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.
Where in Holy Scriptures does it say everything has to be in Scripture?
All of them are Non-Chalcedonians. What's your point?
Isn't demigod a child of a god and a human? We don't believe in that.
Vain indeed.
Hahahaha! Well, at least now we know whatever happened to HG Bishop Draperod...
Hey, I know those guys!
...
And yet that's not what matters. As your "Mar Thoma Orthodox Church" link shows (and plenty of other spin-offs of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches would likewise show), anyone can claim to be anything -- it's whether or not anyone else recognizes your claim that matters. Think of it as a bit like what makes a country a country: There are plenty of places in the world right now that have various levels of functioning governments, that consider themselves to be independent countries, and yet are not recognized as such by the international community (or are at best only semi-recognized): Somaliland, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara), Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabagh, Transnistria, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Kurdistan, etc. Maybe some of these are future independent republics in the making, maybe some will collapse, or maybe something else will happen. As of right now, we don't know, and all that really matters is that the countries that have the most sway in getting these territories the international recognition that they want either say no, or can't agree on whether or not to say yes. (The heavies in the UN like the USA, Russia, China, etc. I'm pretty sure there's a group of a half dozen or so that all have to agree before the territory is granted official status at the UN.)
So they're not really countries right now, and may not ever be, because even if they declare themselves to be, and issue passports and currency and stamps and do all those other things that a 'real' country does, the recognition of their statehood does not extend outside of their own borders, because legally they don't have any claim to the land that they say is theirs. Possession, as they say, is 9/10ths of the law, so if your "republic" is internationally recognized as belonging to Somalia (Somaliland), Azerbaijan (Artsakh), Moldova (Transnistria), etc., you're going to have a hard time actually convincing anyone that it is truly an independent country.
Similarly, this "Mar Thoma Orthodox Church" you've found may claim to be a communion, and may claim to be maintaining the tradition of the Syriac Orthodox Church, but neither of those things are actually true. We can know that because this "Mar Thoma Orthodox Church" is not actually in communion with anyone, and the actual existing Syriac Orthodox Church probably has no idea that this other group claiming to preserve its traditions even exists. I'm sure the actual Syriac Orthodox Church thought it was doing that already. More importantly, the Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo, and Armenian Apostolic churches, with which the actual Syriac Orthodox Church is in communion, all definitely think so too. Because they form a communion that mutually recognizes each other's churches. They aren't just individual websites on the internet. Whereas this group you've found doesn't form anything, and isn't recognized by anyone.
Alright. It remains the case that "Communion" is not just a fancy church word that doesn't have any meaning. You can't just call yourself a communion when you're not one.
Ehhh...okay.
Where's that "tough pills to swallow" meme I left around here somewhere...
Thanks for the interesting analogy. Although some Christian denominations have (and continue to) claimed temporal power and territory, such as the Vatican states of the Roman Catholic Church, the analogy falls flat, even with state churches such as the Anglican Communion, which is now spread all over the world.
The fact that various Christians self-identify as being members of various denominations does not mean that those denominations have no valid existence because other denominations have determined that they do not exist.
It is the old analogy of the ostrich sticking its head in the ground. I cannot help the fact that there are numerous denominations which self-identify as being Orthodox even though they have refused to recognize the very existence of the others.
Because it is not part of Tradition recognized by the Church.And what is the point of recognizing a set of writings as being inspired by God as opposed to all other writings? If all are equal, then one has just as much validity as any other. I rather doubt that you consider writings such as the Gospel of Thomas to have equal standing with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do you?
They also consider themselves Catholics, and even some Reformation groups consider themselves "Reformed Catholics".Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian, they are all (self-identifying) Orthodox bodies of Christians, are they not?
Wow, you act like the Muslims who say because there are 3 persons in the Trinity we believe in "3 gods". Recognize that the term "demigod" comes from religions that believe in different gods and don't believe in being partakers of the divine nature like the book of Peter says.You are partially correct. The dictionary definition of a demi-god (or demi-goddess) is as follows:
a being with partial or lesser divine status, such as a minor deity, the offspring of a god and a mortal, or a mortal raised to divine rank.
There is little doubt that your denomination believes that mortals are raised to divine rank by God, thus they become demi-gods.
Because it is not part of Tradition recognized by the Church.
They also consider themselves Catholics, and even some Reformation groups consider themselves "Reformed Catholics".
Wow, you act like the Muslims who say because there are 3 persons in the Trinity we believe in "3 gods". Recognize that the term "demigod" comes from religions that believe in different gods and don't believe in being partakers of the divine nature like the book of Peter says.
Perhaps, based on the previous statement in Scripture which the comments by Athanasius were based upon.I am merely stating the standard dictionary definition of demi-god. Please note that the definition has nothing whatsoever to do with the Holy Trinity or the Triune Godhead. The fact is that your denomination teaches that a really, really, really, really good member of your denomination can become a god after death. According to what has been posted thus far, this idea was first hinted at by Athanasius, was it not?
I guess I failed at explaining this, since this wasn't at all the point of analogy. Sorry about that. The point was that we are validated (or not) through our associations -- i.e., the "Mar Thoma Orthodox Church" you found would be a valid example if the Church it was presenting itself as a part of actually recognized it as being what it says it is, but they/we don't, so this is just one of many (not as many as the Chalcedonians', but many) modern-day splinter groups claiming to be a part of Orthodoxy that isn't.
If we take this principle and move it sort of 'one level up' from looking at individual churches within a communion (or claiming to be) to looking at communions themselves, we run into the second problem your posts don't seem to recognize: as the Oriental Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonians) and the Eastern Orthodox (Chalcedonians) as communions do not recognize one another as belonging to the same Church (i.e., I can't go to a Russian Orthodox Church and receive communion there, and Russian Orthodox can't come to a Coptic Orthodox Church and receive communion there, barring a mutual agreement between our respective bishops), pointing out that there are different groups calling themselves "Orthodox" that don't recognize each other is neither surprising, nor does it say anything in itself that would actually harm Orthodox ecclesiology or theology. All you're basically showing is that you've found two communions that both claim Orthodoxy but don't recognize each other as being Orthodox, but this is really not news to anyone in either of those communions, nor does anyone in either of them come to the conclusion that you seem to that no one can therefore actually be Orthodox and it's all just a matter of opinion or something. Orthodoxy is not really a matter of opinion; it's a matter of our existence and mindset. This is part of the reason behind why your calling HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic's writing an "interesting but unorthodox opinion" has hit a sour note with everyone: HH is recognized as being fully orthodox by everyone -- Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, as far as I know High-Church Protestants (Anglicans, etc.), etc. So it's like shorthand for saying "I don't know the difference between a figure who articulated the precise faith that we still hold to today and gave to us many of the fundamental terms that are basic to the understanding of traditional Christian theology and myself, so I'm going to say it's all a matter of opinion, and I don't like his, so it's unorthodox." Okay. Thanks for playing. Bye.
It's not that they don't exist (though something existing is a pretty low bar), but that they aren't what they claim they are. Again, we are validated or not through our associations. This is the same reason why I don't go on to any of the specifically Chacledonian (Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic) subforums of this website and start spouting a bunch of nonsense that they are not 'real' churches because they aren't in communion with the bishops of my Church. They don't recognize my Church as being what it says it is, either, so of course they don't recognize our bishops, since they weren't ordained by Chalcedonian (EO or RC) bishops coming from their own respective churches. That's literal proof that we are not in communion, to say nothing of the varying theological and ecclesiological disagreements we may have, depending on which communion you are comparing with which (as the EO and RC aren't in communion with one another, either).
It's actually not like that at all. There are no denominations within in Orthodoxy, but rather two separate communions which both claim to be Orthodox (but differ with one another, primarily on the theology that was accepted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and some related issues, and hence are not in communion), and then a bunch of splinter groups from both (more from the Eastern Orthodox/Chalcedonians, since they are by far the larger of the two).
We don't pretend like the other doesn't exist, but we don't say that they are Orthodox just because they say they are. Admittedly the range of opinions on this matter is probably greater in my communion than in theirs (as far as I can tell from the internet, anyway; in real life, I've never really had any problem with any of them), but either way that doesn't matter, since personal opinions don't determine who is actually in communion with who. That's why we have holy synods composed of bishops to represent us and make decisions on our behalf as a church (e.g., the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Holy Synod of the Armenian Apostolic Church, etc.), and could theoretically come together in a communion-wide council to make decisions that would involve the entire communion, as would have to be the case if we were to enter into open communion with the Chalcedonians. (This is how, e.g., the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Chruch -- OO and EO roughly 'equivalent' churches, both claiming descent from the ancient See of Antioch -- can agree to commune each other's faithful without meaning that the OO and EO are reunited as a communion; this is also why, administratively-speaking, the mutual lifting of the anathemas of 1054 by the Greek EO and Latin RC patriarchs back in the 1960s didn't magically heal the EO/RC schism.)
Perhaps, based on the previous statement in Scripture which the comments by Athanasius were based upon.
I wonder which infallible men decided the books for the Bible?So, any writings which are said to be part of the Tradition of your denomination are infallible and true, including, but hardly limited to, the holy scriptures? And this determination is not made by a Pope, but by a group of fallible human men. Hmmmmm.
Just like the Bible impliesEither your church teaches and believes that that a really, really, really, really good member of your denomination can become a god after death or it doesn't. Which is it?
Said no Orthodox Christian ever, but it is so much easier to attack strawmen.So, any writings which are said to be part of the Tradition of your denomination are infallible and true
No one is considered infallible in the Orthodox Church other than the Holy Trinity, however we follow the model established by the Apostles in Acts 15 to safeguard against the errors of individuals.including, but hardly limited to, the holy scriptures? And this determination is not made by a Pope, but by a group of fallible human men. Hmmmmm.
Just like the Bible implies
Said no Orthodox Christian ever, but it is so much easier to attack strawmen.
No one is considered infallible in the Orthodox Church other than the Holy Trinity, however we follow the model established by the Apostles in Acts 15 to safeguard against the errors of individuals.
I wonder which infallible men decided the books for the Bible?
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?