I know some women whose husbands left them unjustly who had to assume the role of a father.
About the part I bolded: I don't see that in scripture.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
because that is not their role. in the absence of a man, a wife cannot be a father. in the absence of a women, a husband cannot be a mom. and, since I know you like Scripture, in Acts there is a reason deacons were ordained, not because the social justice side of the faith is not for the priests or below them, but that was not their calling. in the early Church, you would not have laymen together on a Sunday with no clergy who would consecrate the sacraments. they would either find a priest or they would wait.
again, think complimentary instead of opposed to.
Not as a blanket prohibition, no.
But there are canons that forbid going into the houses of other temples for the express purpose of praying with them. Someone else will need to say what this canon means - for all I know the only "others" at that time were praying to pagan deities.
In general we do not pray with non-Orthodox. They are free to join our prayers, but we do not pray theirs.
I do know absolutely that Orthodox may not receive sacraments elsewhere, or they essentially join themselves to that group by assent, and excommunicate themselves from Orthodoxy (they can be restored through confession though).
Those are some general things. At the time, I was a catechumen, and in order to learn the faith it was my responsibility to discuss with my priest and follow his suggestions for my own good.
I will say this too - now I am baptized, attend regularly. My husband is not Orthodox, and won't come to my Church. But sometimes he won't go to any church at all because I'm not going with him. So my priest advised me, for the sake of my husband, to sometimes go to whatever Christian church he prefers, for the sake of his salvation.
Not only am I not forbidden, but in my case actually advised to attend sometimes.
Almost every answer for our general behavior can be "it depends" but there is always wisdom in applying it.
Not that I've ever heard of, and I seriously doubt it.May I ask, is there any prohibition against attending funerals in other churches? (I would hope not, but you never know.)
About the part I bolded: I don't see that in scripture.
No, not yet.
I would humbly suggest that that might be first thing to do. I think the only way to really learn about Orthodoxy is to immerse yourself in the life of the Church. Attend as many services as you can. The whole theology of the Orthodox Church is contained in the service books. Find a priest that you can talk with in person. Orthodox priests are more than functionaries. They view themselves as being personally responsible for everyone whom God brings their way. One's relationship with one's priest is essential for an Orthodox Christian.
Orthodox theology and writing is very rich and one is tempted to explore Orthodoxy from a purely intellectual vantage point. Believe me - I can speak from experience. It is a mistake.
Here are what I believe are some impediments to my becoming Orthodox. Some are more crucial than others for me.
First, let me say that I agree strongly with the Orthodox on atonement, the doctrine of God, sin and original sin, salvation.
Maybe I'll just list the areas of disagreement and comment on them later:
1. Baptismal regeneration
2. Infant baptism
3. Some teachings about Mary
4. The teaching that apostolic succession is of the essence of the church, not just for the benefit of it.
5. Calling priests "Father".
6. Tradition and scripture equal
7. Bishops must be celibate/widowed priests cannot remarry.
8. Bowing down to, kissing icons
That's all I can think of right now.
I did have another question: Do Orthodox churches have musical instruments in worship?
I greatly appreciate the patience and kindness I've been shown. That's been the case more here than many places I've been.
Tradition and scripture equal
Dear Brother -
These are really interesting areas of discussion. I would be interesting in better understanding Orthodox doctrine myself in all of these areas. I see pages and pages of discussion, but if you wouldn't mind discussing each point again with me (for my benefit), I would be grateful.
Starting with #1 - What do you believe is the Orthodox doctrine on 'baptismal regeneration' and what do you disagree with?
Sincere thanks.
I am not sure whether this will be helpful, but might I humbly suggest you look at the essay "Holy Scripture and the Church", by (St.) Hilarion Troitsky?
(As an aside, Hilarion Troitsky was acknowledged to be a great budding Orthodox theologian when he was alive. While he was still fairly young, though, he was seized by the Bolsheviks and sent to the Solovetsk Islands, above the Arctic Circle. Prior to the Russian Revolution, the islands housed a huge Orthodox monastery, which the Bolsheviks turned into a special concentration camp for Orthodox clergy and monastics. There is a great dramatization of St. Hilarion's trials there in this podcast.)
That a person is spiritually reborn through water baptism. I don't think water regenerates.
That a person is spiritually reborn through water baptism. I don't think water regenerates.
If I am correct, the argument is:
Therefore, through 2-4, the Orthodox Church doctrine on baptismal regeneration is heretical. Further, since the Orthodox Church holds a heretical doctrine (1), it is a heretical sect.
- The Orthodox Church holds a certain doctrine concerning baptismal regeneration.
- The Orthodox doctrine of baptismal regeneration is that a person is spiritually reborn through baptism.
- [Implicit: Orthodox Church doctrine further requires that baptism be carried out with water]
- Water is not capable of [spiritually] regenerating anyone
If I am misstating anything, please let me know. Otherwise, I will think and study on this.
Thank you!
correct, the Spirit working through the water is what regenerates. we are told by what method the Spirit operates in Baptism. it's what the Spirit does through the water that causes the regeneration, not the water in of itself.
I'm afraid I don't hold to that definition, either.
that doesn't matter. it does not matter what any of us thinks or like (myself included). the problem is that there is zero evidence of baptism happening without water. the idea that the Spirit and water are separated in baptism somehow is just false.
I do not use the word "heretical" or "heresy", nor the word "sect". Both are misleading, pejorative, and often not correct, either. Further, I would not conclude that because a Body is wrong on one or more issues that such Body was not a true church.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?