Eastern Orthodoxy

[elizabethevangeline]

One reason why I'm sympathetic towards liturgy and Orthodoxy is that Joe wouldn't be given the latitute to do His Own Thing in church.................We have open times in the service where people can read big passages of scripture and do some exhorting.
Joe has probably the biggest bible in the congregation and the most ear-marked amd book-marked. He rustles away in it continually, even during the worship. (He makes a point of not singing the choruses with 'I' in them too often.)

How would the Orthodox Church handle Joe?

I'm not sure if this was a serious question, & I haven't seen anyone answer it, so here goes...

Colin, you are correct, Joe wouldn't have a forum during liturgy. Now, if he wanted to read big passages of scripture, he could become a reader (not sure of the process)...they get to read HUGE bibles; and sometimes long passages; and a loud, clear voice is helpful. But no exhorting. Those who can, chant/sing the reading. Plain reading is acceptable too. This doesn't allow for the dramatic reading of scripture either (you know how some people can read a passage so you "get the message" even if they don't editorialize?).

We don't sing "I" songs either. Maybe that would be appealing to Joe

 

[DeaconDean]

Duck Doggers of the 24th and a half Century!

Alrighty folks, things are getting heated, lets take a break, catch our breaths, and then proceed calmly.

Remember to read the rules: No Flaming!

I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.​

 

[Philothei]

Only people who have severed knowledge of what an icon is would come up with that...

This was the reasoning of the Seventh Œcumenical Synod, which decreed in its Oros the following:

"Since this is the case, following the royal path and the teaching divinely inspired by our holy Fathers and the Tradition of the catholic Church—for we know that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit who lives in it—we decide in all correctness and after a thorough examination that, just as the holy and vivifying Cross, similarly the holy and precious Icons painted with colors, made with little stones or with any other matter serving this purpose (epitedeios), should be placed in the holy churches of God, on vases and sacred vestments, on walls and boards, in houses and on roads, whether these are Icons of our Lord God and Savior, Jesus Christ, or of our spotless Sovereign Lady, the holy Mother of God, or of the holy angels and of holy and venerable men. For each time that we see their representation in an image, each time, while gazing upon them, we are made to remember the prototypes, we grow to love them more, and we are more induced to worship them by kissing them and by witnessing our veneration (proskenesin), not the true adoration (latreian) which, according to our faith, is proper only to the one divine nature, but in the same way as we venerate the image of the precious and vivifying cross, the holy Gospel and other sacred objects which we honor with incense and candles according to the pious custom of our forefathers. For the honor rendered to the image goes to its prototype, and the person who venerates an Icon venerates the person represented in it. Indeed, such is the teaching of our holy Fathers and the Tradition of the holy catholic Church which propagated the Gospel from one end of the earth to the other."
​

The Jews understand the difference between veneration and worship (adoration). A pious Jew kisses the Mezuza on his door post, he kisses his prayer shawl before putting it on, he kisses the tallenin, before he binds them to his forehead, and arm. He kisses the Torah before he reads it in the Synagogue. No doubt, Christ did likewise, when reading the Scriptures in the Synagogue.
The Early Christians also understood this distinction as well. In the Martyrdom of Polycarp (who was St. John the Apostle's disciple, and whose Martyrdom was recorded by the faithful of his Church, who were eyewitnesses of all that it recounts), we are told of how some sought to have the Roman magistrate keep the Christians from retrieving the body of the Holy Martyr

"'lest,' so it was said, 'they should abandon the crucified one and begin to worship this man'—this being done at the instigation and urgent entreaty of the Jews, who also watched when we were about to take it from the fire, not knowing that it will be impossible for us either to forsake at any time the Christ who suffered for the salvation of the whole world of those that are saved—suffered though faultless for sinners—nor to worship any other. For Him, being the Son of God, we adore, but the martyrs as disciples and imitators of the Lord we cherish as they deserve for their matchless affection towards their own King and Teacher.... The centurion therefore, seeing the opposition raised on the part of the Jews, set him in the midst and burnt him after their custom. And so we afterwards took up his bones which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place; where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy, and to celebrate the birth-day [i.e. the anniversary] of his martyrdom for the commemoration of those that have already fought in the contest, and for the training and preparation of those that shall do so hereafter" (The Martyrdom of Polycarp 17:2-3; 18:1-3).

​

By merely posting verses will not work since you can prove nothing at all...since by right manipulation of certain ones and out of context you can prove anything....
Why we just leave it to that and admitt that you are not familiar enough with the Early Church tradition? it beats me...
God bless,
Philothei

 

[ma2000]

Duck Doggers of the 24th and a half Century!

Alrighty folks, things are getting heated, lets take a break, catch our breaths, and then proceed calmly.

Remember to read the rules: No Flaming!

I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.​

I'm a huge fan of Duck Doggers!

 

[SaintPhotios]

The EO is NOT His Body... His Body has never engaged in idolatry. Not your buddy, either. No enemy of Christ is any "buddy" of mine. So why the fixation with attempting to draw believers away into your error? Why not spend your time encouraging one another's idolatry on your own forum? Misery love company? Sure seems to be alot of you bantering twisted defenses of idolatry over here.

I'm sure that you believe that. But the point was that for 1,500 years, every Christian Church that has existed used images in their worship. We can tell this from historical records as well as the testimony of the Church Fathers.... it's a fact. Protestants were the first one to successfully reject this. So if you deny the use of images, then yes... you have to agree that the Body of Christ was in heresy for 1,500 years until the Reformation. Because of all the Christian sects throughout the years prior to protestantism (Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Oriental Orthodoxy), they ALL used images. So your iconoclasm requires that the gates of Hell did in fact prevail against the Church.

 

[bradfordl]

I'm sure that you believe that. But the point was that for 1,500 years, every Christian Church that has existed used images in their worship.

Not so. The Lord has always reserved for Himself a remnant.

So your iconoclasm requires that the gates of Hell did in fact prevail against the Church.

See above. But your exegesis is incorrect. Gates are inanimate objects. The gates of Hell do not assault the Church, the Church assaults the gates of Hell, and they cannot stand against her.

 

[jckstraw72]

Not so. The Lord has always reserved for Himself a remnant.

ah yes the secret underground groups that became the anabaptists or whatever.

 

[heymikey80]

Only people who have severed knowledge of what an icon is would come up with that...

Well, I haven't dropped in on this discussion but
-> This is an tarring a person because of a view he holds. Last I checked the rules objected to this technique. It doesn't hold anything for the truth, either way.

-> As iconic theology is not Apostolic and was not conceived until the fifth century as best I can determine, I wonder why this would even be an argument. The original Christians were severed from this knowledge. So would they "come up with that"?

The Jews understand the difference between veneration and worship (adoration). A pious Jew kisses the Mezuza on his door post, he kisses his prayer shawl before putting it on, he kisses the tallenin, before he binds them to his forehead, and arm. He kisses the Torah before he reads it in the Synagogue. No doubt, Christ did likewise, when reading the Scriptures in the Synagogue.

But you gather the point, that a Jew would call your icon an idol. In fact Jewish people I know have asked me about it, and all I can say is, "It's a Greek Orthodox thing, not a Christian thing."

The Early Christians also understood this distinction as well. In the Martyrdom of Polycarp (who was St. John the Apostle's disciple, and whose Martyrdom was recorded by the faithful of his Church, who were eyewitnesses of all that it recounts), we are told of how some sought to have the Roman magistrate keep the Christians from retrieving the body of the Holy Martyr

You're saying reverence the early Christians expressed for the place of realities is to be assigned to images that are not the realities. A martyr's bones are the physical reality of a real person, who will be resurrected to a physical form again. A martyr's drawn image isn't to be valued anywhere near the same way.

ah yes the secret underground groups that became the anabaptists or whatever.

Versus a pile of religious-robed inheritors of pagan custom trying to sanctify syncretism? Hm. It's immensely easy to create negative images no matter which history the poster wishes to deprecate. Were this simply name-calling it might pass for fun -- or at least making fun -- of someone. But because the Reformed are more interested in reality than hubris, your argument tends to fall flat on its face.

I'm often surprised how those sporting Orthodox tags here like to make statements that the Reformed in general do not hold, and then hijack their error into some other argument. This is yet another case. One wonders how Luther and Calvin both actually rejected the anabaptists, if they were toying with arguments like "underground groups that became the anabaptists or whatever."

We're actually a bit more interested in underground groups that became the Christians.

 

[Rick Otto]

ah yes the secret underground groups that became the anabaptists or whatever.

No, it's God's secret.
There might even be a few in your pew.
Not everybody in every congregation believes everything the clergy dictates. Some attend for social &/or family obligations.

 

[orthedoxy]

No, it's God's secret.
There might even be a few in your pew.
Not everybody in every congregation believes everything the clergy dictates. Some attend for social &/or family obligations.

This must be pretty desperate to try claim orthodoxy basing on some secret of God. Anyone can claim the same.
Rick which part of Iraq are you from? I was born in Bagdad.

 

[Rick Otto]

This must be pretty desperate to try claim orthodoxy basing on some secret of God. Anyone can claim the same.
Rick which part of Iraq are you from? I was born in Bagdad.

No, I obviously don't give a hoot about being considered "orthodox". I think the term itself reverses the intent & meaning of "ekklesia".
I'm originaly from the American midwest and that's where I am now.

I agree, & it is abundantly clear, anybody can claim orthodoxy. Just take a look around.

 

[BBAS 64]

Quite the contrary. To affirm sola scriptura is necessarily to accept that the church at some point had the authority to define what scripture is. Like it or not, a multitude of 'Christian' books existed at the time and the only authority that picked out the books we now see as the NT was the church.

Good Day, Robbie_James

Umm.

Nope I can affirm sola Scriptura in and of it's self, I need not some authority. The church in no way need authority to compile the contents of the NT as it was a historical exersize.

Where did the church claim authority in compliing the NT documents???


The Bible as Historical Truth


Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

http://www.catholic.com/library/proving_inspiration.asp


You have to rely on their name it claim it substandard "authority" to know that it is inpired. I know it is so objectively as it is God's word given by God for the church.

In Him,

Bill

 

[SaintPhotios]

No, it's God's secret.
There might even be a few in your pew.
Not everybody in every congregation believes everything the clergy dictates. Some attend for social &/or family obligations.

Are you saying that we can't know for sure what is or isn't true about the true teaching of Christ? If we can't know "who", then it goes without saying that we can't know "what"........ Does certainty have any place whatsoever regarding the teaching of Christ?

I'm sure you can see the problem with answering in the negative.

 

[BBAS 64]

The Bible was agreed upon by a council in Nicea and that is a historical fact... When i talked about the fathers agreeing I made the point that they had the councils where thy "officially" agreed about matters of faith and established dogma ....not on what they proclaimed individually of course they opinions would be slightly different that is normal also some of their writtings were condemned as heretical by the councils. I do not think you know well the history of christianity...or you would not be saying that......smart move BBAS accusing me of that one and the rest of "typical accusations" ... but it does not hold any water sorry ...and per my church history... I have read it and know it very well... Your answer still does not address the reason for so many Protestant denominations.... either....

Seems like your view of councils, exceed the writing of John Damascus, as his NT is not yours...

yes because the councils exceed the writing of Joh Damascus... and they do in reality. not all the Father's writtings were "radified" by the Church only the decisions by the councils...i.e. St. Augustine's writings (some ) were condemned as heretical by the coucils, that does not mean that they are not saints or that the rest of their writings are not of value of the church....I am glad you said that so i can clarify it.

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church." - Jerome (Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs).


this is again an opinion not radified through a coucil... proves nothing....

God bless,
Philothei

Good Day, Philothei

Your unhistorical use of councils, flies in the face of the historical reality that Jerome documents for us as I quoted above.

To assume a council was needed, with out proving such requirement binding on Jerome and accepted by him as vaild is simply a red-hearing (yet an other fallacy).

As to the denominations (including yours), you are required to show that it is a bad thing, futher more that it is a direct effect of sola scriptura.... Rather than a process in history,

Jerome

"The church is rent into three factions, and each of these is eager to seize me for its own." - Jerome (Letter 16:2)



Bill

 

[Philothei]

Quoting Jerome does not prove anything.... just his opinion... that is all as far as I am concenred the decisions of the councils are valid ....do not understand what you are talking about...you are just trying to personal attacks and such... It is not making any sense...

No reason to waste my time with people who only quote one Father since we have consensus....
of so many others.... Sola EOC and out of context is the same as Sola Scriptura....

As to the denominations (including yours), you are required to show that it is a bad thing, futher more that it is a direct effect of sola scriptura.... Rather than a process in history,


Required by Who and Why??? Only for your justification.... Historicity and historical way to Christianity is the only way to find the Truth.... since so many different interpretations 'fly around' today. The Historical Church is the Orthodox Church. And BTW we are not a "denomination" but a Church. We did not 'sprang" out of nowhere in the 1500 AD....rahter at the day of Pentecost...


Philothei

 

[BBAS 64]

Quoting Jerome does not prove anything.... just his opinion... that is all as far as I am concenred the decisions of the councils are valid ....do not understand what you are talking about...you are just trying to personal attacks and such... It is not making any sense...

Good Day, Philothei

His opinion, where does he say that..

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church." - Jerome (Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs).


He says the church, not Jerome was he lying?
"As far as you are concerned" now that is just your opinion.

No reason to waste my time with people who only quote one Father since we have consensus....
of so many others.... Sola EOC and out of context is the same as Sola Scriptura....

There you go with that wishful thinking "consensus"..
You have yet to prove that you understand what sola scriptura teaches so any comparision you attempt is flawed.

As to the denominations (including yours), you are required to show that it is a bad thing, futher more that it is a direct effect of sola scriptura.... Rather than a process in history,

Required by Who and Why??? Only for your justification.... Historicity and historical way to Christianity is the only way to find the Truth.... since so many different interpretations 'fly around' today. The Historical Church is the Orthodox Church. And BTW we are not a "denomination" but a Church. We did not 'sprang" out of nowhere in the 1500 AD....rahter at the day of Pentecost...


Philothei

Again sola scriptura does not address intrepretations only the authority of scripture.. you are bulding another strawman fallacy.

Flying around today, you make that sound like it is something new and miss the historical reality, for your presup's sake:


Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): Liberated from the error of
pagan tradition through the benevolence and loving kindness
of the good God, with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by the operation of the Holy Spirit, I was reared from the very
beginning by Christian parents. From them I learned even in
babyhood the Holy Scriptures which led me to a knowledge of
the truth. When I grew to manhood, I traveled about frequently
and, in the natural course of things, I engaged in a great many
worldly affairs. Here I observed that the most harmonious
relations existed among those trained in the pursuit of each of
the arts and sciences; while in the Church of God alone, for
which Christ died and upon which He poured out in
abundance the Holy Spirit, I noticed that many disagree
violently with one another and also in their understanding of
the Holy Scriptures. Most alarming of all is the fact that I found
the very leaders of the Church themselves at such variance
with one another in thought and opinion, showing so much
opposition to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so
mercilessly rendering asunder the Church of God and cruelly
confounding His flock that, in our day, with the rise of the
Anomoeans, there is fulfilled in them as never before the
prophecy, ‘Of your own selves shall men arise speaking
perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.’
Witnessing such disorders as these and perplexed as to what
the cause and source of such evil might be, I at first was in a
state, as it were, of thick darkness and, as if on a balance, I
veered now this way, now that—attracted now to one man,
now to another, under the influence of protracted association
with these persons, and then thrust in the other direction, as I
bethought myself of the validity of the Holy Scriptures. After a
long time spent in this state of indecision and while I was still
busily searching for the cause I have mentioned, there came to
my mind the Book of Judges which tells how each man did
what was right in his own eyes and gives the reason for this in
the words” ‘In those days there was no king in Israel.’ With
these words in my mind, then, I applied also to the present
circumstances that explanation which, incredible and
frightening as it may be, is quite truly pertinent when it is
understood; for never before has there arisen such discord
and quarreling as now among the the members of the Church
in consequence of their turning away from the one, great, and
true God, only King of the universe. Each man, indeed,
abandons the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and arrogates
to himself authority in dealing with certain questions, making
his own private rules, and preferring to exercise leadership in
opposition to the Lord to being led by the Lord. Reflecting
upon this and aghast at the magnitude of the impiety, I
pursued my investigation further and became convinced that
the aforesaid cause was no less the true source also of secular
difficulties. I noticed that as long as the common obedience of
the others to some one leader was maintained, all was
discipline and harmony in the whole group; but that division
and discord and a rivalry of leaders besides proceeded from a
lack of leadership. Moreover, I once had observed how even a
swarm of bees, in accordance with a law of nature, lives under
military discipline and obeys its own king with orderly
precision. Many such instances have I witnessed and many
others I have heard of, and persons who make profession of
such matters know many more still, so that they can vouch for
the truth of what I have said. Now, if good order with its
attendant harmony is characteristic of those who look to one
source of authority and are subject to one king, then universal
disorder and disharmony are a sign that leadership is wanting.
By the same token, if we discover in our midst such a lack of
accord as I have mentioned, both with regard to one another
and with respect to the Lord’s commands, it would be an
indictment either of our rejection of the true king, according
to the Scriptural saying: ‘only that he who now holdeth, do
hold, until he be taken out of the way,’ or of denial of Him
according to the Psalmist: ‘The fool hath said in his heart:
There is no God.’ And as a kind of token or proof of this, there
follow the words: ‘They are corrupt and are become
abominable in their ways.’ Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9,
Preface on the Judgment of God (New York: Fathers of the
Church, Inc., 1950), pp. 37-39.

By definition you are:

1. A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.

You can sumbit your request for review of the meaning if "denomination" to websters if you like.

In Him,

Bill

 

[jckstraw72]

umm thats bc St. Basil lived at a time rife with heresies such as Arianism, it doesnt mean the Truth was somehow lost or left to be discovered in every new generation. i really cant grasp why its so horrible to believe that God has raised up true believers in every generation.

 

[Thekla]

By definition you are:

1. A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.

You can sumbit your request for review of the meaning if "denomination" to websters if you like.

In Him,

Bill

what is our "single administrative and legal heirarchy" ?
(I don't know of one ... could you describe it?)

(FYI, Websters never registered a copyright; user beware, anyone who publishes a dictionary can use that name, so Websters cannot be considered an assurance of quality)

 

[DeaconDean]

Duck Doggers of the 24th and a half Century!
​

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is with great regreat that I must close this thread for 24 hours. It may be re-opened by this time tomorrow.​

It is the concensus of the Moderators of this room that this thread has degenerated into debate and personal attacks.​

This ladies and gentleman, is unacceptable.​

Therefore, this thread will now be closed for 24 hours to allow tempers to settle and for decorum return.​

One final warning, if personal attacks do not stop, this thread may be closed permemantly.​

Let us remember what Paul taught:​

"Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." -Col. 4:6 (KJV)​

God Bless​

Till all are one.​

 

[DeaconDean]

Duck Doggers of the 24th and a half Century!​

Alrighty folks, I know its a few minutes early, but I am reopening this thread.

But before I do, I want to take this time to remind you of these rules:

And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' (No flaming, no trolling etc)
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Flaming, baiting, trolling, or feeding trolls is not allowed. This also applies to groups. In other words, play nice, don't hurt others, nor call them names.
If you think you are being flamed, choose *not* to be offended, but instead take a break, and communicate, rather than escalating or accusing others.
Defamation is not allowed.
Use the brain God gave you. Think before you post. Think about how your post may affect someone else.

If this thread and all members cannot abide by these rules, this thread will be shut down permemantly.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Play nice kiddies.

God Bless

Till all are one.