Elsewhere on the Orthodox Web...

[Anastasios]

Joe,

Why are you trying to stir up North-South hatred? What does Yankee have to do with the seminary where there are people from all over the world? HUH??

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

The subject of pagan idols in ones home is a very important one.

Obviously there are those who are scandalized at the thought of having them and well as those who are scandalized at being considered a pagan sympathizer.

Perhaps this could be a good thread in a few weeks?

Anastasios,

You said: "...since it was the Orthodox practice for 600 years. And divorced men becoming priests? That happens all the time, even in ROCOR."

Now of the divorced priests I know of in the ROCOR (one was divorced 4 times!), they are not considered divorced at all because the marriages were heretic mariages. How can one be Married in the Latin "church"? Therefore, it is part of that persons life before he becomes "dead" to it and becomes a member of the Church and Baptised into Christ.

But Bishops being married for 600 years seems a bit much. Now I am well aware of the Apostles and other exceptions, but you seem to imply a usual practice among Bishops for a quarter of the life of the Church on Earth. Could I ask what your sources are for this? I am always learning new things and this is the equivelant of a tabloid headline! And if true, a very interesting piece of information.

[Mor Ephrem]

Its run by 2 Roman Catholic Uniates and a break-away Monophysite church member.

Anastasios has answered for himself, Bobby, and Nicholas and David. I am curious about myself, though. I'm a "break-away" Monophysite church member? I can understand why you might call me a Monophysite (obviously, as an Orthodox Christian, I disagree with your conclusion, and think that, unless you have studied our Liturgies and prayers, our fathers, our theology, and prove to me from those sources, and from the fathers preceding Chalcedon that our Christology, that of Saint Cyril, is heretical, you are simply ignorant on the subject and not worth taking seriously on theological matters), but I don't get the "break-away" part. Care to explain?

[Joe Zollars]

Anastasios:

I ain't trying to stir up North-South hatred. Granted I am very Pro-Confederacy, Pro-recession (in fact I'd fight for the south if need be), and staunchly pro-southron culture, but I ain't trying to stir up no hatred. We all ready hate the yankees. Just kidding.

If St. Vlad's is located in a yankee state (and it is) than in my book its yankee.

on another note, strange that Strom Thurmond died on the same day that the Supreme Court overturned Texas' anti sodomy law, effectively making homosexual activity legal anywhere in the country. You think he might have died from shock?

and finally there are three things one must remember:

Deo Vindice (the motto of the South-Latin for To God be Vengence)
God Bless the CSA
and most importantly:

Remember Vicksburg

Joe Zollars

[Julianna]

I am TRULY happy you are giving up listening to evil music! I am sure God is too!

Why're 2-D idols okay to you but 3-D aren't?

But I love it when the heterodox call me non-Orthodox. It gives me the giggles. Tell us about this Orthodox spiritual father. Is he "World Orthodox"? Will you?

[bogoliubtsy]

I NEVER said Sergianism was objectively good; I said I was glad that good came out of the Church kissing soviet butt so that churches could stay open, that's it. And I only came to that conclusion after reading Pospielovsky who showed that the Church's condition improved somewhat after Sergius made the concessions (that St. Tikhon started anyway)

St. Tikhon's concessions were only given to keep bishops alive who were literally and imminently being threatened with death. To imply(which it seems like you are, and correct me if you're not) that the concessions of Sergius were just a logical continuation of those St. Tikhon issued is absolutely absurd. The motives and actions of the Martyr Patriarch Tikhon and those of Patriarch Sergius should not, and cannot be placed on the same level. St. Tikhon looked to give concessions to solve an immediate problem, and ended up giving his very life when concessions and the Truth couldn't find a meeting place any longer. Thousands of New Martyrs died for not making these concessions to "keep the churches open". Did their deaths serve a purpose, or were they in vain?
I cast no judgement upon those who couldn't live and die as the new Russian Martyrs did, because I don't know how well I would have held up under the circumstances. However, please don't dishoner those who
could hold to the fullness of the truth until death by suggesting that the concessions of Sergius were a continuation of St. Tikhon's, or that "kissing soviet butt" should find equal merit alongside martyrdom for non-compliance.

[Justin Kissel]

I always let myself get pulled into posting! Gah! I hate this >:-( But some of this stuff is just too much for me (from numerous sides).

Julianna

I think you are being unfair in a number of points, and I'm curious as to where you got all this information. To me--and forgive me for judging, please--it seems pieced together from what you've heard "through the grapevine," with only a very little actual observation yourself. I say this because, while you make the charges, you seem to rarely understand the context in which the discussion was being discussed in, what tone the discussion had, and even (in some cases) what the eventually conclusions were. Some of the discussions happened after I stopped actively participating over at OC.net for a while, about which I can obviously say little (ie. I didn't see the discussions myself, so I'm not going to try and talk about those who discussed). Other discussions I was following all along though. Still other things I'd just like to make a few comments about generally, apart from whatever anyone at OC.net might have said about the subject.

At another so-called Orthodox Christian site I was recently PM'd about, lately there've been some posts that're rather disturbing.

From a traditionalist perspective, there have always been posts at OC.net that were somewhat disturbing. I'm sure the same holds true when certain people read over the Cafe forum. I might find some things said over there "disturbing" from time to time, but the overwhelming majority of people there seem to be good, truth-seeking people. Most of them are Orthodox, and I don't doubt their orthodoxy.

(Btw, since I won't be posting on on other threads--or this one after this post--I want to say something about the anathema of 1983 recently brought up. I'm curious as to why the end was hightlighted, when it is the first part which describes what form of ecumenism is being anathematized. It's things like the branch theory and so forth, not simple participation in the Ecumenical movement, that is condemned. Saying otherwise is purely an anachronistic (or eisegetical) interpretation/reading of the anathema.)

One's where an administrator's for having pagan Hindu idols in one's home! An administrator actually says that demons have no power, so there's no harm in listinging to prayers to demons like Shiva! In fact he does it!!!

I didn't see the discussion, so I can't comment. I'm a conservative/traditionalist/rigorist/call-me-whatever-you-want, so I tend to take a conservative stance on stuff like that. Perhaps he is doing the opposite and exercizing his freedom in Christ. He has responsibilities to make sure that he, and those around him, are not effected by exercizing that freedom, but it's not my place to judge whether he's acting correctly. If you have a concern, perhaps you should email him and ask him to discuss this with his spiritual father.

Of course none of the administrators are even Eastern Orthodox Christians either. Yet they're sharing their opinions on what Orthodoxy should be.

A couple of the admins are Orthodox, and the great majority of posters are Orthodox.

Again, an administrator says that people should be brought into Orthodox by a simple profession of faith, not by Baptism or any other mystery!

A position I disagree strongly with, but it's a question of practice, not something to make a "federal case" over. If saints were ok with such economia, I'm not sure why we get our britches in a bunch.

Oh yeah, I remember why, because we have been handed the Russian/Greek rigorist mindset, which emphasises such things. Not that there's anything wrong with that, IF it is understood that it is not universal practice, but only the practice/tendencies of a local Church, and that other Churches are free to disagree. Unfortunately, most traditionalists take this rigorist mindset as "Gospel Truth". If the 4th century monks that are talked about in St. John Cassian and the Lives of the Desert Fathers were here today, traditionalists would attack them for things such as daring to sit down during the service. When asked what he did if a monk beside him fell asleep (while they were sitting), the abba replied that he'd put his head on him so he could rest! Lax modernist 4th century Egyptian ascetics anyway!

The point of that whole quasi-up-on-a-soapbox paragraph was that we too often take things that should be Choice, and make it a hard and fast rule. It gets to the point where Orthodoxy is no longer a living faith, but only a lived faith. It's no longer an organic body, but becomes merely a body going through the motions/mechanics given to us in our instruction books.

Again, I support the baptism of those entering Orthodoxy from outside the Church. However, to insist that this is the only way, and to bring it up as a point as though it's "disturbing" (with exclamation point and all) is, in my mind, the thing that is disturbing.

These people seem to want Orthodoxy on their terms not on the Church's terms!

Yes. Indeed. I just read a passage yesterday in which St. John Chrysostom said that most of the Priests were not going to be saved. PRIESTS. Most people want Orthodoxy "on their own terms," it's sad but true (and I look at myself in this as well). Yet, to take your own beliefs and the practices of your Church, and to imprint them onto someone else, that is not your job. As Saint Ignatius (Brianchaninov) said about those who judge the actions of others (to paraphrase from memory, it's been a while since I read The Arena: "They think they are imitating the Apostles, but they have no clue what they are doing. The Apostles judged others only when led by the spirit, and then only with deep repentance and sadness. These people act like fallen men (I think he used the word "animals," albeit in a sense that wouldn't come acorss well today), though, judging their neighbor regarding the way they act, as though this was something they were appointed to do."

The same administrator said Sergianism was good,

As I recall, he said it was good, and then clarified what he meant by that. I disagree totally with what he said, including his clarifications, but they way you say it totally misrepresents what he said.

wants divorced priests, married bishops, etc.

And you lovingly showed him why this is not possible from a traditionalist standpoint, right? Huh? Oh, you skipped that correction part? Interesting.

Joe

but I ain't trying to stir up no hatred.

It's hard not to think there is something more when one sees this double negative. A slip up, yes, but a grammatical slip, or a freudian slip?

If St. Vlad's is located in a yankee state (and it is) than in my book its yankee.

And in the eyes of everyone outside the U.S. we're all "yankee". But thanks, I have no problem being called a yankee (though I support a less federalized system of government, akin to what the south wanted... though I would prefer such a government because of issues such as abortion).

Remember Vicksburg

I see you've found your new passion for a few months. You will return. At least, I hope that at some point you will feel like you must return.

Justin

PS. I probably won't be returning to here for a while... the temptation to post is just too much. God Bless, you are all in my prayers. Please remember this sinner in yours.