Traditional Orthodox Sub-Section

[Orthodox Andrew]

By tikon and maximus's definition he was a heretic.
Jeff the Finn

This has become quite a confusing issue. I guess it's really not a black and white thing?

 

[MariaRegina]

This has become quite a confusing issue. I guess it's really not a black and white thing?

Dear Andreas,

Why don't you start a thread over in OBOB (tongue in cheek) asking them if they honor St. Constantine as a saint? He is pre-schism as he died way before 1054 AD, but most Catholics do not honor him as a saint because he was baptized by an Arian Bishop.

Then there is St. Isaac the Syrian, who was a Nestorian Bishop, but who was filled with charity.

When we get to heaven, will we be disappointed that some of the greatest saints were considered fools and heretics here on this earth? Fools for Christ that is what the saints are. They were not rational according to today's psychological way of thinking.

Well I'd rather be considered a fool or a madman than burn in hell.


Wouldn't you?

Yours in Christ our God,
Elizabeth

 

[nyj]

Why don't you start a thread over in OBOB (tongue in cheek) asking them if they honor St. Constantine as a saint? He is pre-schism as he died way before 1054 AD, but most Catholics do not honor him as a saint because he was baptized by an Arian Bishop.

First, why the tongue in cheek? Second, are you sure that is the reason? I figured that it might rather have something to do with the fact that he was baptised on his deathbed and so didn't really live that Christian of a lifestyle worthy of Saint-hood (in the sense that Catholics commonly use it) or make a Christian profession like St. Dismas which was worthy of mention, or perhaps it was that since this would have been pre-congregation, there was no cult which venerated him.

We do venerate his (Constantine) mother though.

 

[Reader Nilus]

Nothing ever is black and white. Remember St Paul said the Letter kills but the Spirit gives life. St Isaac was a Nestorian, but the Church sees holiness and recognizes it when it sees it, in this case a Nestorian heretic. If we would be more concerned like St Ephraim's prayer about not judging our brother, this whole thing would not have come up. Not once prior to Maximus bringing up this subject was there any debate between us, nor did anyone call anyone heretics. That may not sit well with those who go by the letter, but the results of such bickering will paste us as no better than any of the protestant sects all claiming to be right. Instead of building up unity it is tearing us apart, which is not the purpose of the Christian Forums. If the super pure want a forum they should start one, there are plenty of forums out there in cyberland that they can.
Jeff the Finn

 

[MariaRegina]

First, why the tongue in cheek? Second, are you sure that is the reason? I figured that it might rather have something to do with the fact that he was baptised on his deathbed and so didn't really live that Christian of a lifestyle worthy of Saint-hood (in the sense that Catholics commonly use it) or make a Christian profession like St. Dismas which was worthy of mention, or perhaps it was that since this would have been pre-congregation, there was no cult which venerated him.

We do venerate his (Constantine) mother though.

Dear nyj:

I miss your black dog.

Tongue in cheek - I didn't really want him to, but I am pleased and pleasantly surprised that you decided to respond.

Why did the Church likewise honor with sainthood the 40th martyr -- the johnny come lately who took the place of the apostate who died on his way to the warm fire in Sebaste? Do you know the true story of the 40 Holy Martyrs of Sebaste (Armenia)? They were Roman Christian soldiers who were condemned to die nude on a frozen lake. One of the soldiers became cowardly and denied Christ. A soldier who was guarding the prisoners took his place and died with the other 39. This soldier too received the crown of martyrdom and a golden crown was seen coming down from heaven and was placed on his head as he died.

Christ said that it was never too late to repent as long as we have breath.

St. Constantine was a soldier who fought to keep his empire intact and in peace. He knew that Christians should not take up the sword, so he didn't want to blemish his baptismal garment by killing or wounding someone. He waited until his death to accept Baptism having believed that the Christian faith was the only true faith for many years prior. He was a catechumen most of his life. Christians weren't baptized unless they lived exemplary lives.

Look at St. Ambrose. He was elected to be a bishop while he was still a catechumen, because he spoke so eloquently of the Christian faith. Within one week he was consecrated a bishop. He didn't need any further instruction. He was already a saint then and known for his sanctity.

Hope this helps.
Elizabeth

P.S. The Melkite Catholics honor St. Constantine as a saint also.

 

[nyj]

I miss your black dog.

Maybe she'll come back one day.

Why did the Church likewise honor with sainthood the 40th martyr -- the johnny come lately who took the place of the apostate who died on his way to the warm fire in Sebaste?

All martyr's of the faith instantly become Saints. As far as I know, that's the official Catholic position on martyr's and Saint-dom.

Do you know the true story of the 40 Holy Martyrs of Sebaste (Armenia)?

I had not until now. I may have to look into this story further. Thanks.

St. Constantine was a soldier who fought to keep his empire intact and in peace. He knew that Christians should not take up the sword, so he didn't want to blemish his baptismal garment by killing or wounding someone. He waited until his death to accept Baptism having believed that the Christian faith was the only true faith for many years prior. He was a catechumen most of his life. Christians weren't baptized unless they lived exemplary lives.

The first part sounds a bit legalistic, as if Constantine was possibly looking to exploit a loophole. I really don't know what Constantine's frame of mind was, so this is just conjecture. If he is in Heaven, I rejoice.

The second part (Christians were only baptised if they lived exemplary lives) doesn't exactly sound right to me though. I thought baptism was a requirement of the Church (Nicene Creed)?

Look at St. Ambrose. He was elected to be a bishop while he was still a catechumen, because he spoke so eloquently of the Christian faith. Within one week he was consecrated a bishop. He didn't need any further instruction. He was already a saint then and known for his sanctity.

Yes, but St. Ambrose didn't wait to be baptised because he would be killing someone.

P.S. The Melkite Catholics honor St. Constantine as a saint also.

This, does not surprise me. I don't say that in a bad way, I just say that given the history of the Melkite Catholic Church with Orthodoxy.

 

[MariaRegina]

All martyr's of the faith instantly become Saints. As far as I know, that's the official Catholic position on martyr's and Saint-dom. ...

The first part sounds a bit legalistic, as if Constantine was possibly looking to exploit a loophole. I really don't know what Constantine's frame of mind was, so this is just conjecture. If he is in Heaven, I rejoice.

The second part (Christians were only baptised if they lived exemplary lives) doesn't exactly sound right to me though. I thought baptism was a requirement of the Church (Nicene Creed)?

Yes, but St. Ambrose didn't wait to be baptised because he would be killing someone.

Dear nyj:

I agree that St. Ambrose is probably the greater saint. After all he lived many years writing and defending the Holy Faith against the Arians. It was said that even during his life many miracles were worked.

St. Constantine, on the other hand, didn't live the sacramental life since he died on his deathbed. We know he received Holy Baptism, but he probably wasn't able to receive the other sacraments -- there may not have been time.

Still, there was a higher standard expected of Christians. Because of the Roman persecution, the Church carefully guarded the chalice. You are familiar with the controversies following the edit of Constantinople granting tolerance of religion. The Church was faced with the difficult decision of deciding whether to accept back into communion the thousands of apostate Christians who asked for reconciliation. Some of the Church Fathers felt that once a Christian had denied Christ that they couldn't be granted absolution. Many hierarchs believed that a Christian was only allowed to receive Holy Confession once in his life. So most reserved that sacrament for their deathbeds.

The Church was very strict during the time of St. Constantine and St. Augustine.

St. Augustine was a product of this age. I read his confessions as part of my college class in philosophy. He didn't accept baptism in his youth because he didn't want to accept responsibility. He was wild and had a mistress. He finally accepted baptism when he knew that he could make the commitment to sanctity because by that time he desired to become a saint. He knew that his heart could only rest in God and he wanted that peace that comes from above. His poor mother, Saint Monica, prayed for Augustine's conversion much like St. Helena prayed for her son, St. Constantine. Those two women were the greater saints. They hounded Christ with their prayers.

In the late 1950's, the Latin Catholic Church was still very strict and probably still is. I read a book about the Catechumenate which was published around 1960. I gave the book away to a priest who requested it so I cannot quote from it. However, it stated that in one particular country, there was a group of gypsies who were not repentant. These gypsies remained catechumens their whole lives because they were not living lives worthy of Baptism. Few were ever baptised, even on their death beds. I was shocked to read this, but the Catholic priest confirmed that this was so, as he knew these people. If a person has sinful habits that he refuses to change, like thievery as a way of life, the Church cannot baptise that individual. There has to be some sign of sincere repentance. The early church required that the candidate for Baptism have a good reputation even among the pagans (cf. The Didache). They had to be living exemplary lives before Baptism. Furthermore, since the Holy Sacrament of Confession (the Order of Penance) was only done once in ancient times, it was important to preserve the Baptismal Garment free of stain. When the early Church talked about the saints, she was referring to her living members, not just the faithful departed. By our Holy Baptism and Holy Chrismation, we are confirmed in holiness. We are washed, purified, illuminated and sanctified.

St. Constantine was washed, purified, illuminated and sanctified on his deathbed. He was prepared. May God grant us the grace to be so prepared.

Yours in Christ our God,
Elizabeth

 

[orthedoxy]

Dear brothers
Look at the forums that have the debate between OO and EO and see who started the threads. Even if we start another forum for OO, if the topic in the EO forum is going to be about the Armenians and how they are heretics you don't think that would give me the right to defend the Armenian Church in the EO forum?
What if EO were called heretics in the OBOB forum for not accepting all of their councils, wouldn't that give you the right to defend yourself?
If you don't want debate in this forum about non-Chelcedonian then don't bring up the issue.
The reson we are in the same forum because coptics and OO accept EO.
God bless

 

[St. Tikon]

Why not have forums for each of the various jurisdictions, I think one for the non canonnical jurisdictions and one for SCOBA, would be enough. True Orthodox defined by whom, those with pews need not apply, those with clergy without beards need not apply, the list can go on and on! This thread is showing everyone on the Christian Forums how divided the Orthodox are. I am against such things, it is fine the way it is.
Jeff the Finn

That would be taking it to the extreme. The only requirement would be that the person accept the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

No one here is suggesting that.

 

[St. Tikon]

I think those that like to be know as "True Orthodox" should join the protestants, because they are sectarian as they are. The OP dismissed mainstream Orthodox, so the implication is clear, the fundies define Orthodoxy, not the Bishops. If this happens it is indeed a sad day for Christian Forums.
Jeff the Finn

By YOUR definition, you don't accept the definitions of the Bishops, so what does it matter to you?

 

[St. Tikon]

You're right. We should not be so inclined to accept heresies as Orthodox. We all too often feel because somebody does something in the Byzantine style, we can call them Orthodox. This is simply not true. With that said, we would look like a divided Church to the unknowing if we had a subforum.

There are some who dislike me on this forum because I stand against heresy.
It isn't a matter of trying to "attack" our Coptic Brothers, it is standing up for the church.

 

[St. Tikon]

I agree there should be an Oriental Orthodox Forum

Then I would like to see an Oriental-Orthodox dialogue subforum perhaps placed within the Oriental forum, where we can place all of our current and past dialogues with the Oriental Orthodox, unless you want them deleted. But they should not remain here in this forum.

Finally there should be a Chapel and Library Orthodox Christian subforum.

Absolutely!

 

[St. Tikon]

By tikon and maximus's definition he was a heretic. He was a Nestorian Bishop.
Jeff the Finn

Do not presume to think that you know my mind.
If Holy Mother Church says he is a saint, then I accept it.
I don't pick and choose what I believe.

 

[St. Tikon]

Nothing ever is black and white. Remember St Paul said the Letter kills but the Spirit gives life. St Isaac was a Nestorian, but the Church sees holiness and recognizes it when it sees it, in this case a Nestorian heretic. If we would be more concerned like St Ephraim's prayer about not judging our brother, this whole thing would not have come up. Not once prior to Maximus bringing up this subject was there any debate between us, nor did anyone call anyone heretics. That may not sit well with those who go by the letter, but the results of such bickering will paste us as no better than any of the protestant sects all claiming to be right. Instead of building up unity it is tearing us apart, which is not the purpose of the Christian Forums. If the super pure want a forum they should start one, there are plenty of forums out there in cyberland that they can.
Jeff the Finn

That is were you are wrong.
It is "black & white"
The Church defines our beliefs, and has set them down as plain as a brick wall.
Either you believe them, or you don't. We aren't Protestants, we don't interpret the beliefs of the Church on an individual basis.
The Canons and Decrees of the Church are there for a purpose.
If the Oriental orthodox have their own forum, those that wish to learn more about them, can do so, without debate from the Orthodox.

 

[Oblio]

There are some who dislike me on this forum because I stand against heresy.
It isn't a matter of trying to "attack" our Coptic Brothers, it is standing up for the church.

I am with Jeff on this one. Our Church was not attacked and did not need to be defended. Allowing Coptics and Armenians to share this space in CF does not threaten the Orthodox Church. There was no problem a month ago, why should we change now ?

 

[St. Tikon]

I am with Jeff on this one. Our Church was not attacked and did not need to be defended. Allowing Coptics and Armenians to share this space in CF does not threaten the Orthodox Church. There was no problem a month ago, why should we change now ?

I was content with the idea of a sub-section, rather than giving Orientals their own forum, but others think otherwise. It doesn't matter to me, I would just like a section where "Traditional Orthodoxy" can be expressed without being attacked. I and others shouldn't be attacked by the more liberal elements on this forum, for simply wanting to stand up for the Church.

 

[Oblio]

There are no 'liberal elements' here IMO. What I see are a few that would perhaps be more at home at hyper-traditionalist forums. If you want hyper-traditionalist fare, feel free to check out the offerings at Euphrosynos Cafe or hop on over to ROAC or the TOC.

 

[St. Tikon]

There are no 'liberal elements' here IMO. What I see are a few that would perhaps be more at home at hyper-traditionalist forums. If you want hyper-traditionalist fare, feel free to check out the offerings at Euphrosynos Cafe or hop on over to ROAC or the TOC.

Why should I leave because I am traditional Orthodox? I am not insisting women cover their heads, or not wear pants here!
All I have ever said is that as Orthodox Christians we are held to a certain standard in regards to the beliefs of the Church. In that regard we must be united. If one deviates from those basic beliefs, then they aren't Orthodox, but something else.

 

[Reader Nilus]

You come and one of your first posts is to pick a fight, this forum was here before you, and Erwin has been more than kind to provide this place to share with each other. The stated purpose is at the top of the page:
Christian forum community uniting all Christians as one body.
If you want your hyper true Orthodox ideas then by all means start your own forum. This community was getting along fine, and everyone respected each other. You do not respect people by calling them heretics. That is not the kind of speech that promotes dialogue or respect, it also does not show an interest in learning or listening. For this forum to work that is what is needed. Maybe you thought it a soap box, and we all needed the good word, but all of us here know the faith, and know who speaks for it, and who does not. The thing that needs to be quite clear is that the Oriental Orthodox are just as welcome on this forum as the Eastern Orthodox, and they have the right on their own forum not to be called heretics. If you want to promote that idea the Christian Forums is not the place for that, because it goes against the very idea that Erwin had when he created these boards.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Suzannah]

I have to agree with Oblio and Jeff on this. I have had many enjoyable contacts with our Coptic friends, particularly SuperMickey and he and I get along just fine...He doesn't bash me over the head, and I don't bash him over the head...
While I appreciate that Tikhon and others feel led to defend Orthodoxy and applaud them for it, I really think that Orthodoxy needs defending against certain LDS on this board rather than spending time debating Coptics....I don't feel that every single hair needs splitting. Just because someone in here says something is "un-Orthodox" doesn't mean it requires a response. Sometimes the best response is none at all.
If this forum is going to become a literalist, legalist forum, count me out.