Can you stop with the lies about traditional Christianity?

[dzheremi]

Psst, Dzheremi. I don't remember if this thread got moved or not, but it isn't in the Traditional Theology subforum now.

Ahhh. Thank you. Hahaha. I could've sworn it was, but obviously I'm not paying close enough attention. Too irritated. Sorry.

 

[Radagast]

means to stick it to Catholics/Orthodox/traditional Protestants

I wasn't "sticking it" to anybody, I was speaking on behalf of traditional Protestants.

 

[dzheremi]

I wasn't "sticking it" to anybody, I was speaking on behalf of traditional Protestants.

That's good. I wasn't referring to you, though. (Just to clarify.)

 

[The Liturgist]

It's funny, because I was told (though now I'm not sure what to believe, as you might imagine!) in the Coptic Orthodox Church that the liturgy of St. Cyril was itself a recension of the original liturgy of St. Mark.

On this point you were correctly informed. The Coptic Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril is a variant translation of the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark, and there are older versions of the St. Mark liturgy that predate the oldest manuscripts in use. The present variant of St. Mark occasionally used by the Eastern Orthodox dates from 1893 and is sufficiently standardized that, given how Orthodox priests normally pray the Proskomide privately with the curtain and doors on the iconostasis closed, and likewise pray most of the Anaphora silently, I think an Orthodox priest could substitute the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark for the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom without anyone noticing.

Since in the Coptic Rite the priest intones much more of the liturgy using a mix of standard Agpeya melodies and improvization, and since the three Coptic anaphorae are relatively non-standardized, this would not apply. Depressingly, I have been told there was distinct music for the St. Cyril liturgy which was lost, because the liturgy fell into disuse for an extended period and unlike Ethiopian or Byzantine chant, but like Syriac and Assyrian chant, Agpeya was historically memorized and lacked a system of notation.

 

[The Liturgist]

Interesting. Do you know if this is related to the anaphora of the same name in use among the Syriac Orthodox?

They might be related in that both follow the Antiochene form, and owing to its simplicity, its possible that the Syriac anaphora presently in use was derived from that attributed to St. Hippolytus, but the similiarities end there. The Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles is believed to have been the main anaphora in Antioch, just as that of St. James was the main anaphora in Jerusalem, that of St. Mark predominated in Alexandria, that of Addai and Mari predominated (and still predominates) in the Church of the East, and the Roman Canon predominates in Rome. It is believed, with good reason, that St. John Chrysostom, who was a widely respected priest in Antioch who earned much acclaim for his legendary homiletics before being made Patriarch of Constantinople, derived the liturgy bearing his name from the liturgy of the Twelve Apostles, because the two are both very similiar. The main difference is the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is more eloquent.

You can compare 14 of the Syriac anaphorae here (but remember, there are far more than 14; elsewhere on the net I have found an English translation of the Anaphora of St. Dionysius the Aereopagite, and if you speak Latin, many more of the Anaphora can be found in translation in various public domain books on archive.org, dating from the 19th century, as members of the famed family of Maronite ecclesiastical leaders, scholars and philanthropists, the Assemanis, translated vast amounts of Syriac literature, not limited to the Maronites, but extending to the Suroye and Assyrians, into Latin, for the benefit of the Vatican and its scholars.

 

[The Liturgist]

I know personally a number of people who were completely healed of cancer through the prayers of the Saints, and there are thousands of similar accounts recorded throughout the history of the Orthodox Church.

My mother was thought, based on an MRI, to have a deep tumor on her face extending into vital nerves, the removal of which was planned to take two days, but before that surgery I took her to visit a Coptic Orthodox monastery and requested the brethren pray for her (which would doubtless involve intercessions). One monk annointed her with the consecrated oil, and also placed some directly on the tumor. As it turned out the surgeon was able to remove it in one hour and it was extremely shallow; the wound has since healed completely.

 

[dzheremi]

Glory be to God!

 

[The Liturgist]

If you are talking about the incident with King Saul and the departed Samuel, that was before Christ defeated death.

Also, a very common exegesis, among Orthodox and Protestants, is that that was not actually the ghost of King Saul but a spirit impersonating him. This makes sense in light of the Witch of Endor being, lets be fair, a witch, who was violating the divine law concerning necromancy.

In fact the Orthodox Study Bible has this to say about the Witch of Endor incident:

“This passage created great controversy among the Fathers of the Church. In fact, at least three distinct interpretations can be found.
1. The woman called Samuel forth from the dead (Justin Martyr, Origen, Ambrose, and Augustine).
2. Whether it was Samuel or a demon, it appeared at God's bidding and not by some magic of the woman (Chrysostom, Theodoret).
3. The entity was a demon who deceived Saul and gave him a false prophecy (Tertullian, Hippolytus, Ephrem the Syrian, Evagrius, Basil, Jerome, Ambrosiaster, & Gregory of Nyssa).
The third interpretation seems to be held by the greatest number of Fathers, and Gregory of Nyssa wrote a specific treatise on the subject. He defends this view by citing the impassible chasm in the Lazarus parable (Lk 16:26). The apparition appeared only to the woman; she told Saul whom it resembled. The Greek word translated medium in this passage is literally the word for “ventriloquist.” Also, Saul had been plagued by evil spirits for years and was easily deceived by them.”

Now, while I do not respect Theodoret, and Tertullian sadly fell into heresy, I have great respect for Origen and Augustine, and even more respect for Justin Martyr, Ambrose, and John Chrysostom, but I also hold in the same esteem the Cappadocians, Ephrem the Syrian, Jerome and Hippolytus, and their view seems to be, according to the St. Athanasius Academy which translated the Septuagint into English for the OSB and authored the commentary with representatives of all of the major Orthodox churches, the consensus patrum.

While (curiously) as far as I am aware Rome has not pronounced magisterially on the topic, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and King James I of England all regarded the apparition of Samuel as an apparition of diabolical or demonic origin, a rare moment of concord between the Lutheran, Reformed and High Church Anglican parties in the context of the later 16th century, and I know of no mainstream Protestant theologians who differ from their views and those of the Cappadocians and Sts. Ephrem, Jerome and Hippolytus.

Conversely the prevailing view in Rabinnical Judaism is that it was a real apparition of Samuel; Josephus believed this, other Jewish theologians speculated that in the first year following burial, the spirit of the deceased could wander, and the Haggadah on the subject further confirms the idea the Witch of Endor was real, and further speculates on the nature of mediums and their ability to communicate with the deceased. I do not know what Karaites, Samaritans, or Beta Israel think of it, but it would be interesting to find out.

 

[Zao is life]

That isn't what you said before. You specifically said "I personally would never do it, and will never find the practice of making images to represent anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath acceptable to God."
Apparently you haven't properly understood God's command in Exodus since God does not contradict Himself.

If you cannot tell me where in scripture God instructs His people to fashion images of humans and to venerate them, to bow to those images or curtsy to them, and to pray through them to God, there is no point in your protest.

 

[QvQ]

Man is corrupt. The Christian Church was very powerful. In my study of European history one interesting fact emerged. The corruption within the Church did not corrupt the Scripture. The Protestants will agree that even though the Borgia Popes were fouled by every sin and evil plot, the Bible itself was not amended to justify or condone their corruption. The Borgia's are condemned by the very Book they controlled. How easy it would have been to add a word here or a verse there or find an old new book that should be included that resembled Machiavelli more than Christ?
The Catholic Church faithfully handed down the Scriptures that Calvin so relied on.

 

[dzheremi]

Hmm.

It must be weird belonging to a tradition that has a closed canon.

 

[The Liturgist]

curtsy to them,

I’ve never seen anyone curtsy to an icon. The “bowing” you refer to is actually a metanie, a gesture associated with repentance and deference rather than worship; Roman Catholics, Anglo Catholics and some Lutherans will genuflect towards the crucifix out of respect for our Lord.

But really, with regards to iconoclasm, we know that the Jews had icons before Islam, for example, in the synagogue at Dura Europos, and in the Temple itself and the Beta Israel of Ethiopia still do. The Beta Israel preserve the closest thing to Second Temple Judaism, in that at their temples, their priests continue to perform animal sacrifices in accordance with the Torah,

There is in fact no record of Iconoclasm in any ancient religion before Islam; iconoclasm erupted in Constantinople in the 8th century chiefly because Byzantine generals bought into the idea that the Caliphate’s remarkable success when it came to defeating the Byzantine army, and decided to implement the Islamic interpretation of idolatry. This did not lead to military victories, and it led to considerable outrage, with the issue theologically resolved at the Second Council of Nicea, and definitely resolved in 843, when the newly crowned empress endorsed the findings of the council in an event known as the Triumph of Orthodoxy, celebrated annually on the first Sunday in Lent in the Byzantine church.

John Damascene and Theodore the Studite articulated most clearly the theological imperative for icons from a Patristic perspective, and Martin Luther offers a compelling argument for the use of the crucifix

 

[The Liturgist]

Hmm.

It must be weird belonging to a tradition that has a closed canon.

You do realize that the Coptic Orthodox Church recognizes the NT canon defined by Athanasius the Great in his 39th Paschal Encyclical as definitive? In fact the Coptic church is the only ancient church that reads all 27 books during the normal liturgy (although on Mount Athos, Eastern Orthodox monks also read the Apocalypse on Holy Saturday afternoon, at about the same time Copts read it in church, but the Athonite reading is not regarded as a liturgical service as such, and I have never seen it mentioned in the Triodion or any Typikon I have).

 

[QvQ]

Take the best and leave the rest. I admire St. Francis, I have a copy of Thomas Merton's New Seeds of Contemplation on the shelf next to the Bible, Milton's Paradise Lost and Calvin's Institutes of Christian Religion. Summa Theologica also graces the shelf along with St John of the Cross, Dark Night of the Soul. The Confessions of St. Augustine, an old favorite resides there also.
I learned some things from these books
Speak the truth, do not resist the evil of lies by arguing against. Speak the simple truth. Also some of the finest art is religious. All icons represent the workman who created it. Aquinas expressed his vision in words, Michelangelo was expressing his vision and God given talents in paint. Value it for that if nothing else. When I see an icon, I see an expression of a man working in a different media, paint, plaster wood, whatever to glorify God. Augustine, Calvin, Milton used words to glorify God. One is not less or more than the other.

 

[dzheremi]

You do realize that the Coptic Orthodox Church recognizes the NT canon defined by Athanasius the Great in his 39th Paschal Encyclical as definitive? In fact the Coptic church is the only ancient church that reads all 27 books during the normal liturgy (although on Mount Athos, Eastern Orthodox monks also read the Apocalypse on Holy Saturday afternoon, at about the same time Copts read it in church, but the Athonite reading is not regarded as a liturgical service as such, and I have never seen it mentioned in the Triodion or any Typikon I have).

Yes, of course I realize that. The question is what that 'means' in context. The East more generally never had a council that I am aware of like that which the Latins had which definitively closed their canon (was it at Trent? My memory is failing me at the moment). That was my only point. I can't look at the Bible as others do as either 66 or whatever number of books which sometimes becomes a point of contention in itself, because the Ethiopians and Eritreans doubtlessly have more than the rest of us no matter what Church we belong to, and yet they are our daughter Church. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So I can only gather that at some point this began to really matter a lot more in the West than it does elsewhere, perhaps due to the pressure exerted on the Latin Church by the more radical among the Protestants (who didn't come East en masse until later). I just find that interesting, in terms of how different churches develop. Obviously it makes complete sense in a western context to say Rome preserved this or that, because where else would the daughter churches of Rome (the initial Protestants) come from. But on a global level, we can say that they preserved their canon by closing it, whereas other churches treat the matter differently, having no less stable canons but without taking that step.

 

[Tigger45]

Take the best and leave the rest. I admire St. Francis, I have a copy of Thomas Merton's New Seeds of Contemplation on the shelf next to the Bible, Milton's Paradise Lost and Calvin's Institutes of Christian Religion. Summa Theologica also graces the shelf along with St John of the Cross, Dark Night of the Soul. The Confessions of St. Augustine, an old favorite resides there also.
I learned some things from these books
Speak the truth, do not resist the evil of lies by arguing against. Speak the simple truth. Also some of the finest art is religious. All icons represent the workman who created it. Aquinas expressed his vision in words, Michelangelo was expressing his vision and God given talents in paint. Value it for that if nothing else. When I see an icon, I see an expression of a man working in a different media, paint, plaster wood, whatever to glorify God. Augustine, Calvin, Milton used words to glorify God. One is not less or more than the other.

Agreed and to add, the proper term for creating an icon is 'writing an icon'. Here's a quick write up about it here > Icon: The Iconographer's Prayer

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes, of course I realize that. The question is what that 'means' in context. The East more generally never had a council that I am aware of like that which the Latins had which definitively closed their canon (was it at Trent? My memory is failing me at the moment). That was my only point. I can't look at the Bible as others do as either 66 or whatever number of books which sometimes becomes a point of contention in itself, because the Ethiopians and Eritreans doubtlessly have more than the rest of us no matter what Church we belong to, and yet they are our daughter Church. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So I can only gather that at some point this began to really matter a lot more in the West than it does elsewhere, perhaps due to the pressure exerted on the Latin Church by the more radical among the Protestants (who didn't come East en masse until later). I just find that interesting, in terms of how different churches develop. Obviously it makes complete sense in a western context to say Rome preserved this or that, because where else would the daughter churches of Rome (the initial Protestants) come from. But on a global level, we can say that they preserved their canon by closing it, whereas other churches treat the matter differently, having no less stable canons but without taking that step.

Ok, I understand what you were saying, and I agree.

 

[prodromos]

If you cannot tell me where in scripture God instructs His people to fashion images of humans and to venerate them, to bow to those images or curtsy to them, and to pray through them to God, there is no point in your protest.

Do you believe God contradicts Himself?

 

[ViaCrucis]

OK please understand that I'm not fighting in my reply, but expressing what I believe about this:

1. Have we been told that they are all mediators between God and man?

If I ask you to pray for me, does that make you a mediator between me and God? Does this contradict that there is, as we read, one Mediator, Jesus Christ?

If I can ask you to pray for me and this does not violate Christ's one mediatorship, then neither does asking for the saints who have gone on violate this. Thus we must submit that this is not a valid counter.

2. Have we been told that Christ is the only mediator between God and man?

See above.

3. Have we been told that we need a mediator between man and Christ (i.e the Church's Bishops, or saints who have passed on and are in Christ?)

Neither the saints in heaven nor Christ's ministers on earth are substitutes for Christ's mediatorship, and nobody suggests so. Again, we must submit that this is not a valid counter.

4. Is there anything wrong with disturbing the rest of those who are resting in Christ, bringing our problems and the problems of the world to them?

Read the Scriptures, the saints who are before God's throne are already deeply invested in us, we are told that there is a great crowd of witnesses surrounding us. So this emotional appeal, "Do you want to bother them?" is not going to jive with the biblical witness wherein the saints who have gone before us are shown to care.

Answer: In my opinion (which in your opinion is unqualified) the answers are: 1: No; 2: Yes; 3: No; 4: Yes ,

but not in your opinion.

5. Are we allowed to differ in what we believe regarding these things without grieving the Holy Spirit by fighting with one another, or (even worse) hating one another?

In my opinion Yes, we can differ but without grieving the Holy Spirit by fighting with one another or (even worse) hating one another.

Now, I'm Lutheran, Lutherans don't ask the saints and angels to pray for us. But there is a difference between a good argument and a bad argument that needs to be understood.

The Lutheran reason for not invoking the saints is actually really simple: We have no way of knowing whether or not they can hear our prayer requests. In a sense, it's basically that simple for us on this matter.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

Take the best and leave the rest. I admire St. Francis, I have a copy of Thomas Merton's New Seeds of Contemplation on the shelf next to the Bible, Milton's Paradise Lost and Calvin's Institutes of Christian Religion. Summa Theologica also graces the shelf along with St John of the Cross, Dark Night of the Soul. The Confessions of St. Augustine, an old favorite resides there also.
I learned some things from these books
Speak the truth, do not resist the evil of lies by arguing against. Speak the simple truth. Also some of the finest art is religious. All icons represent the workman who created it. Aquinas expressed his vision in words, Michelangelo was expressing his vision and God given talents in paint. Value it for that if nothing else. When I see an icon, I see an expression of a man working in a different media, paint, plaster wood, whatever to glorify God. Augustine, Calvin, Milton used words to glorify God. One is not less or more than the other.

A very good collection, but I would note its particularly Occidental. You might find it enriching to add some of the following: The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, of which there are many translations, including a good one by Thomas Merton, De Incarnatione by St. Athanasius, (It, the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, and other material are also available in the Lausiac Histories, which is readily available), the Panarion (Medicine Chest) of St. Epiphanius, which includes in quotations much of Against Heresies by St. Irenaeus of Lyons and was recently translated into English in two volumes, and is available om Scribd, some of the hymns of St. Ephrem the Syrian (I particularly like the Hymns on Paradise, newly translated by Sebastian Brock), the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St. John Damascene, the Philokalia (anthology) compiler by St. Macarius and St. Nicodemus of Mount Athos in the 18th century, and translated by Kallistos Ware and Mother Mary, the Way of the Pilgrim (by an anonymous 19th century Russian author), not to be confused with the Philocalia, with a c, a collection of the less controversial writings of Origen by the Cappadocians (Sts. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory Naziazen) On the Prayer of Jesus by St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, and My Life in Christ by St. John of Kronstadt, and the Amusing Stories compiled by the legendary Maphrian (Ruling Archbishop of Mesopotamia and the Eastern Dioceses, and deputy Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church) Mar Gregorios bar Hebraeus, which is readily available online, but a new print edition of the existing translation and some other Syriac material is supposed to be coming out soon as well.

A selection of those titles would have the effect of adding an Oriental counterweight to your library, which would in no sense contradict the exquisite selection of Occidental titles, except to a certain extent Calvin’s Institutes, which are on the issue of icons in opposition to John Damascene. But I think its good to have opposing viewpoints in a good library. I even keep collections of Gnostic apocrypha compiled by people who in some cases are ... kind of heterodox, as well as Mormon material, so I can understand these errors. In the Gnostic material, particularly, one can also learn a lot about Orthodox-Apostolic-Catholicism, by which I mean the Nicene denominations and not Roman Catholicism specifically, but rather, all of the churches in this thread called “traditional”, by contrasting their opinions with the Gnostic.