their head).

You lack an understanding of what an icon is (that's OK most people do, but you are more wronger than most).

They are not illustrations on what is in fashion for this eon.

If you was canonized, would you be wearing old timey robes in the icon?
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
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #88 on: November 17, 2012, 11:12:40 PM »

How about St. George the Dragonslayer who's depicted wearing fancy armor war-garments?

Did he really wear it?  Did he really ride a horse and kill a serpent?

There are always examples to make a point.

Look in general at icons.

Plain dress.  Not costly array.  Modest.  Women covering heads.  (still waiting for the RARE example of the woman not covering their head).

You lack an understanding of what an icon is (that's OK most people do, but you are more wronger than most).

They are not illustrations on what is in fashion for this eon.

If you was canonized, would you be wearing old timey robes in the icon?

Subjunctive: were.

And some already believe me to be a saint.

I would probably be wearing whatever I was in when I died, since I hope to die while asleep, I will be naked but swaddled while in this:



Highly recommended website and book.

Forgot to add the url:

http://www.achristianending.com/
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 11:13:35 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #89 on: November 18, 2012, 01:07:56 AM »

Let me summarise a few things:

A guy with some Orthodox backgrounds abandon his faith in favor of some Amish Protestantism. In many threads he writes he is an iconoclast, judaiser, does not believe in Jesus prayer, authority of the clergy etc. He also has outdated views on clothing and family models.

That's understandable and OK.

What is not understandable it's that he keeps saying what is Orthodox and what is not. According to him, the Orthodox things are: headscarves, calendars and antiecumenism. Funnily, icon veneration is not.

And here goes the most funny part:

He watches a documentary about a religious group he never was in contact before and that exists dozens of thousands of kms far from him. He immediately decides they are perfectly Orthodox and plans to join them after watching the film. He also products some arguments for their Orthodoxy and Apostolic succession and whatever.

After he is explained the group captured in the film has no priests he answers there are groups that dress similarly but have priests. That makes think that the most important factors of deciding whether a group is Orthodox or not are (in order of seniority): beards, funny clothes, old calendar, and antiecumenism.

I'm interested in 3 things:

- How will he unite his own iconoclasm and their iconodulism?
- How will he react if he meets them in real life and notices not all of them are medieval cosplayers?
- How will he react when he realises how they call Jesus in their language and not with some "Jeshua" name?

Finally somebody formalizes the Paradox.

How do you worship in communion with Bishops who engage in ecumensim?

How can you receive communion from the Orthodox in violation of that Canon of the Holy Apostles?
(clergy worshiping with non-Orthodox calls for deposing & excommunicating via Canon of Holy Apostles)

How do you venerate that which GOD has forbidden man to create?

So as much as I may be confused, perhaps there are no answers.

Sorry guys, I don't just get spoon fed something and go with it.   I don't care who you are, you know some of the stuff I post has rough points, or else it would not arouse such hostile responses.

yes I have problems with icons.  Read the 10 commandments.
yes I love the Orthodox worship & prayers in many ways.
yes I believe we should not call priests "father" bishops "master", because God told us not to.
yes I believe above all ecumenism is the greatest of all heresy.
yes I like how the old believers and Amish adhere more to the scriptures in their daily lives.

So rather than trying to rip apart my "confusion", perhaps if somebody would like to answer one simple question without hostility.

IF your bishop engages in WORSHIP with non-Orthodox that violates the Canons of the Holy Apostles, which calls for them to be defrocked and deposed - then HOW can you justify being with that bishop?

Can you really blame me for being confused?

Perhaps I'm just a person brave enough to walk away to re-analyze "what in the world" is going on.
So, essentially what you advocate on this forum is NOT Orthodoxy; rather, it's yeshuaisiamodoxy.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 01:11:02 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #90 on: November 18, 2012, 01:15:24 AM »

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.
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,859


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #91 on: November 18, 2012, 03:21:48 AM »

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.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #92 on: November 18, 2012, 03:26:21 AM »

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.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #93 on: November 18, 2012, 11:08:09 AM »

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
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,940



« Reply #94 on: November 18, 2012, 11:35:53 AM »

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.
Logged

yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #95 on: November 18, 2012, 01:06:15 PM »

@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.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 01:08:46 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,859


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #96 on: November 18, 2012, 03:45:18 PM »

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.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #97 on: November 18, 2012, 03:56:46 PM »

MK hijacked this thread.

Really?

Well,  I'll open the can of worms.

Quote
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
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #98 on: November 18, 2012, 05:03:05 PM »

@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.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #99 on: November 18, 2012, 05:12:46 PM »

MK hijacked this thread.

Really?

Well,  I'll open the can of worms.

Quote
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.

« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 05:28:40 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,363


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #100 on: November 18, 2012, 05:21:40 PM »

@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.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 05:25:47 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #101 on: November 18, 2012, 06:58:36 PM »

@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? Huh
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 06:59:22 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,787


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #102 on: November 18, 2012, 07:02:34 PM »

This thread is epic fail.
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #103 on: November 18, 2012, 09:32:01 PM »

It has gone way off course. I am therefore locking for the duration of the Nativity Fast.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 09:32:27 PM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Tags: Old Believers baptism nudity modesty 
Pages: 1 2 3 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 0.341 seconds with 131 queries.