For hopefully the last time, I did not post that for the people who already know. I made that very clear in previous responses. I am sorry that it was not clear enough initially so that you might avoid having to continually lecture me on this point that has already been dealt with.
It is already understood that you did not post for others who already know - but as said before, it is IRRELEVANT (as well as assuming of the abilities/experiences of others who do know with those who DO) that things need to be posted as if posters are ignorant and cannot study for themselves. You already lectured assuming anything needed to be said (or that other conversations prior to this thread did not already have newcomers who asked and then info was brought up further....so again, if you're going to continue derailing with the lecture, save it and make another thread. It is disrespectful in this one continuing on as you have.
I wasn't "avoiding" the Orthodox Qurbana. I just didn't comment on it because it is Orthodox, so it's exactly what would be expected here.
Commenting on the Orthodox Qurbana was the subject of the OP - hence, comment on it was more than expected rather than trying to focus on that which was secondary and making it a center point in the manner which you did.
My logic/question was "Why is this Protestant Qurbana being posted approvingly on an OO board? Don't Protestants have their own board, and shouldn't it be posted there, if anywhere?"
As said before, claiming a Qurbana to be "Protestant" is not only inaccurate but going past what was actually present - and as said before, it tends to be reactionary claiming anything outside of OO Qurbana is Protestant since Mar Thoma aren't even Protestant to begin with and it has been discussed many times before (long before your arrival) where differing forms of Qurbana have been discussed alongside OO ones - so asking "Well why is this here on the forum?" begs the question "Why have you not taken the time to actually keep up with what discussions occur on the forum before trying to have a mini-discussion within a thread where the focus is not upon that?
I don't know what their reticence to take up the label "Protestant" is supposed to show. Plenty of Protestants similarly reject it/feel it irrelevant, and yet when you look at their history and doctrines, they show that this is exactly what they are.
It is not just them, seeing how others within the OO Church have long pointed out the same reality of not simply throwing out any label you wish because you disagree with them. Archbishop Veron Ashe loved the Coptic Church and met with Pope Shenouda III years ago in Hawaii, but there was never any claim of HH calling them Protestants because he knew the differences - and the same goes with
Bishop Angaelos attending a carol service at St John's Mar Thoma Church, London
....and again, simply saying "Well look at their history" doesn't show anything when it comes to asserting without real evidence - for those closer to Anglican communion, Anglicans are NOT Protestants and that is a basic fact. It is dishonoring for anyone to insist "Oh you're Protestants!" when their history does not show such ..
What does that mean? Are they actually in communion with the Syriac Orthodox Church? According to your source, they are not, and the people that they are in communion with are Protestants.
Who argued they were in communion with the Syriac Orthodox Church? This was already noted when it comes to saying the Mar Thoma Syrian Church is the first autonomous church in India since they broke away from Syrian Orthodox Church in the nineteenth century....and it was not with Protestants they were in communion with, as you've yet to show actual evidence on that. S
t. Thomas Christians have a varied history - especially in regards to the issue of the Catholic background from which things stem....and as said best in
Mar Thoma Metropolitans - Orthodox Christians:
In 1599, the Portuguese almost succeeded in forcibly converting the Syrian Christians to Roman Catholicism at the Synod of Diamper. But in 1653, through the Coonan Cross Oath, the Syrian Christians broke the shackles of Rome and proclaimed their autonomy. People wished to have a local bishop as their leader and thus they elected the then Arch Deacon as their bishop. He was ordained as a bishop under the title 'Mar Thoma' by 12 senior priests (Since then, this office of the high priest is known as 'Malankara Metropolitan'. No Persian bishop was present at this ordination. It was impossible for them reach here because the Portuguese were controlling the sea-routes to India and they made it sure that no foreign bishop would reach here to help the Indian church). This bishop is popularly known as 'Mar Thoma I' in the church history and is the first Indian bishop for a Christian church. He gave brilliant leadership to the church in the midst of troubles and fought to preserve the independence of the Indian Christians. Niranam church was the head quarter of the Malankara Metropolitans.
Mar Thoma II
Before his demise in 1670, Mar Thoma I ordained his nephew as Mar Thoma II. He was a very pious man. According to a local tradition once the people of Niranam were suffering from severe drought and they appealed to Mar Thoma II for his special prayers. As a result of his prayers the village received plenty of showers. Mar Thoma II led the church for 16 years and left for his heavenly abode in 1686. His mortal remains were buried inside the Niranam Church and every year his memorial day is celebrated on 16 th April.
Mar Thoma V
In 1728, Mar Thoma V assumed the office of Malankara Metropolitan. Despite the interventions of Roman Catholics and Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch in the affairs of the Church, he succeeded in preserving the autonomy and autocephalousy of the Church. In 1751, a group of bishops and priests sent to Kerala from Syria by the Patriarch of Antioch. Their mission was to re-ordain Mar Thoma V as 'Mar Dionysius' and thereby establish the supremacy of Antiochian Church over the Indian Church. The Dutch East India Company by whose ship they traveled, put the burden of the travel expenses of the group-around twelve thousand rupees- on Mar Thoma V. But he refused to pay the amount because the foreign bishops started ordaining priests and intervene in the administration of the Church as soon as they reached here. The Dutch arrested Mar Thoma V and threatened to send him on exile. This dispute was later settled by the intervention of the Government of Travancore. The Antiochian bishops tried hard to re-ordain Mar Thoma V and bring him under the Patriarch of Antioch. But he refused to kneel down as he was strongly convinced that the Indian Church is autonomous and autocephalous in all respects and it doesn't need any external intervention in its affairs. To reinforce this, he himself ordained Mar Thoma VI as his successor in 1761 at Niranam Church without the participation of foreign bishops. During his long tenure spanned for 37 years, Mar Thoma V successfully defended the disruptive activities of Antiochian Church and Roman Catholics. He passed away on 10 th May 1765 and cremated inside the Niranam Church. Every year his memorial feast is celebrated on 10 th May on a large scale.
"Connection" is one thing, but I'm talking about communion. There's nothing wrong with talking and forming strong relationships and all that. We already do that with many churches and individuals, but they still remain whatever it is they are by their communion (Catholic, Protestant, EO, etc).
No one said Mar Thoma change who they are in communion - as them being different doesn't mean they are not accurate in presenting basic facts when it comes to a Qurbana since the Qurbana itself remains even with differences changing context. It's no different than someone speaking on Coptic Hymnology in a class review even when they are not Coptic - the facts are the facts.
What on earth are you talking about? I never asserted that that video clip was about any particular group. HH was quite clearly talking about Protestantism generally there.
It is speaking outside both sides of the mouth when focusing on Mar Thoma Christians, then claiming they are Protestant - and then, when others respond to a video you place up pertaining to the issue, claim "Well I was speaking about Protestantism"....Protestantism was never a part of the thread till you brought it up with comments from HH - but the thread was not dedicated to Protestantism and you brought it up when claiming all MAR Thoma were Protestants.
I guess we are going to be having this same conversation until you are satisfied with my explanations, then. Meh.
Actually no - as the thread has a purpose and the derail is NOT it. Continue with it and it will be taken to Members Complaint since it is not respecting the OP and going against what has been discussed on the forum.
I'm used to your unfounded, over-reaching, and quite frankly rude character assassinations and insinuations about my fidelity to the faith by now.
I don't like them, and i don't think they are appropriate in reaction to a post you don't like, but I'll bear them anyway, to make whatever point I try to make, and in an effort to learn whatever you say I'm missing in understanding the full context of whatever we're discussing.
What follows here is another example of doing exactly what you speak against, as one doesn't complain on "character assasinations" and then do them or ignore where they were done to individuals/groups.
Seeing that no one said you were not Orthodox because of your disagreements, It is rather irrelevant whenever the appeals to ridicule take place as they are unfortunate - but if you're going to do so, do not bring up HH since he already spoke against such behavior in the OO church just as he spoke against others who work with others outside of the OO Church and assasinate their image in who they are. It is not necessarily a new dynamic, but speaking past context is something that would benefit you if you ceased doing so.....for as said before, the same dynamic happened at Tasheba.org and it was called out there. It is no different here, as it has been addressed before (when it came to Ethiopian Christians in Rasta culture and you trying to claim they were not having fidelity to their faith even though you never grew up in the West Indies and made several sweeping claims even about Bob Marley's priest....as noted
here and
here).
Thus, any attempt to play the role of the martyr is not necessary or credible.
Considering that I never wrote, nor even implied (nor ever would, for the record) that God is somehow bound by jurisdiction or communion, I think this is irrelevant.
Claiming God is not bound by jurisdiction is speaking out of both sides of the mouth when others outside of an OO Qurbana are speaking on communion and other OOs note it where it is accurate or speak of it - including the Mar Thoma Christians who have been communed with before and spoken to.
I don't think anyone's commitment to Orthodoxy is shaken by their enjoying Protestant, Nestorian, Catholic, etc. liturgies. I myself do the same, so it would be pretty hypocritical of me to claim that. But again, I didn't claim that, so this is all irrelevant.
Claiming you didn't claim that is irrelevant when one's actions are selective in what is or isn't said.....as one can't speak on Orthodoxy not being shaken by others enjoying Nestorian or Catholic liturgies - and then choose to make a lecture for other posters or visitors as if they are going to be shaken or need to hear.
I would, however, disagree that Orthodoxy is somehow not the source of all truth, depending on how you meant it (I wouldn't want to assume you said something you did not say; I just wish you would read my posts with the same approach).
My apologies if it is assumed that my mindset is assuming what is not said, as I can only go off the words shared here and deal with what is said.
That said, your words here are another example of where you do (again) the same thing you claim against - as it was claimed you didn't want others assuming motivation and yet you tried claiming my motivations with saying others were assuming things you didn't mean. Others already asked you to clarify and noted where it was understood - so to do so here would be akin to passive aggressive commentary that has the goal of playing a victim rather than seeing where you do exactly as you speak against. There's no need for that as it concerns the lack of Charity.
If you disagree, you disagree - and if you want to know where someone stands, you ask in humility rather than trying to insist others don't do what you feel you alone do. AND on Orthodoxy being the source of all truth, I mean exactly what I said: Not all things which are true in the world are only in Orthodoxy, as all truth is God's Truth.
I believe that all truth is, by its nature, in accordance with the Orthodox faith of God, as our Lord Jesus Christ established this Church and its faith through His holy apostles and disciples. Thus all truth in whatever other faith, Christian or not, is a reflection -- however hazy -- of that same (Orthodox) faith, to whatever extent it is present in various philosophies (as when Protestants still worship the Holy Trinity, or Muslims still believe in the virgin birth and second coming of Jesus, etc).
Of course - and I have never spoke against this, although what I have already said is that not all things true are automatically found FIRST in the Church since the Lord works in all places: Things can be echoed in other places which are found in Orthodoxy or rediscovered in places where Orthodoxy lost touch.
Mar Thoma Christians, if we are talking about the denomination which is descended from Anglican meddling in the Orthodox Church and remains out of communion with us and not using it as a general identifier to mean "all Indian Christian communities descended from the missionary work of St. Thomas", are Protestant.
That goes back to actually dealing with categories as they are, as Anglicans are not Protestants and that has been said multiple times. It is begging the question to say "Protestants" and yet not give verification of such.
As said best by one Ang
lican minister:
There is a great deal more that Anglicans have in common with Orthodox than we have in common with almost any other Christian tradition. Our understanding of ministry and mission, our ecclesiology, and even our understanding of the sacraments have deep resonances with one another. It is possible for a faithful Anglican to read a book likeKallistos Ware’s The Orthodox Way and agree with almost all of it without feeling the slightest guilt about betraying his own tradition. At the heart of classical Anglicanism is the recovery of the Catholic Christianity of the Early Church Fathers, and no tradition holds the Fathers in greater esteem than the Eastern Orthodox. In fact, it is because of such resonances that there have been so many positive contacts between Anglicans and Orthodox over the centuries. The Fellowship of Saint Alban and Saint Sergius is an ongoing testament to this.
Also, as it concerns the ways Anglicans agree with certain aspects of Protestant thought (just as Orthodox have at many points when it came to agreement with Martin Luther in his resistance to papal indulgences and papal infallibility from the Pope of Rome)...As another
Anglican noted best:
In answer to the question: Is the Anglican Church Catholic or Protestant? Moss replies
"Both; it is Catholic positively and Protestant negatively. It is Catholic in its essential nature because it maintains the Catholic and apostolic faith and order. It is Protestant, in the old sense (emphasis added), negatively because it rejects the papal claims to supremacy, infallibility, and universal jurisdiction, and the decrees of the Councils of Trent and the Vatican."
When one is confused as to the use of these terms, they ought to be clearly explained. Some will argue (as Moss actually does) that the term Protestant has changed so much that we should omit its use all together (many Lutherans argue likewise, in that the old use of the term Protestant only referred to Anglicans, Lutherans, and Presbyterians; now that it refers so loosely to almost anyone not Roman Catholic it has become meaningless). However, the same could be said of the term "Catholic," since almost everyone means Roman when they say "Catholic" in the United States: Let's just stop using the word since it is so easily misunderstood. In my opinion we should follow the language of the Anglican divines, using both terms correctly and explaining the meaning in a clear manner to avoid confusion.
Is Anglicanism Protestant or Catholic? Ideally it is both, in the best sense of both terms.
And as I already said,
Anglicans and Copts have already done Agreed Statements on several issues - so the reactionary claim of "Protestant" is unfounded. A
gain, nowhere did I assert that the video was about Mar Thoma specifically, so this bit of mind-reading on your part (which is incorrect) is irrelevant.
You did mind-reading when claiming Mar Thoma were Protestants despite where they and other OOs have said otherwise - and as the beginning topic of the OP involved them, bringing up the video is not necessary unless you wanted to do another thread where one could go in-depth since everything sprung up from your earlier claims on Mar Thoma being Protestants. AGAIN, people can only go by what you write directly and all other claims coming from your own writing.
The point I was making is supported by the video of HG, however: That embracing Protestantism has real consequences, that it is improper, etc.
That again goes back to dealing with the Church as a whole and what other Bishops have long noted when pointing out what it means to actually IDENTIFY properly what is or isn't Protestant and remembering that not all things labeled "Protestant" are opposite of the Church....and thus, not all reactions are automatically proper whenever claiming "Protestantism!!".....
Well now that you've mentioned it (I never did), Protestantism is most definitely heresy, though I wouldn't say "automatically" so. We adapted the Sunday school movement from them, it can't be all bad. The question is rather where the line can/should be drawn, and that's one I trust to our bishops. HG Bishop Suriel of Melbourne, for instance, very publicly called out a particular Coptic priest who was found to be plagiarizing sermons from Protestant pastors, so obviously not everything will fly. But, no, not everything a Protestant says or does is heretical just because they are a Protestant. I've never claimed that, and never would.
Incorrect as it concerns ignoring where you first raised fuss over Mar Thoma claiming it was embracing Protestantism by speaking of them positively - and no, it has yet to be verified where all things Protestant are automatically herectical....as that would be like saying "Fighter jets are planes which cause damage" and then assuming all things with wings are negative because of common elements. And seeing where Bishops have already done well with Protestant thought (Bishop Angaelos and others), I will go with them in their examples. We already know not all things Protestant are good
Oh good, I don't have convertitis, then, because that's very much not what I wrote. Thanks, Doc.
Of course, you've done just that in action with claiming Mar Thoma are Protestants - sorry, Doc...but it was a inaccurate analysis on your part and this has been done with others having convertitis.
Okay. So apology appreciated, but not really appreciated, because it's not about you think I owe an apology for? Hmmm...didn't you take me to task earlier in your reply for posting as though I was saying "You should have posted this, not that!"? Very curious, Officer.
This goes back to the issue of sincerity, as those truly repentant of going off course don't go back & forth with quips on why they didn't address what was an issue - no different than someone going into a house, starting an argument with others over things no one was discussing...and then saying "I am sorry for raising my voice" as if that was the issue. If one is sorry, they deal with the central issue earlier - for what was said earlier was "It is improper throwing out the term 'garbage' /negative terms without giving any evidence and going off topic with the subject rather than focusing"...so if you're going to speak on claiming others took you to task, it would be important to stay focused on the right issues."
I'm beginning to wonder why I bother, but alright. I'll take whatever degree of appreciation I can get.
People are not concerned with how much appreciation you get - as I am beginning to wonder if perhaps you're posting for the purposes of getting appreciation (regardless of if its warranted) simply because you feel entitled to it rather than simply discussing on topic.
Again, I posted what I posted about the Protestant video and not the Orthodox video because there could not conceivably be any issue with having an Orthodox video presented approvingly on an Orthodox forum.
This goes back to understanding the dynamics of the forum as well as forum history, as one doing their research would already know where the video was not about Protestants (despite the false claims on your part) and that other OOs have long posted appreciation for non-OO thought when it speaks on OO issues.
Regardless of intent, you took the thread off topic and have consistently kept it as such rather than actually discussing Holy Qurbana (i.e. Do you enjoy it? What about it do you appreciate it? What about Orthodox Qurbana stands out as different compared to other Qurbanas?, etc.).
Yes, in that context it makes complete sense, and as I've already noted, I was wrong. I apologize. I am sorry. In effect, I was doing the same thing by posting the Syriac Orthodox videos I did (trying to provide material for comparison), which you criticized me for. I can see now that it was, at the very least, redundant. I'm sorry.
Posting other videos on Syriac Orthodox Qurbanas is NOT the same as showing appreciation for Qurbanas where there are similarities and discussing where things diverge or are the same - as your context was calling the Mar Thoma Qurbana "garbage" rather than being respectful in charity ....and that was never the goal of the OP, especially seeing where Anglicans and OO have done extensive work together and visited services. Again, there's no need speaking on what others criticized for when you are not able to understand the criticism.
