| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Aristokles
Average Member
USA
931 Posts |
 Posted - 03/05/2010 : 13:33:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by southgent
My response was not out a spirit of hate or condemnation,any misunderstanding of which is in the eyes of the reader,my main response of the above statement comes from the post implied feelings of 'shutter" when one hears of the word "charismatic"
And, my friend, this response to me gives me no better feelings. My opinion stands as posted. |
 |
|
|
southgent
Starting Member
8 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2010 : 15:21:22
|
| You have to work out your own understanding as well as your own salvation,different words mean different things to some people.Good luck and God bless |
|
|
|
macacic
Moderator
USA
1968 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2010 : 15:31:14
|
| Southgent, you may find it easy to blame the reader for perceiving harshness in your words, but that might indicate that some additional reflection on your part is required. |
|
|
|
southgent
Starting Member
8 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2010 : 15:34:54
|
| @mainecooncrazy:There is certainly nothing wrong when teaching about the saints,as long as the result is their example in inspiring you to Christ.I've just had the experience on a number of occasions of hearing their struggles and cross bearing life ( as impressive and inspiring as it is)in the end hear nothing or very little about the One they where sacrificing it for.Not to be to nitt picking here,I just thinks we have to keep a proper balance between a good example and the One example. |
|
|
|
southgent
Starting Member
8 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2010 : 15:54:25
|
| @ macarac,That maybe true,perhaps I could have framed if different but I cant control someones personal interpretation until Im able to explain my definition of it if that person has a different perception from my intent...Im not inviting any strife here,but one should be open to a different understanding of a word or phrase if in this case where speaking of man ( a priest,Orthodox in good standing)that's written several books on the subject and opinions made with out reading them yourself.Haven't you had to explain the veneration of Icons to protestants or the difference between Catholic and Orthodox to people who have already had their mind made up before you finished explain your or the Churches point of view. |
|
|
|
macacic
Moderator
USA
1968 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2010 : 16:14:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by southgent
@ macarac,That maybe true,perhaps I could have framed if different but I cant control someones personal interpretation until Im able to explain my definition of it if that person has a different perception from my intent...
This is a common problem with Internet posting; people perceive an intent where we intended none.
My point is that it is always easier to blame the error on them than it is to examine our own words more carefully. |
|
|
|
Doxa
Starting Member
1 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2010 : 05:45:38
|
| Why some orthodox stick to the past and think that any new approach to orthodoxy is heressy? Fr Stefanou conveys a new " un-fatherly" message for people fed up with what is "canonic" and what is not.Why a minister has to be canonical to have an elightement? Are we so naive to accept the blasthemy that God`s Spirit has spoken only to the fathers a long time ago and now is resting comfortably in the thought that they have secured our salvation? I honestly believe and hope that even in our turbulent times Pentecost is manifesting itself in new ways and revelations both within and outside the "canonical" church.Thank God that the Holy Spirit is still at large and free and blessing us in xenois rimasi, xenois dogmasi, xenois didagmasi, tis Ayias Triados. |
Edited by - Doxa on 03/06/2010 06:21:06 |
|
|
|
alexey
Junior Member
Russia
104 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 13:48:05
|
| When there is lack of saints, people tend to invent them by themselves. True Saint has explicit roots in the apostolic-patristic tradition. He does not speak or write anything out of his own "original approach" and he is always filled with quotations from the Scripture and the Fathers. Orthodoxy has an undisputed criterion of its truth, namely "concensus patrum". And another one principle is that we believe in what everyone believed in at all times and everywhere. |
Edited by - alexey on 04/09/2010 18:09:39 |
|
|
|
GretchenX
Starting Member
USA
12 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2010 : 10:24:04
|
Words like "saved", "personal relationship" and "charismatic" always makes me think of the horrors I saw in evangelical fundamentalism. I mean, we don't worship God because we want to get saved, we do it because He's God.
On the other hand, to someone without a convert's baggage, it's probably not the same to cradle Orthodox.
No, reading the Fathers isn't the same as reading your Bible. But reading the Fathers helps me understand my Bible better. |
|
|
|
alexey
Junior Member
Russia
104 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 18:10:17
|
| "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; And they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables." (2Tim 4:3,4) |
|
|
|
katherine2001
Starting Member
USA
9 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 22:05:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by southgent
I have noticed this as well,going to many orthodox churches over the years,their where times when I heard 90% of the sermon was about the Saint and 10% was actually about Christ.Can you imagine what that Saint must have been feeling?Father Eusebius stands his ground and lives by the motto:"There is no substitute for going all the way with Christ" He went all they way for you.
Maybe you've been going to the wrong parishes. In every parish I've been in, the sermon has been 100% about the Gospel reading for the day and totally about Christ. Also, in every parish I've attended, people have been encouraged to pray all the time and to read the Scriptures. |
|
|
|
Filofei
Starting Member
8 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2010 : 04:51:42
|
| As a cradle Orthodox Christian,I've experienced for the most part an abstract and overtly church-centered approach to God. Of course the Church is the channel of salvation and the ultimate defender of truth.I've heard it a million times. However, Her identity in relation to Christ rather than Her functions I did not hear frequently in our Church.What is wrong with emphasis on "personal relationship"? An intimate union with Christ was the very essence of St. Symeon's mystical experience. I'm very cautious in adopting such Protestant traditions as altar calls and public confession as the effective measures to forge personal relationship with Christ as Fr. Eusebius promotes. Be that as it may, I credit Fr. Eusebius, in spite of his controversial views on salvation, eschatology, and church history, for his emphasis on the person of Christ in the Orthodox Church. How often I came away with a huge disappointment after countless confessions in which I was told merely to struggle without any mention of Christ's empowerment, which can be activated. I had to go to a confession to a priest at a Uniate church to have been assured of Christ's real,imminent power within me.As for the sermons at my ROCOR church, they're all centered on obedience to the Church and the profundity of patristic writings.I've been to other more progressive,modernist jurisdictions but my experience was not different.Of course the Church and Christ are not at odds with each other;the rich tradition of patristic theology and Christ are not at odds with each other. Yet they are not synonymous with each other either. The purpose of the Church and Her Holy tradition is to glorify Our Lord Jesus Christ.If the Church enthusiastically boasts Her triumphalism and exemplary members, why not invest an equal amount of time and effort in boasting Her founder Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? |
|
|
|
chrevbel
New Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2010 : 15:57:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Filofei
What is wrong with emphasis on "personal relationship"?
There's certainly nothing wrong with the existence of a personal relationship. That's quite good. But what's wrong with an emphasis on personal relationship is that Christ never said "be my buddy".
Personal relationships are two-way in nature. When we have close friendships, we change each other over time. We develop. We grow.
But Christ needs neither to develop or grow. So when we focus so much of our energy on cultivating a personal relationship with him, what happens is that we change him (at least in our own view). He becomes the Christ we want him to be -- our buddy J.C. with whom we can just hang out and do our thang.
What should really happen is the opposite. His presence should change us, and allow us to become what he wants us to be.
quote:
If the Church enthusiastically boasts Her triumphalism and exemplary members, why not invest an equal amount of time and effort in boasting Her founder Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?
I guess I didn't realize that we didn't. How do you mean? |
|
|
|
Filofei
Starting Member
8 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2010 : 01:29:04
|
But what's wrong with an emphasis on personal relationship is that Christ never said "be my buddy".
If emphasis on personal relationship generates an error of disrespect and casual attitude toward God, as your argument goes, then we must stress impersonal relationship instead. Impersonal relationship in which we never get to know God on an intimate level.
Personal relationships are two-way in nature. When we have close friendships, we change each other over time. We develop. We grow.
According to this logic, a personal relationship between two individuals with sharply different levels of intelligence, education, or maturity should be impossible for one has to grow and develop while the other has no need to. Then let us say no to personal relationship with our parents.
But Christ needs neither to develop or grow. So when we focus so much of our energy on cultivating a personal relationship with him, what happens is that we change him (at least in our own view). He becomes the Christ we want him to be -- our buddy J.C. with whom we can just hang out and do our thang.
I don’t know of any Orthodox teaching that prohibits experiential knowledge of God. Our knowledge of God must be acquired through empirical reasoning as well as personal experience through the teachings of the Church. What is the purpose of your use of the “buddy” metaphor? Perhaps in your involvement with the previous church, you were traumatized with such abuse but you should not naturally assume that a person who is well grounded in Orthodox theology as a cradle Orthodox Christian will indiscriminately employ suspicious and problematic un-Orthodox approach. Never in my post did I refer to Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as J.C. Sir. Please let go of your Protestant baggage.
What should really happen is the opposite. His presence should change us, and allow us to become what he wants us to be.
I agree. I merely mentioned the need for personal relationship with Christ and you conjure up Protestant imageries and false notions. We must be transformed by His presence, which we must be able to experience. My point is this. The Church should reexamine its approach in laity education. I’ve been told throughout my life to go to liturgy, confess, and receive communion. While growing up, no one not even the priest mentioned a single word about the relevance of the Church tradition in relation to Our Lord and Saviour. It was naturally assumed that people knew it all or that mere church membership/attendance should suffice for piety. I had to abide by the given instructions because they were transmitted through the true Church. Nobody told me why we were the true Church or why Christ was present in the sacraments of confession and communion. As I grew older, things didn’t change much for all I’ve been told in confession was merely to “struggle.” Perhaps your experience was far more different from mine because you are a convert, if my assumption is correct, to Orthodoxy coming from the rich background of Sunday school and Bible study. Let me share with you. To us cradle Orthodox Christians, Christian children education was non-existent. Instead of Bible, we learned to speak Russian; when some of our parents requested Bible study materials to priests, they were often criticized for introducing Protestant influence; instead, they were told to bring their children to church services regularly. Results? By the time they reach 18, they leave the church. Please don’t speak of your conversion experience as a norm in the Orthodox Church.
If the Church enthusiastically boasts Her triumphalism and exemplary members, why not invest an equal amount of time and effort in boasting Her founder Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?
I guess I didn't realize that we didn't. How do you mean?
I’ll be more than happy send you a book of sermons by a priest who incessantly speaks about the triumphs of Orthodoxy with little mention of Christ. You can see it for yourself
|
|
|
|
macacic
Moderator
USA
1968 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2010 : 10:31:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Filofei
Our knowledge of God must be acquired through empirical reasoning as well as personal experience through the teachings of the Church.
I certainly agree with the second part of this statement, but I must question the first part about "empirical reasoning." While reason can add to one's faith, it can also lead one astray, as in the many innovations to the Christian faith that we see outside of the Church that are supposedly driven by "reason."
I don't believe that empirical reasoning is a requirement in coming to know God. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
St Symeon Brotherhood - Fr Eusebius Stephanou
