Church and State - The Byzantine Legacy
Read the article this discussion is about
- Basil
- Basil
- StefanC
- StefanC
- Basil
- StefanC
- Basil
- StefanC
- Basil
- StefanC
This archived discussion is "read only".
« Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »
» Basil - Stefan: <i>"Catholics, ostensibly desiring to magnify the Mot
Stefan:"Catholics, ostensibly desiring to magnify the Mother of God, separate her
from mankind and ascribe to her different spiritual nature. The Roman Catholic
dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not elevate, but demeans the
Mother of God, since, if she were born free of sin and holy, then in the
attainment of holiness there is no merit of her own. This dogma demeans also
the work of men's redemption by Christ's death, since it allows the possibility
- even though for only one person - to attain holiness apart from this
redemption. "
Did you write this or who? There are actually two errors contained here which I think it is critical to clarify
if she were born free of sin and holy, then in the
attainment of holiness there is no merit of her own
Sinless conception simply means that Mary was graced by a special divine gift to remain free of the sin of Adam. The dogma actually does not imply that her subsequently holy life was without temptation, etc. Thus, it is possible for Mary to be concieved without sin, but live a meritorious life through personal committment and divine help (which is the basis of any saintly life.
This dogma demeans also
the work of men's redemption by Christ's death, since it allows the possibility
- even though for only one person - to attain holiness apart from this
redemption.
This is essential! Mary is immaculately concieved only by virtue of the redemptive work of Christ. I recognize the difficulty in seeing redemption applying prior to the Incarnation, but the Dogma specifically states that the IC is a unique application of the merits of Christ to Mary. Thus, even Mary is in need of the Redeemer.
I will try to dig up the declaration on this matter so that we can further clarify these points.
Although is the most difficult way because of te intransigence of te Orthodox
and the tendency of the Catholics to unite in spite of the doctrinal differences.
I certianly agree with these points! This, of course, is also a historical/cultural problem which has haunted the efforts for reunion since the Middle Ages.
I sugest one
posting/week. That gives us time to reflect deeply. It is particular to orthodox
theology and spirituality.
A really good idea and one which will allow both of us to better articulate points and have time to examine sources. And things get pretty busy around here too.
Sugestion: the sign of the cross. The way the people cross themselves that is
different (again) from Catholics.
My guess is that you already know that the West originally followed the Eastern custom of right to left. When Pope Innocent III issued an instruction on the Sign (c. 1200) he specifically stated that this was the pattern to use, although he was aware of the left to right custom.
Seems that Catholics in the pews simply followed the priest's hand visually when he gave a blessing. Thus, when the preist went right-left, it was followed by going left-right.
BTW - While I tend to follow the Catholic direction, I do use the Eastern hand position - which was also included in Pope Innocent's instruction.
About iconography, I am working now on the article Orthodox
Iconography for publishing date October 1st. What if we detail things then?
Good idea! Looking forward to it!
Raymond St. George
-- posted by Basil
» Basil - Hey Phil - IMO there is no basis for discussion on the Gnost
Hey Phil -IMO there is no basis for discussion on the Gnostic issue as you reject all contrary source material, and Christianity as it has developed rejects the Gnostic source material.
As to the Elohim issue, I would point out that the Yahwhist tradition (almost contemporary with the Elohist) emphasises one God but also anthropomorphises that God. The exact meaning of the term el Elohim is actually somewhat disputed among biblical scholars and anthropologists, although there certianly those who would support your hypothesis. Again, by rejecting as false those opinions contrary to the Emanationist position, you eliminate the groundwork for discussion.
Furthermore, by the time of the Assyrian conquest and Babylonian Captivity the Iraelites were beginning to emphasise the absolute nature of their God. This was further developed during the Captivity and subsequent resettlement of Jerusalem. During the last few centuries before Christ, the monotheistic model had become dominant in Jewish thought. This may have been in part to strengthen identity as a unified people, but it remains that this was the principle tradition of first century Judaism. Thus, even Rome had to respect Jewish ritual laws about introducing "images" and false gods.
Certianly there was a Gnostic element in some forms of early Christianity - John's community had a great deal of trouble with this. However, the developement of the Church in the tradition of the Fathers was considered the one guided by the Holy Spirit.
Of course, this is somewhat circular, but it is also the basis of modern Christianity. Revisionism is fine, but overt focusing on one area and reading it in to every source is a questionable methodology.
My 2 cents and that's all I really have to say. IMO Faith in Jesus is totally irrelevant in Gnosticism, but, hey, that's just me. While I find the system interesting, there is really no basis for "dialog".
later!
Raymond St. George
-- posted by Basil
» StefanC - Stefan Crisbasan Raymond, I did not wrote the quoted pass
Stefan CrisbasanRaymond,
I did not wrote the quoted passage about Immaculate Conception. It is form the article "The venereatin of the Mother of God", that I provided the link above.
Sinless conception simply means that Mary was graced by a special divine gift to remain free of the sin of Adam. The dogma actually does not imply that her subsequently holy life was without temptation, etc. Thus, it is possible for Mary to be concieved without sin, but live a meritorious life through personal committment and divine help (which is the basis of any saintly life.
About the Immaculate Conception again, Christ has been tempted too. But the nature of His temptation has beed redemptive while for the Mother of God has no meaning in this sense. She has to be prepared for the incarnation of the Logos, therefore her sinlessness was not necassary at his conception.
Seems that Catholics in the pews simply followed the priest's hand visually when he gave a blessing. Thus, when the preist went right-left, it was followed by going left-right.
The signiing with hte cross sign people have a theological meaning atached. For the Orthodox Christ sits at the right hand of the Father, therefore it is on the right shoulder that the hand elevates, with the first three fingers united simbolyzing the Trinity.
I am glad you are interested in symbolism. In it you can discover the whole mystery of God as it is practiced in the Tradition.
Stefan
-- posted by StefanC
» StefanC - Stefan Crisbasan Raymond, Here is some material about th
Stefan Crisbasan
Raymond,
Here is some material about the Sign of the Cross from the Orthodox and Latin point of view:
The Sign of the Cross
According to the Latin ritual the priest maked the sign of the cross by touching his forehead, breast, left
and right shoulder, as he says, "In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, amen" - that is, "In the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, amen." When he touches his forehead he says, "In
the name of the Father"; when he touches his heart, "and of the Son"; and as he passes his hand from the
left to the right shoulder he concludes by saying, "and of the Holy Ghost, amen." We call the reader's
special attention to his distribution of the words, for they are very frequently misplaced, it being quite
common to hear nothing but "Amen" said as the right shoulder is touched. This is wholly incorrect, as
may be seen at once from the rubrics describing the manner of making the sing of the cross. It is hardly
necessary to add that it is always the right hand which is used in going through this ceremony.
Ancient Customs Regarding the Manner of Making the Sign of the Cross - In the Christian Church
in early times the custom of making the sing of the cross on the forehead only was very common.
Tertullian (A.D. 200) alludes to it in his De Corona Militis, cap. III., as does also the Roman Ordo in its
directions for saying Mass. Sometimes, too, only the mouth was signed, and sometimes nothing but the
breast. Customs varied in different places. Anxious, however, to retain vestiges of all these ancient and
pious practices, the Church still preserves them in some part of her sacred offices. The three may be
seen united in one ceremony at the reading of the Gospel, where the priest signs himself on the forehead,
mouth, and breast as he pronounces the initial words. The signing of the mouth only is seen in the Divine
Office of the Breviary at the words "Domine, labia mea aperies" - "Lord, Thou wilt open my lips."
When all the ancient practices died away, and the present discipline was introduced, for quite a long time
it ws the rule to trace the right hand from the right to the left shoulder after having touched the breast,
instead of, as now, from the left to the right. The latter came into general use in the time of Pope Pius V
(Sixteenth century).
The Spanish peasantry, in making the sing of the cross, use the formula, "By the sing of the Holy Cross
deliver us from our enemies, O, God our Lord! In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost, Amen, Jesus.
Regarding the disposition of the fingers in making this sacred sign, different practices existed, too, at one
time. The most general way, however, in the Latin Church was to close the small and annular fingers of
the right hand and extend the other three; then to make the hand thus disposed the required sign. Bishops
and members of the Carthusian and Dominican orders have retained this custom. The two fingers united
in this way symbolize the duality of natures in our Divine Lord, against the Eutychians, who maintained
that there was but one; and the three other fingers typify the Blessed Trinity (Romsee, IV. 56; Bona, De
Divina Psalmodia, p. 507). It will interest the reader to know that our Holy Father the Pope always
observes this ancient disposition of the fingers whenever her imparts his blessing, as may be seen from
any correct picture representing him in this attitude.
Customs of the Oriental Church - The ancient practice of touching the right shoulder before the left is yet
in vogue, with all who follow the Greek rite, but the disposition of the fingers is entirely different. In
making the sign of the cross the Greek priest first crosses his thumb on the annular or fourth finger of
the right hand, and bends his little finger so s to have it resemble the curve of a crescent; he allows the
index finger to stand perfectly erect, and, having bent the middle one so as to from the same figure as
that formed by the little finger, raises his hand aloft, and then traces the sign. The interpretation of all this
is very interesting. The outstretched finger stands for the Greek letter I; the bending of the middle finger
represts the letter C, one of the ancient ways of writing Sigma, or the English letter S; the letter I, and
this C or S, form the well-known contraction for "Jesus," being its first and last letters. The thumb,
crossed upon the fourth finger, is the Greek letter X, equivalent to our ch; and this, with the small finger
shaped as the middle finger, and representing C or S, forms the contraction for "Christus," or Christ.
Hence, "Jesus Christ" is the interpretation for the whole action. The Greeks are so careful to keep the
fingers thus adjusted when making the sign of the cross that we find them so disposed when blessing the
people with the Dikerion and Trikerion.
And more Orthodox:
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS
The sign of the Cross has been used by the Christians since the time of the Apostles. It is a pious act,
which the Orthodox Christians make in the following manner; The thumb, the index and the middle finger
of the right hand are joined together, while the remaining two fingers are bent and touching the palm of
the hand. At first, the forehead is touched, then the breast. then the right shoulder and finally the left
shoulder. Besides the impression which the sign of the Cross makes on the senses, it reminds us of its
spiritual meanings. The three fingers joined together symbolise the Oneness of God in the three Persons
of the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The two fingers, bent to the palm of the hand, signify
the union of the two natures in Christ, the Divine and the Human The touch of the forehead signifies that
God is in our head (in our mind), the touch of the breast signifies that God is in our heart (in our
feelings), the touch of the shoulders signifies that God is in our limbs, directing them as He wills. In other
words, by the sign of the Cross we dedicate to the service of God all the power of our mind, heart, and
soul. We are led to this service of God by means of the sign of the Cross, because it reminds us of
Christ's death on the Cross, to which "God gave His only-begotten Son" out of His love to the world
(John 3:16). The sign of the Cross on our bodies is also a prayer for God's blessing upon ourselves and
others. It has often proved a protection against evil, whether in ones inner thoughts or outward actions,
when made in true faith in its power. Therefore, we rightly make it when we start and close our prayers;
when we enter a Church; when we kiss the Icons of the Saints;when the name of the Persons of the
Holy Trinity, the name at the Virgin Mary, and of the Saints are pronounced during the Services; when
sacred instances occur during the Divine Liturgy; when we start and finish our meals; and on many other
occasions. Its frequent repetition, when we are mindful of its significance, can become to us a source
and fountain of every blessing.
I hope is not too much and eficient.
Stefan
-- posted by StefanC
» Basil - Good references on the Sign - I've always considered it unfortun
Good references on the Sign - I've always considered it unfortunate that the older practice fell into disuse in the West.Those interested in art and iconography will also notice that the ICXC hand postition is used in images of the Pantocrator and the Trinity gesture is also seen in many images of saints, etc.
Ritual is catechetical - it is unfortunate that so much of Christian liturgy and ritual in the West has become watered down drivel. Another reason closer contact and influence from the East is needed.
As to the IC - if I understand correctly, the Orthodox do not believe in Original Sin to begin with, which is what Catholicism believes Mary was preserved from. I also recall the Orthodox believe that Mary was sinless. I have several Orthodox authored books on the subject of Mary, I'll have to double check, but I am interested in what you can provide.
Tertullian (A.D. 200) alludes to
it in his De Corona Militis, cap. III.,
Thanks for this source - I think there are a number of other rituals described by Tertullian, including an outline of the Divine Liturgy/Mass.
Raymond St. George
-- posted by Basil
» StefanC - Stefan Crisbasan Raymond, I hope the begining of classes
Stefan Crisbasan
Raymond,
I hope the begining of classes are going well for you.
I also recall the Orthodox believe that Mary was sinless
Mary was sinless at the time of conception of Jesus Christ, at the Announciation.
A most mystical economy of courtship came to pass as regards the Virgin, a strange greeting
surpassing speech which the Archangel, descended from above, addressed to her, and disclosures
and salutations from God which overturn the condemnation of Eve and Adam and remedy the curse
laid on them, transforming it into a blessing. . . . The Word of God took up His dwelling in the
Theotokos in an inexpressible manner and proceeded from her, bearing flesh. This is the encomium
which transcends nature and the surpassingly glorious glory of the Ever-Virgin. . . . She was also
rightly glorified and exalted together with Him. .
Stefan
-- posted by StefanC
» Basil - <i>Mary was sinless at the time of conception of Jesus Christ, a
Mary was sinless at the time of conception of Jesus Christ, at theAnnounciation.
Does that mean she had not sinned to that point in her life, or that she was purified of actual sin at the Annunciation? I would guess that she would certianly be seen as free from sin in her subsequent life - yes?
Like I said, I need to brush up on some of the Orthodox position on this, and cannot seem to find the book I'm looking for at the moment. I am interested in what you can tell me on these point - then I have a question (related) about the Dormition.
Raymond St. George
-- posted by Basil
» StefanC - Stefan Crisbasan Raymond, The Virgin Mary, having given He
Stefan CrisbasanRaymond,
The Virgin Mary, having given Herself entirely up to God, even though She repulsed from herself
every impulse to sin, still felt the weakness of human nature more powerfully than others and
ardently desired the coming of the Saviour. In Her humility She considered Herself unworthy to be
even the servant-girl of the Virgin Who was to give Him birth. So that nothing might distract Her
from prayer and heedfulness to Herself, Mary gave to God a vow not to become married, in order
to please only Him Her whole life long. Being betrothed to the elderly Joseph when Her age no
longer allowed Her to remain in the Temple, She settled in his house in Nazareth. Here the Virgin
was vouchsafed the coming of the Archangel Gabriel who brought Her the good tidings of the birth
from Her of the Son of the Most High. Hail, Thou that art full of grace, the Lord is with Thee.
Blessed an Thou among women ... The Holy Spirit shall come upon Thee and the power of the
Most High shall overshadow Thee: wherefore also that which is to be born shall be holy and shall be
called the Son of God (Luke 1:28-35).
Mary received the angelic good tidings humbly and submissively. "Then the Word, in a way known
to Himself, descended and, as He Himself willed, came and entered into Mary and abode in Her"
(St. Ephraim the Syrian, "Praise of the Mother of God"). "As lightning illuminates what is hidden, so
also Christ purifies what is hidden in the nature of things. He purified the Virgin also and then was
born, so as to show that where Christ is, there is manifest purity in all its power. He purified the
Virgin, having prepared Her by the Holy Spirit, and then the womb, having become pure, conceived
Him. He purified the Virgin while She was inviolate; wherefore, having been born, He left Her virgin.
I do not say that Mary became immortal, but that being illuminated by grace, She was not disturbed
by sinful desires" (St. Ephraim the Syrian, Homily Against Heretics, 41). The Light abode in Her,
cleansed Her mind, made Her thoughts pure, made chaste Her concerns, sanctified Her virginity"
(St.Ephraim the Syrian, "Mary and Eve") "Once who was pure according to human understanding,
He made pure by grace" (Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, "Exposition of the Teaching of the
Orthodox Church on the Mother of God").
Please see also this Orthodox site about the Mother of God.
Stefan
-- posted by StefanC
» StefanC - Because of the fact that at Suite101 Religion section is a gener
Because of the fact that at Suite101 Religion section is a general "Spirituality" topic that covers areas of my topic I find redundant and unnecessary to write anything about Orthodox Christianity at Suite101.I cancel my commitement as Contributing Editor for Orthodox Christianity topic as a protest to the lack of understanding and consideration from the managers of this section and company.
-- posted by StefanC
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.