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.
Our parish has a handful of Syrians and Lebanese so we chanters are trying to do some pieces in Arabic.
I suggest you do Ho Monogenes, or the Cherubic Hymn, or Phos Hilarion. Those would be easy and are usually a part of the liturgy, and when absent, they get replaced by something else entirely.
Trying to keep things short and pronounceable!My Greek is passable, my Slavonic is not, and we're not going to say much about my Arabic. Plus our choir does the liturgy, and chanters cover everything else.
And in our area, EUB.Yeah the United Church of Canada was a union of churches that were methodist, congregationalist (?) and presbyterian churches.
There are still presbyterian churches in Canada, but no methodist churches.
In the 1980s they started allowing homosexual pastors which resulted in a lot of division.
I've also heard some people associating pentecostal teachings with Wesley's teachings in the past. However, since I haven't had the chance to see a methodist church in Canada, no way to be certain.
And in our area, EUB.
I don't believe John Wesley willed the denomination and the UMC was the offspring of Asbury. Here in a letter to Francis Asbury he chastises Asbury for such activity....
LONDON
September 20, 1788
My Dear Brother:
There is, indeed, a wide difference between the relation wherein you stand to the Americans and the relation wherein I stand to all the Methodists. You are the elder brother of the American Methodists: I am under God the father of the whole family. Therefore I naturally care for you all in a manner no other persons can do. Therefore I in a measure provide for you all; for the supplies which Dr. Coke provides for you, he could not provide were it not for me, were it not that I not only permit him to collect but also support him in so doing.
But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid both the Doctor and you differ from me. I study to be little: you study to be great. I creep; you strut along. I found a school: you a college! [Cokesbury College] nay, and call it after your own names! 0 beware, do not seek to be something! Let me be nothing, and "Christ be all in all!"
One instance of this, of your greatness, has given me great concern. How can you, how dare you suffer yourself to be called Bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought! Men may call me a knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never by my consent call me Bishop! For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake put a full end to this! Let the Presbyterians do what they please, but let the Methodists know their calling better.
Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart. And let this, when I am no more seen, bear witness how sincerely I am Your affectionate friend and brother,
John Wesley
If you understand Methodism in its historical sense, then you cannot ignore George Whitefield. Methodism is really only peripherally focused on John Wesley, although the Wesleyans took over Methodism very early on.
Well, they did not take it over sufficiently in my opinion, because very little of John Wesley’s doctrine or liturgical practices are retained by the United Methodists, the British Methodists, or the Methodist churches that were merged into the United Church of Canada and the Uniting Church in Australia. Now, the Methodist Episcopal Church had beautiful liturgical books, as did the British, and the United Methodist Church still has beautiful service books; the 1989 Book of Worship, the Upper Room Prayer Book, and the service book of the UMC’s monastic Order of St. Luke are all exquisite. The problem is that relatively few Methodist parishes actually use them, or offer weekly Eucharists.
John Wesley wanted people to consume the Eucharist at least once a week, and at a minimum, also fast and attend prayer services (specifically the Great Litany) on Wednesday and Friday. I don’t know of a single Methodist church in the world that serves the Great Litany from the Book of Common Prayer, or the other prayer services (Mattins and Evensong) that Wesley included in his Sunday Service Book for the Methodists of North America, on Wednesday and Friday.
So one is more likely to find Wesleyan worship in a high church Anglican parish, where at least there is weekly communion, and that upsets me.
I am not interested in the doctrines of Whitefield or Lady Moody’s Connexion; their brand of Methodism was not doctrinally coherent - Whitefield was a brilliant preacher but by his own admission John Wesley was the more talented theologian.
I do have many questions about John Wesley whose doctrine l know well, since l began studying EO church history but the first one would be, why was he content to add the filioque to the Nicene creed?
I do have many questions about John Wesley whose doctrine l know well, since l began studying EO church history but the first one would be, why was he content to add the filioque to the Nicene creed?
So in his recension of the Book of Common Prayer John Wesley sidestepped that issue by including only the Appstles Creed.
Randy L Maddox says "Although he never discussed the filioque, he clearly ascribed to it, retaining the relevant Anglican article (number four) in the Methodist Article of Faith." John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy: Influences, Convergences and Differences - CORE Reader
I fail to understand Wesley's stance here. Great man though he was, and there is no denying that, he failed to understand how the filioque clause changed the understanding of the Trinity, and that going against the Nicene council by adding it (not him of course but the Franks) amounted to heresy by sidestepping its authority.. It shows his huge misunderstanding of the Orthodox mind set.
Another issue I have is, that his Ordo Salutis consisted of two states: the justified believer who has not yet come to experience entire sanctification, and the second is the one who has entered into that state. EO say there are three: purgation illumination and divination though there are Pentecostals who say three. They do not incorporate union though. Theirs is all about power.
The ancient teaching of the Via Triplex which is what gave Orthodoxy it's strength and made it the target of the enemy so often has been put aside as so much knowledge we had in the past.
The teaching is that Theosis is the result of baptism, meaning the baptism of the Spirit which should occur when water baptism takes place. Fr Peter Heers says that this is when we receive Christ, and He cannot be made into pieces - we do not receive some of Him but all of Him.
It is when the power of God is infused into the man to enable the transformation to take place, that takes the man out of the worldly realm and the claims that Satan has over all of those who have fallen in the pattern of Adam and have given him rights to their souls, something that occurs in all men. Man is delivered from this right, and the exorcism ritual that takes place is that link to past teaching.
To continue to be in bondage to sin, which is the cause of mans woes, shows that the water baptism was missing the spiritual part and the teaching today in Orthodoxy, contrary to the past, is that man will reach the spiritual part by partaking in communion, and zealousness. He will slowly be transformed which is called gradual sanctification in Protestantism.
But we have been given the power in Spirit baptism and what is required is to believe this and 'reckon' on it to be true (Romans 6) meaning to break with the former ways and step into it as the Israelites had to do when they entered the promised land. It is all there in the OT for our example.
Of course the spiritual disciples are useful but they should not take the place of this faith that it was on the cross, that this mystery took place for us.
It is not happening despite all of the excellent teachings we hear because they are not getting a the root of the problem - lack of faith in what already has been achieved for us just waiting to be re-enacted in us in the resurrection of Christ within us. The physical to become spiritual. This is where Adam failed.
Do you believe that Spirit baptism occurs concurrently with water baptism?
It can do, but in the main I would say no. And not for infants. The EOC does not teach that infants become united with Christ at water baptism.
What is, then, the function of baptism for an infant in the EOC?
I think that an Orthodox believer would best answer that one. For myself, I understand it is the start of the process towards Theosis where the child is welcomed into the community of the 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?