Author Topic: Some more questions..  (Read 3085 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dismus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 486
Some more questions..
« on: July 05, 2006, 10:28:57 AM »
Ranging from silly to just mundane- does anyone know---

1)Why all Orthodox Bishops, Metropolitans, ect, have long beards?
I saw this question elsewhere on the net but did not find the responses to be adequate..
Is this done in defiance of Rome? Not an accusation- just a question.

2)Is there a set number of days a mother must wait before she can have her baby baptized? If so, why? What if they are dying? (only applies if there is a waiting period)

3) can pregnant women recieve the Eucharist? I heard mixed responses to this one, if they can't - what is the reason and which branch of Orthodoxy does this?

4) When the "lifting of anathamas and excommunications" occured in 1965 (is that correct date?) why then, and why not earlier?
Who made the first move?

Thanks

Offline choirfiend

  • ManIsChristian=iRnotgrEek.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 903
  • Rachael weeping for her children, for they are not
Re: Some more questions..
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2006, 12:52:45 AM »

1)Why all Orthodox Bishops, Metropolitans, ect, have long beards

I believe it would be because they're monastics, and monastics tend to have beards, not cutting their hair or shaving in vanity.

2)Is there a set number of days a mother must wait before she can have her baby baptized? If so, why? What if they are dying? (only applies if there is a waiting period)

40 days, though if the baby is dying, an emergency baptism can be performed by anyone. Because it is the time period that Mary waited before bringing the child to the temple for the offering required of a first born son. We also wait 40 days before bringing the child to be "churched" and baptism can follow thereafter.

3) can pregnant women recieve the Eucharist? I heard mixed responses to this one, if they can't - what is the reason and which branch of Orthodoxy does this?

Um, yes, why the heck wouldn't they? They receive as much as possible.

4) When the "lifting of anathamas and excommunications" occured in 1965 (is that correct date?) why then, and why not earlier?
Who made the first move?

Dont know, because I havent researched it.
Qui cantat, bis orat

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 20,239
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Some more questions..
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2006, 10:33:57 AM »
Let me start by saying choirfiend gave a good answer to each question; no more information is necessary... but I'm a seminarian, so I need practice postulating, sermonizing, and pontificating... so here goes! (JK)

1)Why all Orthodox Bishops, Metropolitans, ect, have long beards?
I saw this question elsewhere on the net but did not find the responses to be adequate..
Is this done in defiance of Rome? Not an accusation- just a question.   

Part of it is what choirfiend brought up above.  Part is that, culturally, for many centuries the Orthodox societies held that facial hair was part of manliness; since Christ was the perfect man, and the clergy are called to emulate that, they do the hair thing.  I won't even touch on what Metropolitan Nicholas of Detroit calls the "city priest vs. desert priest" portion of the facial hair debate, but we'll just say that many hold the opinion that only monks should grow the beards really long.

2)Is there a set number of days a mother must wait before she can have her baby baptized? If so, why? What if they are dying? (only applies if there is a waiting period)   

Must wait?  See choirfiend's answer above.  Although, barring any sort of emergency, the baby and mother should be churched before s/he can be baptized.

3) can pregnant women recieve the Eucharist? I heard mixed responses to this one, if they can't - what is the reason and which branch of Orthodoxy does this?   

It depends on who you ask.  I don't want to put down anyone's tradition, or make commentary on their social views, so I'll state that part of it is determined in dialogue with the mother's spiritual father.  I can say that, generally, in the GOA she can.

4) When the "lifting of anathamas and excommunications" occured in 1965 (is that correct date?) why then, and why not earlier?
Who made the first move?   

I don't recall who made the first move (I was told once), but it was done in 1965 because people like Patriarch Athenagoras felt that the ice needed to be broken.  The lifting of anathemas was not going to provide doctrinal unity, nor was it an act which was going to condone what the other church believes; it was just indended to flush out the "bad blood" that rested between the churches, and to get them to start talking about what makes us different.  This subject could get hashed out for 100 pages, so I won't discuss it further here.  There are other threads here on the site which have brought it up; once the search function works right, give it a shot!
"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"
Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Offline Dismus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 486
Re: Some more questions..
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2006, 01:12:04 PM »
All good answers!
Thanks it makes it clearer since on the surface they seem perplexing but the answers are very clear, thanks! :)

Online Justin Kissel

  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,794
  • my finger points
Re: Some more questions..
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2006, 03:18:02 AM »
Quote
Um, yes, why the heck wouldn't they? They receive as much as possible

Because in many places during Christian history they weren't allowed. They might be bleeding, which means they couldn't take the chance of taking the eucharist and it leaking out, so to speak (it's the same rationale for not allowing a woman to receive communion while on her period, and not permitting someone with an open wound).

Offline Keightlynn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Some more questions..
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2006, 03:01:14 PM »
In terms of the thing with the pregnancy, something that is important to remember is that Orthodoxy is the relgion in many places and many of those places may be rural and supersticious.  So in some places these traditions just develop, not out of the church, but out of the folk practices of this little town. So then you know, you are in church anand one of the sweet old ladies comes up and tells you that her grandma's aunt's sister who was a devout Orthodox taught her you shoudln't be receiving when your pregnant. And that's how these things get started. The intentions of the people who do it are good, but it's not the teaching of the church.

Online Justin Kissel

  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,794
  • my finger points
Re: Some more questions..
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2006, 03:24:32 PM »
Actually it was the teaching of the Church (ie. your own local Church), if you happened to be under a bishop who wrote or accept a canon dealing with the issue, or who wrote or accepted a penitential for his parish priests to use when confessing someone. The reason that the hypothetical grandma's aunt's sister probably said what she did is because she was told by a priest that it was a rule (canon) that God wanted followed.

Offline GiC

  • Resident Atheist
  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,490
Re: Some more questions..
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2006, 10:59:13 PM »
Actually it was the teaching of the Church (ie. your own local Church), if you happened to be under a bishop who wrote or accept a canon dealing with the issue, or who wrote or accepted a penitential for his parish priests to use when confessing someone. The reason that the hypothetical grandma's aunt's sister probably said what she did is because she was told by a priest that it was a rule (canon) that God wanted followed.

So we've had a few ignorant/heretical bishops in our past...surely this isn't news to anyone, least of all you ;) Fortunately these superstitions were not widely codified and are moot in contemporary discussions on canon law.
"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Online Justin Kissel

  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,794
  • my finger points
Re: Some more questions..
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2006, 11:03:42 PM »
I would agree practically speaking, I guess the logic of it just rubs me the wrong way because it's such an easy way to explain things away! It sort of reminds me of the anachronstic arguments of Roman Catholics that explain away antipopes. "But the Church got through that and figured it out!"  Uh, yeah, too bad for all those people who unwittingly followed the wrong Pope, lol. Or how about the semi-Arians in Northern Europe, who went on in "heresy" for hundreds of years, until someone finally informed them that the missionaries who had reached them in the 4th century had been wrong after all. Kinda sucked for them, no? It's easy for GIC to sit in his 21st century, ergonomically correct computer chair, but what about those poor ancients? What about the children? :)

Offline GiC

  • Resident Atheist
  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,490
Re: Some more questions..
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2006, 11:11:13 PM »
I would agree practically speaking, I guess the logic of it just rubs me the wrong way because it's such an easy way to explain things away! It sort of reminds me of the anachronstic arguments of Roman Catholics that explain away antipopes. "But the Church got through that and figured it out!"  Uh, yeah, too bad for all those people who unwittingly followed the wrong Pope, lol. Or how about the semi-Arians in Northern Europe, who went on in "heresy" for hundreds of years, until someone finally informed them that the missionaries who had reached them in the 4th century had been wrong after all. Kinda sucked for them, no?

You do realize you're asking this question to a Universalist, don't you? I'm sure God was able to work the details out...being omnipotent and omniscient and all. ;)

Quote
It's easy for GIC to sit in his 21st century, ergonomically correct computer chair, but what about those poor ancients? What about the children? :)

Hey, how do you know what kind of chair I have? ;D
"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Offline A Sombra

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Re: Some more questions..
« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2007, 09:42:38 PM »
1. beards, long hair, etc., on Orthodox Bishops . . .
  according to tradition, and I beleive there are also canonical rules, CLERGY are not supposed to cut thier hair or beard. This applies to ALL CLERGY, not only monks or Hierarchs. Of course, most of the anti-traditioanl anti-monastic modernist Orthodox Churches pay absolutely no attention to this whatsoever. And, of course, there are exceptions-ROCOR priests can cut their hair, shave, for secular employment if necessary. A rathr funny story-Metropolitan Philip of the Antiochian Archdiocese usually is clean shaven-but, I was told he always grows a little goatee before he goes to Synod meetings in the "Old Country," as a clean shaven face is the sign of a cuckold. Of course, since he is an unmerried clergyman, I dont know how that all fits, but, thats what I was told!

questions 2 & 3 have been answered very satisfactorily.

4. Anathemas
Since the beginning of the 20th century, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has become more and more ecumenical it seems, in each and every year. Meletios Metaxakis of Sorry Memory attempted to do away with the long hair and beards, clerical dress, and other items, and did see to the adoption of the Papal Calendar, beginning a long series of trials and sorrows for the Orthodox Church. Patriarch Athenagoras was a super ecumenicist, and his "lifting" of the anathemas do not amount to anything at all, since,not being the Eastern Pope, he had no authority to do so. This was another action that brought tribulations, and if you think the letter from Mount Athos concerning the Pope's recent visit to the Phanar was "something," you should see the letter they wrote when the anathemas were lifted!
All that these "ecumenical patriarchs" (ha-ha) have achieved is a lot of troubles, as they institute these innovations without the authority to do so, as well as ignoring the wishes of the faithful, and coming very close to heresy on many occasions. One reason for the "ecumania" of Constantinople is so they can get a lot of press in the West, and thereby soften their positon in Turkey. If the Turks think the Patriarch is as "important" as the Pope, why, they wouldn't DARE, now would they? The bottom line is that Traditional Orthodoxy is being rejected by the hierarchs of Constantinople, as well as many of their allies in the ecumenical movement. Sooner or later, this will all blow up in their faces, as a westernized, weakened, watered down Orthodoxy is wanted by no one.

Offline AMM

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,076
Re: Some more questions..
« Reply #11 on: May 23, 2007, 10:20:26 PM »
Somebody has certainly had a long drink of the kool-aid.

Offline GiC

  • Resident Atheist
  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,490
Re: Some more questions..
« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2007, 07:48:38 PM »
Somebody has certainly had a long drink of the kool-aid.

He's just messing with us...no one's this insane AND allowed out of the psychiatric ward ;)
"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Offline scamandrius

  • Musicians don't dance
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,092
  • Why do I waste my time here?
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
Re: Some more questions..
« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2007, 02:29:53 PM »
no one's this insane AND allowed out of the psychiatric ward ;)

What about you?  Or is the GOA Seminary the same thing as a psychiatric ward? ;D
Hey, I don't hand out 9.5s to just anyone!  ;D

Offline GiC

  • Resident Atheist
  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,490
Re: Some more questions..
« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2007, 06:42:50 PM »
What about you?  Or is the GOA Seminary the same thing as a psychiatric ward? ;D

Close, but not exactly the same...the seminary is where they send the real nut cases, generally the seminary inmates would simply be too psychologically dangerous to be allowed to mix with the normal patients of the psychiatric ward.
"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Offline Thomas06

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Some more questions..
« Reply #15 on: May 29, 2007, 09:28:43 PM »
Because in many places during Christian history they weren't allowed. They might be bleeding, which means they couldn't take the chance of taking the eucharist and it leaking out, so to speak (it's the same rationale for not allowing a woman to receive communion while on her period, and not permitting someone with an open wound).

But a Priest WILL bring communion to a person in the hospital, with an open wound or two.


Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,369
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Some more questions..
« Reply #16 on: May 29, 2007, 11:59:00 PM »
But a Priest WILL bring communion to a person in the hospital, with an open wound or two.

Take into account, though, that the hospital is a place where many people come when they're very sick and/or about to die.
Not all who wander are lost.