Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Faith Sharing Area => Topic started by: Dicky Underpants on November 04, 2016, 04:08:26 PM
-
This is for the benefit of ad_orientem, to allow him at least to correct the misapprehensions of boneheads who think it's the same thing as Catholicism. From my own point of view, I think the doctrines are just as little defensible and absurd as those of any other Christian variety. It has however produced some distinctively moving music and some remarkable iconography.
The division between it and Catholicism all started with the mind-boggling anal-retentive nonsense which precipitated the Great Schism, of course. Who would have thought that the interpretation of a Latin phrase - an ablative and a conjunctive particle (Filioque) - could cause such a stir! That, and the question of the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, of course.
And, specifically for ad_orientem, just how does one determine whether that Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Father and the Son, or from the Father only?
PS
I have been to just one Orthodox service - a wedding in Cardiff. I have to confess, I was bored to death, and just hoping we might have a chance to sing a good old Protestant hymn (but that would probably have defiled the authentic purity of the event).
-
Regarding the Filioque we would argue that it is much more than a matter of translation. Firstly it is an addition which was never authorised by any ecumenical council and therefore it already falls under the anathemas. Secondly, it has major theological implications. It attributes two sources to the Godhead: two sources, two gods.
As for the bishop of Rome, we would also argue that he never had universal jurisdiction and that any honour he had above the other patriarchs was one only of honour on account of the Chruch in Rome having been founded by the Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul and them having been martyred there. The First Vatican Council, which defines the role of the bishop of Rome, is an abomination as far as the orthodox are concerned and is something we could never be reconciled to. The same goes for the Filioque.
-
Regarding the Filioque we would argue that it is much more than a matter of translation. Firstly it is an addition which was never authorised by any ecumenical council and therefore it already falls under the anathemas. Secondly, it has major theological implications. It attributes to sources to the Godhead: two sources, two gods.
As for the bishop of Rome, we would also argue that he never had universal jurisdiction and that any honour he had above the other patriarchs was one only of honour on account of the Chruch in Rome having been founded by the Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul and them having been martyred there. The First Vatican, which defines the role of the bishop of Rome, is an abomination as far as the orthodox are concerned and is something we could never be reconciled to. The same goes for the Filioque.
The tone of your post hints that this is of some importance?
ippy
-
Aye! How did you guess?
-
[quote author=ad_orientem link=topic=12844.msg644370#m
I'm very quick like that, I'll give you it looks important, but there? I suppose it would seem that way to your goodself.
ippy
-
This is for the benefit of ad_orientem,
PS
I have been to just one Orthodox service - a wedding in Cardiff. I have to confess, I was bored to death, and just hoping we might have a chance to sing a good old Protestant hymn (but that would probably have defiled the authentic purity of the event).
I am Orthodox too. I am happy to debate with you.
Ok let's play....
-
I will kick off. A Methodist friend of mine stated that he thought that Orthodoxy was just another form of Catholicism. Since the Methodists began their dreary mission in the eighteenth century perhaps he can be forgiven for not knowing about 1054.
As far as I am concerned, one either follows the church which Jesus began whilst he was on earth, or one does not.
And just for Dicky, I have been to just one Pentecostal service. It dragged on for hours and was very boring indeed.
-
There is seductive, wondrous beauty in the Orthodox Church which I haven't come across anywhere else. I loved the atmosphere.
I too thought there was little or no difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism at one time but they are markedly different (I liked both).
It's obviously not everyone's cup of tea.
Churches that have hymn, prayer, hymn, prayer, reading, long sermon, hymn, prayer etc, are extremely tedious to me. They never seem to get to the point! That's my oninion, fine for those who like them.
-
No more? This is what vexes me about this forum. Christisns here don't care about these things but rather concentrate on lost causes such as christian versus atheist.
Thank you, Dicky. I appreciate it but no one here is bothered.
-
ad_o: There are no lost causes where Christ is concerned.
-
Ad_o, Dicky asked:
"just how does one determine whether that Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Father and the Son, or from the Father only?"
Would like to know your answer to that question.
(I was taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Jesus told his followers that he would leave them his spirit so that he would always be with them. The spirit came upon them at Pentecost.)
Dicky, this might interest you (if you haven't already read it):
https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine-scripture/the-symbol-of-faith/holy-spirit
-
ad_o: There are no lost causes where Christ is concerned.
What is the success rate on this forum?
-
What is the success rate on this forum?
What is the success rate on this forum?
What is the success rate on this forum?
Dunno about you, but the Christ I serve never gives up on love.
-
Yeah. But that's not the samething as trying to convince the unbelievers on this forum. How many have you or anyone else managed to convert? This is what I find frustrating. Why would anyone waste their time?
-
I didn't know you came here to convert people, Ad_o. I'm sure you are the only poster who does.
Some try to explain their faith and dispel misconceptions, with varying results, and to show sceptical non believers that Christians aren't all bad ;), but does anyone really expect to convert anyone else?
Discussion can spark interest of course and lead posters to delve into a subject more deeply than hitherto but would have thought it would take more than an internet forum to effect conversion.
-
I didn't know you came here to convert people, Ad_o.
I don't, which is why the believer versus unbeliever discussion every thread inevitably falls into bores me to death. I just don't understand why anyone would waste their time on such a pointless exercise.
-
I don't, which is why the believer versus unbeliever discussion every thread inevitably falls into bores me to death. I just don't understand why anyone would waste their time on such a pointless exercise.
Such discussions do go round in circles.
However answering questions about points of faith is useful because people often have odd ideas about what others believe and how they put their beliefs into practice
The other thing is putting forward differing interpretations of religious texts, sources etc.
Well I find that interesting anyway.
-
Perhaps it could be accepted that most of us don't indoctrinate children and then discussion can proceed. We could preface a debate with the words, "I (insert name) do declare that I do not force my beliefs on children or anyone else".
Even if people do think we believe in a mythological character, it is still interesting to find out exactly what others believe, why, and how they put their faith into practice.
It is amazing what ideas are held about different belief systems. There are so many stereotypes.
Owlswing has started a thread in the Faith Sharing section to dispel some of the myths surrounding paganism and is answering questions. It's complex but quite fascinating.
Christians from different traditions can do the same.
Not many know much about the Orthodox in this country. It's often confused with Catholicism but is quite distinct from that. Ad_o started the thread so we could find out more.
-
Dicky started the thread, for which I was grateful, but it seems no one else is interested in discussing these things. They'd rather argue with atheists. Sigh!
-
I am interested, Ad_o, so is Humph and probably Anchorman. Not forgetting Dicky who started it! He is always interested in academic discussion of religion.
I've just had a thought - why not put this thread in the faith sharing area? That seems more appropriate.
In theory, it should be straightforward, information given, questions asked and answered, no contentious posts. May not always be like that but the mods are pretty good at stepping in and reminding us of the purpose of that section.
Don't give up just yet.
-
Moderator:
Good idea, Brownie.
To allow serious discussion of this subject we'll move this thread to the Faith Sharing Area after first removing some posts that would be unacceptable there.
Temporarily locking thread this and will unlock it after the move.
-
And just for Dicky, I have been to just one Pentecostal service. It dragged on for hours and was very boring indeed.
I'm sure I would have been bored by all that happy-clappiness too. I have to say that I wouldn't just dismiss all Orthodox ritual on the basis of my experience just one service. The choral music I have heard via the media has been extremely inspiring (and Rachmaninov's setting of the Vespers comes to mind - no doubt there are musical wonders in the Greek Orthodox tradition too).
As for the iconography - that image of the Christos Pantocrator in the Hagia Sophia is surely one of the marvels of art.
-
I'd like to know the differences between the different (sorry to use same word) Orthodox churches.
I saw a programme on TV, set in Africa, about the Eastern Ethiopian Tewahedo (?) Orthodox Church which was extremely thought provoking at the time, I knew nothing about them at all. Then there's the Armenian Apostolic Church whom, I believe, considers itself to be the most ancient of all the oriental churches.
-
I've worshipped in an Orthodox church - in Ayrshire, of all places, and enjoyed the experience whilst not really feeling coomfortable with liturgical worship. (It's a Presbyterian thing). I've visited a few Orthodox (Coptic) churches in Egypt, and have a couple of good Coptic friends, and there are a fair few differences in both liturgy and doctrine, as well as church structure (and, of course, language and literature) The Ethiopan Orthodox Church is a whole different kettle of fish, and many of their practices and books are unique to that nation, and are actually throwbacks to the Kushite civilisation, an amalgum of Ancient Egyptian and African culture which existed from around the eighth century BC untill the third century AD,
-
For anyone interested in the Greek Orthodox community in Glasgow, this http://www.greekcommunitystluke.scot/ is worth a look. As an outreach and gesture toward ecumanism, they take over the auld Kirk of Ayr (Church of Scotland) once or twice a year and hold services which I've found quite moving.
-
I'd like to know the differences between the different (sorry to use same word) Orthodox churches.
I saw a programme on TV, set in Africa, about the Eastern Ethiopian Tewahedo (?) Orthodox Church which was extremely thought provoking at the time, I knew nothing about them at all. Then there's the Armenian Apostolic Church whom, I believe, considers itself to be the most ancient of all the oriental churches.
The oriental churches, that is if we understand the term the same, are monophysites because the reject the fourth ecumenical council. Some steps have been made but there's still some way to go.
-
I had to look that up, Ad_o.
Here it is for anyone else who didn't know the meaning of monophysitism:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Monophysitism
-
The oriental churches, that is if we understand the term the same, are monophysites because the reject the fourth ecumenical council. Some steps have been made but there's still some way to go.
Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
-
Eek!
-
Off topic but HAPPY BIRTHDAY Ad_Orientum and many more.
-
I've worshipped in an Orthodox church - in Ayrshire, of all places, and enjoyed the experience whilst not really feeling coomfortable with liturgical worship. (It's a Presbyterian thing). I've visited a few Orthodox (Coptic) churches in Egypt, and have a couple of good Coptic friends, and there are a fair few differences in both liturgy and doctrine, as well as church structure (and, of course, language and literature) The Ethiopan Orthodox Church is a whole different kettle of fish, and many of their practices and books are unique to that nation, and are actually throwbacks to the Kushite civilisation, an amalgum of Ancient Egyptian and African culture which existed from around the eighth century BC untill the third century AD,
Did you see the TV programne about ten years ago about a young British black man who went to Ethiopia to meet the Rastafarians? He briefly met an Ethiopian Orthodox monk, who told him "Of course Haile Selassie is dead, we have his bones here what more proof do you want?"
-
I will kick off. A Methodist friend of mine stated that he thought that Orthodoxy was just another form of Catholicism. Since the Methodists began their dreary mission in the eighteenth century perhaps he can be forgiven for not knowing about 1054.
Perhaps you would like to say a little bit about what happened in 1054 and why you (and presumably all Orthodox Christians) believe yours is the church that Jesus began and not the Catholic Church - or even both.
-
Did you see the TV programne about ten years ago about a young British black man who went to Ethiopia to meet the Rastafarians? He briefly met an Ethiopian Orthodox monk, who told him "Of course Haile Selassie is dead, we have his bones here what more proof do you want?"
[/quote
To be fair, though, HWB, some of the beliefs of the Ethiopian Church are as strange as those of the Rastafarians.
The African and pre-Christian influence is very strong there. Even the illustrations in their great book are very reminiscent of stuff dating from Hellenistic Egypt.
The Rastas seem to be a neo;Gnostic ofshoot, just as the LDS are a pseudoChristian neo-Gnostic offshoot from mainstream doctrine.
-
The Rastas seem to be a neo;Gnostic ofshoot, just as the LDS are a pseudoChristian neo-Gnostic offshoot from mainstream doctrine.
This could lead to off-topic stuff. The distinguished American critic Harold Bloom also thinks the LDS are a kind of modern Gnostic group. I'd say this is only true if you're thinking of "Gnostic" in etymological terms - "one who knows" (rather than has faith - pistis).
However, LDS are very distinct from the Christian Gnostics of history in that they totally embrace the physical world as good (indeed they think that God and Jesus still have physical bodies), whereas the ancient Gnostics mostly regarded the material world as totally evil.
Don't know about the Rastas attitude to the material world - given their predilection to get out of their heads on dope, it doesn't suggest that they hold the physical world in too high a regard.
-
That's why I referred to the LDS as "pseudo-Christian meoGnostic", DU. The term wasn't coined by me, but refers to the quasi-masonic roots of LDS structure and mysticism.
-
Perhaps you would like to say a little bit about what happened in 1054 and why you (and presumably all Orthodox Christians) believe yours is the church that Jesus began and not the Catholic Church - or even both.
The stock answer would be Apostolic Succession. But we have done that before, so to make things more interesting I would draw attention to the RC doctrine of "Purgatory". That is an RC invention, which has no place in Orthodoxy, because it is a medieval invention of man, not present within scripture. As far as we are concerned, it is a heresy.
-
I wondered about purgatory, Humph, and was once told that there was a reference to something that could be described as 'purgatory' somewhere in the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books.
Not being one to take such teachings literally, I believe we can experience purgatory here on earth, but that is for another time and thread.
-
I experience purgatory every month, regular as clockwork. Oh, sorry....I meant Presbytery.....blasted spellchecker screen reader thingy.....or not....!
-
Oh, you have time of the month problems then, Anchor?
I wish Ad_o and Humph would come back to this thread and tell us more, especially as we've recently touched on the Sacraments - Traditional Mysteries. (Well I have anyway.)
-
Oh, you have time of the month problems then, Anchor?
I wish Ad_o and Humph would come back to this thread and tell us more, especially as we've recently touched on the Sacraments - Traditional Mysteries. (Well I have anyway.)
[/quote
Oh, yes....unfortunately.
Regular periods of enforced insomnia AKA Presbytery.
As for the sacrements?
I'm interested inother churches approach to them as well.....being Presbyterian, we don't accept transubstantiation, but still reverence the elements.
-
No more? This is what vexes me about this forum. Christisns here don't care about these things but rather concentrate on lost causes such as christian versus atheist.
The problem is often related to people, of belief and no belief having other things to do, ad_o
I woul dhave to agree with you regarding the Pontiff; there is no scriptural support for the idea - as it was Peter who was given the job of being the rock, not any - at the time - non-existent ecclesiastical position.
However, I would have to disagreee on thew Filioque issue - as I understand the Bible to teach that the idea pre-dates the establishment of the church by Peter and the apostles.
-
The current pontiff is causing some controversy atm by rejecting legalism and wanting to bring people in 'from the cold' (eg divorced and remarried), meeting them where they are now. The Traditionalists don't like it but I think he is trying to emulate Christ who showed love and compassion for all and didn't stick to the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit.
I am cautiously impressed.
This doesn't directly affect the Orthodox churches but I have come across Orthodox who feel he is bending the rules - though he hasn't abolished them.
-
The problem is often related to people, of belief and no belief having other things to do, ad_o
I woul dhave to agree with you regarding the Pontiff; there is no scriptural support for the idea - as it was Peter who was given the job of being the rock, not any - at the time - non-existent ecclesiastical position.
However, I would have to disagreee on thew Filioque issue - as I understand the Bible to teach that the idea pre-dates the establishment of the church by Peter and the apostles.
In English?
-
Merry Christmas to those Orthodox believers today! I've already spent time sharing with some Copts - who (with some justification) claim to have the purest form of Orthodoxy.
-
I just said the same over on Thads to the one Russian Orthodox person. He's not Russian but he worships in Russian Orthodox.
Ad_o celebrated Christmas on Dec 25th, his branch follow the Gregorian calendar. I made a mistake saying he would celebrate on January 4th, remember a Greek Orthodox colleague saying that was their Christmas day. She was Greek but, living and married in England, she did Christmas twice.
It was the Epiphany yesterday for many of us. Must admit I've only just remembered as I no longer attend church.
-
This is for the benefit of ad_orientem, to allow him at least to correct the misapprehensions of boneheads who think it's the same thing as Catholicism. From my own point of view, I think the doctrines are just as little defensible and absurd as those of any other Christian variety. It has however produced some distinctively moving music and some remarkable iconography.
The division between it and Catholicism all started with the mind-boggling anal-retentive nonsense which precipitated the Great Schism, of course. Who would have thought that the interpretation of a Latin phrase - an ablative and a conjunctive particle (Filioque) - could cause such a stir! That, and the question of the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, of course.
And, specifically for ad_orientem, just how does one determine whether that Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Father and the Son, or from the Father only?
PS
I have been to just one Orthodox service - a wedding in Cardiff. I have to confess, I was bored to death, and just hoping we might have a chance to sing a good old Protestant hymn (but that would probably have defiled the authentic purity of the event).
I'd be interested in how orthodox churches explain the burning of incense to icons, in the light of 2 Kings 18:4 which says, in context:
1In the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, Hezekiah son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. 2He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years. His mother’s name was Abijaha daughter of Zechariah. 3He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as his father David had done. 4He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.b )
-
I'd be interested in how orthodox churches explain the burning of incense to icons, in the light of 2 Kings 18:4 which says, in context:
1In the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, Hezekiah son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. 2He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years. His mother’s name was Abijaha daughter of Zechariah. 3He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as his father David had done. 4He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.b )
The seventh ecumenical council against the Iconoclasts deals with this subject. Firstly, concerning representational art it says "this is quite in harmony with the history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of the Word of God was real and not just imaginary, and as it brings us a similar benefit. For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another's message".
Secondly, concerning veneration of icons depicting "our Lord, God and saviour, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men" the council also says "The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full adoration in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult objects. Further, people are drawn to honour these images with the offering of incense and lights, as was piously established by ancient custom. Indeed, the honour paid to an image traverses it, reaching the model, and he who venerates the image, venerates the person represented in that image".
In other words it acknowledges that the Incarnation was real. That God actually became flesh. Or to put it another way, iconoclasm is a denial of the Incarnation which is why the council goes on to say "If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema. If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema. If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema. If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema".
In the Orthodox Church we celebrate this council especially on the first Sunday of Great Lent in the Feast of Orthodoxy, that is the victory of the Church of Christ over its enemies the Iconoclasts and all the other heretics.
-
In other words it acknowledges that the Incarnation was real. That God actually became flesh.
As Aaron used the golden calf to acknowledge that Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt!
-
As Aaron used the golden calf to acknowledge that Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt!
Everything changed with the Incarnation, which is exactly the point. God became one of us. That is why are able to depict him and his saints. We are not gnostics.
-
Can anyone here point out verses where Jesus says he is God Himself Incarnate - directly & not in any way cryptic, please ???
Nick
-
Everything changed with the Incarnation, which is exactly the point. God became one of us. That is why are able to depict him and his saints. We are not gnostics.
Thanks for this, ad_o.
Not very different from depicting angels on the walls inside the temple though? Did the priests venerate these pictures, or were they simply illustrations?
It's not just pictures of Christ. Orthodoxy also has veneration of objects such as the cross, bread and wine, and pictures of people they consider more holy than others (however, all Christians are saints, and all saints are equally holy).
There is no evidence for this in the New Testament. The early Christians are known to have made pictures used as illustrations on church walls etc, like the art work in the Temple. But that is all - they were not "venerated".
-
Revelation 19:10
And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not:
I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Revelation 22:8
And I am John, the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had shown me these things.
Revelation 22:9
But he said to me, "Do not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God!"