My response from the "all saint and all souls" thread:
I had begun to budge from my position that dressing up as saints and celebrating the saints instead of Halloween is ok, but after more consideration, I still can't find a strong enough reason to object to it. I see nothing terribly wrong in replacing something evil with something good. HGBY says there are 364 other days to dress up and eat candy, but likewise there are 364 other days in which any satanist cult may do something to honor the devil. I've always been of the belief that if something is wrong one day, it's usually wrong every day; likewise, if something is good/right one day, it is good/right every day.
That being said, even the parts of his article that I didn't completely agree with sounded more logical to me when reading it a second time. The reason I read through the article again is because I tend to end up being wrong about issues like this. But what confused me most was that HG goes on to say:
Attend Church, the Vespers, and the Exaltation of the Saints on October 31st. Create plays and skits for the great saints St. Mary, St. Roewis, and St. Luke. The Mother of God, the poor layman who sold salt, and the Gospel writer's life can teach us so much! Reflect upon their lives. Spiritually meet together, and then enjoy the social atmosphere of Christian fellowship, Saints' plays and Agape meal. Let's all give thanks to God for a true Christian reason to celebrate this day!
Which to me almost seems like a contradiction. Is his biggest objection, then, that the All Saints' Day celebrations held by churches don't focus on St. Mary and St. Roewis and St. Luke? Would changing the day's focus be more appealing to the kids? That is what it's about, after all. If the kids aren't interested, then they will more than likely spend their night trick-or-treating in their skeleton costumes.
I say let them dress up as saints, remind them that this day is especially the celebration of St. Mary and St. Roweis and St. Luke, and nobody gets hurt. If someone can further clarify the paragraph I quoted I would appreciate it.
He's saying we shouldn't have an "alternative" (for the sake of being an alternative) in church by creating fake feasts to distract the kids from Halloween.
Attending Vespers, glorifying saints, and acting in plays are all normal things to do on any week. He was just giving a list of things we would do on any day of the year.
On a side note, my church does nothing on October 31st. My priest teaches what's right and leaves everyone to do as they wish. If they want to trick or treat, no one is going to pull them back.
This is exactly how Orthodoxy works. We're given directions then left to the wolves. For those who are weak, they have spiritual guidance whenever they need it. But the church isn't going to hold our hands and make sure we never do anything wrong. Free will.
Same with the transition to college: when you were little, you had people telling you "yes" and "no". But now, you know what to expect, you know when something is a bad decision (hopefully!), and you have counselors available in time of need.
Children don't know right from wrong, but the parents do. They can/do control whether or not their kids go out, accept candy, or dress up... but the church shouldn't create an "alternative" (for the sake of being an alternative lol), give it an official name, and expect to teach kids "this way is better". It's not. You're still teaching them to dress up and eat candy. You're still, in a way, celebrating Halloween, except now it contains the word "Saints" (making it "holy") and is in church (making it "evil-free").
Remnkemi said something profound in another thread, and I'd like to emphasize it again:
"Regardless, dating a feast to fight off a pagan holiday is a very weak argument. What does it say about the Church? The Church is insecure in its followers that we need to distract them with Church feasts. This is foolish. Do we need to create a holiday to fight off Ramadan and Eid al fitr? Do we need to create a holiday to fight off holloween? Doesn't the Church date all of our holiest days on what the Bible and tradition tells us?"
Interesting thoughts. Very logical. I'm starting to change my mind.
Don't forget:
[quote author=George_Mina_Awad link=topic=12513.msg146986#msg146986 date=1320264443] The reason I read through the article again is because I tend to end up being wrong about issues like this.
I will talk to the head of the servants at my church, show her the article, and get her thoughts.
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=12513.msg146964#msg146964 date=1320254524] [quote author=TITL link=topic=12513.msg146956#msg146956 date=1320246503] And why is Fr. Mark more credible than Bishop Youssef? ::)
Because it reinforces what Cephas believes.
Debating 101: You have a thesis and you present evidence to support it.
The irony of this statement is... Well it speaks for itself. What’s sad is that you seem to think you’re clever. The fact of the matter is, the articles I have provided are not only here to present another perspective but are also grounded in fact and reality (as can be seen by the well referenced Wikipedia articles you both seem to have ignored) and not in some sort of warped pseudo-reality (a la Westboro).
The beauty of Orthodoxy is that we are asked to used our brains and to think and research and understand; not to mindlessly accept things we are told by those who may be in a position of authority, who may not have properly researched what they are talking about. Seeing as how this is not a doctrinal issue, there won’t be any Patristics (seeing as how All Hallow’s Eve did not exist until the 7th Century or so and was not celebrated on it’s current date until the 8th Century courtesy of Pope Gregory III) or Ecumenical Councils regarding it.
Regardless, feel free to wallow in your ignorance and keep living under those rocks. I’m sure they’ve become very comfortable and the separation of fantasy from reality is just something that is too difficult for you both to do. Kinda reminds me of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.
‘There are none so blind as those who will not see.’ ‘There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.’
Cephas, I have nothing to say except you're not going to convince me (and I'm obviously not going to convince you), so let's just agree to disagree, I guess.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12513.msg147008#msg147008 date=1320280696] + Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=12513.msg146964#msg146964 date=1320254524] [quote author=TITL link=topic=12513.msg146956#msg146956 date=1320246503] And why is Fr. Mark more credible than Bishop Youssef? ::)
Because it reinforces what Cephas believes.
Debating 101: You have a thesis and you present evidence to support it.
The irony of this statement is... Well it speaks for itself. What’s sad is that you seem to think you’re clever. The fact of the matter is, the articles I have provided are not only here to present another perspective but are also grounded in fact and reality (as can be seen by the well referenced Wikipedia articles you both seem to have ignored) and not in some sort of warped pseudo-reality (a la Westboro).
The beauty of Orthodoxy is that we are asked to used our brains and to think and research and understand; not to mindlessly accept things we are told by those who may be in a position of authority, who may not have properly researched what they are talking about. Seeing as how this is not a doctrinal issue, there won’t be any Patristics (seeing as how All Hallow’s Eve did not exist until the 7th Century or so and was not celebrated on it’s current date until the 8th Century courtesy of Pope Gregory III) or Ecumenical Councils regarding it.
Regardless, feel free to wallow in your ignorance and keep living under those rocks. I’m sure they’ve become very comfortable and the separation of fantasy from reality is just something that is too difficult for you both to do. Kinda reminds me of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.
‘There are none so blind as those who will not see.’ ‘There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.’
Anyway, I’m done.
Debating 101: Once you have a thesis. State how your sources back it up. Don't just post them.
Debating 101 for dummies: If you are going to favor one article over another you better make it clear why that is the case.
Debating 101 for dummies that don't know they're dummies: Just listen to those with more knowledge than you (Bishop Youssef).
I hope those lessons helped you out, Cephas. If you want me to elaborate, I can give examples or something.
lol guys this is why we wanted to keep the can of worms closed in the first place. It seems like a lot of Tasbeha threads end up devolving into personal debates like this. Now say sorry to each other and lets all be friends again :)
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12513.msg147008#msg147008 date=1320280696] The fact of the matter is, the articles I have provided are not only here to present another perspective but are also grounded in fact and reality (as can be seen by the well referenced Wikipedia articles you both seem to have ignored) and not in some sort of warped pseudo-reality (a la Westboro). Wait a minute, Cephas, was this a crack at me? Am I living in some sort of warped pseudo-reality because I work in Westboro, Mass and you don't agree with my comments? What does "a la Westboro" mean?
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=12513.msg146881#msg146881 date=1320085065] BTW, I am not saying that the Church is creating feasts to combat secular celebrations. I am saying that these feasts exist: It is a fact that Christ was born. When it happened is unclear. It might be the case that you kill two birds with one stone by placing it near a pagan feast. You bring people to celebrate Christ's birth and Incarnation while at the same time drawing people away from participation in foolish and worldly feasts.
This is not true .. there is a tradition and patristic writings that point to both the Nativity and the Annunciations feasts to be on the 29th of Kiahk and the 29th of Baramhat respectively.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12513.msg147043#msg147043 date=1320332208] [quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12513.msg147008#msg147008 date=1320280696] The fact of the matter is, the articles I have provided are not only here to present another perspective but are also grounded in fact and reality (as can be seen by the well referenced Wikipedia articles you both seem to have ignored) and not in some sort of warped pseudo-reality (a la Westboro). Wait a minute, Cephas, was this a crack at me? Am I living in some sort of warped pseudo-reality because I work in Westboro, Mass and you don't agree with my comments? What does "a la Westboro" mean?
A crack at you? I don't think you actually think this is the case, least of all because I neither know you personally (or you me) nor do I know where you live or work.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12513.msg147073#msg147073 date=1320372426] [quote author=Andrew link=topic=12513.msg146881#msg146881 date=1320085065] BTW, I am not saying that the Church is creating feasts to combat secular celebrations. I am saying that these feasts exist: It is a fact that Christ was born. When it happened is unclear. It might be the case that you kill two birds with one stone by placing it near a pagan feast. You bring people to celebrate Christ's birth and Incarnation while at the same time drawing people away from participation in foolish and worldly feasts.
This is not true .. there is a tradition and patristic writings that point to both the Nativity and the Annunciations feasts to be on the 29th of Kiahk and the 29th of Baramhat respectively.
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=12513.msg147079#msg147079 date=1320378345] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=12513.msg147073#msg147073 date=1320372426] [quote author=Andrew link=topic=12513.msg146881#msg146881 date=1320085065] BTW, I am not saying that the Church is creating feasts to combat secular celebrations. I am saying that these feasts exist: It is a fact that Christ was born. When it happened is unclear. It might be the case that you kill two birds with one stone by placing it near a pagan feast. You bring people to celebrate Christ's birth and Incarnation while at the same time drawing people away from participation in foolish and worldly feasts.
This is not true .. there is a tradition and patristic writings that point to both the Nativity and the Annunciations feasts to be on the 29th of Kiahk and the 29th of Baramhat respectively.
If you need references let me know.
Yes I would like those references.
its not primary source but the Service of the Deacons book has a good entry for that. See the 29th of every coptic month section.
Well I know those dates are when the feasts are celebrated. I was hoping imikhail was going to point to some references to show how those dates were determined.
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=12513.msg147090#msg147090 date=1320387837] Well I know those dates are when the feasts are celebrated. I was hoping imikhail was going to point to some references to show how those dates were determined.
Before going into the references, one has to know that the Old calendar, the Julian calendar was the one used in the West and the East except within the Coptic Church who kept her Egyptian calendar. The Nativity feast used to fall on the 25th of December of the Julian year till Pope Gregory of Rome changed the calendar on October 5th 1582. The 25th of December used to coincide with 29th of Kiahk. Nowadays, it coincides with the 7th of January (of the Gregorian caldar).
Here are some ancient writings pointing to a traditional acceptance of when Christ was born.
1 - Hippolytus states that Jesus was born on the 25th of December in his book "De Pascha Computus"
2 - Calendar of Filocalus used by the Roman Church in 354 puts nativity feast on the 25th of December.
3 - Pope Benjamin the 1st (no. 38) celebrated Nativity on the 29th of kiahk as was the custom in the Church of Alexandria (Sawiros ben al Moqaffa Historia Patriarchum Alexandrinorum)
4 - Pope Christodolo No. 66 fixed the Nativity fast in the Coptic Church from 16 Hatour to the 28th of Kiahk as mentioned by Ibn Sebaa'
5 - The Arabic Didascalia (a 12th century document and a translation of the Syriac one) encourages the believers to celebrate nativity on the 25th of the 9th month of the Jews which is the 25th of the 4th month of the Egyptians.(Kiahk) [Chapter 18]
First off, the work 'De Pascha Computus' was not written by Hippolytus. My search has indicated that it was an anonymous work and if it is attributed to anyone, it is to Cyprian.
Based on my search, Hippolytus dates Christ's birth to be in April. Furthermore, Origen did not think the date of Christ's birth was important and his teacher, St. Clement dates it in the spring according to the custom of the people at the time:
From The Stromata (Book I) Chapter 21 by St. Clement
From Julius Cæsar, therefore, to the death of Commodus, are two hundred and thirty-six years, six months. And the whole from Romulus, who founded Rome, till the death of Commodus, amounts to nine hundred and fifty-three years, six months. And our Lord was born in the twenty-eighth year, when first the census was ordered to be taken in the reign of Augustus. And to prove that this is true, it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows: "And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias." And again in the same book: "And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old," and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He has sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord ." This both the prophet spoke, and the Gospel. Accordingly, in fifteen years of Tiberius and fifteen years of Augustus; so were completed the thirty years till the time He suffered. And from the time that He suffered till the destruction of Jerusalem are forty-two years and three months; and from the destruction of Jerusalem to the death of Commodus, a hundred and twenty-eight years, ten months, and three days. From the birth of Christ, therefore, to the death of Commodus are, in all, a hundred and ninety-four years, one month, thirteen days. And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus, and in the twenty-fifth day of Pachon. And the followers of Basilides hold the day of his baptism as a festival, spending the night before in readings.
And they say that it was the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar, the fifteenth day of the month Tubi; and some that it was the eleventh of the same month. And treating of His passion, with very great accuracy, some say that it took place in the sixteenth year of Tiberius, on the twenty-fifth of Phamenoth; and others the twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi and others say that on the nineteenth of Pharmuthi the Saviour suffered. Further, others say that He was born on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi.
As Remnkemi had pointed out, the date of December 25 does not become the official date celebrated by the Church until the time of St. John Chrysostom. Additionally, the early Christians did not celebrate the Nativity, instead opting to celebrate the Epiphany (and maybe the Nativity) together.
Based on the Gospel accounts, a spring birth makes far more sense than a winter birth for the simple reason of what the shepherds were doing on the night Christ was born. They were out in the fields tending their sheep. For those of you who have lived in the Middle East, you know how cold it gets in December at night. Thus, the behaviour of the shepherds (i.e. tending their sheep out in a field in the dead of winter) does not make logical sense.
In the end, the actual date of Christ's birth is not important. What matters is that He became incarnate, was born and granted us the means of attaining salvation.
First off, the work 'De Pascha Computus' was not written by Hippolytus. My search has indicated that it was an anonymous work and if it is attributed to anyone, it is to Cyprian.
Hippolytos did try to fix the Pascha celebration and one school believes that "De Pascha Computus" was actually his work. Whether or not it is the work of Hippolytos is not the issue I am addressing.
The issue we are dealing with is how ancient is the fixing date of 29th of Kiahk and whether there is any reference in patristic writings that refer to it. Those I have pointed out in my last post.
Based on my search, Hippolytus dates Christ's birth to be in April. Furthermore, Origen did not think the date of Christ's birth was important and his teacher, St. Clement dates it in the spring according to the custom of the people at the time.
We also have an ancient document the Didescalia that dates to the time of Clement that fixes the date of Nativity to the 29th of kiahk.
There is no way to know for sure when Christ was born. However, the Church from around the 3rd century had fixed the date to the 25th of December (Julian) that is 29th of kiahk according to the Egyptian calendar.
The fact that St. Clement illustrates that there were those who believed Christ's birth to be in the spring clearly indicates that the date of the Feast was not fixed in his time (the 3rd Century). There is more evidence to suggest that it happened in the 4th Century during the time of John Chrysostom. I looked up chapter 18 of the Didascalia Apostolorum, and it says nothing about the date of Nativity being fixed.
From the Didascalia Apostolorum
CHAPTER XVIII
That it is not right to receive gifts of alms from reprehensible persons.
[iv. 5] Do you the bishops and the deacons be constant therefore in the ministry of the altar of Christ, -- we mean the widows and the orphans, -- so that with all care and with all diligence you make it your endeavour to search out concerning the things that are given, (and to learn) of what manner is the conversation of him, or of her, who gives for the nourishment -- we say again -- of 'the altar.'� For when widows are nourished from (the fruits of) righteous labour, they will offer a holy and acceptable ministry before Almighty God through His beloved Son and His holy Spirit:� to whom be glory and honour for evermore.
Make it your care and endeavour therefore to minister to widows out of the ministry of a clean conscience, that what they ask and request may be granted them at once upon their praying for it. But if there be bishops who are careless and give no heed to these matters, through respect of persons, or for the sake of filthy lucre, or because they neglect to make [[158]] inquiry; they shall render no ordinary account. [iv. 6] For they receive, forsooth, to administer for the nourishment of orphans and widows, from rich persons who keep men shut up in prison, or ill-treat their slaves, or behave with cruelty in their cities, or oppress the poor; or from the lewd, and those who abuse their bodies; or from evildoers; or from forgers; or from dishonest advocates, or (p. 75) false accusers; or from hypocritical lawyers; or from painters of pictures; or from makers of idols; or from workers of gold and silver and bronze (who are) thieves; or from dishonest tax-gatherers; or from spectators of shows; or from those who alter weights or measure deceitfully; or from inn-keepers who mingle water (with their wine); or from soldiers who act lawlessly; or from murderers; or from spies who procure condemnations; or from any Roman officials, who are defiled with wars and have shed innocent blood without trial:� perverters of judgement who, in order to rob them, deal unjustly and deceitfully with the peasantry and with all the poor; and from idolaters; or from the unclean; or from those who practise usury, and extortioners. Now they who nourish widows from these (sources) shall be found guilty in judgement in the day of the Lord; for the Scripture has said:� Better is a supper of herbs with love and amity than the slaughter of fatted oxen with hatred [Prov 15.17]. For if a widow be nourished with bread only from the labour of righteousness, it shall even be abundant for her; but if much be given her from (the proceeds) of iniquity it shall be insufficient for her. But again, if she be nourished from (the proceeds) of iniquity, she cannot offer her ministry and her intercession [[159]] with purity before God; and even though she be righteous and pray for the wicked, her intercession for them will not be heard, but that for herself alone; for God makes trial of the hearts in judgement, and receives intercessions with discernment.� But if they pray for those w ho have sinned and repent, their prayers will be heard. But those who are in sin, and do not repent, not only are they not heard when they pray, but they even call to remembrance their transgressions before the Lord.
[iv. 7] Wherefore, a bishops, fly and avoid such ministrations; for it is written:There shall not go up upon the altar of the Lord (that which cometh) of the price of a dog, or of the hire of a harlot [Dt 23.18]. For if widows pray for fornicators and transgressors through your blindness, and be not heard, not receiving their requests, you will perforce bring blasphemy upon the word through your evil management, as though God were not good and ready to give.
Take good heed therefore that you minister not to the altar (p. 76) of God out of the ministrations of transgression. For you have no pretext to say, 'We do not know;' for you have heard that which the Scripture saith:� Depart from an evil man, and thou shalt not fear; and trembling shall not come nigh unto thee [Isa 54.14].� [iv. 8] But if you say:� 'These are they alone who give alms; and if we receive not of them, from whence shall the orphans and widows and those in distress be provided?' �God saith to you:� 'To this end did you receive the gifts of the Levites, the first fruits and offerings of your people, that you might be sustained and even have over and above, that you might not be constrained to receive from evil persons.'� But if the Churches are so poor that those in want must needs be supported by such, it were better for you rather to be wasted with famine than to receive from evil persons.
Search out and make trial, therefore, that you may be receiving from the faithful, who communicate with the [[160]]� Churches and conduct themselves well, (wherewithal) to nourish those in distress, and may not receive from those who are expelled from the Church until they are found worthy to be members of the Church. But if you are in want, tell the brethren, and let them treat together and give; and thus perform your ministrations in righteousness.� [iv. 9] And teach your people and tell them that it is written:� Honour the Lord with (the fruits of) righteous labour, and with the chiefest of all your increase [Prov 3.9]. Wherefore, nourish and clothe those in want from the righteous labour of the faithful; and those things which are given by them, as we have already said, bestow for the ransom of the faithful; and redeem slaves and captives and prisoners, and those who are treated with violence, and those condemned by the mob, and those sentenced to fight with beasts, or to the mines, or to exile, and those condemned to the games. And let the deacons go in to those who are in distress, and let them visit each one and provide him with what he lacks.
[iv. 10] But if ever it should happen that you are constrained and receive unwillingly some pieces of money from any evil person, you shall not employ them for (the purchase of) food; but if they be few, spend them on firewood for yourselves and for the widows, lest a widow, receiving of them, be forced to buy her some food with them. And so, unsullied by iniquity, the widows will pray and receive from God all good things for which they ask and make petition, all of them (p. 77) together and each one severally:� and you also will not be reproached with these sins. [[161]]
The fact that St. Clement illustrates that there were those who believed Christ's birth to be in the spring clearly indicates that the date of the Feast was not fixed in his time (the 3rd Century).
Please read the points I mentioned above specifically:
"De Pascha Computus" being written around the year 240
The Arabic Dediscalia translated from the syriac.
I looked up chapter 18 of the Didascalia Apostolorum, and it says nothing about the date of Nativity being fixed.
Please look up the Arabic or the Coptic Didescalia.
OK.. look this thread is getting out of hand. I just asked a simple question, and I got the answer. I feel that as a Church, we cannot go off and disagree with Bishops who make statements like H.G. Bishop Youssef concerning Halloween. We are all One Body, and must be united.
The argument that Cephas raises, is not really valid: the argument that if you are unsure about your faith, then don't celebrate Halloween.
This is absurd. I might as well say that because I know that Jesus Christ IS Lord, and God, I might as well become a muslim, if not, I'm not sure about my faith.
This isn't a game where we have to do silly things in order to prove to others that we are strong in our faith and can celebrate halloween because we KNOW that this is just simple fun. We are also members of One Body that have to act with One Will, with One Voice, and with One accord.
This discussion has gone on far enough!!!!
Now, all i wanted to say is that if you have read H.G's message that was posted on this thread, PLEASE pass this around.
Bishops were chosen through the Holy Spirit to lead the Church. If the congregation do not submit and obey then the congregation is in direct conflict with God Himself.
[quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=12513.msg147102#msg147102 date=1320426611] OK.. look this thread is getting out of hand. I just asked a simple question, and I got the answer. I feel that as a Church, we cannot go off and disagree with Bishops who make statements like H.G. Bishop Youssef concerning . We are all One Body, and must be united.
The argument that Cephas raises, is not really valid: the argument that if you are unsure about your faith, then don't celebrate Halloween.
This is absurd. I might as well say that because I know that Jesus Christ IS Lord, and God, I might as well become a muslim, if not, I'm not sure about my faith.
This isn't a game where we have to do silly things in order to prove to others that we are strong in our faith and can celebrate halloween because we KNOW that this is just simple fun. We are also members of One Body that have to act with One Will, with One Voice, and with One accord.
This discussion has gone on far enough!!!!
Now, all i wanted to say is that if you have read H.G's message that was posted on this thread, PLEASE pass this around.
ENOUGH ALREADY! Thanks.
Zoxasi, nobody is denying that the bishops are our loved and respected leaders and that no matter of what our stance on this minor issue is, we should try our best to be obedient to our diocesan bishops etc.
At the same time, our bishops are not the Pope of Rome...its not that what they say goes, period. That is the beauty of Orthodoxy which allows us to (in humilty and obedience) ask questions to our leaders when we have issues or another point of view on a topic. Also, not everything in the church is set in stone. Some things definitely are. What has been revealed and handed down to us is of course, but others require us to research and to use our common sense. In the end, even if I disagree with my bishop, as I mentioned before, I should go and bring up my issue with him and in the end be as obedient as possible. Thanks
[quote author=Timothym link=topic=12513.msg147108#msg147108 date=1320439291] [quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=12513.msg147102#msg147102 date=1320426611] OK.. look this thread is getting out of hand. I just asked a simple question, and I got the answer. I feel that as a Church, we cannot go off and disagree with Bishops who make statements like H.G. Bishop Youssef concerning . We are all One Body, and must be united.
The argument that Cephas raises, is not really valid: the argument that if you are unsure about your faith, then don't celebrate Halloween.
This is absurd. I might as well say that because I know that Jesus Christ IS Lord, and God, I might as well become a muslim, if not, I'm not sure about my faith.
This isn't a game where we have to do silly things in order to prove to others that we are strong in our faith and can celebrate halloween because we KNOW that this is just simple fun. We are also members of One Body that have to act with One Will, with One Voice, and with One accord.
This discussion has gone on far enough!!!!
Now, all i wanted to say is that if you have read H.G's message that was posted on this thread, PLEASE pass this around.
ENOUGH ALREADY! Thanks.
Zoxasi, nobody is denying that the bishops are our loved and respected leaders and that no matter of what our stance on this minor issue is, we should try our best to be obedient to our diocesan bishops etc.
At the same time, our bishops are not the Pope of Rome...its not that what they say goes, period. That is the beauty of Orthodoxy which allows us to (in humilty and obedience) ask questions to our leaders when we have issues or another point of view on a topic. Also, not everything in the church is set in stone. Some things definitely are. What has been revealed and handed down to us is of course, but others require us to research and to use our common sense. In the end, even if I disagree with my bishop, as I mentioned before, I should go and bring up my issue with him and in the end be as obedient as possible. Thanks
Indeed, our clergy are very much fallible. But this is a dichotomy. It has nothing to do with the chain of argument presented here. Because they are capable of making human mistakes does not mean that their guidance, their advice, their wisdom, and their message to us should be thrown down the drain.
Why, by your logic, we might as well NOT EVEN BOTHER attending sermons, because if a member of the Coptic Clergy is going to speak, he may say something we disagree with, so we won't bother.
What on earth is hard to comprehend that halloween is not a Christian feast. Its a pagan feast. Why are we magnifying this for???
look I'm not saying that we shouldn't listen to our clergy, in fact my post said that even if we disagreed with a position our clergy has (which may not be part of our biblica, holy tradition etc) that just out of obedience it would be better to obey them...not saying that I have been able to carry this out every single time but its a good thing to get used to.
Comments
And why is Fr. Mark more credible than Bishop Youssef? ::)
Because it reinforces what Cephas believes.
I had begun to budge from my position that dressing up as saints and celebrating the saints instead of Halloween is ok, but after more consideration, I still can't find a strong enough reason to object to it. I see nothing terribly wrong in replacing something evil with something good. HGBY says there are 364 other days to dress up and eat candy, but likewise there are 364 other days in which any satanist cult may do something to honor the devil. I've always been of the belief that if something is wrong one day, it's usually wrong every day; likewise, if something is good/right one day, it is good/right every day.
That being said, even the parts of his article that I didn't completely agree with sounded more logical to me when reading it a second time. The reason I read through the article again is because I tend to end up being wrong about issues like this. But what confused me most was that HG goes on to say: Which to me almost seems like a contradiction. Is his biggest objection, then, that the All Saints' Day celebrations held by churches don't focus on St. Mary and St. Roewis and St. Luke? Would changing the day's focus be more appealing to the kids? That is what it's about, after all. If the kids aren't interested, then they will more than likely spend their night trick-or-treating in their skeleton costumes.
I say let them dress up as saints, remind them that this day is especially the celebration of St. Mary and St. Roweis and St. Luke, and nobody gets hurt. If someone can further clarify the paragraph I quoted I would appreciate it.
He's saying we shouldn't have an "alternative" (for the sake of being an alternative) in church by creating fake feasts to distract the kids from Halloween.
Attending Vespers, glorifying saints, and acting in plays are all normal things to do on any week.
He was just giving a list of things we would do on any day of the year.
On a side note, my church does nothing on October 31st. My priest teaches what's right and leaves everyone to do as they wish. If they want to trick or treat, no one is going to pull them back.
This is exactly how Orthodoxy works. We're given directions then left to the wolves. For those who are weak, they have spiritual guidance whenever they need it. But the church isn't going to hold our hands and make sure we never do anything wrong. Free will.
Same with the transition to college: when you were little, you had people telling you "yes" and "no". But now, you know what to expect, you know when something is a bad decision (hopefully!), and you have counselors available in time of need.
Children don't know right from wrong, but the parents do. They can/do control whether or not their kids go out, accept candy, or dress up... but the church shouldn't create an "alternative" (for the sake of being an alternative lol), give it an official name, and expect to teach kids "this way is better". It's not. You're still teaching them to dress up and eat candy. You're still, in a way, celebrating Halloween, except now it contains the word "Saints" (making it "holy") and is in church (making it "evil-free").
Remnkemi said something profound in another thread, and I'd like to emphasize it again:
"Regardless, dating a feast to fight off a pagan holiday is a very weak argument. What does it say about the Church? The Church is insecure in its followers that we need to distract them with Church feasts. This is foolish. Do we need to create a holiday to fight off Ramadan and Eid al fitr? Do we need to create a holiday to fight off holloween? Doesn't the Church date all of our holiest days on what the Bible and tradition tells us?"
Don't forget:
[quote author=George_Mina_Awad link=topic=12513.msg146986#msg146986 date=1320264443]
The reason I read through the article again is because I tend to end up being wrong about issues like this.
I will talk to the head of the servants at my church, show her the article, and get her thoughts.
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=12513.msg146964#msg146964 date=1320254524]
[quote author=TITL link=topic=12513.msg146956#msg146956 date=1320246503]
And why is Fr. Mark more credible than Bishop Youssef? ::)
Because it reinforces what Cephas believes.
Debating 101: You have a thesis and you present evidence to support it.
The irony of this statement is... Well it speaks for itself. What’s sad is that you seem to think you’re clever. The fact of the matter is, the articles I have provided are not only here to present another perspective but are also grounded in fact and reality (as can be seen by the well referenced Wikipedia articles you both seem to have ignored) and not in some sort of warped pseudo-reality (a la Westboro).
The beauty of Orthodoxy is that we are asked to used our brains and to think and research and understand; not to mindlessly accept things we are told by those who may be in a position of authority, who may not have properly researched what they are talking about. Seeing as how this is not a doctrinal issue, there won’t be any Patristics (seeing as how All Hallow’s Eve did not exist until the 7th Century or so and was not celebrated on it’s current date until the 8th Century courtesy of Pope Gregory III) or Ecumenical Councils regarding it.
Regardless, feel free to wallow in your ignorance and keep living under those rocks. I’m sure they’ve become very comfortable and the separation of fantasy from reality is just something that is too difficult for you both to do. Kinda reminds me of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.
‘There are none so blind as those who will not see.’
‘There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.’
Anyway, I’m done.
Cephas, I have nothing to say except you're not going to convince me (and I'm obviously not going to convince you), so let's just agree to disagree, I guess.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=12513.msg146964#msg146964 date=1320254524]
[quote author=TITL link=topic=12513.msg146956#msg146956 date=1320246503]
And why is Fr. Mark more credible than Bishop Youssef? ::)
Because it reinforces what Cephas believes.
Debating 101: You have a thesis and you present evidence to support it.
The irony of this statement is... Well it speaks for itself. What’s sad is that you seem to think you’re clever. The fact of the matter is, the articles I have provided are not only here to present another perspective but are also grounded in fact and reality (as can be seen by the well referenced Wikipedia articles you both seem to have ignored) and not in some sort of warped pseudo-reality (a la Westboro).
The beauty of Orthodoxy is that we are asked to used our brains and to think and research and understand; not to mindlessly accept things we are told by those who may be in a position of authority, who may not have properly researched what they are talking about. Seeing as how this is not a doctrinal issue, there won’t be any Patristics (seeing as how All Hallow’s Eve did not exist until the 7th Century or so and was not celebrated on it’s current date until the 8th Century courtesy of Pope Gregory III) or Ecumenical Councils regarding it.
Regardless, feel free to wallow in your ignorance and keep living under those rocks. I’m sure they’ve become very comfortable and the separation of fantasy from reality is just something that is too difficult for you both to do. Kinda reminds me of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.
‘There are none so blind as those who will not see.’
‘There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.’
Anyway, I’m done.
Debating 101: Once you have a thesis. State how your sources back it up. Don't just post them.
Debating 101 for dummies: If you are going to favor one article over another you better make it clear why that is the case.
Debating 101 for dummies that don't know they're dummies: Just listen to those with more knowledge than you (Bishop Youssef).
I hope those lessons helped you out, Cephas. If you want me to elaborate, I can give examples or something.
It seems like a lot of Tasbeha threads end up devolving into personal debates like this.
Now say sorry to each other and lets all be friends again :)
My apologies to Cephas and everyone else.
I'm sorry. Want to be my friend again?
The fact of the matter is, the articles I have provided are not only here to present another perspective but are also grounded in fact and reality (as can be seen by the well referenced Wikipedia articles you both seem to have ignored) and not in some sort of warped pseudo-reality (a la Westboro).
Wait a minute, Cephas, was this a crack at me? Am I living in some sort of warped pseudo-reality because I work in Westboro, Mass and you don't agree with my comments? What does "a la Westboro" mean?
BTW, I am not saying that the Church is creating feasts to combat secular celebrations. I am saying that these feasts exist: It is a fact that Christ was born. When it happened is unclear. It might be the case that you kill two birds with one stone by placing it near a pagan feast. You bring people to celebrate Christ's birth and Incarnation while at the same time drawing people away from participation in foolish and worldly feasts.
This is not true .. there is a tradition and patristic writings that point to both the Nativity and the Annunciations feasts to be on the 29th of Kiahk and the 29th of Baramhat respectively.
If you need references let me know.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12513.msg147043#msg147043 date=1320332208]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12513.msg147008#msg147008 date=1320280696]
The fact of the matter is, the articles I have provided are not only here to present another perspective but are also grounded in fact and reality (as can be seen by the well referenced Wikipedia articles you both seem to have ignored) and not in some sort of warped pseudo-reality (a la Westboro).
Wait a minute, Cephas, was this a crack at me? Am I living in some sort of warped pseudo-reality because I work in Westboro, Mass and you don't agree with my comments? What does "a la Westboro" mean?
A crack at you? I don't think you actually think this is the case, least of all because I neither know you personally (or you me) nor do I know where you live or work.
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=12513.msg146881#msg146881 date=1320085065]
BTW, I am not saying that the Church is creating feasts to combat secular celebrations. I am saying that these feasts exist: It is a fact that Christ was born. When it happened is unclear. It might be the case that you kill two birds with one stone by placing it near a pagan feast. You bring people to celebrate Christ's birth and Incarnation while at the same time drawing people away from participation in foolish and worldly feasts.
This is not true .. there is a tradition and patristic writings that point to both the Nativity and the Annunciations feasts to be on the 29th of Kiahk and the 29th of Baramhat respectively.
If you need references let me know.
Yes I would like those references.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12513.msg147073#msg147073 date=1320372426]
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=12513.msg146881#msg146881 date=1320085065]
BTW, I am not saying that the Church is creating feasts to combat secular celebrations. I am saying that these feasts exist: It is a fact that Christ was born. When it happened is unclear. It might be the case that you kill two birds with one stone by placing it near a pagan feast. You bring people to celebrate Christ's birth and Incarnation while at the same time drawing people away from participation in foolish and worldly feasts.
This is not true .. there is a tradition and patristic writings that point to both the Nativity and the Annunciations feasts to be on the 29th of Kiahk and the 29th of Baramhat respectively.
If you need references let me know.
Yes I would like those references.
its not primary source but the Service of the Deacons book has a good entry for that. See the 29th of every coptic month section.
Well I know those dates are when the feasts are celebrated. I was hoping imikhail was going to point to some references to show how those dates were determined.
Before going into the references, one has to know that the Old calendar, the Julian calendar was the one used in the West and the East except within the Coptic Church who kept her Egyptian calendar. The Nativity feast used to fall on the 25th of December of the Julian year till Pope Gregory of Rome changed the calendar on October 5th 1582. The 25th of December used to coincide with 29th of Kiahk. Nowadays, it coincides with the 7th of January (of the Gregorian caldar).
Here are some ancient writings pointing to a traditional acceptance of when Christ was born.
1 - Hippolytus states that Jesus was born on the 25th of December in his book "De Pascha Computus"
2 - Calendar of Filocalus used by the Roman Church in 354 puts nativity feast on the 25th of December.
3 - Pope Benjamin the 1st (no. 38) celebrated Nativity on the 29th of kiahk as was the custom in the Church of Alexandria (Sawiros ben al Moqaffa Historia Patriarchum Alexandrinorum)
4 - Pope Christodolo No. 66 fixed the Nativity fast in the Coptic Church from 16 Hatour to the 28th of Kiahk as mentioned by Ibn Sebaa'
5 - The Arabic Didascalia (a 12th century document and a translation of the Syriac one) encourages the believers to celebrate nativity on the 25th of the 9th month of the Jews which is the 25th of the 4th month of the Egyptians.(Kiahk) [Chapter 18]
Hope this helps.
Just some comments about the above information.
First off, the work 'De Pascha Computus' was not written by Hippolytus. My search has indicated that it was an anonymous work and if it is attributed to anyone, it is to Cyprian.
Based on my search, Hippolytus dates Christ's birth to be in April. Furthermore, Origen did not think the date of Christ's birth was important and his teacher, St. Clement dates it in the spring according to the custom of the people at the time:
From The Stromata (Book I) Chapter 21 by St. Clement Source
As Remnkemi had pointed out, the date of December 25 does not become the official date celebrated by the Church until the time of St. John Chrysostom. Additionally, the early Christians did not celebrate the Nativity, instead opting to celebrate the Epiphany (and maybe the Nativity) together.
Based on the Gospel accounts, a spring birth makes far more sense than a winter birth for the simple reason of what the shepherds were doing on the night Christ was born. They were out in the fields tending their sheep. For those of you who have lived in the Middle East, you know how cold it gets in December at night. Thus, the behaviour of the shepherds (i.e. tending their sheep out in a field in the dead of winter) does not make logical sense.
In the end, the actual date of Christ's birth is not important. What matters is that He became incarnate, was born and granted us the means of attaining salvation.
The issue we are dealing with is how ancient is the fixing date of 29th of Kiahk and whether there is any reference in patristic writings that refer to it. Those I have pointed out in my last post. We also have an ancient document the Didescalia that dates to the time of Clement that fixes the date of Nativity to the 29th of kiahk.
There is no way to know for sure when Christ was born. However, the Church from around the 3rd century had fixed the date to the 25th of December (Julian) that is 29th of kiahk according to the Egyptian calendar.
The fact that St. Clement illustrates that there were those who believed Christ's birth to be in the spring clearly indicates that the date of the Feast was not fixed in his time (the 3rd Century). There is more evidence to suggest that it happened in the 4th Century during the time of John Chrysostom. I looked up chapter 18 of the Didascalia Apostolorum, and it says nothing about the date of Nativity being fixed.
From the Didascalia Apostolorum Source
"De Pascha Computus" being written around the year 240
The Arabic Dediscalia translated from the syriac.
Please look up the Arabic or the Coptic Didescalia.
The argument that Cephas raises, is not really valid: the argument that if you are unsure about your faith, then don't celebrate Halloween.
This is absurd. I might as well say that because I know that Jesus Christ IS Lord, and God, I might as well become a muslim, if not, I'm not sure about my faith.
This isn't a game where we have to do silly things in order to prove to others that we are strong in our faith and can celebrate halloween because we KNOW that this is just simple fun. We are also members of One Body that have to act with One Will, with One Voice, and with One accord.
This discussion has gone on far enough!!!!
Now, all i wanted to say is that if you have read H.G's message that was posted on this thread, PLEASE pass this around.
ENOUGH ALREADY!
Thanks.
I agree completely with you .
Bishops were chosen through the Holy Spirit to lead the Church. If the congregation do not submit and obey then the congregation is in direct conflict with God Himself.
OK.. look this thread is getting out of hand. I just asked a simple question, and I got the answer. I feel that as a Church, we cannot go off and disagree with Bishops who make statements like H.G. Bishop Youssef concerning . We are all One Body, and must be united.
The argument that Cephas raises, is not really valid: the argument that if you are unsure about your faith, then don't celebrate Halloween.
This is absurd. I might as well say that because I know that Jesus Christ IS Lord, and God, I might as well become a muslim, if not, I'm not sure about my faith.
This isn't a game where we have to do silly things in order to prove to others that we are strong in our faith and can celebrate halloween because we KNOW that this is just simple fun. We are also members of One Body that have to act with One Will, with One Voice, and with One accord.
This discussion has gone on far enough!!!!
Now, all i wanted to say is that if you have read H.G's message that was posted on this thread, PLEASE pass this around.
ENOUGH ALREADY!
Thanks.
Zoxasi, nobody is denying that the bishops are our loved and respected leaders and that no matter of what our stance on this minor issue is, we should try our best to be obedient to our diocesan bishops etc.
At the same time, our bishops are not the Pope of Rome...its not that what they say goes, period. That is the beauty of Orthodoxy which allows us to (in humilty and obedience) ask questions to our leaders when we have issues or another point of view on a topic. Also, not everything in the church is set in stone. Some things definitely are. What has been revealed and handed down to us is of course, but others require us to research and to use our common sense. In the end, even if I disagree with my bishop, as I mentioned before, I should go and bring up my issue with him and in the end be as obedient as possible. Thanks
[quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=12513.msg147102#msg147102 date=1320426611]
OK.. look this thread is getting out of hand. I just asked a simple question, and I got the answer. I feel that as a Church, we cannot go off and disagree with Bishops who make statements like H.G. Bishop Youssef concerning . We are all One Body, and must be united.
The argument that Cephas raises, is not really valid: the argument that if you are unsure about your faith, then don't celebrate Halloween.
This is absurd. I might as well say that because I know that Jesus Christ IS Lord, and God, I might as well become a muslim, if not, I'm not sure about my faith.
This isn't a game where we have to do silly things in order to prove to others that we are strong in our faith and can celebrate halloween because we KNOW that this is just simple fun. We are also members of One Body that have to act with One Will, with One Voice, and with One accord.
This discussion has gone on far enough!!!!
Now, all i wanted to say is that if you have read H.G's message that was posted on this thread, PLEASE pass this around.
ENOUGH ALREADY!
Thanks.
Zoxasi, nobody is denying that the bishops are our loved and respected leaders and that no matter of what our stance on this minor issue is, we should try our best to be obedient to our diocesan bishops etc.
At the same time, our bishops are not the Pope of Rome...its not that what they say goes, period. That is the beauty of Orthodoxy which allows us to (in humilty and obedience) ask questions to our leaders when we have issues or another point of view on a topic. Also, not everything in the church is set in stone. Some things definitely are. What has been revealed and handed down to us is of course, but others require us to research and to use our common sense. In the end, even if I disagree with my bishop, as I mentioned before, I should go and bring up my issue with him and in the end be as obedient as possible. Thanks
Indeed, our clergy are very much fallible. But this is a dichotomy. It has nothing to do with the chain of argument presented here. Because they are capable of making human mistakes does not mean that their guidance, their advice, their wisdom, and their message to us should be thrown down the drain.
Why, by your logic, we might as well NOT EVEN BOTHER attending sermons, because if a member of the Coptic Clergy is going to speak, he may say something we disagree with, so we won't bother.
What on earth is hard to comprehend that halloween is not a Christian feast. Its a pagan feast.
Why are we magnifying this for???