|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Orthodoxy - a total ignoramus asks ;
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
as I've mentioned before, I've never met anyone from the Orthodox church to talk to before - so could I prod and poke the brains and experiences of those on here who are?
maybe others might like to ask things too...
anyway, things I would like to know about Orthodoxy
- is Greek Orthodox the same as Russian Orthodox? If so, how come? Are there other breeds?
- why do the orthodox church have some of the apocryphal (to reformed-types) books in their Bible?
- is there 'high' and 'low' church within Orthodoxy?
- what are the main differnences between Orthodoxy & (for example) anglicanism?
- what are the main differences between Orthodoxy & catholicism?
- are Orthodoxy & evangelicalism mutually exclusive?
- do Orthodox churches believe the RC's transubstantiation theory?
- what made you, personally, choose Orthodoxy? were you brought up in he Orthodox church,or did you join it later on?
as an aside, my suggestion on We rall go-ing ona , su-mmer ho-li-day or calling Christian21 to Hell stands if any of you want to take me up on it! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[maybe some nice host could nicely put in links to those threads for me, can't make it work, am very dim... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ]
[ 15. August 2004, 13:09: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
I'll do my best for starters luvanddaisies
quote:
is Greek Orthodox the same as Russian Orthodox? If so, how come? Are there other breeds?
There are 15 Autocephalous (self-governing) and 4 Autonomous (self-ruling) churches that make up the Orthodox Church. The Ecumenical Patriarch is recognized as having the primacy of honor among the them, but only has real control over his jurisdiction the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In the west there is often confusion because of the names Russian, Greek, etc. This means that the churches have administrative links back to the churches from which they were founded. They all share the same faith, but do often have differences in language and custom.
quote:
why do the orthodox church have some of the apocryphal (to reformed-types) books in their Bible?
The Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint (LXX), the Alexandrian Greek translation of the Hebrew manuscripts, as its Old Testament. These were the scriptures in wide use in the Jewish world at the time of Christ and most NT quotes from the OT are from the LXX. The deuterocanonical books have always been a part of the LXX. Here is an article about The Old Testament in the Orthodox Church.
quote:
* is there 'high' and 'low' church within Orthodoxy?
Not in the way people think about it in the west. The Orthodox Church is a liturgical church and many of the elements of temple worship that were familiar to early Christians have been carried over. There are differences in custom and practice though that differentiate some of the churches.
quote:
* what are the main differnences between Orthodoxy & (for example) anglicanism?
* what are the main differences between Orthodoxy & catholicism?
These are difficult questions to give quick answers to because there is so much behind this. To speak generally, the Orthodox Church sees itself as the church founded by the apostles existing in a chain of unbroken succession of faith back to them. Simply stated, it sees itself as the church Christ founded at the time of Pentecost. When the linguistic divide began to open between the east and west, there was unfortunately a vital loss of contact between the two theological centres of the church. The schism that occurred roughly around the 11th century represented a parting of the ways of the Greek and Latin speaking churches that had been brewing since the divide began to form. The differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches now represent that shift, and are highlighted more in the churches that in turn left the Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation.
The Orthodox Church typically has beliefs on key topics such as salvation, free will and sin that differ greatly from the churches of the west.
You can find some Q & A's on the OCA and GOA pages.
quote:
* are Orthodoxy & evangelicalism mutually exclusive?
Yes and no (assuming you mean modern evangelical Protestantism). Many of the converts to Orthodoxy here in the states have been drawn from the evangelical ranks.
quote:
* do Orthodox churches believe the RC's transubstantiation theory?
The Orthodox Church definitely believes the consecrated elements are indeed the body and blood of Christ. I think in general the Orthodox view leaves more to the realm of mystery in explaining how this happens than does transubstantiation. Transubstantiation was not defined as we know it until after the western and eastern churches had split.
quote:
* what made you, personally, choose Orthodoxy? were you brought up in he Orthodox church,or did you join it later on?
That would fill several pages. I've come to Orthodoxy as an adult.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Hi, luvanddaisies!
Lots of good questions -- most of them really deserve more than a soundbite. I'll try to give quick answers to them; the answers are necessarily simplified, and not the full story, since one post isn't enough to do justice to your questions. If you'd like, I can recommend some books that will do a more thorough job of answering your questions than anyone can do on an Internet forum. Or, better yet would be a visit to an Orthodox Church!
quote:
- is Greek Orthodox the same as Russian Orthodox? If so, how come? Are there other breeds?
Yes, Greek Orthodox is the same as Russian Orthodox. And there are plenty of other Orthodox -- there's the Orthodox Church of Japan, the Antiochian Orthodox Church, etc., etc., etc.
Historically, the Orthodox Church was organized into various jurisdictions -- patriarchates, diocese, and the like. The jurisdictions were entirely based on geography. If you were an Orthodox Christian in Antioch, you were a member of the Antiochian Orthodox Church. If you were an Orthodox Christian in Japan, you were a member of the Japanese Orthodox Church. If you were a member of the Orthodox Church in Greece, you were a member of the Greek Orthodox Church.
For various historical reasons, mostly having to do with the Russian Revolution, that system has been messed up for the last century or so. But that's why you have different "breeds" or "flavors" of Orthodoxy, but we are all one single Church.
quote:
- why do the orthodox church have some of the apocryphal (to reformed-types) books in their Bible?
The Old Testament that we use is called the Septuagint. It was the Jewish OT translated into Greek -- and was what our Lord and the Apostles and the earliest Christians generally used for their Bible. Somewhat later, the Jews made a formal canon, or list, of their Scriptures, leaving out some books (and portions of books) that had earlier been accepted and included in the Septuagint.
At some point, some Christians decided that the OT that the Jews had decided on after the time of Christ was to be used, rather than the OT of the Septuagint. So they left the "deuterocanonical books" out.
quote:
- is there 'high' and 'low' church within Orthodoxy?
No. What you will find in the US (and maybe in the UK, although I'm not sure) is that some Orthodox churches are more or less Westernized in some of their practices -- for example, you might find an Orthodox church with pews and an organ, which I guess would be our version of "low church," while a more "proper" or traditional Orthodox church would have only a capella music, and just a few chairs or benches around the side for folks who really need to sit (everyone usually stands for an Orthodox service).
quote:
- what are the main differnences between Orthodoxy & (for example) anglicanism?
I'm not sure I can even begin to answer this question. I'll PM Father Gregory, who is a convert from Anglicanism, and see if he can answer this one for you.
quote:
- what are the main differences between Orthodoxy & catholicism?
From one POV, the main difference is that we do not accept the authority of the Pope over all the other bishops of the Church. We believe that the bishops all exercise the same authority jointly; our model of church governance is conciliar, not heirarchical.
We could list doctrines and dogmas where we differ -- we don't accept the filioque, for example, or the doctrine of inherited guilt, or the Immaculate Conception of our Lady.
But, for me, the differences in doctrine or governance aren't the most significant differences. But the most significant differences are the hardest to articulate. It's how we approach matters of faith and life.
quote:
- are Orthodoxy & evangelicalism mutually exclusive?
I suppose that depends on what you mean by evangelicalism. Could you explain, so I can be sure I'm answering the right question?
quote:
- do Orthodox churches believe the RC's transubstantiation theory?
We believe that the bread and wine which we receive in the Eucharist are the true Body and Blood of our Lord. We do not explain how that is so -- we simply state that it is, and leave it as a mystery. So we do not accept the doctrine of transubstantiation, which explains more about the Holy Mystery than we think can or should be exlained.
quote:
- what made you, personally, choose Orthodoxy? were you brought up in he Orthodox church,or did you join it later on?
I was not brought up Orthodox. I was reared in a not particularly pious Presbyterian home, joined the Assemblies of God when I was in college, fled the AoG for the Lutheran Church when my first child was an infant, and discovered what I had been looking for all along just a few years after that.
It was my then-husband who was really interested in Orthodoxy. I visited an Orthodox church with him, and was willing to go to the Inquirer's Class to learn more. During the first couple of classes, we went over the Commonitory of St. Vincent of Lerins, which spells out how the Orthodox way of doing theology.
Briefly, St. Vincent explained that, in his day, there seemed to be as many ways of understanding the Holy Scriptures as there were people reading or hearing it, and he wanted a way of knowing for sure what was true. So he asked the wisest, most learned, and holiest people he could find what they thought, how they chose between one teaching and another. THey all told him roughly the same thing, which he wrote down so that he could always remember it.
What he said was that, if you have to choose between an old teaching and something new, you should prefer the old teaching. The reason for this is that God's revelation was complete and entire in the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ, nothing was lacking, so there is nothing new to be revealed.
If you have to choose between what just a few people teach and believe, and what nearly all Christians of all places and times have taught and believed, you should prefer what has been universally taught and believed. The reason for this is that the Holy Spirit was given to all Christians, not to just a few, and he promised to reveal the truth to all of us. So if one little group claims to have secret or hidden truths, or to know things that God didn't reveal to everyone else, well, God just doesn't work that way.
If those two rules don't get you an answer, then you should try to find out whether those people who are genuinely holy, who clearly have loved and served God their entire lives, have mostly believed the same thing on the issue at hand. If so, you should prefer the consensus of those who manifestly know God well over the opinions of those who are less godly.
If you cannot find an answer using these three rules, then you're free to believe whatever you like.
Well, luvanddaisies, those three rules made so much sense to me that I was ready to become Orthodox on the spot. However, Orthodoxy doesn't work that way -- it was still some time before I was chrismated. But St. Vincent is really the reason I became Orthodox. Everything after that was just details.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif) anddaisies
Josephine has invited me to say a little about the differences between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism.
As Alt.Wally has made clear, Anglicanism is an offspring of Roman Catholicism. The makeover involved in this shift in the 16th century had to do with papal authority (an issue for us as well, so some similarity there) but the rest is a variance within the western family of Christian traditions and little to do with us at all.
The issue of transubstantiation, for example, has never touched Orthodoxy. Rome supports it ... Anglicanism (for the most part) refutes it. Interestingly though, Anglicanism's eucharistic position in the catholic tradition moved much closer to ours by rejecting that particular way of affirming Christ's Presence in the Eucharist, (transubstantiation) but by still affirming the Presence as a testimony of faith rather than an Aristotelian philosophical speculation FROM faith.
I like to characterise the relationship between Anglicanism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy as a Venn diagram of 3 overlapping circles with a common centre. Outside that common centre, Orthodoxy and Catholicism have things in common NOT generally shared by MAINSTREAM Anglicanism, (eg., icons .... albeit until recently fallen into disuse by Rome, the Assumption / Dormition of our Lady, the perpetual virginity of our Lady, confession as a gold standard of repentance ... generally practised, etc). Outside of that common centre Orthodoxy and Anglicanism have things in common NOT shared by Rome, (eg., the ultimate authority of a bishop ... there being no superior authority over him other than the Tradition of the Church under God, a married priesthood as a canonical norm for non-monastics).
When it comes to the differences between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism you need 2 lists.
(1) Those things that Orthodoxy and Catholicism ONLY share (see above).
(2) Those things that NEITHER Catholicism NOR Anglicanism has ... this frankly is the much more important list from our point of view.
Things That Only Orthodoxy Has ...
Health Warning ... you will always find individuals and groups WITHIN Catholicism and Anglicanism that espouse the following but they do not characterise the principal witnesses of either tradition.
Examples:-
(1) Theosis or deification ... the belief that union with God means a real particpation of our humanity in (the energies) of God.
(2) Linked to (1) is the belief articulated by St. Gregory Palamas (in conformity from our point of view with the historic witness of the Church from Pentecost and by way of anticipation in the transfiguration of Moses on Sinai) that the transforming energies of God ARE God and not creatures of God or grace. The Light of the Transfiguration IS the Presence of God and we can participate in it / Him insofar as we are purified by repentance.
(3) The necessity of the veneration of icons in the Christian life ... not simply their appropriateness or occasional usefulness.
(4) The overwhelming importance of Pascha (Easter) and belief in the resurrection in contradistinction to the western popular culture of Christmas, (barely registers culturally in Greece for example). This is reflected in the Orthodox understanding of salvation which has serious issues with the following western non-Orthodox interpretations:-
(a) Substitutionary Atonement
(b) The Filioque clause added to the Nicene Creed
(c) Forensic or Merit based understandings of divine human interaction.
(d) The cultus of the cross disjoined from the resurrection, (more an emphasis than an exclusion).
(5) The Cappadocian emphasis on the Trinity which makes us very suspicious of St. Augustine's psychological analogy of the Trinity ... particularly in the light of the filioque (ante). Orthodox prayers are much more roundly trinitarian than non-Orthodox ones. We always address God as Trinity.
More examples of these differences may be found here ...
Valentine Collection of Essays
In the end I think I must say that whereas there are certain surface similarities between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism in respect of Church structure and organisation the rest is much more problematic. In some ways there is a greater contemporary resonance between post-evangelicalism that has had some sane exposure to charismatic renewal than Anglicanism as it is now. A certain "breed" of Anglo-Catholicism has always been much closer to Orthodoxy but from the time of the Non-Jurors or earlier has been unnecessarily concerned about differences in ethos between "east" and "west." With greater understanding now of how the Church IN England was in the First Millennium (when she was Orthodox) some of these concerns should have evapourated by now not least in the light of the fact that us Western Orthodox are now redeeming our own common tradition in the west.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
This is reflected in the Orthodox understanding of salvation which has serious issues with the following western non-Orthodox interpretations:-
(a) Substitutionary Atonement
(b)
(trying not to go off on a tangent on Substitutionary Atonement) can you please explain how the Orthodox view on this subject differs from non-Orthodox interpretations?
[ 05. June 2004, 23:08: Message edited by: The Undiscovered Country ]
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
![[Cool]](cool.gif) phew - am going to have to read this earlier in the day when am more awake methinks.
thanks for some brilliantly informative answers though.
FG, I'm not understnding...
quote:
(1) Theosis or deification ... the belief that union with God means a real particpation of our humanity in (the energies) of God.
...very well - is that like the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? as in, He is in us, He is in God, we are in God through Jesus actions in His power?
am also wondering if you would expand (remembering I am a viola-player and therefore very dim ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) a little on quote:
(4) The overwhelming importance of Pascha (Easter) and belief in the resurrection in contradistinction to the western popular culture of Christmas, (barely registers culturally in Greece for example). This is reflected in the Orthodox understanding of salvation which has serious issues with the following western non-Orthodox interpretations:-
(a) Substitutionary Atonement
(b) The Filioque clause added to the Nicene Creed
(c) Forensic or Merit based understandings of divine human interaction.
(d) The cultus of the cross disjoined from the resurrection, (more an emphasis than an exclusion).
Josephine
- in answer to your question, I'm using 'evangelical' in the narrow way of shorthand which means someone with a faith pretty much like mine! for some idea, fundamentalist, inerrantist, 'sola-scripture'-ist, creationist, etc...
- and now another question for you. What do you mean when you say "Chrismated"?
Seth - thanx for the pms - again, will follow up on links when am more awake!
Alt Wally - could you expand on what you said here please? quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* are Orthodoxy & evangelicalism mutually exclusive?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and no (assuming you mean modern evangelical Protestantism). Many of the converts to Orthodoxy here in the states have been drawn from the evangelical ranks.
I'm interested.
also seconding Undiscovered Country's ? (are you a trekkie UC?
thanks again - the posts here have obviously been written thoughtfully & insightfully, I hope they didn't take up too much of your time when you should have been doing other things IRL!!!
[ 05. June 2004, 23:34: Message edited by: luvanddaisies ]
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
Hostly Mobcap ON
Since it seems this thread is heading toward theology (what we believe) rather than liturgy (what we do in worship services), off it goes to Purgatory.
Hostly Mobcap OFF
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Welcome to purgatory, little thread. I think the questions have been answered already, so I'll just look at the "why did you become Orthodox?" one.
short answer: Because I came to believe it was the church founded by Jesus Christ and his Apostles.
long answer (click)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Josephine
- in answer to your question, I'm using 'evangelical' in the narrow way of shorthand which means someone with a faith pretty much like mine! for some idea, fundamentalist, inerrantist, 'sola-scripture'-ist, creationist, etc...
Then, if your question was, "can an evangelical become Orthodox," the answer is most definitely Yes! If it was, "can someone be evangelical and Orthodox at the same time," as you have defined it, the answer is no. When you become Orthodox, you accept the Church's beliefs. That doesn't include a fundamentalist, sola-scriptura approach to faith.
quote:
- and now another question for you. What do you mean when you say "Chrismated"?
People are received into the Church through baptism (getting dunked in water) and chrismation (being anointed with oil). I was baptized as an infant, so when I joined the Orthodox Church, I was received through the Sacrament of Chrismation. "When I was chrismated" is shorthand for "when I officially became Orthodox."
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
TUC
quote:
(trying not to go off on a tangent on Substitutionary Atonement) can you please explain how the Orthodox view on this subject differs from non-Orthodox interpretations?
Not to answer for Fr. Gregory, but two articles cover this pretty well.
Heaven & Hell in the Afterlife, According to the Bible
The River of Fire
I will just warn you that the second article is heavy on the anti-western polemic.
luvanddaisies
quote:
Alt Wally - could you expand on what you said here please?
josephine covered this already to some extent. Generally speaking the evangelical and Orthodox approaches to Christianity are just very different. Doctrines like sola fidei, sola scriptura, eternal security and imputed righteousness which are cornerstones of evangelical belief are not present at all in Orthodoxy. I would think Orthodoxy would also view evangelicalism as having a suspicion of church history and tradition that often borders on complete ignorance of it. There is also a heavy strain of anti-intellectualism in American evangelicalism.
The odd thing is, many of the converts to Orthodoxy (and some prominent ones to Catholicism as well) in this country are former evangelicals. Most of the converts in my parish are including the priest. Clark Carlton, a former Southern Baptist, wrote an article I like and have posted before called From First Baptist to the First Century. Fr. Peter Gillquist is another who wrote a book called Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith. He was a former leader of the Campus Crusade for Christ in this country.
Two books I would most definitely recommend for general background on the Orthodox Church are The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way. Both are by Bishop Kallistos Ware.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
Thank you luvanddaisies for asking questions that I've wanted to...but couldn't. (fear of ignorance, silly here I'm beginning to see) My gratitude for Alt Wally, josephine, Father Gregory and Mousethief for taking the time to outline a huge subject in terms I can begin to understand.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
I have to add another post here while my head is still poked up out of Hell and I'm feeling brave.
I spent several years after my military experience in a severe depression with absolutely no value system to ground me. During those years I spent all of my spare time reading every book I could acquire on spiritual matters. I was searching for a common thread behind all the historical religions and always with a critical, objective eye because of a fear of traditional organizations. This search took me through ancient Christian, Buddhist, Egyptian, Hebrew, Hindu religions among many others.
I found more common ground behind the various symbols and rituals than differences and this was probably caused by my desire to see those connections. To make this short: One of the teachings that rang a chord with me was the Kabbalah. The attempt to grasp the texts in itself was an exercise that seemed to raise my awareness of the similarities I was seeking. My question: What is the traditional view of the Orthodox Church towards the many Kabbalist treatises? If any?
I know this should probably be it's own thread but would rather not start one.
Thank you in advance.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
Mousethief - your testimony had me ho0ked from beginning to end, thanks for the link to it. I found your little summary of the Orthodox position on substitutionary atonement helpfully clear
...but I've got another couple of questions about it
- how does the non-bloody view of atonement relate to the curse of death as a conseuence of sin in Genesis 2, and also to Israel's instructions about the sacrificial system, especially the Passover lamb and the annual Yom-Kippur atonement offering?
- what role does Jesus's crucifixion (and as an extension of that, the bread&wine of Communion) have outside being a propitiatory substitutionary sacrifice?
Fr Gregory, a question related to your brilliant expositary post too...
- why does the Orthodox church view icons as essential, and what do you do with them?
and a one that could be open for anyone of a non-innerantist, non-sola-scriptura-ist persuasion...
- how is it discerned which bits are binding & literal and which aren't? how also is it decided which things are useful to take alongside Scripture?
thanks again for the really conidered & helpful answers posted here.
* IMPORTANT NOTE : the questions here are being asked because I am interested to know the answers to them. I'm not intending them in any way to be patronising, insulting, accusing or otherwise negative, and if they are, I can't begin to apologise enough *
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear luvanddaisies
.... and all those other folks asking about Salvation, Substitutionary Atonement etc.,
Rather than reinvent the / (my own) wheel, could I refer you please to the series of articles on my website about this? If there is anything unclear after this then I'll pick it up again.
Salvation in the Orthodox Church
As to icons, I would say that the kind of spirituality engendered by the veneration of icons is fundamental to sanctification ...
(1) Embodied worship
(2) A love of the saints ... their deeds, examples of Christian holiness, fellowship and prayers. The icon focusses all of this in a tangible way. Even a blind person benefits from the veneration of icons. The main action is going on with the mind in the heart after all. If I had a blind person in church I would put braille notation on the corner of each icon.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dunstan.
Shipmate
# 5095
|
Posted
Regarding Fr Gregory's comment on icons for the blind, instead of only using braille, he could install icons written by this fellow.
Mousethief noticed it when I posted it in heaven a while back. I think it shows the visual aesthetics of an icon don't necessarily have to be so important, though the picture in the article makes it look pretty intriguing visually, actually.
Posts: 54 | From: New Hampshire | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
- how does the non-bloody view of atonement relate to the curse of death as a conseuence of sin in Genesis 2, and also to Israel's instructions about the sacrificial system, especially the Passover lamb and the annual Yom-Kippur atonement offering?
- what role does Jesus's crucifixion (and as an extension of that, the bread&wine of Communion) have outside being a propitiatory substitutionary sacrifice?
I don't know if I'd call the Orthodox understanding of the atonement "non-bloody" -- rather, it is non-substitutionary.
Jesus needed to become a man in order to unite the human and divine natures, and also in order to die (since God, as God, can't die). And he needed to die in order to destroy sin and death (the two are inextricably linked, in the Orthodox understanding).
The thing we deny is that he died IN OUR PLACE. If you look at the Old Testament sacrificial system, the various offerings weren't substitutionary. The only direct substitution that they had was the scapegoat, which wasn't killed; it was set to wander in the desert. The other direct substitution was the price paid for the firstborn male but that had nothing to do with sin.
What I deny is that God needed/wanted/whatever to kill US (because of our sins), but killed Jesus INSTEAD OF US. I do not deny that Jesus died FOR us, nor that his death and resurrection conquered sin and death. Indeed at Pascha (aka Easter) we sing, "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life."
Hope this helps. If I left something out I apologize and go ahead and ask again.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
I also reject the idea that God had to pnish Jesus instead of us.
I'd like to propose a theory and ask the Orthodox if it fits with Tradition.
1. When we forgive, the forgiveness is free to the offender, but it costs us. If we are insulted, we decide to bear the insult, etc. Rather, that is than retaliate, or to go home and kick the cat. (Which is what I believe SA is teaching - taking it out on someone else)
2. God cannot bear or 'absorb' our sin as God.
3. As well as to unite God with Man, the Word became flesh to bear or absorb the sin of the world. Jesus wasn't punished, He bore our sin as we bear an insult or an injury, as a Man. This was terrible for Him.
4. Reconciliation is now on offer through the gospel, which can be accepted or rejected.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
ChristinaMarie: regarding #2 -- Why not?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Hi Mousethief,
Because God cannot suffer. We absorb the suffering of whatever offence has been done to us when we choose to forgive.
So, God became one of us in order to suffer the offence of the sin of the world, in His human body, mind, and poss soul/spirit.
This is how He destroyed sin, by absorbing it and taking it into Death.
His blood signifies His perfect life poured out, so it can be transfuse into us by the Holy Spirit, and in the Eucharist.
Gone a bit further than your question.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anna B
Shipmate
# 1439
|
Posted
Haven't you heard, MT? God moves in the very best circles these days. No really fashionable Person would even consider taking part in an incarnational event. So unattractive, and one never has the right shoes.
--------------------
Bad Christian (TM)
Posts: 3069 | From: near a lot of fish | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Thanks that makes more sense now, CM.
Not sure how accepting/rejecting the gospel fits in however.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Hi Mousethief,
If someone offended you and you forgave them, you could offer to be friends again. That person then has the choice to either accept or reject you and your forgiveness. Say someone robbed your house coz of a drugs problem.
I don't believe that reconciliation is impossible after death.
If I could be certain, I would be a Christian Universalist. Thing is, to be absolutely certain on a matter like that, I would need all the relevant facts. I cannot be certain that there is some consideration I am missing.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
PS. This subject came to mind when I read your testimony on your website. I've wrestled with it too, as a former Evangelical. This is my attempt at a solution.
I enjoyed reading your testimony, I like happy endings and am very glad you and Josephine met up. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Zeck
quote:
What is the traditional view of the Orthodox Church towards the many Kabbalist treatises?
I'll admit I'm not really sure what all is behind the Kabbala. I'm under the impression it was a mystical tradition that arose in Judaism.
Mysticism itself is an intrinsic part of Orthodox doctrine and praxis, probably really at its core. It is not a free form type of practice that exists out of mainstream belief. St. Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth century wrote two very mystical works, the Life of Moses and his commentary on the Song of Songs. I think both of these had a deep and lasting impact on Orthodox thought. The Hesychasm championed by St. Gregory Palamas is probably one of the better known aspects of Orthodox mysticism. You could also take a look at this page, The Watchful Gate which has several articles. Including one on the Jewish roots of Orthodox mysticism.
luvandaisies,
I know you asked Fr. Gregory about icons, I just wanted to point out there was actually a thread on them last week, it's here.
quote:
- how is it discerned which bits are binding & literal and which aren't? how also is it decided which things are useful to take alongside Scripture?
Well, to take a step back a bit. The Orthodox church does not distinguish between scripture and tradition regarding authority. Scripture is all tradition, handed down orally and in written form and then compiled and proclaimed authoritative by one of the ecumenical councils of the church. Scripture is neither above the church as it is in Protestantism, or on a seperate plane of authority as it is with the three legged stool of the Anglicans. It is a part of the single, unified and consistent tradition of the church.
The Bible itself is 100% authoritative when handled through the collective consensus, wisdom and guidance of the church. St. Athanasius (who gave us the first document listing the canonical NT as we have it) used the idea of skopos as the regula fidei of scripture. Namely in the context of the faith community of the church the underlying ideas and intended meaning of the scriptures could be found and understood. This is what makes sense of the surface level appearance of contrasting ideas for instance. It is also what keeps individuals from setting off and forming new doctrine or churches based on an individual interpretation of the Bible.
The only things technically "binding" on Orthodox Christians are the seven ecumenical councils.
Regarding the atonement, I think the general Orthodox view would be that Christ was not sacrificed to satisfy the wrath of an angry God to pay the the debt of sin. Christ acted in self-sacrifice to release us from its power of sin once and for all.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Non-theological and non-important question, but I am curious. (I forgot to ask Father yesterday as I was too busy stuffing down a wondrous cake someone had cooked for lunch! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) )
During Lent, Pascha, post-Pascha and up to and including Pentecost, the sermon followed the Gospel reading. Yesterday, the sermon followed the Ambo Prayer. I seem to recal pre-Lent it may have been there too (but I cannot be sure).
Does the sermon move about generally during the year? Or is it simply up to the discrection of the priest? Many thanks!
Also, I was told yesterday (when I was discussing differences in liturgical practice between Anglicanism, Lutheranism -- in my experience -- and Orthodoxy -- yes, there are a range of topics covered in Coffee Hour! ) that Orthodox do not kneel on Sundays at all as it is the Resurrection Day. Is this correct? And what about prostration? Is that considered different? Many thanks again.
Ian, who like Christina enjoyed and gained much from Mousethief's "How I Got Where I Am" article.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
The Orthodox views posted on these boards on the meaning of the Atonement and on the concept of Hell are the most sensible and satisfying I have had presented to me in all the Christian traditions. If there weren't other things in the Orthodox tradition on which I differ, I would probably be lining up for oil.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Ian
quote:
that Orthodox do not kneel on Sundays at all as it is the Resurrection Day. Is this correct? And what about prostration? Is that considered different?
I believe this might be correct. Although after Pentecost at our mission the kneeling vespers were moved up to a couple hours after the liturgy instead of occuring the next day (i.e. after sundown). Technically speaking not the way it's supposed to happen I'm guessing.
I think prostrations and/or metanoias are different.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
Very interesting thread. I have echo Zeke's post before me and say that I have had thoughts of lining up for oil too but have trouble reconciling a few things.
I am attracting to the traditional aspect but have trouble understanding what happens to you after death and some other things.
Good reading.
[edited since another post fell in between Zeke's and mine. ]
[ 07. June 2004, 01:59: Message edited by: duchess ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The placement of the sermon is not fixed. In most OCA churches it occurs after the gospel. As I understand, in 19th century Russia (Was it post-gospel sermon in 19th century Russia?!) it generally occurred at the end of the service.
If we're having a really long service for some reason, Father will often skip the sermon altogether (which is great if you don't like sermons, although it does give you a chance to sit down in the middle of the service!).
Short answer: there is no fixed place.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Thanks Wally & Mousethief!
Ian.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
I am attracting to the traditional aspect but have trouble understanding what happens to you after death and some other things.
No one else understands what happens to you after death, either, because it's a mystery. Which is a polite way of saying that, even if God told us exactly what was going to happen, we wouldn't understand it, or, worse, we'd think it was icky, because we're simply not capable of understanding it yet. So he hasn't bothered telling us too much about it yet.
Think of six-year-olds and the mysteries of love and sex. If you tell them about it, they don't think it sounds particularly appealing. They really, truly don't understand it. It's a mystery, not because we're keeping secrets from them, or don't want them to know, but simply because they haven't developed to a point where it can possibly make any sense.
That, I think, is why what-comes-next is such a mystery. We haven't learned how to live this life properly yet. How could we possibly be ready to understand anything about the next one?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Can I pick a couple of your points apart, Fr Gregory?
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
(4) The overwhelming importance of Pascha (Easter) and belief in the resurrection in contradistinction to the western popular culture of Christmas, (barely registers culturally in Greece for example).
I find this strange given the emphasis that the Christus Victor view of Atonement puts on the Incarnation.
quote:
(c) Forensic or Merit based understandings of divine human interaction.
(d) The cultus of the cross disjoined from the resurrection, (more an emphasis than an exclusion).
If I understand him correctly, Aulen reads Irenaeus as saying that merit is an important factor in God's destruction of death, in the sense that although God defeats the dark powers through his own omnipotence, the manner in which he does it is implicitly just, since Christ wasn't subject to sin/death and was therefore at liberty to break its power when he came under it, whereas some other exercise of divine power could be unfair because we are responsible for our sins.
Mousethief, I've noticed from time to time the Orthodox Shipmates pop up with an objection to the language of "in our place". I understand that you're objecting to the PSA extension of this, but surely it's perfectly possible to read the phrase as saying that Christ took on the dark powers "in our place" because we couldn't win, being trapped by them and culpable - so God took them on for us.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
That strikes me as "on our behalf" rather than "in our place."
And Orthodox atonementology is not exactly the same thing as "Christus Victor."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Maybe you're right, Mousethief.
Would you care to elaborate on the differences between Orthodoxy and CV then?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
If I understand him correctly, Aulen reads Irenaeus as saying that merit is an important factor in God's destruction of death, in the sense that although God defeats the dark powers through his own omnipotence, the manner in which he does it is implicitly just, since Christ wasn't subject to sin/death and was therefore at liberty to break its power when he came under it, whereas some other exercise of divine power could be unfair because we are responsible for our sins.
Justice and fairness are not important concepts in Orthodox theology. The only time I can remember any of the Orthodox fathers or theologians commenting on justice wrt God, they talked about how God's treatment of us is NOT just, and that his unfairness, his injustice, is something in which we ought to greatly rejoice.
God requires us to treat each other justly, not because justice is the highest good, but because it is the bare minimum, it is the lowest acceptable standard. The real standard, as our Lord made clear, is not justice, but love.
In his mercy, because we are not able to meet God's standard, because we are so often not able to love as he loves, he gives us justice, so that we meet at least that standard. And by acting justly, we may be able to begin to learn to love.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
I don't disagree with any of that, Josephine. I should apologise for hijacking the thread - sorry, luvanddaisies - but it's not entirely off-topic I hope.
What I think I'm trying to say is, what Aulen calls the Classical view (and in fact the New Testament) is strong on the language of dark powers* holding us captive, and that in some sense the powers actually have rights over us through our conscious participation in sin. God's solution to the problem isn't then to simply wave a magic wand and remove the powers, but rather to take them on and be able to break their power, both legitimately if you like because Christ is sinless so they have no rights over him anyway, and inevitably because Christ is God and subject to nothing.
It's not difficult to see how the Western line of thinking leading to Substitutionary Atonement can come from this but it looks to me that in order to get there, it's necessary to reassign the rights the dark powers have over humanity in the classical view, to the infringed rights (civil or penal) of God.
*Dark powers? Read that as mythologically, metaphorically or personally as you like.
I'm a beginner at theology.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
MT & Jospehine, be prepared for me & you both to maybe have FAQ in person.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Picking up a few loose ends.
Kneeling should definitely not take place from Saturday 6pm to Sunday 6pm. On Anastasis (Resurrection Day) we stand. This even applies during Great Lent when Sundays are still Resurrection Days. I think that it is more proper to bow profoundly than to prostrate on Sunday where necessary although I know that views differ on this.
Concerning Kneeling Vespers on the Days of Pentecost Alt. Wally .... these, of course are the Vespers for Monday. Current practice often places them early on the Sunday afternoon or even straight after the Liturgy, (as with the Paschal Vespers of Love). It's not really correct though. It's a concession to weakness (the realism of folks not coming back for it) rather than justifiable liturgical principle here.
Dear Zeke
quote:
If there weren't other things in the Orthodox tradition on which I differ, I would probably be lining up for oil.
With further exploration you will discover the following ...
(1) These issues rarely if ever mean to us what they mean to non-Orthodox Christians.
(2) These issues are holistically part and parcel with those things you can accept.
For example ... the following sequence applies.
(1) We believe in the purity of Mary.
(2) We do not accept St. Augustine's take on original sin.
(3) Mary, therefore, does not have to be "immaculately conceived" ... original sin having nothing to do with generational transmission.
(4) Mary's purity is not ontological, (ie., she is a sinner like all humans save Christ). Her purity is a work of grace in her heart.
(5) Because she is both pure yet also ontologically a sinner, she really did die - without choice in the matter - , whilst yet, by virtue of her grace-full purity, ascending to the Kingdom of Her Son directly, (the Dormition / Assumption).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Sorry for the double post .... I forgot to answer your questions GreyFace.
The Incarnation is an extrapolation from the whole dispensation of salvation .... not just the passion and resurrection although pre-eminently those. St. Irenaeus' doctrine of recapitulation .... the gathering together of all that is human in the upward sweep of salvation is what we are talking about here. What we resist is the idea of Christmas as only and simply "the birthday of the baby Jesus."
"Happy Birthday dear Jesus, Happy Birthday to you. Happy Birthday dear Jesus. Happy Birthday to you!" ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
I remember an Anglican priest friend of mine who sadly left the ministry altogether after the events of '92. He once told me that as a youngster he never could handle the religious significance of Christmas. Why should people make such a fuss over the birthday of baby Jesus. Wasn't his birthday just as important?
The real answer to your question about the Orthodox celebration of the Incarnation is that we celebrate this AT EASTER! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Confused]](confused.gif) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
The gospel appointed for Pascha morning is John 1:1-14!
quote:
What I think I'm trying to say is, what Aulen calls the Classical view (and in fact the New Testament) is strong on the language of dark powers* holding us captive, and that in some sense the powers actually have rights over us through our conscious participation in sin. God's solution to the problem isn't then to simply wave a magic wand and remove the powers, but rather to take them on and be able to break their power, both legitimately if you like because Christ is sinless so they have no rights over him anyway, and inevitably because Christ is God and subject to nothing.
OK so far!
quote:
It's not difficult to see how the Western line of thinking leading to Substitutionary Atonement can come from this but it looks to me that in order to get there, it's necessary to reassign the rights the dark powers have over humanity in the classical view, to the infringed rights (civil or penal) of God.
You're too charitable to Anselm here! The reassignment to which you refer is the whole problem. It makes of God an offended petty Despot who needs to punish either his serfs or their substituted Yoeman, (bearing in mind the hierarchical feudalism of the substitutionary matrix). Later, of course, Jesus throws a strop as well and his Mum comes along to put in a good word! ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Thw whole problem with the post-Orthodox western view of atonement is that it is "rewards and punishments" based. This is far, far removed from the classical patristic and New Testament basis, (see Josephine's comment about justice being our initial response rather than God's Final Demand). ALL IS LOVE.
[ 07. June 2004, 18:48: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Fr. Gregory
quote:
It's a concession to weakness (the realism of folks not coming back for it) rather than justifiable liturgical principle here.
It's quite likely that may be the case. One problem we have though is that as a mission we're in a rented space and have to build and tear down the entire worship space for every service. There are times when we can't utilize the building and I think Sunday night might be one of them. This was a problem during Lent because it limited the number of services that could be held.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Alt. Wally
Quite so. It is necessary to work with what one has. The trouble is later when folks can get stuck in a pattern which is anomalous outside of its original context.
The only reason, for example, for the sermon being sometimes stuck at the end is the unhappy tendency of some Orthodox not to be in church early enough to hear it after the gospel. This, incidentally explains the tendency in some Orthodox churches for the offering to be taken later as well!
When I talk at the end it is always an address rather than a sermon. I always do the sermon after the gospel. That is its proper liturgical place.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally .:
TUC
quote:
(trying not to go off on a tangent on Substitutionary Atonement) can you please explain how the Orthodox view on this subject differs from non-Orthodox interpretations?
Not to answer for Fr. Gregory, but two articles cover this pretty well.
Heaven & Hell in the Afterlife, According to the Bible
The River of Fire
I will just warn you that the second article is heavy on the anti-western polemic.
luvanddaisies
Interesting articles. The thing I'm not clear about from them is what Orthodox consider the afterlife (or whatever term Orthodox would give it) to actually be like in terms of whether they see it as a new, perfect Heaven and Earth (as in the new heaven and earth or Revelation) in which people essentially still carry out some form of recognisable day to day life (although in a pefect sinless world) or whether they see it as something of being more generally (though that feels the wrong word) eternally existing in the presence of God.
The notion of people experiencing the presence of God as either blessing or pain would seem to suggest some version of the latter. However the whole concept of a new heaven and earth and of God restoring what was meant to be in the beginning suggests the former to me.
[ 07. June 2004, 19:36: Message edited by: The Undiscovered Country ]
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear TUC
The answer? Yes.
I am not being unhelpful. There are necessary limits to speculation as mentioned already here.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scarlet
Mellon Collie
# 1738
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The whole problem with the post-Orthodox western view of atonement is that it is "rewards and punishments" based. This is far, far removed from the classical patristic and New Testament basis, (see Josephine's comment about justice being our initial response rather than God's Final Demand). ALL IS LOVE.
This is largely the reason I "came home to Orthodoxy"...I came to learn of, meet, and experience this God - I came for the LOVE.
(I'm a convert of two years, escaping from a long line of legalistic [and evangelical] Protestant demoninations.)
--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer
Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scarlet
Mellon Collie
# 1738
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The only reason, for example, for the sermon being sometimes stuck at the end is the unhappy tendency of some Orthodox not to be in church early enough to hear it after the gospel. This, incidentally explains the tendency in some Orthodox churches for the offering to be taken later as well!
In our parish, if you haven't arrived in time for the reading of the Gospel, you are forbidden to approach the chalice. Even so, some still arrive later.
--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer
Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
Thanks, Fr. G, for the explication. I am a little puzzled, though, as to why you thought what was troubling me was Marian doctrine.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I didn't Zeke ... I merely offered it as an example of how for us ...
(1) Everything hangs together
(2) Our take on stuff is often different
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
Okay.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
