Is Modernism a current issue for the Orthodox Church?

[ArmyMatt]

He was chrismated by a local priest, but yah, under St. John's supervision.

thanks for the clarification. I knew St John was very involved from the beginning. maybe it's time I dusted off his biography again.

 

[All4Christ]

True, nevertheless a lot of people in the Orthodox Church who believe in his view of baptism.

Question is if the view of those members of the Orthodox Church came from Thomas Acquinas or another source. There can certainly be multiple people who believe the same thing, both West and East.

I wouldn’t just take the information from one website - or even a book or two. I suggest looking for unbiased sources and review all sides of the matter.

Seeing that some of the saints of the Church were just chrismated is a pretty good sign that we aren’t “Orthodox” if we were just chrismated and not also baptized in the Church. That’s pretty strong evidence from my perspective.

 

[RobNJ]

True, nevertheless a lot of people in the Orthodox Church who believe in his view of baptism.

That's not quite the proper way to look at it. As an Orthodox Christian, we can say a Post Schism Heterodox writer can have a position that concurs with teachings of the Orthodox Church, not that the writer can have a position that defines the teachings of the Orthodox Church.
A major distinction, in my sometimes-less-than-humble opinion.

 

[Not David]

I think there is not based for calling the sacraments of heterodox bodies valid in the way the Orthodox ones are. There is a reason we don't believe Catholic sacraments to be effective (even though they believe ours are).

I am not saying that if you get into the Church by Chrismation only, you are not really Orthodox (In another thread, I didn't approve the Catholic idea that if a priest didn't get baptized correctly, their sacraments wouldn't be valid).

I read somewhere else, that Fr. Seraphim regretted getting into the Church by Chrismation and accepted a lot of former Protestants and Catholics by Baptism.

 

[All4Christ]

That's not quite the proper way to look at it. As an Orthodox Christian, we can say a Post Schism Heterodox writer can have a position that concurs with teachings of the Orthodox Church, not that the writer can have a position that defines the teachings of the Orthodox Church.
A major distinction, in my sometimes-less-than-humble opinion.

This is explained much better than my attempt This is exactly what I meant as well.

 

[CowboyAndy]

The Globalist bankers taking over the world have made it clear; they despise traditional Christianity. We should unite with other Christian churches in opposing their insanity.

Think about it, would you expect prepubescent, transgender, exotic dancers performing at gay bars to make the national morning news in 1970? It's crazy how far the degeneracy has come in even my lifetime. Politicians aren't even denying that abortion is killing babies anymore, they're outright admitting it.

Despite the extreme degeneracy, the majority of Americans are not fed up with it. The culture has turned against Christ entirely. The West looks to be fallen, unless another cultural revolution takes place.

 

[AMM]

The West looks to be fallen, unless another cultural revolution takes place.

All cultures have been fallen since Adam. Yes, there are issues in our society today, but let's not pretend like any period of time was truly a "golden age" without fallenness. Even the Church - the Divine manifestation of God's eternal kingdom - has a fallen culture (not meaning that the Church errs, but that there will always be errant, heretical, and sinful bishops, priests, laity until the other side of the Resurrection)

 

[CowboyAndy]

All cultures have been fallen since Adam. Yes, there are issues in our society today, but let's not pretend like any period of time was truly a "golden age" without fallenness. Even the Church - the Divine manifestation of God's eternal kingdom - has a fallen culture (not meaning that the Church errs, but that there will always be errant, heretical, and sinful bishops, priests, laity until the other side of the Resurrection)

Hard times make strong men. Strong men make good times. Good times make weak men.
The wealth that came to the West, particularly America, after WWII made the next generation of men into pansies. The average testosterone level is lowest it's been in a long time.

 

[AMM]

Hard times make strong men. Strong men make good times. Good times make weak men.
The wealth that came to the West, particularly America, after WWII made the next generation of men into pansies. The average testosterone level is lowest it's been in a long time.

So should we be rejoicing that the culture is facing "extreme degeneracy", since that makes "strong men", rather than mourning the "fall" of western civilization?

And testosterone level shouldn't be the only measure of a good culture.

 

[CowboyAndy]

So should we be rejoicing that the culture is facing "extreme degeneracy", since that makes "strong men", rather than mourning the "fall" of western civilization?

And testosterone level shouldn't be the only measure of a good culture.

No, degeneracy itself doesn't make strong men. Hardship does. It just so happens that degeneracy usually comes before hardship. Whites in the UK are going to either go extinct, or become violent.
If they become violent, then their men will become stronger and have higher testosterone than they currently do.

 

[AMM]

No, degeneracy itself doesn't make strong men. Hardship does. It just so happens that degeneracy usually comes before hardship. Whites in the UK are going to either go extinct, or become violent.
If they become violent, then their men will become stronger and have higher testosterone than they currently do.

And it seems like you're equating being a strong man with being violent and having high testosterone, am I mistaken?

 

[CowboyAndy]

And it seems like you're equating being a strong man with being violent and having high testosterone, am I mistaken?

Violent in the case of defending society, yes. Chivalry is dead in the West.

 

[AMM]

Violent in the case of defending society, yes. Chivalry is dead in the West.

In the ancient Church the saints generally stuck to focusing on their own sins and the caring for the people under them (in the case of bishops). They didn't really go about defending "society" unless a political leader was a Christian and had committed a sin (like St Ambrose writes to Emp Theodosius)

 

[CowboyAndy]

In the ancient Church the saints generally stuck to focusing on their own sins and the caring for the people under them (in the case of bishops). They didn't really go about defending "society" unless a political leader was a Christian and had committed a sin (like St Ambrose writes to Emp Theodosius)

Men ought to be providers and protectors of their families. Saints and clergy have always been a tiny percentage of the population. Sons and daughters need fathers. When the head of the household goes, the family gets far weaker.

 

[AMM]

But you can be a father and the head of a household without being violent. You can provide and protect your family better by praying, teaching them to pray and to believe in Christ and the saints, and by living a morally upright life yourself, better than by being aggressive and violent

 

[buzuxi02]

Regardless western society and its current variety of christianities are simply ill equipped to stop their own decline, precisely because they are the cause of it. Hence going with the flow=modernism.

 

[CowboyAndy]

Regardless western society and its current variety of christianities are simply ill equipped to stop their own decline, precisely because they are the cause of it. Hence going with the flow=modernism.

Evangelicals are one of the culprits to America's decline.

 

[SingularityOne]

Men ought to be providers and protectors of their families. Saints and clergy have always been a tiny percentage of the population. Sons and daughters need fathers. When the head of the household goes, the family gets far weaker.

I think post #54 and #55 can be combined into one and aren’t opposed.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think post #54 and #55 can be combined into one and aren’t opposed.

Just a quick friendly comment ... it's always a good idea to directly quote posts instead of mentioning numbers. Sometimes if someone gets themselves in trouble posts can be removed, and numbers might not make sense.

And it's always ok to quote however many posts within one post as needed.

Not fussing at you.

 

[SingularityOne]

Just a quick friendly comment ... it's always a good idea to directly quote posts instead of mentioning numbers. Sometimes if someone gets themselves in trouble posts can be removed, and numbers might not make sense.

And it's always ok to quote however many posts within one post as needed.

Not fussing at you.

Agreed. However, I’m on my phone and it’s difficult to quote two different posts on the same reply. Is there an easy way to do so on mobile?