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
Halloween
I would like to knOw what the church's view on coptic children celebrating Halloween is?
Should they be allowed to?
I'm assuming that Halloween is non Christian.
Should they be allowed to?
I'm assuming that Halloween is non Christian.
Comments
I can just hear the sound of a can of worms opening as we speak.
http://www.suscopts.org/resources/literature/242/halloween/
It was only a matter of time. And the can opens further.
Thank you also for the link you sent. This is exactly what I was looking for.
I think it is up to everyone of us here to distribute this link to our friends on Facebook.
Indeed, we should not be celebrating any satanistic event.
With all respect to His Grace, the article presents a great deal of misinformation and is very poorly referenced (i.e. not referenced at all). The Wikipedia articles on Samhain and Halloween are at least fairly well researched and referenced.
If you are secure enough in your faith to know that there is nothing 'satanic' about Halloween, then take your kids trick or treating. If you aren't secure enough in your faith, don't. If you prefer attending the events at Church, feel free. If you don't prefer attending, then don't.
FYI: Just because a bunch of neopagans in this modern day run around dressing up in black and listening to stupid emo music honour Halloween as some major 'feast' does not make it a satanic holiday. Educate yourselves on the history of certain feasts instead of listening to people 'cry wolf' as it were. A lot of people think Harry Potter is evil too. Those tend to be people who haven't pick up a book in their life.
In the end, St. Paul says it best:
[quote=Romans 14]The Law of Liberty
1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written:
“ As I live, says the LORD,
Every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall confess to God.”
12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.
The Law of Love
14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men.
19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. 22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
With all respect to His Grace, the article presents a great deal of misinformation and is very poorly referenced (i.e. not referenced at all). The Wikipedia articles on Samhain and Halloween are at least fairly well researched and referenced.
If you are secure enough in your faith to know that there is nothing 'satanic' about Halloween, then take your kids trick or treating. If you aren't secure enough in your faith, don't. If you prefer attending the events at Church, feel free. If you don't prefer attending, then don't.
FYI: Just because a bunch of neopagans in this modern day run around dressing up in black and listening to stupid emo music honour Halloween as some major 'feast' does not make it a satanic holiday. Educate yourselves on the history of certain feasts instead of listening to people 'cry wolf' as it were. A lot of people think Harry Potter is evil too. Those tend to be people who haven't pick up a book in their life.
In the end, St. Paul says it best:
...
Kyphas,
Do you disagree that we should listen to HG simply out of obedience?
+ Irini nem ehmot,
With all respect to His Grace, the article presents a great deal of misinformation and is very poorly referenced (i.e. not referenced at all). The Wikipedia articles on Samhain and Halloween are at least fairly well researched and referenced.
If you are secure enough in your faith to know that there is nothing 'satanic' about Halloween, then take your kids trick or treating. If you aren't secure enough in your faith, don't. If you prefer attending the events at Church, feel free. If you don't prefer attending, then don't.
FYI: Just because a bunch of neopagans in this modern day run around dressing up in black and listening to stupid emo music honour Halloween as some major 'feast' does not make it a satanic holiday. Educate yourselves on the history of certain feasts instead of listening to people 'cry wolf' as it were. A lot of people think Harry Potter is evil too. Those tend to be people who haven't pick up a book in their life.
You have already been desensitized to the point of numbness. Halloween has nothing 'satanic' about it?! People running around dressed as goblins and ghosts saying that there is nothing satanic about the day is in itself disturbing. But this how the devil works to deceive the world. A day is put aside to make light of evil and what we don't realize is it that this attitude is not confined to Oct. 31st but spills over into the rest of the year.
I mean it is utter nonsense and outright foolishness to participate in this day! Who in their right mind dresses up and asks for candy of people on any other day? Why is Oct. 31st any different? Because everyone is doing it?
But I echo the words of Michael, shouldn't we listen to H.G. out of obedience? This certainly is a fundamental virtue on which the church was founded. Maybe H.G.'s article was not up to your high caliber?
Check these out: AUDIO & ARTICLE
Check these out: AUDIO & ARTICLE
i read the article. AMAZING. i completely agree with this priest. if we say to the modern-day "pagans" that we don't celebrate halloween because we're "not from this world"..they'll laugh because on the 364 other days, we act as people of the world. i pray that I, and all Christians, could see how much we've all conformed to the world; that our eyes would be opened to the devil's subtle tricks. Thanks for sharing!!
+ Irini nem ehmot,
With all respect to His Grace, the article presents a great deal of misinformation and is very poorly referenced (i.e. not referenced at all). The Wikipedia articles on Samhain and Halloween are at least fairly well researched and referenced.
If you are secure enough in your faith to know that there is nothing 'satanic' about Halloween, then take your kids trick or treating. If you aren't secure enough in your faith, don't. If you prefer attending the events at Church, feel free. If you don't prefer attending, then don't.
FYI: Just because a bunch of neopagans in this modern day run around dressing up in black and listening to stupid emo music honour Halloween as some major 'feast' does not make it a satanic holiday. Educate yourselves on the history of certain feasts instead of listening to people 'cry wolf' as it were. A lot of people think Harry Potter is evil too. Those tend to be people who haven't pick up a book in their life.
In the end, St. Paul says it best:
[quote=Romans 14]The Law of Liberty
1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written:
“ As I live, says the LORD,
Every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall confess to God.”
12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.
The Law of Love
14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men.
19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. 22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.
Cephas,
To be perfectly honest with you, I really disagree with your opinion on this. The celebration of Halloween is nothing short of celebrating Satanism.
This was a pagan festival. Why are we celebrating pagan festivals? The Catholic Pope tried his best to replace it with ALL SAINTS DAY, and yet people still are going around asking for trick or treats??
What is this?
This is quite disturbing indeed. The Catholic Church should be thanked for this - they have tried so hard to offer an alternative to this pagan feast (in every way possible). In France, for example, they have an outdoor party called Holy Wins - (to sound like Halloween) so the youth can come and listen to at least Christian music. The Church is open for those who wish to come inside and light a candle.
I think the church should teach was it right, and leave everyone to do as they wish. But I don't agree with having an alternative (all saint's day) for the Satanic feast.
We've been the same for over 2000 years; I personally don't think it's right to adjust Orthodoxy whenever the culture around us invents new ways to worship Satan.
And as HGBY stated, there is no "all saint's day" in the Coptic Church, and "any participating with this day is sharing with their feast" (when referring to eating candy or dressing up in costumes).
Thoxsasi,
I think the church should teach was it right, and leave everyone to do as they wish. But I don't agree with having an alternative (all saint's day) for the Satanic feast.
We've been the same for over 2000 years; I personally don't think it's right to adjust Orthodoxy whenever the culture around us invents new ways to worship Satan.
And as HGBY stated, there is no "all saint's day" in the Coptic Church, and "any participating with this day is sharing with their feast" (when referring to eating candy or dressing up in costumes).
There is no All Saints day in the Coptic Church. That's true.
But I don't understand your point, TITL? I agree and even second what Anba Youssef has written. I was merely saying that the RC tried hard to replace Halloween with All Saints Day.
What's wrong with having an alternative to Halloween??
Thoxsasi,
I think the church should teach was it right, and leave everyone to do as they wish. But I don't agree with having an alternative (all saint's day) for the Satanic feast.
We've been the same for over 2000 years; I personally don't think it's right to adjust Orthodoxy whenever the culture around us invents new ways to worship Satan.
And as HGBY stated, there is no "all saint's day" in the Coptic Church, and "any participating with this day is sharing with their feast" (when referring to eating candy or dressing up in costumes).
(emphasis mine)
How is offering alternative celebrations adjusting Orthodoxy? The faith and dogma remain the same regardless. . .
I hope you are aware that for a period (not sure how long) the Church did not celebrate the Nativity but only the Epiphany. Celebrating the Nativity was introduced to combat the celebration of "'the birthday of the unconquered,' the day of the winter solstice and at the same time, in Rome, the last day of the Saturnalia, which had long since degenerated into a week of unbridled carnival." (Werner Keller, The Bible as History, pg. 331).
Others claim that it was to replace the feast of the Son of Isis (Goddess of Nature), which was a time of party hard and drinking and basically merriment
The Church did not know what day Christ was actually born. . .
I guess you can ask Remnkemi... he's more educated than I am. ;)
Find me any biblical proof or writings from the father that prove the date of the Annunciation and I will concede.
It's simply 9 month before the Nativity that is always on 29 of Kiahk. I think the Annunciation is 29th baramhat-- it always comes during lent.
I cannot say that I understand totally the spiritual context of All Saints Day. As you all correctly point out, its not an orthodox feast (as far as I know).
I still respect the idea of the Catholic Church at least trying to replace Halloween anyway with an alternative.
Find me any biblical proof or writings from the father that prove the date of the Annunciation and I will concede.
I was going to get to this on my talk about polygamy but I got side-tracked by other things. Sometimes there is no smoking gun proof or reference to a certain belief or act that time has concluded as being "Orthodox" or "un-Orthodox". Yet, it seems that the Fathers were not so "black and white" about the burden of proof for certain actions. Polygamy is one such example. Polygamy is forbidden in St Basil's Canon 80 in His Letter 218 "To Amphilochius, the Canons.". St Basil was aware that there was no biblical or patristic solid proof against polygamy. He writes, "On polygamy the Fathers are silent, as being brutish and altogether inhuman. The sin seems to me worse than fornication. It is therefore reasonable that such sinners should be subject to the canons; namely a year’s weeping, three years kneeling and then reception." For something that doesn't have any biblical or patristic support, a 4 year punishment on polygamy seems excessive. The words "it seems to ME" gives us his personal opinion that polygamy is worse than fornication. From this personal opinion, not ground in patristic evidence, the rest of the Christian world agreed and confirmed its stand against polygamy. I believe that the general consensus among the bishops of the 4th century and the Orthodox Church was that polygamy is sinful, even if it was practiced and condoned in the Old Testament.
The same is probably true for the dating of Nativity and Annunciation and Resurrection. The general consensus among the bishops and the rest of the world is that creation started on the spring equinox and Jesus' conception in the St Mary's womb occurred on March 15 (or Baramhat 29 in the Coptic calendar). 9 months later is Kiahk 29. As supporting evidence, we look at the dating of the Resurrection feast. As a movable feast date, St Demetrius created the Epoch to make sure the Resurrection happened on the Sunday after the first moon after the Jewish Passover. But as a fixed commemoration date, it falls on Baramhat 29 for the same reason. The new creation (as St Paul described it in 1 Corinthians 15) began at the Resurrection and we remember it on Baramhat 29, the same spring equinox. Again there is no smoking gun proof from the Bible or the Fathers why the Annunciation and the Resurrection occur on the same day. I will have to research some more about the Annunciation date but so far this is the general consensus among modern scholars.
[This very homily has been cited to prove the antiquity of the festival of the Annunciation, observed, in the West, March 25. But even Pellicia objects that this is a spurious work. The feast of the Nativity was introduced into the East by Chrysostom after the records at Rome had been inspected, and the time of the taxing at Bethlehem had been found. See his Sermon (a.d. 386), beautifully translated by Dr. Jarvis in his Introduction, etc., p. 541. Compare Tertullian, vol. iii. p. 164, and Justin, vol. i. p. 174, this series. Now, as the selection of the 25th of March is clearly based on this, we may say no more of that day. Possibly some Sunday was associated with the Annunciation. The four Sundays preceding Christmas are all observed by the Nestorians in commemoration of the Annunciation.]
The very same author also mentions some important facts in his History of the Christian Church. Vol 3., Chapter 77, "The Christmas Cycle"
I gather that it was St John Chrysostom on the Nativity Feast December 25th, 386 AD who advocated separating the Nativity Feast from the Theophany Feast. St John Chyrsostom states uses a registration found in the Roman archives that Christ was born December 25. There is no evidence that this registration existed. But from there the whole world began to celebrate the Feast of Nativity. Philip Schaff also concurs that the Nativity Feast occurred as a "baptism" of the December pagan feasts, something that could not have happened in the first 3 centuries of the Christian world because of the prevalence of pagan worship in the Roman government.
Schaff states that many fathers, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Leo and others, all believed the Nativity fell on December 25th after the winter solstice. These father apparently called Christmas "the birth of Christ, the birth-festival of the unconquered sun" in direct opposition to pagan epigraphs and titles. But, in addition to these titles for Christmas, "the prevailing opinion of the church in the fourth and fifth centuries, that Christ was actually born on the twenty-fifth of December; and Chrysostom appeals, in behalf of this view, to the date of the registration under Quirinius (Cyrenius), preserved in the Roman archives."
The Circumcision Feast was also dated in conjunction with "Christian New Year" which "created" on the same day as the Roman pagan New Year. The pagans Romans celebrated New Years with revel, the Christian New Year calls for a day of repentance. "Thus Augustine, in a sermon, [writes]: “Separate yourselves from the heathen, and at the change of the year do the opposite of what they do. They give each other gifts; give ye alms instead. They sing worldly songs; read ye the word of God. They throng the theatre come ye to the church. They drink themselves drunken; do ye fast.” "
I guess this last patristic quote should resolve this Halloween and Thanskgiving debate. It's ok to have an alternative feast to "baptize" the paganism of the secular feast (whether it is Christmas, Thanksgiving or Halloween) as long as we do the exact opposite of what they do. (In my opinion, history tells us that this doesn't happen. Revel acts continue and overtake the Christian, spiritual message of the feast.)
Summary:
1. The Annunciation Feast was considered March 25th by some fathers, most influencial was St Gregory Thaumaturgus. This March 25th date was most likely related to the prevailing Spring equinox and the start of creation theory.
2. Only the Theophany Feast was celebrated in the 2nd century. The Nativity Feast was separated from the Theophany by St John Chyrsostom in 386 AD
3. St John believed Christ was physically born on December 25th, which means the Annunciation must be March 25th in Julian Calendar and Kiahk 29 and Baramhat 29 in the respective Coptic/Alexandrian Calendar. It had nothing to do with pagan festivals.
4. Anthropological similarities and references to pagan feasts can be seen in how Christians celebrated these feasts - there was some sort of pagan similarity (whether a Christmas tree or lighting wax tapers (candles) or drunkenness and gluttony). The fact that these similarities existed (and still exist) shows Christians tended not to follow St Augustine's advice.
5. Nothing is inherently wrong with baptizing anything pagan, as long as you do the opposite of what they do.
George
PS. Dzheremi, you were right all along.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12513.msg146830#msg146830 date=1319999271]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
With all respect to His Grace, the article presents a great deal of misinformation and is very poorly referenced (i.e. not referenced at all). The Wikipedia articles on Samhain and Halloween are at least fairly well researched and referenced.
If you are secure enough in your faith to know that there is nothing 'satanic' about Halloween, then take your kids trick or treating. If you aren't secure enough in your faith, don't. If you prefer attending the events at Church, feel free. If you don't prefer attending, then don't.
FYI: Just because a bunch of neopagans in this modern day run around dressing up in black and listening to stupid emo music honour Halloween as some major 'feast' does not make it a satanic holiday. Educate yourselves on the history of certain feasts instead of listening to people 'cry wolf' as it were. A lot of people think Harry Potter is evil too. Those tend to be people who haven't pick up a book in their life.
In the end, St. Paul says it best:
...
Kyphas,
Do you disagree that we should listen to HG simply out of obedience?
I agree. We should obey our bishops unless they want us to sin against God. HG Bishop Youssef is my bishop and I should obey him in the matter of Halloween. If your bishop has advised against Halloween you should obey. Obedience doesn't have to make any sense.
As a classic example [of obedience], there is the story in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers about the monk who was told to plant a dry stick in the sand and to water it daily. So distant was the spring from his cell that he had to leave in the evening to fetch the water and he only returned in the following morning. For three years he patiently fulfilled his abba's command. At the end of this period, the stick suddenly put forth leaves and bore fruit. The abba picked the fruit, took it to the church, and invited the monks to eat, saying, "Take and eat the fruit of obedience."
Holloween was originaly a pagan holiday. The pagans would sacrafice livestock to their gods (which we believe is wrong). Later on when the Roman empire took over that land and most of the land became catholic, the pope (catholic) replaced this holiday with Holloween (means "saints Eve"). he did this to stop the holiday not celebrate another one. So really you should celebrate Halloween. Thanks for taking the time to read and I hope I answered your question.
i am confused. so the catholic pope kept the name of the "feast" but change what is done in it?! please read what you have written and clarify.
Holloween was originaly a pagan holiday. The pagans would sacrafice livestock to their gods (which we believe is wrong). Later on when the Roman empire took over that land and most of the land became catholic, the pope (catholic) replaced this holiday with Holloween (means "saints Eve"). he did this to stop the holiday not celebrate another one. So really you should celebrate Halloween. Thanks for taking the time to read and I hope I answered your question.
Andrew / Unworthy1's article summed up the history nicely:
http://www.allsaintsofamerica.org/orthodoxy/halloween.html
Not that this will make a shred of difference to anyone here, what with everyone's preconceived notions and love for misinformation, but here are two articles on Halloween that provide an alternative Orthodox and Catholic perspective:
Orthodox Perspective: Source
Catholic Perspective: Source
And no, there are no references, but who cares about references anyway, right?