Points of disrespect: 1. Disrespecting the Altar - There was no altar involved in the skit. That small room is a side deacons room used for confessions which females are allowed to enter as well. It would be very disrespectful if we used the altar for this sort of film. 2. Clothing - There was no liturgical service, it was a youth meeting. I'm sure you are allowed to wear shorts to a youth meeting. I agree that it would be disrespectful to wear inappropriate clothing to liturgical church services. 3. Laughing - His Holiness Pope Shenouda makes funny remarks in his sermons all the time and the crowd laughs. Laughing in church is not always disrespectful only in church services. 4. Sci-fi - Sci-fi is not evil. Read Fr Antonios blog and you will understand.
I hope this clarifies any confusion that has been discussed in this forum.
As for any personal insults.. I think we all, me being the first, need to practice using our tongue and keyboard wisely.
"And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire." Matthew 5:22 "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." Matthew 12:37 "Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers." Ephesians 4:29
God Bless you all and please keep me in your prayers
billious, don't even try to prove there wasn't anything bad or disrespectful. It was extremely disrespectful to do in the church. Even though some people may have said strong words about it in this thread(insulting / namecalling), it doesn't make it right. You know that it was bad. It is God's house. You don't go in there and just laugh.
When Pope Shenouda makes jokes in the church it is relating to the topic he is talking about and not some "curtain opener" that checks if you are a priest. As a matter of fact, if the coptic church has something like this in 50 years then i will be utterly ashamed. We don't need technology in our liturgies. We will celebrate the Holy Mass as it is supposed to since the beginning. We will not change.
I believe LifeInDeath is trying to imply that some of the posters in this thread have pride issues and are trying to veil them by pointing out the mistakes of others by calling the video disrespectful.
Once a brother had been caught in a particular sin, and the abbot of the monastery asked St. Moses to join council that would convict the monk. He reluctantly came to the council, carrying on his back a leaking bag of sand. Seeing this strange scene, the brothers asked him the significance of it. He simply said, "This sand is my sins which are trailing out behind me, while I go to judge the sins of another." At such a reply the brothers forgave the offender and decided to focus on their own salvation rather than their brother’s sins.
Don't be silly TITL. Most of the posts on this thread were not a defense of the church. It was an attack on the video and the people who made the video. There was little reasoning as to why the video was against Orthodoxy; most of the content was on how stupid it was.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=6443.msg134906#msg134906 date=1301626268] Don't be silly TITL. Most of the posts on this thread were not a defense of the church. It was an attack on the video and the people who made the video. There was little reasoning as to why the video was against Orthodoxy; most of the content was on how stupid it was.
On how stupid it was to do in front of the altar. I like some of their ideas and I have nothing against them. They are my brothers and sisters, but when someone does something wrong it is our duty to inform them, not just let them go because i am to busy being "humble" and they will soon do worse things.
[quote author=geomike link=topic=6443.msg134907#msg134907 date=1301627216] [quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=6443.msg134906#msg134906 date=1301626268] Don't be silly TITL. Most of the posts on this thread were not a defense of the church. It was an attack on the video and the people who made the video. There was little reasoning as to why the video was against Orthodoxy; most of the content was on how stupid it was.
On how stupid it was to do in front of the altar. I like some of their ideas and I have nothing against them. They are my brothers and sisters, but when someone does something wrong it is our duty to inform them, not just let them go because i am to busy being "humble" and they will soon do worse things.
Please make an effort to read the things I have posted and meditate on them.
All of the altars we have are symbols for the living altars where God lives - which is us!
The walking altars where the body and blood of the Lord lives as opposed to the altar in Church which is only used to consecrate them for the sake of the living altars which are sanctified by them.
These earthly altars will be destroyed and these living heavenly altars will persist forever.
The symbol of the burning bush which inspires us to take off our shoes is also a symbol of the Virgin Mary - another living altar.
Since we are so insistent on defending the altar shouldn't we reverence the most important living ones rather than the one with no will that serves only as a symbol of the ones which will live forever?
I think we may be a little too overzealous here. I don't think it should take 5 pages to reproach these wonderful youth. They obviously saw no wrong in what they were doing and if you reproach them in the correct way there will be no problems. I definitely disagree about this being worse than approaching the Eucharist without repentance. That is a very serious matter, and can bring condemnation on our heads if we do not repent of it.
You could have said: "I don't think that this conduct is correct in church" and it would be done. We are so concerned over this little sin that we may have committed a sin much greater. Before we reproach our brother we must stop to remove the plank in our own eye, and once we have done that, we can then remove the speck from their eye.
May God have mercy upon us all and may we all have a blessed lent. Please pray for me.
[quote author=geomike link=topic=6443.msg134907#msg134907 date=1301627216] [quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=6443.msg134906#msg134906 date=1301626268] Don't be silly TITL. Most of the posts on this thread were not a defense of the church. It was an attack on the video and the people who made the video. There was little reasoning as to why the video was against Orthodoxy; most of the content was on how stupid it was.
On how stupid it was to do in front of the altar. I like some of their ideas and I have nothing against them. They are my brothers and sisters, but when someone does something wrong it is our duty to inform them, not just let them go because i am to busy being "humble" and they will soon do worse things.
Hi Brother,
I think you may have missed the point of the story from the life of St Moses, he wasn't trying to be outwardly humble, he genuinely felt that he simply didn't have the spiritual capacity to critique the behaviour of his brother while he was sinning so frequently and much of the time he was completely oblivious to both the frequency or nature of these hidden sins.
It is also noteworthy that there is no mention of the seriousness of the sin because whatever the sin was committed by this monk, St Moses believed that his hidden sins was no less grievous - just because didn't know that they were there was no excuse. We may not know the difference but God certainly does and He judge us accordingly on that fearful day.
The fathers of the Church would fight to defend DOCTRINE not against personal sins, i.e. things that demonstrated corrupted teaching such as the ideas of Arius, Nestorius, etc. There is no heresy being taught here so this should in no way be viewed as any necessary defence of the Church because no one is attacking the integrity of the Church.
This is explained beautifully by another story about Abba Agathon from the desert fathers:
It was said concerning Abba Agathon that some monks came to find him having heard tell of his great discernment. Wanting to see if he would lose his temper they said to him 'Aren't you that Agathon who is said to be a fornicator and a proud man?' 'Yes, it is very true,' he answered. They resumed, 'Aren't you that Agothon who is always talking nonsense?' 'I am." Again they said 'Aren't you Agothon the heretic?' But at that he replied 'I am not a heretic.' So they asked him, 'Tell us why you accepted everything we cast you, but repudiated this last insult.' He replied 'The first accusations I take to myself for that is good for my soul. But heresy is separation from God. Now I have no wish to be separated from God.' At this saying they were astonished at his discernment and returned, edified.
Just as a side note, and also tying in the issue of using the Church proper for presentations, plays, and singing. These activities should be relegated to a Church Hall. The priests are forced into this situation of doing these activities in the Church because they don't have a Church Hall.
Why would a church be lacking a Hall? People are not fulfilling their financial obligations to the Church? No tithes...no hall. No tithes...no resources to teach youth No tithes...poor continue to hunger. No tithes... .... and so on.
Although these activities are forced into the Church proper, it is not acceptable to the next step of desecration.
These comments tie in a response to previous mention in this thread and another recent thread concerning tithes. It is all interlaced.
Let's use a little math:
PARISH (in the middle of Anywhere, USA)
200 families, median income of each family $30,000, hence the given parish would have a working budget of $600,000. With these donations a parish can survive: stipend for a priest, church, and hall.
We also know that $30,000 is too low. We also know that people are not giving their tithes.
Please do not use the priests as an excuse. The problem rests specifically in the slothfulness and cheapness of the people towards their church and their God. It is expressive that the adults and the youth do not believe that giving is necessary or to try to feign excuses.
Give to God, and it shall be returned a hundredfold.
Our resources as a people are scarce. There should be no applaud, in any form, or be passive about this type of behavior.
It's funny, the parable of the bridegroom and wedding was conveniently left out with all of the different examples. The bridegroom accepted people from the street, but later had them cast out because of improper attire in his home. This meant both from the physical appearance and the spiritual presentation.
That is interesting that you bring that parable up. In the gospel according to St. Luke the scene with the man who is not properly dressed is not found.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=6443.msg134957#msg134957 date=1301683136] That is interesting that you bring that parable up. In the gospel according to St. Luke the scene with the man who is not properly dressed is not found.
That parable is in one of the accounts of the Gospel. I know for a fact because our priest mentioned it in a sermon recently. The Gospel according to St. Luke is not the only account with parables in it. It certainly has the most but not the only one.
[quote author=GODlovesme link=topic=6443.msg134963#msg134963 date=1301684901] [quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=6443.msg134957#msg134957 date=1301683136] That is interesting that you bring that parable up. In the gospel according to St. Luke the scene with the man who is not properly dressed is not found.
That parable is in one of the accounts of the Gospel. I know for a fact because our priest mentioned it in a sermon recently. The Gospel according to St. Luke is not the only account with parables in it. It certainly has the most but not the only one.
When I wrote: "In the gospel according to St. Luke the scene with the man who is not properly dressed is not found." That is to imply that it is found in another gospel, namely that of St. Matthew, but the ending is different than that of Luke.
I am not sure if you misunderstood me or are adding something new. Can you clarify what you are saying?
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=6443.msg134948#msg134948 date=1301678362] It's funny, the parable of the bridegroom and wedding was conveniently left out with all of the different examples. The bridegroom accepted people from the street, but later had them cast out because of improper attire in his home. This meant both from the physical appearance and the spiritual presentation.
Can you please elaborate more brother?
I thought that that the story from the life of St Moses about the blindness we have of our own sins was a great illustration about the kind of awareness we lack about our own sins and how if we're aware of it would never think to be a judge of others. This parable actually inspires us to truly correct each other because if we recognise that much of our sin is hidden from us it means that our brothers can see our sins while we cannot. The point is that we're all sinners and we must correct one another in humility and love appreciating that we cannot objectively judge our own sinfulness or the sinfulness of others.
Being in a state of sin means our ability to see is distorted, it is up to us to choose whether or not we choose to admit this like the blind man or deny it and pretend we can see like the Pharisees. We quote from the desert fathers because they fought the good fight and were not found to be at the wedding feast without a wedding garment. As a victory of the good fight St Moses knows what he's talking about unlike us who are babies and mere beginners on this path. He also through expereince knew what is important and needs to be done first, we can choose to create our own interpretations and distort the significance of his message but we do so at our own peril but if we do follow this advice of St Moses we will certainly not be found without a wedding garment.
The only major difference in message between this parable and the one of St Moses is that it is an illustration of people who received the calling but were too preoccupied with earthly cares to even bother attending the wedding, is there something you would like to add?
I appreciate your comments, and certainly agree with the spiritual interpretation--most definitely.
I disagree with you in terms of leaving out the aspects of: discipline, courage, proper attire, dignified speech, edification of the House of God with solemness, desecration, diaconal service, true ministry, etc.
These are also portions of the formulae towards spiritual development.
Utilizing only the model and formula of being passive and only "soft" is only applicable when there is already a discipline in place. Our people quite frequently bring up the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, but they never give the whole impression. The monks and fathers represented, then and now, in the monasteries of Egypt, went through much training and discipline. They sometimes swayed and even made grave mistakes. However, it was the underlying discipline that they were initially trained that was inspired to be resurrected in order to achieve a solution or correction of a given mistake. [Example: St. Pa'esa.] Their overall foundation was in respect for the Will of God.
When a novice begins, he is given hard labor and chores. He is taught to pray and chant. He is diciplined and even given penalties for mistakes. He is given guidance by a spiritual father. He has an ultimate authority in the form of the abbot. He is entrusted with the care of an elderly monk in order to learn discipleship and stewardship. I can go on and on.
The interpretation you give is only a portion. I dare say that these brats did not go through any of these stages from which to be able to reach out in piety for a correction.
I cannot and have no desire to be a policeman on YouTube for some of the most ridiculous videos I have seen in satire of any aspect of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Such sacrilege, desecration, blaspheme, will be answered on this site. It is unacceptable and it is an insult to the Lord. It is an insult to the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Being passive has allowed headway for a youth, such as the one above, [paraphrase] wearing shorts is okay since it was a youth meeting; it was not a liturgical service. I hate to tell the little brat, but it is not okay. It is not okay on Sunday to Saturday, not in a youth meeting, nor in any liturgical service. This is regardless of St. Moses or any other illustrious father from the Paradise that is in the Western Desert.
The little brat also said 'it is just a side room for the deacons'. Every inch of the church proper is holy. Standing in front of the altar is not a big deal? Come on, we are even supposed to walk out of the church backwards so as not to give our back to the altar.
I didn't say that science fiction is evil. I implied that there is an undertow for Scientology, which is a heresy. The devil's entrance into the church is possible in different formats. Sometimes he comes as a persecutor. Sometimes he comes as a deceiver and dilluter. Example: you only have to pray a few seconds, God will love you regardless of what attire, this video is a good way to praise God and bring others to Him, etc. This slothfulness is what is keeping us from really succeeding in the Diaspora. Such emulations of Protestant techniques can only lead for the overall model to take hold in the Orthodox Church more and more. The converts that post on this site, constantly offer the same warnings. I faintfully say: on deaf ears.
I would not put the little brats' satire and pathetic humor in the same realm as a bit of levity by His Holiness Pope Shenouda. I think any representation or equivalence in such an analogy is truly stupid. I would put them in the realm of late night TV comediens.
These types of videos are: blasphemous, stupid, slanderous, non-representative of any aspect of the church, putrid, repulsive, ill-thought, and non-inspiring. In a word: STUPID to make it easy. BTW, I didn't call them idiots or idiotic. Idiot means one who is incapable of evolving ideas. Stupid means one who takes ideas and makes improper decisions with them.
I think passivity can also be equivalent to negligence. Does one leave a 9 year old to bring the censer to Abouna? No, Because of that we have plenty of burn marks in the rug. Does one leave a 5 year old to hold a candle? No, because they burn things with them. Does one leave undisciplined brats to run Sunday Schools and Youth Meetings? No, because they teach their folly and ill-discipline to others and becomes cancerous. One brat wears a ridiculous outfit and the next one copies, the one after that tries to outdo. Have you looked around the exits and vesitbules to realize the state that our Community has reached?
Have you noticed the entrance of Protestantism into the Church because of this passive attitude?
I summarize, your comments are quite well. They are quite correct. However, they are partial, and only a portion of the overall picture. You do a disservice by only looking at that portion. I'm also sorry to say that it is misleading as the only standard and the absolute standard. Our Lord, in dealing with His Disciples, at times was soft, loving, cordial, and other times He: admonishes, sarcastic, disciplining, and tough. Our Lord was organized. 'He made them sit down in groups of fifty', for example. He washed and cleaned. He was baptized to show His humility. I think the multitude of examples show that a narrow approach is only that: NARROW.
I like to tie thing together (as I did with the need for resources). I like the overall picture of how things should be and not just one portion.
I would not like this nonsense to become a common presence on this site. I would also like the admins to remove these blasphemous links.
Your post merited a long reply and I have taken time to consider how to respond. I hope that the Lord in His mercy will grant that what I am about to write on His account is acceptable in His sight.
What I will firstly say is that I fear you have got this all backwards. The altar is holy and commanding of our reverence but it serves a finite and limited use, the purpose of the altar isn't for our perpetual devotion, it is for our sanctification – in a sense the altar is a disposable instrument in God’s eyes for our sake, God will destroy the altar in a heartbeat and the Church with it when the end of making us His living altars is achieved. God gets no pleasure from these altars they cannot please Him, God's concern is for us whose primary service as St Paul describes it is the presentation of our bodies to Him as a pure and acceptable sacrifice - this is human worship! He also says that we are the temples of the Holy Spirit - living temples who share our bodies either with wicked spirit doing horrible deeds or with the Holy Spirit in communion with the Son.
What is the Incense censor? It is a symbol of St Mary – a real person - who really carried the Divine fire! This is not just some Spiritual image or interpretation, its something real because Christ told us that if we do His will we can become His brother, sister and mother, in that sense we're the incense censor too if we follow after the example of Mary as the prime example of believers and we too carry this fire like St Mary did every Sunday! We too can make the same offering like incense, which ascends to heaven, it is not a symbol it’s our spiritual reality if we're obedient to God.
Revelations proves this because the incenses censor presented to God is the prayers of the saints - this is us and our offerings - the incense is only significant because God heeds OUR prayers, His saints or His agion (holies) as we’re described by St Paul and the liturgy. We cannot think of these traditions as being something rigid and static, it is for our illumination and showing us symbolism of what is now a spiritual reality for us! We really have access to God in His Kingdom through the Holy Spirit in the Son and participation of the sacraments.
Incense is a good example because it didn't used to be a consecrated ritual that only the saints perform (I think that this only became the case around the 10th century). A good proof of this in the struggle for St Athanasius and St Alexander's term 'theotokos', when the truth was affirmed by the council St Cyril wrote a letter talking about how young virgins were in the streets celebrating and raising incense in honour of their holy mother. There was an icon uncovered at a monastery recently which had 7 virgins raising incense with the virgin Mary, the monks thought that this was heretical but the icon was only a historical narrative of how the young women were celebrating the defence of this cherished Orthodox term.
We must take these devotions seriously but understanding that they are a car which takes us on a journey not the journey itself.
The purpose of the iconstasis is to depict the mystery of the revelation of God to us. On the outside it has in icons on the right and left the icon of Christ in the arms of the Virgin and during the epiphany, this is because outside the altar God is revealed to us through the incarnation and the visible signs which God which God performed for us while we were still sinners and had not yet received knowledge of God. This is expressed by the icon of Christ in the arms of the virgin as a symbol of the incarnation; the mystery of God becoming man and the epiphany is the revelation of the Holy Trinity to us at Christ’s baptism.
Behind the veil and the iconstasis we approach the resurrected Christ sitting on His throne in no less than the Kingdom of God itself - when Christ said I will not eat and drink of the vine until I share with you anew in the Kingdom, this refers to the heavens of heavens where the bread and wine must be in order to be consecrated and mysteriously transformed into His own body and blood. At the appropriate time in the liturgy, we are no longer on earth, the Church and its congregation have ascended and are now in God's Kingdom, this is real - it is not a symbol or spiritual interpretation.
The Eucharist also transforms us, we pray St John Chrysostom's prayers from the Agpeya we see the change of mind in the prayer before we receive the Eucharist and the one we pray after we have received it - the change of mind is amazing, we approach as sinners asking God not to turn us away as He did when He showed mercy to the women with the flow of blood and in the prayer after we thank and praise Him for the unity He granted us the seal and promise of, this is the joy of joys and celebration of celebrations and is the reason why chant psalm 150 during the distribution of the mysteries. We experience unity with Christ - not by virtue of these symbols, the censor or the altar in and of themselves but because of the useful purpose they have when we as the Church gather together in Christ’s name and pray the liturgy, receive sanctification and are made worthy to receive the mysteries.
The sanctification we receive is not something that we miserable human beings do, it is something, which God does, and it is real. St Peter when he saw the animals descending he was instructed by a voice rise Peter kill and eat and he refused because he thought the animals were unclean when really God has washed, sanctified them and made them holy. It doesn't matter if we are the most miserable and sinful creatures in the Church if God washes and sanctifies us we are clean. It becomes our duty to approach Him with fear and reverence so that we being the unworthy and sinful can be washed, cleansed and it granted to us to have participation in these Holy mysteries because of His great mercy.
The word holy means 'set apart' or 'unlike anything else', according to our human births we are of the earth but when we are baptised and receive in baptism the birth which comes from above we are washed, renewed and sanctified. Our role is in the experience of this unity, to preserve and nurture Christ within us to become the mother of God as Christ said in the Gospels. Good works are the product of our now established unity and washing by God and the realisation of the power of God through the sacraments which is capable of transforming our lives and turning our putrid and evil sins into good works which are a testimony of Him and His suffering and made possible through the power of His life giving cross.
Once we partake of the Eucharist on the eighth day - the day of the resurrection and eternity - our devotion is not limited and should never stop. It is not just I who is now holy but my brother is also holy because He has also eaten from the same body of the Lord. If we do not see that their bodies are now holy then we are denying the reality that God has given to them.
I would like to ask you to be sober about your judgements concerning the attitudes and perspectives of others, it is not right to take themes not related to the topic at hand and making a point of setting them as some kind of disagreement. I was responding to one line in your post, which never contained anything on either monasticism or the 8 virtues they were not in your original post to begin.
I would also like to say that we should see a great unity in scriptures and the desert fathers because of their origin in the Spirit of unity. It would take a very cynical mind to see these things as limited and contradictory, the example and witness of the saints is not something fraught with contradiction unless one is self serving and selective in how they are quoted, which I hope God in His mercy would deliver me from.
We cannot make the Eucharist something solemn only, it is the receiving of eternal life and experiencing the seal and promise of our union with God, and it is the joy of joys and the wonder of wonders. It is also as Christ taught us when the apostles were wearied by people bringing children to Him that they should bring them and not show restraint because their simple hearts are ready for the revelation of God. If Christ sets this example as a trait to be emulate, how can it be right to call them brats and demand that their participation in the service is limited? It is right and just to withhold children from services which they are not suited to but Samuel is an example of a young boy who was raised in the temple and consecrated to God so we must admit that it would be unscriptural to deny children roles serving in the Church. How about St Abanoub or St Kyriakos or any of the other children saints? Christ Himself was a Child and through this He sanctified Childhood and it becomes something Holy which can be lived and experienced by Children in the presence of God as much as God has now transformed it. What do we make of St John the Baptist who was raised by angels in the wilderness or St Mary who was raised in the temple? Is the Icon of Christ in the arms of St Mary the icon of a b-word as you like to call them?
The Eucharist is something bigger than our church devotions because we are really united with Christ, whether we spend time with friends or busy ourselves with study or work we are now doing so while participating in Eucharist. The presence of God isn't limited to when we're in Church, this is only the beginning, it is up to us to remain in God's presence all the time through our participation with Him in physical things like His sacred body and blood and praying continuously without ceasing. In the Eucharist whether we laugh or play or enjoy one another's company we do so in the Lord.
If we are steer our congregations away from Protestantism we will never achieve it by giving them a bunch of symbols, the early church has a very short mass with few symbols but the community was so powerful because they felt that the Kingdom of God had really come to them and they were participating in it through the Son of God Jesus Christ. Protestants have transformed the spiritual life into mere emotionalism and things one ought to know – they don’t realise that God becoming man must be something so significant that it changes human life forever. If we stop giving them symbols and rituals and start showing how the liturgical worship that we pray ever Sunday is the Kingdom of God they will come to the knowledge of the truth because they will see it in us. As Christ said we should say to them – ‘come and see’.
Our brothers and sisters have erred but praise be to God that He will forgive them all inequity if the turn and repent. I would urge you to contact the priest in question rather than castigating these youth, it seems to me that they have done these things under his instruction.
I hate to barge in the middle, but you two aren't fully answering each other's post. Although both sides presented us with several valid points, you (both) only chose to reply to portions of the other's posts.
LID, what is your response to discipling the "brats" (I'm a brat too) and having firm structure in Church. The way you presented your ideas, it sounds like structure in church isn't as important as structure within ourselves, and we shouldn't discipline others because we are not worthy.
ILSM, what is your response to LID's thoughts on symbolism within the Church? Do you think we are steering the Protestants (or even Copts) away by presenting them with a bunch of symbols? Is symbolism insignificant in the Eyes of our Lord?
My favorite quote from the entire thread:
Such emulations of Protestant techniques can only lead for the overall model to take hold in the Orthodox Church more and more. The converts that post on this site, constantly offer the same warnings. I faintfully say: on deaf ears.
Sorry for interrupting this conversation, but I think it's time we get to the point (it's been 5 pages, if you two continued to respond to each other the same way you did before, we'd be looking at another 5 pages).
[quote author=TITL link=topic=6443.msg135257#msg135257 date=1302008076] LID and ILSM,
I hate to barge in the middle, but you two aren't fully answering each other's post. Although both sides presented us with several valid points, you (both) only chose to reply to portions of the other's posts.
LID, what is your response to discipling the "brats" (I'm a brat too) and having firm structure in Church. The way you presented your ideas, it sounds like structure in church isn't as important as structure within ourselves, and we shouldn't discipline others because we are not worthy.
ILSM, what is your response to LID's thoughts on symbolism within the Church? Do you think we are steering the Protestants (or even Copts) away by presenting them with a bunch of symbols? Is symbolism insignificant in the Eyes of our Lord?
My favorite quote from the entire thread:
Such emulations of Protestant techniques can only lead for the overall model to take hold in the Orthodox Church more and more. The converts that post on this site, constantly offer the same warnings. I faintfully say: on deaf ears.
Sorry for interrupting this conversation, but I think it's time we get to the point (it's been 5 pages, if you two continued to respond to each other the same way you did before, we'd be looking at another 5 pages).
Hi TITL,
I don't think that my posts merits consideration - especially if I am giving the impression which you have wrote.
I am not qualified to answer your question but I am certain there are others who are however what I do know is that we must hold fast to the ways and traditions of our fathers who found salvation.
Symbolism is a tool. It is a tool along with others in the Orthodox "tool box".
I don't think we are steering the Protestants away because of symbolism. I believe the steering component is relative to consistency and their perception of apparent hypocrisy.
I hate to belabor the issue concerning this video, but, a Protestant would look upon it as being incongruent with an Orthodox call to the Holiness of the Altar.
The Lord presents us with symbolism such as in the case of parables. I do not think that symbolism has any significance with God for He is Omnipotent and Omniscient.
Whatever symbolism we utilize or experience is to help maintain foundation in belief and reverence for His Holiness [God the Almighty].
Comments
Points of disrespect:
1. Disrespecting the Altar - There was no altar involved in the skit. That small room is a side deacons room used for confessions which females are allowed to enter as well. It would be very disrespectful if we used the altar for this sort of film.
2. Clothing - There was no liturgical service, it was a youth meeting. I'm sure you are allowed to wear shorts to a youth meeting. I agree that it would be disrespectful to wear inappropriate clothing to liturgical church services.
3. Laughing - His Holiness Pope Shenouda makes funny remarks in his sermons all the time and the crowd laughs. Laughing in church is not always disrespectful only in church services.
4. Sci-fi - Sci-fi is not evil. Read Fr Antonios blog and you will understand.
I hope this clarifies any confusion that has been discussed in this forum.
As for any personal insults.. I think we all, me being the first, need to practice using our tongue and keyboard wisely. God Bless you all and please keep me in your prayers
When Pope Shenouda makes jokes in the church it is relating to the topic he is talking about and not some "curtain opener" that checks if you are a priest. As a matter of fact, if the coptic church has something like this in 50 years then i will be utterly ashamed. We don't need technology in our liturgies. We will celebrate the Holy Mass as it is supposed to since the beginning. We will not change.
(geo, not billious)
You've got to be kidding.
That is truly the lamest gathering of unsupported words I have seen structured in a single post.
You just don't get it.
And I think you need to get a little more intellectual as to the ramifications that I specified, and the penalties.
Fr Antionious also has a really good blog on the masks of pride, I think you'd all get great benefit from it:
http://www.frantonios.org.au/2011/01/26/the-many-masks-of-pride/
God bless,
LiD
Hi Guys,
Fr Antionious also has a really good blog on the masks of pride, I think you'd all get great benefit from it:
http://www.frantonios.org.au/2011/01/26/the-many-masks-of-pride/
God bless,
LiD
This is most likely a helpful sermon, but if you don't mind me asking, what does this have to do with this thread?
"The Many Masks of Pride"
Small mistakes lead to big mistakes, which lead to bigger, unsolvable (God forbid), mistakes.
This one has nothing to do with pride.
I agree.
Once a brother had been caught in a particular sin, and the abbot of the monastery asked St. Moses to join council that would convict the monk. He reluctantly came to the council, carrying on his back a leaking bag of sand. Seeing this strange scene, the brothers asked him the significance of it. He simply said, "This sand is my sins which are trailing out behind me, while I go to judge the sins of another." At such a reply the brothers forgave the offender and decided to focus on their own salvation rather than their brother’s sins.
There is a difference between convicting a person of a particular sin and defending our Mother Church.
Making a ridicule in front of the Holy Altar and posting it on the world wide web is crossing the line.
When necessary, we must learn to step up and protect our faith by being firm and loud.
Don't be silly TITL. Most of the posts on this thread were not a defense of the church. It was an attack on the video and the people who made the video. There was little reasoning as to why the video was against Orthodoxy; most of the content was on how stupid it was.
On how stupid it was to do in front of the altar. I like some of their ideas and I have nothing against them. They are my brothers and sisters, but when someone does something wrong it is our duty to inform them, not just let them go because i am to busy being "humble" and they will soon do worse things.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=6443.msg134906#msg134906 date=1301626268]
Don't be silly TITL. Most of the posts on this thread were not a defense of the church. It was an attack on the video and the people who made the video. There was little reasoning as to why the video was against Orthodoxy; most of the content was on how stupid it was.
On how stupid it was to do in front of the altar. I like some of their ideas and I have nothing against them. They are my brothers and sisters, but when someone does something wrong it is our duty to inform them, not just let them go because i am to busy being "humble" and they will soon do worse things.
Please make an effort to read the things I have posted and meditate on them.
All of the altars we have are symbols for the living altars where God lives - which is us!
The walking altars where the body and blood of the Lord lives as opposed to the altar in Church which is only used to consecrate them for the sake of the living altars which are sanctified by them.
These earthly altars will be destroyed and these living heavenly altars will persist forever.
The symbol of the burning bush which inspires us to take off our shoes is also a symbol of the Virgin Mary - another living altar.
Since we are so insistent on defending the altar shouldn't we reverence the most important living ones rather than the one with no will that serves only as a symbol of the ones which will live forever?
You could have said: "I don't think that this conduct is correct in church" and it would be done. We are so concerned over this little sin that we may have committed a sin much greater. Before we reproach our brother we must stop to remove the plank in our own eye, and once we have done that, we can then remove the speck from their eye.
May God have mercy upon us all and may we all have a blessed lent. Please pray for me.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=6443.msg134906#msg134906 date=1301626268]
Don't be silly TITL. Most of the posts on this thread were not a defense of the church. It was an attack on the video and the people who made the video. There was little reasoning as to why the video was against Orthodoxy; most of the content was on how stupid it was.
On how stupid it was to do in front of the altar. I like some of their ideas and I have nothing against them. They are my brothers and sisters, but when someone does something wrong it is our duty to inform them, not just let them go because i am to busy being "humble" and they will soon do worse things.
Hi Brother,
I think you may have missed the point of the story from the life of St Moses, he wasn't trying to be outwardly humble, he genuinely felt that he simply didn't have the spiritual capacity to critique the behaviour of his brother while he was sinning so frequently and much of the time he was completely oblivious to both the frequency or nature of these hidden sins.
It is also noteworthy that there is no mention of the seriousness of the sin because whatever the sin was committed by this monk, St Moses believed that his hidden sins was no less grievous - just because didn't know that they were there was no excuse. We may not know the difference but God certainly does and He judge us accordingly on that fearful day.
The fathers of the Church would fight to defend DOCTRINE not against personal sins, i.e. things that demonstrated corrupted teaching such as the ideas of Arius, Nestorius, etc. There is no heresy being taught here so this should in no way be viewed as any necessary defence of the Church because no one is attacking the integrity of the Church.
This is explained beautifully by another story about Abba Agathon from the desert fathers:
It was said concerning Abba Agathon that some monks came to find him having heard tell of his great discernment. Wanting to see if he would lose his temper they said to him 'Aren't you that Agathon who is said to be a fornicator and a proud man?' 'Yes, it is very true,' he answered. They resumed, 'Aren't you that Agothon who is always talking nonsense?' 'I am." Again they said 'Aren't you Agothon the heretic?' But at that he replied 'I am not a heretic.' So they asked him, 'Tell us why you accepted everything we cast you, but repudiated this last insult.' He replied 'The first accusations I take to myself for that is good for my soul. But heresy is separation from God. Now I have no wish to be separated from God.' At this saying they were astonished at his discernment and returned, edified.
God bless,
LiD
Why would a church be lacking a Hall? People are not fulfilling their financial obligations to the Church?
No tithes...no hall.
No tithes...no resources to teach youth
No tithes...poor continue to hunger.
No tithes... .... and so on.
Although these activities are forced into the Church proper, it is not acceptable to the next step of desecration.
These comments tie in a response to previous mention in this thread and another recent thread concerning tithes. It is all interlaced.
Let's use a little math:
PARISH (in the middle of Anywhere, USA)
200 families, median income of each family $30,000, hence the given parish would have a working budget of $600,000. With these donations a parish can survive: stipend for a priest, church, and hall.
We also know that $30,000 is too low.
We also know that people are not giving their tithes.
Please do not use the priests as an excuse. The problem rests specifically in the slothfulness and cheapness of the people towards their church and their God. It is expressive that the adults and the youth do not believe that giving is necessary or to try to feign excuses.
Give to God, and it shall be returned a hundredfold.
Our resources as a people are scarce. There should be no applaud, in any form, or be passive about this type of behavior.
It's funny, the parable of the bridegroom and wedding was conveniently left out with all of the different examples. The bridegroom accepted people from the street, but later had them cast out because of improper attire in his home. This meant both from the physical appearance and the spiritual presentation.
That is interesting that you bring that parable up. In the gospel according to St. Luke the scene with the man who is not properly dressed is not found.
That parable is in one of the accounts of the Gospel. I know for a fact because our priest mentioned it in a sermon recently. The Gospel according to St. Luke is not the only account with parables in it. It certainly has the most but not the only one.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=6443.msg134957#msg134957 date=1301683136]
That is interesting that you bring that parable up. In the gospel according to St. Luke the scene with the man who is not properly dressed is not found.
That parable is in one of the accounts of the Gospel. I know for a fact because our priest mentioned it in a sermon recently. The Gospel according to St. Luke is not the only account with parables in it. It certainly has the most but not the only one.
When I wrote: "In the gospel according to St. Luke the scene with the man who is not properly dressed is not found." That is to imply that it is found in another gospel, namely that of St. Matthew, but the ending is different than that of Luke.
I am not sure if you misunderstood me or are adding something new. Can you clarify what you are saying?
It's funny, the parable of the bridegroom and wedding was conveniently left out with all of the different examples. The bridegroom accepted people from the street, but later had them cast out because of improper attire in his home. This meant both from the physical appearance and the spiritual presentation.
Can you please elaborate more brother?
I thought that that the story from the life of St Moses about the blindness we have of our own sins was a great illustration about the kind of awareness we lack about our own sins and how if we're aware of it would never think to be a judge of others. This parable actually inspires us to truly correct each other because if we recognise that much of our sin is hidden from us it means that our brothers can see our sins while we cannot. The point is that we're all sinners and we must correct one another in humility and love appreciating that we cannot objectively judge our own sinfulness or the sinfulness of others.
Being in a state of sin means our ability to see is distorted, it is up to us to choose whether or not we choose to admit this like the blind man or deny it and pretend we can see like the Pharisees. We quote from the desert fathers because they fought the good fight and were not found to be at the wedding feast without a wedding garment. As a victory of the good fight St Moses knows what he's talking about unlike us who are babies and mere beginners on this path. He also through expereince knew what is important and needs to be done first, we can choose to create our own interpretations and distort the significance of his message but we do so at our own peril but if we do follow this advice of St Moses we will certainly not be found without a wedding garment.
The only major difference in message between this parable and the one of St Moses is that it is an illustration of people who received the calling but were too preoccupied with earthly cares to even bother attending the wedding, is there something you would like to add?
God bless you,
LiD
I appreciate your comments, and certainly agree with the spiritual interpretation--most definitely.
I disagree with you in terms of leaving out the aspects of: discipline, courage, proper attire, dignified speech, edification of the House of God with solemness, desecration, diaconal service, true ministry, etc.
These are also portions of the formulae towards spiritual development.
Utilizing only the model and formula of being passive and only "soft" is only applicable when there is already a discipline in place. Our people quite frequently bring up the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, but they never give the whole impression. The monks and fathers represented, then and now, in the monasteries of Egypt, went through much training and discipline. They sometimes swayed and even made grave mistakes. However, it was the underlying discipline that they were initially trained that was inspired to be resurrected in order to achieve a solution or correction of a given mistake. [Example: St. Pa'esa.] Their overall foundation was in respect for the Will of God.
When a novice begins, he is given hard labor and chores. He is taught to pray and chant. He is diciplined and even given penalties for mistakes. He is given guidance by a spiritual father. He has an ultimate authority in the form of the abbot. He is entrusted with the care of an elderly monk in order to learn discipleship and stewardship. I can go on and on.
The interpretation you give is only a portion. I dare say that these brats did not go through any of these stages from which to be able to reach out in piety for a correction.
I cannot and have no desire to be a policeman on YouTube for some of the most ridiculous videos I have seen in satire of any aspect of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Such sacrilege, desecration, blaspheme, will be answered on this site. It is unacceptable and it is an insult to the Lord. It is an insult to the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Being passive has allowed headway for a youth, such as the one above, [paraphrase] wearing shorts is okay since it was a youth meeting; it was not a liturgical service. I hate to tell the little brat, but it is not okay. It is not okay on Sunday to Saturday, not in a youth meeting, nor in any liturgical service. This is regardless of St. Moses or any other illustrious father from the Paradise that is in the Western Desert.
The little brat also said 'it is just a side room for the deacons'. Every inch of the church proper is holy. Standing in front of the altar is not a big deal? Come on, we are even supposed to walk out of the church backwards so as not to give our back to the altar.
I didn't say that science fiction is evil. I implied that there is an undertow for Scientology, which is a heresy. The devil's entrance into the church is possible in different formats. Sometimes he comes as a persecutor. Sometimes he comes as a deceiver and dilluter. Example: you only have to pray a few seconds, God will love you regardless of what attire, this video is a good way to praise God and bring others to Him, etc. This slothfulness is what is keeping us from really succeeding in the Diaspora. Such emulations of Protestant techniques can only lead for the overall model to take hold in the Orthodox Church more and more. The converts that post on this site, constantly offer the same warnings. I faintfully say: on deaf ears.
I would not put the little brats' satire and pathetic humor in the same realm as a bit of levity by His Holiness Pope Shenouda. I think any representation or equivalence in such an analogy is truly stupid. I would put them in the realm of late night TV comediens.
These types of videos are: blasphemous, stupid, slanderous, non-representative of any aspect of the church, putrid, repulsive, ill-thought, and non-inspiring. In a word: STUPID to make it easy. BTW, I didn't call them idiots or idiotic. Idiot means one who is incapable of evolving ideas. Stupid means one who takes ideas and makes improper decisions with them.
I think passivity can also be equivalent to negligence. Does one leave a 9 year old to bring the censer to Abouna? No, Because of that we have plenty of burn marks in the rug. Does one leave a 5 year old to hold a candle? No, because they burn things with them. Does one leave undisciplined brats to run Sunday Schools and Youth Meetings? No, because they teach their folly and ill-discipline to others and becomes cancerous. One brat wears a ridiculous outfit and the next one copies, the one after that tries to outdo. Have you looked around the exits and vesitbules to realize the state that our Community has reached?
Have you noticed the entrance of Protestantism into the Church because of this passive attitude?
I summarize, your comments are quite well. They are quite correct. However, they are partial, and only a portion of the overall picture. You do a disservice by only looking at that portion. I'm also sorry to say that it is misleading as the only standard and the absolute standard. Our Lord, in dealing with His Disciples, at times was soft, loving, cordial, and other times He: admonishes, sarcastic, disciplining, and tough. Our Lord was organized. 'He made them sit down in groups of fifty', for example. He washed and cleaned. He was baptized to show His humility. I think the multitude of examples show that a narrow approach is only that: NARROW.
I like to tie thing together (as I did with the need for resources). I like the overall picture of how things should be and not just one portion.
I would not like this nonsense to become a common presence on this site. I would also like the admins to remove these blasphemous links.
Your post merited a long reply and I have taken time to consider how to respond. I hope that the Lord in His mercy will grant that what I am about to write on His account is acceptable in His sight.
What I will firstly say is that I fear you have got this all backwards. The altar is holy and commanding of our reverence but it serves a finite and limited use, the purpose of the altar isn't for our perpetual devotion, it is for our sanctification – in a sense the altar is a disposable instrument in God’s eyes for our sake, God will destroy the altar in a heartbeat and the Church with it when the end of making us His living altars is achieved. God gets no pleasure from these altars they cannot please Him, God's concern is for us whose primary service as St Paul describes it is the presentation of our bodies to Him as a pure and acceptable sacrifice - this is human worship! He also says that we are the temples of the Holy Spirit - living temples who share our bodies either with wicked spirit doing horrible deeds or with the Holy Spirit in communion with the Son.
What is the Incense censor? It is a symbol of St Mary – a real person - who really carried the Divine fire! This is not just some Spiritual image or interpretation, its something real because Christ told us that if we do His will we can become His brother, sister and mother, in that sense we're the incense censor too if we follow after the example of Mary as the prime example of believers and we too carry this fire like St Mary did every Sunday! We too can make the same offering like incense, which ascends to heaven, it is not a symbol it’s our spiritual reality if we're obedient to God.
Revelations proves this because the incenses censor presented to God is the prayers of the saints - this is us and our offerings - the incense is only significant because God heeds OUR prayers, His saints or His agion (holies) as we’re described by St Paul and the liturgy. We cannot think of these traditions as being something rigid and static, it is for our illumination and showing us symbolism of what is now a spiritual reality for us! We really have access to God in His Kingdom through the Holy Spirit in the Son and participation of the sacraments.
Incense is a good example because it didn't used to be a consecrated ritual that only the saints perform (I think that this only became the case around the 10th century). A good proof of this in the struggle for St Athanasius and St Alexander's term 'theotokos', when the truth was affirmed by the council St Cyril wrote a letter talking about how young virgins were in the streets celebrating and raising incense in honour of their holy mother. There was an icon uncovered at a monastery recently which had 7 virgins raising incense with the virgin Mary, the monks thought that this was heretical but the icon was only a historical narrative of how the young women were celebrating the defence of this cherished Orthodox term.
We must take these devotions seriously but understanding that they are a car which takes us on a journey not the journey itself.
The purpose of the iconstasis is to depict the mystery of the revelation of God to us. On the outside it has in icons on the right and left the icon of Christ in the arms of the Virgin and during the epiphany, this is because outside the altar God is revealed to us through the incarnation and the visible signs which God which God performed for us while we were still sinners and had not yet received knowledge of God. This is expressed by the icon of Christ in the arms of the virgin as a symbol of the incarnation; the mystery of God becoming man and the epiphany is the revelation of the Holy Trinity to us at Christ’s baptism.
Behind the veil and the iconstasis we approach the resurrected Christ sitting on His throne in no less than the Kingdom of God itself - when Christ said I will not eat and drink of the vine until I share with you anew in the Kingdom, this refers to the heavens of heavens where the bread and wine must be in order to be consecrated and mysteriously transformed into His own body and blood. At the appropriate time in the liturgy, we are no longer on earth, the Church and its congregation have ascended and are now in God's Kingdom, this is real - it is not a symbol or spiritual interpretation.
The Eucharist also transforms us, we pray St John Chrysostom's prayers from the Agpeya we see the change of mind in the prayer before we receive the Eucharist and the one we pray after we have received it - the change of mind is amazing, we approach as sinners asking God not to turn us away as He did when He showed mercy to the women with the flow of blood and in the prayer after we thank and praise Him for the unity He granted us the seal and promise of, this is the joy of joys and celebration of celebrations and is the reason why chant psalm 150 during the distribution of the mysteries. We experience unity with Christ - not by virtue of these symbols, the censor or the altar in and of themselves but because of the useful purpose they have when we as the Church gather together in Christ’s name and pray the liturgy, receive sanctification and are made worthy to receive the mysteries.
The sanctification we receive is not something that we miserable human beings do, it is something, which God does, and it is real. St Peter when he saw the animals descending he was instructed by a voice rise Peter kill and eat and he refused because he thought the animals were unclean when really God has washed, sanctified them and made them holy. It doesn't matter if we are the most miserable and sinful creatures in the Church if God washes and sanctifies us we are clean. It becomes our duty to approach Him with fear and reverence so that we being the unworthy and sinful can be washed, cleansed and it granted to us to have participation in these Holy mysteries because of His great mercy.
The word holy means 'set apart' or 'unlike anything else', according to our human births we are of the earth but when we are baptised and receive in baptism the birth which comes from above we are washed, renewed and sanctified. Our role is in the experience of this unity, to preserve and nurture Christ within us to become the mother of God as Christ said in the Gospels. Good works are the product of our now established unity and washing by God and the realisation of the power of God through the sacraments which is capable of transforming our lives and turning our putrid and evil sins into good works which are a testimony of Him and His suffering and made possible through the power of His life giving cross.
Once we partake of the Eucharist on the eighth day - the day of the resurrection and eternity - our devotion is not limited and should never stop. It is not just I who is now holy but my brother is also holy because He has also eaten from the same body of the Lord. If we do not see that their bodies are now holy then we are denying the reality that God has given to them.
I would like to ask you to be sober about your judgements concerning the attitudes and perspectives of others, it is not right to take themes not related to the topic at hand and making a point of setting them as some kind of disagreement. I was responding to one line in your post, which never contained anything on either monasticism or the 8 virtues they were not in your original post to begin.
I would also like to say that we should see a great unity in scriptures and the desert fathers because of their origin in the Spirit of unity. It would take a very cynical mind to see these things as limited and contradictory, the example and witness of the saints is not something fraught with contradiction unless one is self serving and selective in how they are quoted, which I hope God in His mercy would deliver me from.
We cannot make the Eucharist something solemn only, it is the receiving of eternal life and experiencing the seal and promise of our union with God, and it is the joy of joys and the wonder of wonders. It is also as Christ taught us when the apostles were wearied by people bringing children to Him that they should bring them and not show restraint because their simple hearts are ready for the revelation of God. If Christ sets this example as a trait to be emulate, how can it be right to call them brats and demand that their participation in the service is limited? It is right and just to withhold children from services which they are not suited to but Samuel is an example of a young boy who was raised in the temple and consecrated to God so we must admit that it would be unscriptural to deny children roles serving in the Church. How about St Abanoub or St Kyriakos or any of the other children saints? Christ Himself was a Child and through this He sanctified Childhood and it becomes something Holy which can be lived and experienced by Children in the presence of God as much as God has now transformed it. What do we make of St John the Baptist who was raised by angels in the wilderness or St Mary who was raised in the temple? Is the Icon of Christ in the arms of St Mary the icon of a b-word as you like to call them?
The Eucharist is something bigger than our church devotions because we are really united with Christ, whether we spend time with friends or busy ourselves with study or work we are now doing so while participating in Eucharist. The presence of God isn't limited to when we're in Church, this is only the beginning, it is up to us to remain in God's presence all the time through our participation with Him in physical things like His sacred body and blood and praying continuously without ceasing. In the Eucharist whether we laugh or play or enjoy one another's company we do so in the Lord.
If we are steer our congregations away from Protestantism we will never achieve it by giving them a bunch of symbols, the early church has a very short mass with few symbols but the community was so powerful because they felt that the Kingdom of God had really come to them and they were participating in it through the Son of God Jesus Christ. Protestants have transformed the spiritual life into mere emotionalism and things one ought to know – they don’t realise that God becoming man must be something so significant that it changes human life forever. If we stop giving them symbols and rituals and start showing how the liturgical worship that we pray ever Sunday is the Kingdom of God they will come to the knowledge of the truth because they will see it in us. As Christ said we should say to them – ‘come and see’.
Our brothers and sisters have erred but praise be to God that He will forgive them all inequity if the turn and repent. I would urge you to contact the priest in question rather than castigating these youth, it seems to me that they have done these things under his instruction.
God bless,
LiD
I hate to barge in the middle, but you two aren't fully answering each other's post. Although both sides presented us with several valid points, you (both) only chose to reply to portions of the other's posts.
LID, what is your response to discipling the "brats" (I'm a brat too) and having firm structure in Church. The way you presented your ideas, it sounds like structure in church isn't as important as structure within ourselves, and we shouldn't discipline others because we are not worthy.
ILSM, what is your response to LID's thoughts on symbolism within the Church? Do you think we are steering the Protestants (or even Copts) away by presenting them with a bunch of symbols? Is symbolism insignificant in the Eyes of our Lord?
My favorite quote from the entire thread: Sorry for interrupting this conversation, but I think it's time we get to the point (it's been 5 pages, if you two continued to respond to each other the same way you did before, we'd be looking at another 5 pages).
LID and ILSM,
I hate to barge in the middle, but you two aren't fully answering each other's post. Although both sides presented us with several valid points, you (both) only chose to reply to portions of the other's posts.
LID, what is your response to discipling the "brats" (I'm a brat too) and having firm structure in Church. The way you presented your ideas, it sounds like structure in church isn't as important as structure within ourselves, and we shouldn't discipline others because we are not worthy.
ILSM, what is your response to LID's thoughts on symbolism within the Church? Do you think we are steering the Protestants (or even Copts) away by presenting them with a bunch of symbols? Is symbolism insignificant in the Eyes of our Lord?
My favorite quote from the entire thread: Sorry for interrupting this conversation, but I think it's time we get to the point (it's been 5 pages, if you two continued to respond to each other the same way you did before, we'd be looking at another 5 pages).
Hi TITL,
I don't think that my posts merits consideration - especially if I am giving the impression which you have wrote.
I am not qualified to answer your question but I am certain there are others who are however what I do know is that we must hold fast to the ways and traditions of our fathers who found salvation.
Glory be to God for all things.
LiD
I don't think we are steering the Protestants away because of symbolism. I believe the steering component is relative to consistency and their perception of apparent hypocrisy.
I hate to belabor the issue concerning this video, but, a Protestant would look upon it as being incongruent with an Orthodox call to the Holiness of the Altar.
The Lord presents us with symbolism such as in the case of parables. I do not think that symbolism has any significance with God for He is Omnipotent and Omniscient.
Whatever symbolism we utilize or experience is to help maintain foundation in belief and reverence for His Holiness [God the Almighty].
What do you mean by limited use? The Eucharist offering is infinite in its effect. Are you equating the time of the liturgy to limited use?
The altar is the throne of our Lord wher He sits and offers Himself to us.
Thanks