Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Confusing History????
I was reading in the Paradise of the Saints about a Holy Man named
Abba Pambo (Pambis) who was the teacher of Origen, Ammonious, Eusubious, and Dioscorus.
In his short biography by St. Palladus he describes Origen as a PRIEST
and the above listed names as the "Tall Brothers"
He then goes on to tell us their stories referring to them as the Blessed
Ok so my questions are:
"The Tall Brothers were cut off by Pope Demetrius the 12th for choosing to follow Origen, so why would the Author refer to them in such a positive way (im not saying they werent saints im just wondering if theres an explanation) if the book was collected by Abba Athanasius hte 20th (meaning it was collected after the incident, so shouldnt the view be a bit more differnt) ??"
Secondly
"Origen was refereed to as a Priest (while living in Egypt), but that ocnflicts with the fact that he was cut off by Pope Demetrius because he was ordained a Priest (against he Popes wishes) in ceaseria ?"
Abba Pambo (Pambis) who was the teacher of Origen, Ammonious, Eusubious, and Dioscorus.
In his short biography by St. Palladus he describes Origen as a PRIEST
and the above listed names as the "Tall Brothers"
He then goes on to tell us their stories referring to them as the Blessed
Ok so my questions are:
"The Tall Brothers were cut off by Pope Demetrius the 12th for choosing to follow Origen, so why would the Author refer to them in such a positive way (im not saying they werent saints im just wondering if theres an explanation) if the book was collected by Abba Athanasius hte 20th (meaning it was collected after the incident, so shouldnt the view be a bit more differnt) ??"
Secondly
"Origen was refereed to as a Priest (while living in Egypt), but that ocnflicts with the fact that he was cut off by Pope Demetrius because he was ordained a Priest (against he Popes wishes) in ceaseria ?"
Comments
"The Tall Brothers were cut off by Pope Demetrius the 12th for choosing to follow Origen, so why would the Author refer to them in such a positive way (im not saying they werent saints im just wondering if theres an explanation) if the book was collected by Abba Athanasius hte 20th (meaning it was collected after the incident, so shouldnt the view be a bit more differnt) ??"
we don't deny Origin as a christian at all. But we just don't consider him as a saint for the the known sin he did that he didn't repent upon, and because of some sayings he said. other than that he was a great chritian pholosfer. we support a lot of writings. but not all. he was cut of after a while from being priest. and if he's a priest, he would be called priest till he actually left egypt.
As far as I know, Origen was never a priest. He was a great teacher at the School of Alexandria. However, he was never a priest (in Alexandria that is). The reason (well, one of them anyway) he was excommunicated by Pope Demetrius was because he accepted ordination in a See which was not his own. Origen could not have become a priest because of the fact that he had taken the verse where Christ said, "... and there will be those who make themselves eunuchs" (cf. Matthew 19:12) literally and castrated himself.
until I read St. Palludus Refer to him as a Priest (keep in mind that this was when he was still in Mt. Nitria in Egypt)
When Origen was ordained a Priest against Church Law (cuz he was a eunuch) he had to perform a Mass, now during his Mass, did the bread and wine transform into the Body and Blood of Christ, being that he was elected Priest wrongfully?
This also got me thinking:
When Origen was ordained a Priest against Church Law (cuz he was a eunuch) he had to perform a Mass, now during his Mass, did the bread and wine transform into the Body and Blood of Christ, being that he was elected Priest wrongfully?
well who ever belived it was thought that. but in our church, NO, because he was not a canonical priest.
actually the main reason of refuting him and hiim beeing a saint is because he was a eunuch and he did not repent. also i think i our church, eunuchs and poeple with specific disabilites can't be ordained as clergy members. that incldue deacons to
[quote author=gregorytheSinner link=topic=5684.msg75889#msg75889 date=1187803096]
This also got me thinking:
When Origen was ordained a Priest against Church Law (cuz he was a eunuch) he had to perform a Mass, now during his Mass, did the bread and wine transform into the Body and Blood of Christ, being that he was elected Priest wrongfully?
The transformation of the bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ is not an act performed by the priest. It is the work of the Holy Spirit, who brings about the change of these elements. Thus, I would think that yes, if Origen did perform a liturgy, then the bread and wine would have become the True Body and Blood of Christ. I've heard that, even if an ordained priest has lost his faith, and no longer believes that the wine and bread are in fact the Body and Blood of Christ, should he perform a liturgy, the elements still become the very true Body and Blood of our Lord. The Eucharist is a sacrament rooted in the faith of the Church, and not the individual.
My little brother used to play "abouna" when he was a child
and he asked a family friend, who was a preist, if he wat he did was wrong and the preist said as long as the "bread" wasnt a hamal (one of the loaves that isnt chosen as the Holy Body) then it was all in good spirit cuz he used to do the same as a child.
But im pretty sure that the Orban my brohter used to "pray his little mass" on with wasnt changed into the Body of Christ? evne though the transformation isnt done by the priest...u guys get were i'm going with this
I'm not sure why it matters if it is the hamal or not, but that's another matter. The transformation of the bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ is defined within the context of the Liturgy. If an ordained priest is not performing a liturgy, then no transformation will occur. Furthermore, only an ordained priest can perform a liturgy. Thus, even if you're a kid and do a 'play' liturgy, it's not 'real' because you are a kid and not an ordained priest.
What if the Priest is wrongfully ordained?
Origen was an ordained priest. Whether rightfully or wrongfully, a Bishop of another See saw fit to ordain him into the service of the Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church of God. As such, Origen was a priest and was qualified to carry out all priestly functions.
OK so waht about Max Michel....the heretic, i mean he was "ordained a bishop" and im pretty sure its not rightful, so do the people who partake of the Holy Communion from him, really taking in Jesus' Body and Blood?
Cefas said:
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=5684.msg75900#msg75900 date=1187809537]
Origen was an ordained priest. Whether rightfully or wrongfully, a Bishop of another See saw fit to ordain him into the service of the Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church of God. As such, Origen was a priest and was qualified to carry out all priestly functions.
that happend when there was the Orthodox church. now, we are diffrent.
and u urself said "the heretic" , than who ever is following him are with him in the sin. and what's the point of communion for them who deny the true faith.
As far as I know, regarding Max Michel, he appointed himself bishop. No member of ANY recognized Orthodox clergy ordained him Bishop. Thus his ordination is a farce and he is a nobody. Origen's case is different. He was ordained by a Bishop of the Orthodox Church, thus making his ordination 'valid'. So basically, I cannot wake up one day, appoint myself Bishop of Canada, and then start performing liturgies. There is a procedure of ordination involved that is only valid within the context of the Church. Anything that happens outside the Church is not valid. Since Max Michel is not a valid bishop, he cannot perform a valid liturgy, and thus, any 'liturgy' he does perform is void of the grace of the Holy Spirit.
So what is the COC view on other churches who have the sacrament of communioin? Do we believe that the transformation of the bread actually occurs?
[coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]
I'm not sure why it matters if it is the hamal or not, but that's another matter. The transformation of the bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ is defined within the context of the Liturgy. If an ordained priest is not performing a liturgy, then no transformation will occur. Furthermore, only an ordained priest can perform a liturgy. Thus, even if you're a kid and do a 'play' liturgy, it's not 'real' because you are a kid and not an ordained priest.
No because in egypt, someone was doing the same thing. "play Liturgy"
And while he was praying the consecration of the bread and wine, he saw the angel of the sacrifice, and the holy spirit descend upon the bread and wine. Once he saw this he ran to the bishop, and the bishop told him that if you saw the holy spirit descend on the bread and wine, then the transformation has occurred. However, if you pray a liturgy without doing the consecration, then the transformation will not occur. And again, this wasn't a consecraated priest.
was the person then ordained a priest?
That i don't know. Sorry. But I can give you another example, not about the Holy Eucharist.
In the story of St. Athanasius, they're was a woman who just gave birth. Her kid was about to die without baptism. So she baptized him herself, praying to god and saying that it's not his fault that they didn't get baptised in a proper way. In the end the child lived and she took him to saint Athanasius to be baptised. When Anba Athanasius tried to dunk the child in the water he couldn't. He told her their can only be one real baptism and you have already done it.
[quote author=PopeKyrillos link=topic=5684.msg75909#msg75909 date=1187830881]
No because in egypt, someone was doing the same thing. "play Liturgy"
And while he was praying the consecration of the bread and wine, he saw the angel of the sacrifice, and the holy spirit descend upon the bread and wine. Once he saw this he ran to the bishop, and the bishop told him that if you saw the holy spirit descend on the bread and wine, then the transformation has occurred. However, if you pray a liturgy without doing the consecration, then the transformation will not occur. And again, this wasn't a consecraated priest.
Please forgive my skepticism in this matter. I find it hard to believe that the angel of the sacrifice and the Holy Spirit are blind to the fact as to whether or not a liturgy is actually legitimate (i.e. performed on a consecrated altar by a consecrated priest) or whether a liturgy is done as play. The Holy Spirit does not descend willy nilly to consecrate anything just because a person recites a set of prayers. There is a lot more involved in this then merely reciting words.
As for your example of the mother baptizing her child, this is an example of an exception to the rule as a result of an extreme case. Church history is ripe with such examples. For instance, baptism is required by immersion in water in order to obtain salvation. However, if we look at the good thief, he was not baptized, and yet he was worthy of inheriting the kingdom of God. Why? Because he literally died with Christ, which is what baptism is all about. Thus, in the case of the mother and her child, the mother was certain that the child would die, and wanted it to be baptized, thus baptizing it with her own blood. It was valid because of the faith of the woman under those extreme circumstances. This is not an everyday occurance, so do not think for one minute that anyone can do this, especially if there is a Church within reasonable distance where the baptism could be done by a consecrated priest.
So does the Coptic Orhtodox Church acknowledge the Commuinon of Other Churches? I mean do we see their bread as the Body of Christ?
no. that's why you are not to take communion in the other churchs.
No. we are not united with them.....yet. but we do consider their baptism when one converts of their church as Eastern orthodox.....not othe denomination who also baptis.
you can't only unite in one sacement and not the rest.
So if a EOC converts to Coptic Orthodoxism he only confesses, he isnt rebaptized?
No. he would just need to be anointed with the miron to fullfill all the sacrements.
we are seperated from them due to our Dogmatic Beliefs
they believe in Dithyisim while we believe in Miathyism
The EOC approved the council of chalcedon of 451 and then split in another council from the Roman Catholic Church
We didn't approve of the council of chalcedon to start with
na we used to but we split...
we are seperated from them due to our Dogmatic Beliefs
they believe in Dithyisim while we believe in Miathyism
The EOC approved the council of chalcedon of 451 and then split in another council from the Roman Catholic Church
We didn't approve of the council of chalcedon to start with
we still are split.
but meeting have been going on and we been saying the same thing all along. we had the same faith.
the big mistake that everyone is doing is that we are not Monophysite. we still in the 2 natures of Christ in One Christ. as it says in the Liturgy:
"Truly I believe that His divinity parted not from His humanity for a single moment, nor a twinkling of an eye..."
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/
In Christ,
Anglia