at http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/502/what-is-future-russia/
there are some interesting prophecies about Russia and other places.
""Russia will be supreme in the world. Her name will be ‘Holy Rus’. All sects and religions will pour into Orthodoxy…. But Orthodoxy, and -- essentially speaking -- religion, will draw closer to what it was in Apostolic times. . . ." is interesting,
because it would mean the following:
fasts would be shortened, the great four might be reduced to a week each or to Lent
only and that Holy Week. (In the canons, only nonobservance of WEdnesday,
Friday and Holy Week without a health reason can get you excommunicated. Of
course in these decadent days just about nothing with get you excommunicated in
the jurisdictions in USA. perhaps elsewhere.)
except for Holy Saturday, fasting would be eliminated on all Sundays including
during the Great Lent and lesser lents. Possibly retaining the monastic custom also
eliminated on Saturdays. At present even Sundays are included in the Great Lent
fast, despite the fact that early canons say no fasting on Sunday and this because
Christ rose on that day, each Sunday is a mini Pascha. (aka Easter in English speaking
lands.)
Married men could become bishops. Deacons could marry after ordination.
the godparent system, a resounding failure, would be eliminated, or they're being
an impediment to marriage would be eliminated, since this results in selection of
god parents on the basis of technical external relationship with the Church and on
being already consanguineous usually to eliminate problems of falling in love with
a god sibling (child of your godparent). This means essentially that VERY few
people fit to be catechists in fact are catechizing children, as thing are now.
There is a canon which states that a married couple who stand godparent to the same
child should divorce, but this is absurd since they have done in the spiritual sense
what they do in the physical, produce a child! the rationale is probably that they have
thereby made themselves into brother and sister, but this ignores that marriage and
sex (itself regardless of context what makes the two one flesh I Cor. 6:16) make
the two effectively into brother and sister, though that doesn't validate marrying your
sister. the term is used affectionately in Song of Solomon to the man's lover, and
Eve was a cloned sister to Adam.
The dogmatic definitions are inspired and proof of this is consistency with Scripture,
all of it not just proof texts out of context. The Creed refers to Scripture for authority
regarding the Resurrection, "and arose again on the third day, ACCORDING TO THE
SCRIPTURES."
But the disciplinary canons are open sometimes to question. As Sr. Vassa Larin has
pointed out, many canons have fallen into disuse, but while they are denied in
practice it is not accepted to question or deny them openly. The key to this is
probably Trullo 102 which enshrined economia as normative. Trullo also
countermanded an early canon, which allowed deacons to marry if they declared they
intended to eventually do so at ordination, and forbade marriage to unmarried deacons.
So that in itself is a precedent for changing.
The dogmatic definitions are ALWAYS stated first, and separate from canons, in
all the Ecumenical Councils.
Another change might be a cautious allowing of the most competent and manly minded
women into full diaconate and even priesthood, since Justin Martyr refers to the
"president" of the assembly doing the Eucharistic prayers after which the bread and
wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Laodicea regional Synod forbade
appointing "female presidents" or presbytides, but did not say any then current were
to be defrocked or unappointed, and did not declare anything they had already done
void. presbyter or elder morphed as a word into priest, the present research on
possible early Christian (not heretical) female priests looks to the term presbytera,
but that is an error, this word refers to the wife of a priest and is still in use for this
today in Greek speaking Churches. Matushka is the term for a priest's wife in Slavic
Churches. "female president" is far more likely a female priest.
Paul gave general recommendations for eldership and overseership (episcopate)
recommending both be married with proof of rightly raising children if he can't
handle his own family how can he tend the larger family the congregation? but Paul
made an exception in Timothy, a young precocious and single man. So these rules
are perhaps more fluid. When Jesus denounced a church in Revelation for tolerating
a false prophetess Jezebel, He did not discuss her gender but the content of her
teaching.
Another difference would be elimination, I hope, of Origenistic nonsense that views
the idea of a physical rule by Christ on earth as too gross and materialistic seeming,
and the idea that Adam and Eve were not so densely physical as we are now before
they sinned, and the "coats of skin" were our physical bodies. Far more likely the
hides from the first sin offerings God would have dictated.
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Sunday, September 13, 2015
An Ancient Sacrilege by Mistake
Looking at history, something started nagging me.
Back in the days when the Roman Orthodox Patriarch was starting to make changes,
and claims beyond his position of honor rather than uniform authority, there was a
final break between the Roman Patriarch aka pope (a term meaning father in a familiar
form like daddy, and also used by the Alexandrian Patriarch,) and the Patriarch of
Constantinople, in AD 1054.
Some argue that this was not the actual final break, which was solidified much more
later and for some time after that, priests of both segments concelebrated the Eucharist.
This date however is a key point. The excommunication against Constantinople was
only against Constantinople, which had no authority outside its own jurisdiction.
However, in the ensuing disputes, the rest of the patriarchs took the side of the Patriarch
of Constantinople, and joined in its excommunication of Rome. (this was not the first
time a Roman pope was excommunicated by the east, and one of those councils that
did so is accepted by Rome, oddly enough.)
Some time before this, southern Italy had been briefly transferred by an emperor to
the jurisdiction of Constaninople, resulting in churches operating there, and continuing,
under the Patriarch of Constantinople, even after southern Italy was returned to Roman
jurisdiction later. These churches were closed. In response to this, Constantinople
closed Latin churches operating in Constantinople (exactly how these came to be there
I didn't notice in reading up on all this).
During this closure, necessarily somewhat violent because of resistance by priests,
laity and monastics, the Holy Eucharist of the Latins was trampled underfoot in
sacrilege, because it was held to be invalid, not a real Eucharist, not the Body and
Blood of Christ, because made with unleavened bread (azymes).
The dispute regarding the use of unleavened bread had developed a few centuries
before, when Rome getting too focused on details of form started using unleavened
bread to make the Eucharist, instead of leavened bread, the bread of the common
people and easily available to all.
Various complicated arguments including allegations that use of unleavened bread
implied some kind of heretical belief, were made by the East. These probably partook
more of the scholastic sense developing in the West, which laid too much authority
on human reason, and less of the tradition view that the Eucharist is a Mystery (the
term musterion being called sacrament in Latin).
But before the Great Schism of AD 1054, an Eastern priestmonk was visiting a church
in Lanciano, Italy, which used azymes. and he had doubts in his heart, while performing
the Eucharist with this, that this really was the Body and Blood of Christ. And God
worked a miracle, the host turned into flesh and the wine into five clots of blood.
It remains to this day. However, the details on why the priestmonk was having doubts
are usually left out. It was a preschism miracle, so we Orthodox should take note of it.
Tests of the time showed that the blood clots weighed the same, whether weighed
separately or all together, the weight was the same. This according to the Wikipedia
article on this has diminished and ceased over the centuries, but the following
information is from recent (20th century) tests.
The flesh is human cardiac muscle.
The blood is human, same blood type as on the Shroud of Turin and the Veil of Oviedo.
The blood tests as chemically the same as FRESH blood, which is impossible after
over a thousand years. But it does.
Constantinople then did commit sacrilege. And maybe this is why it fell later. And
maybe we Orthodox need to repent of this event, as distinct from the rest of rejection
of Roman errors.
The usual traditionalist view in Orthodoxy is that grace was totally lost in the schism.
I think it is more like what St. Paul called quenching the Holy Spirit, not a full loss
but a diminution. The Holy Water of RC is good, but weaker and less tolerant of
dilution than Orthodox Holy Water. Both camps hold to the same core doctrine, with
the exception of the filioque clause, which RC is increasingly arguing does not mean
double origin, but clearly it did at one time. And it implies this. you have to have a
special caveat thrown in to NOT get this idea from the plain words. And Jesus did
not say once that The Holy Spirit proceeded from The Father and from Himself, but
rather that He would send The Holy Spirit FROM THE FATHER and that The Holy
Spirit PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER.
All references to The Holy Spirit as The Spirit of Christ, does not validate the filioque
but rather reflects what Christ said, that all that The Father has is His, that is, Christ's,
also.
Some writer I can't find now, said that the Eucharist in the monophysite churches
rendered wrath to the heretics partaking of it and grace to the Orthodox Chalcedonians.
Which of course is recognition that the Eucharist is valid, being performed with
bread and wine and invoking The Holy Spirit to make these into the Body and Blood
of Christ.
But there is more to this than getting to eat Christ. While that is the primary issue,
there is also, once you understand these things, the issue of implied or explicit agreement
with the Christology and Pneumatology of the church doing this.
uber traditionalists in the RC of course have a similar notion of lack of grace regarding
us. and in some cases, regarding post Vatican II Roman Catholicism and its sacraments.
Back in the days when the Roman Orthodox Patriarch was starting to make changes,
and claims beyond his position of honor rather than uniform authority, there was a
final break between the Roman Patriarch aka pope (a term meaning father in a familiar
form like daddy, and also used by the Alexandrian Patriarch,) and the Patriarch of
Constantinople, in AD 1054.
Some argue that this was not the actual final break, which was solidified much more
later and for some time after that, priests of both segments concelebrated the Eucharist.
This date however is a key point. The excommunication against Constantinople was
only against Constantinople, which had no authority outside its own jurisdiction.
However, in the ensuing disputes, the rest of the patriarchs took the side of the Patriarch
of Constantinople, and joined in its excommunication of Rome. (this was not the first
time a Roman pope was excommunicated by the east, and one of those councils that
did so is accepted by Rome, oddly enough.)
Some time before this, southern Italy had been briefly transferred by an emperor to
the jurisdiction of Constaninople, resulting in churches operating there, and continuing,
under the Patriarch of Constantinople, even after southern Italy was returned to Roman
jurisdiction later. These churches were closed. In response to this, Constantinople
closed Latin churches operating in Constantinople (exactly how these came to be there
I didn't notice in reading up on all this).
During this closure, necessarily somewhat violent because of resistance by priests,
laity and monastics, the Holy Eucharist of the Latins was trampled underfoot in
sacrilege, because it was held to be invalid, not a real Eucharist, not the Body and
Blood of Christ, because made with unleavened bread (azymes).
The dispute regarding the use of unleavened bread had developed a few centuries
before, when Rome getting too focused on details of form started using unleavened
bread to make the Eucharist, instead of leavened bread, the bread of the common
people and easily available to all.
Various complicated arguments including allegations that use of unleavened bread
implied some kind of heretical belief, were made by the East. These probably partook
more of the scholastic sense developing in the West, which laid too much authority
on human reason, and less of the tradition view that the Eucharist is a Mystery (the
term musterion being called sacrament in Latin).
But before the Great Schism of AD 1054, an Eastern priestmonk was visiting a church
in Lanciano, Italy, which used azymes. and he had doubts in his heart, while performing
the Eucharist with this, that this really was the Body and Blood of Christ. And God
worked a miracle, the host turned into flesh and the wine into five clots of blood.
It remains to this day. However, the details on why the priestmonk was having doubts
are usually left out. It was a preschism miracle, so we Orthodox should take note of it.
Tests of the time showed that the blood clots weighed the same, whether weighed
separately or all together, the weight was the same. This according to the Wikipedia
article on this has diminished and ceased over the centuries, but the following
information is from recent (20th century) tests.
The flesh is human cardiac muscle.
The blood is human, same blood type as on the Shroud of Turin and the Veil of Oviedo.
The blood tests as chemically the same as FRESH blood, which is impossible after
over a thousand years. But it does.
Constantinople then did commit sacrilege. And maybe this is why it fell later. And
maybe we Orthodox need to repent of this event, as distinct from the rest of rejection
of Roman errors.
The usual traditionalist view in Orthodoxy is that grace was totally lost in the schism.
I think it is more like what St. Paul called quenching the Holy Spirit, not a full loss
but a diminution. The Holy Water of RC is good, but weaker and less tolerant of
dilution than Orthodox Holy Water. Both camps hold to the same core doctrine, with
the exception of the filioque clause, which RC is increasingly arguing does not mean
double origin, but clearly it did at one time. And it implies this. you have to have a
special caveat thrown in to NOT get this idea from the plain words. And Jesus did
not say once that The Holy Spirit proceeded from The Father and from Himself, but
rather that He would send The Holy Spirit FROM THE FATHER and that The Holy
Spirit PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER.
All references to The Holy Spirit as The Spirit of Christ, does not validate the filioque
but rather reflects what Christ said, that all that The Father has is His, that is, Christ's,
also.
Some writer I can't find now, said that the Eucharist in the monophysite churches
rendered wrath to the heretics partaking of it and grace to the Orthodox Chalcedonians.
Which of course is recognition that the Eucharist is valid, being performed with
bread and wine and invoking The Holy Spirit to make these into the Body and Blood
of Christ.
But there is more to this than getting to eat Christ. While that is the primary issue,
there is also, once you understand these things, the issue of implied or explicit agreement
with the Christology and Pneumatology of the church doing this.
uber traditionalists in the RC of course have a similar notion of lack of grace regarding
us. and in some cases, regarding post Vatican II Roman Catholicism and its sacraments.
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Beware of apparent angels, the devil can imitate anyone, even Christ Himself.
"
Be On Guard Against Deception
AT ALL TIMES be on your guard against deception. In the West there seems to be almost a culture of accepting deceptions—even of seeking them!—, especially if they come decked out in religious finery. A monastic correspondent recently sent us the following edifying story: "Two years ago a visitor told us of what had happened to an inexperienced monk in his monastery. One night he was awoken by a bright light, and there was a beautiful Angel gazing down at him with loving eyes. 'Get up and pray,' he said, so the monk obeyed. The vision was repeated the next night, and again the monk prayed. When it had happened on four consecutive nights, he became anxious and went to his Abbot, who wisely told him that if the Angel came again, he should just turn over and go to sleep. The Angel came as before, but this time the monk ignored him and turned over as if to sleep. No sooner had he done so than there was a violent slamming of doors and such a disgusting stench that the monk could no longer remain in his cell. The next day he repented of his pride which had led him to think he was worthy of seeing an Angel, the consequence of which was that he had willingly obeyed the devil." In all probability we shall not be tempted by such a manifest appearance of the demon. Nonetheless, in all circumstances we must be on our guard against his deceits; and rather than ready to accept such deceits, we should be on guard against them." http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/practical.aspxMonday, July 13, 2015
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Orthodox writers Romanides Kalomiros and other heretics.
Some of the most popular modern Orthodox writers
have very unorthodox teachings, many of which track
(as do most problems in Orthodoxy) to Origen.
Callistos Ware, John Romanides, Anthony Krapovitsky
or Khrapovitsky, Alexander Kalomiros, and others
come to mind.
There are in their teachings deviations from truth which
appeal to the flesh, including the flesh that likes to be
in love with the idea that it is loving, to feel superior
to such supposedly inferior things as retribution which
is a matter of justice, what one deserves, and of course
lacking any concept of justice cannot appreciate the
greatness of God's mercy.
Vladimir Moss runs to what Fr. Seraphim Rose called
"super correctness," so is not to be taken whole hog
without question. Reading a critically important writing
of his on Ware and Romanides I came across something
which is a distinct error a failure to consider Scripture
in context.
Moss follows St. Vincent of Lerins Commonitory, in
solving a dispute: what is the opinion or practice at all
times in all places, and if that isn't clear what do the
canons and Fathers say and if there is still ambiguity
or flat out mutual contradiction what does the Scripture
say? (I am going by memory here.)
Moss draws heavily on Scripture as much as any
protestant would, exactly as do The Fathers. But unlike
the typical protestant he does not do so from a narrow
mechanistic mindset, inherited from Roman Catholic
scholasticism.
At one point he points out that "After death we cannot
be saved by our own repentance, but only by the prayers
of the Church, which God does not allow to be offered
for all men" and cites Ezekiel 14:14 and I John 5:16, but
read in context these are ONLY ABOUT THE LIVING.
God spoke to Ezekiel regarding the people that He was
about to bring the hammer down on, don't bother praying
for them any more. John speaks of observing some
sinning and pray for some but not for others.
Buried in the text of at least one Orthodox prayer for the
dead is a statement that includes the dead everywhere.
Most prayers are explicitly for the Orthodox dead, and the
general attitude is that there is no point praying except for
Orthodox or at least Christian dead, because these may
be in some trouble because of unrepented sin but have
hope while the non Christian are without hope prayed for
or not. But there were early indications of prayer for
the dead and damned, notably St. Perpetua.
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/311_THE_NEW_SOTERIOLOGY.pdf
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/415_THE_MYSTERY_OF_REDEMPTION_without_appendices_.pdf
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/415_THE_MYSTERY_OF_REDEMPTION_without_appendices_.pdf
discusses these issues better than almost anyone. Moss is a
schismatic, but none of the issues in these online books is part
of that and they stand or fall on their own, dependent on the
Fathers and Scripture the Tradition of the Orthodox Church.
have very unorthodox teachings, many of which track
(as do most problems in Orthodoxy) to Origen.
Callistos Ware, John Romanides, Anthony Krapovitsky
or Khrapovitsky, Alexander Kalomiros, and others
come to mind.
There are in their teachings deviations from truth which
appeal to the flesh, including the flesh that likes to be
in love with the idea that it is loving, to feel superior
to such supposedly inferior things as retribution which
is a matter of justice, what one deserves, and of course
lacking any concept of justice cannot appreciate the
greatness of God's mercy.
Vladimir Moss runs to what Fr. Seraphim Rose called
"super correctness," so is not to be taken whole hog
without question. Reading a critically important writing
of his on Ware and Romanides I came across something
which is a distinct error a failure to consider Scripture
in context.
Moss follows St. Vincent of Lerins Commonitory, in
solving a dispute: what is the opinion or practice at all
times in all places, and if that isn't clear what do the
canons and Fathers say and if there is still ambiguity
or flat out mutual contradiction what does the Scripture
say? (I am going by memory here.)
Moss draws heavily on Scripture as much as any
protestant would, exactly as do The Fathers. But unlike
the typical protestant he does not do so from a narrow
mechanistic mindset, inherited from Roman Catholic
scholasticism.
At one point he points out that "After death we cannot
be saved by our own repentance, but only by the prayers
of the Church, which God does not allow to be offered
for all men" and cites Ezekiel 14:14 and I John 5:16, but
read in context these are ONLY ABOUT THE LIVING.
God spoke to Ezekiel regarding the people that He was
about to bring the hammer down on, don't bother praying
for them any more. John speaks of observing some
sinning and pray for some but not for others.
Buried in the text of at least one Orthodox prayer for the
dead is a statement that includes the dead everywhere.
Most prayers are explicitly for the Orthodox dead, and the
general attitude is that there is no point praying except for
Orthodox or at least Christian dead, because these may
be in some trouble because of unrepented sin but have
hope while the non Christian are without hope prayed for
or not. But there were early indications of prayer for
the dead and damned, notably St. Perpetua.
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/311_THE_NEW_SOTERIOLOGY.pdf
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/415_THE_MYSTERY_OF_REDEMPTION_without_appendices_.pdf
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/415_THE_MYSTERY_OF_REDEMPTION_without_appendices_.pdf
discusses these issues better than almost anyone. Moss is a
schismatic, but none of the issues in these online books is part
of that and they stand or fall on their own, dependent on the
Fathers and Scripture the Tradition of the Orthodox Church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)