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
So excited to be part of this community!
Hi All!
My name is Marina from the Marina Show on CYC
Looking for interesting topics to cover on the show!
My name is Marina from the Marina Show on CYC
Looking for interesting topics to cover on the show!
Comments
Hi All!
My name is Marina from the Marina Show on CYC
Looking for interesting topics to cover on the show!
I love your show - what a great service!
I just thought I would make one comment - in one of your shows, when you were interviewing a feminist, you said it's OK to be Coptic (ie Orthodox) and feminist. I think you should have clarified that you meant feminism in societal terms (eg equal opportunities for women etc), not inside the church or the Orthodox family. Feminism has no place inside the church, for men and women are already equal. The perception that they are not is what needs to be countered.
I understand you were interviewing a staunch feminist on the show, so you couldn't say anything too drastic, but maybe it might help to have a part at the end of your show where you present the balanced, considered viewpoint of the church, so as not to be constrained by your interviewee.
God bless.
But skimming a few episodes, I do have some concerns. If you are open to hearing them, I can share.
God bless the service.
Pardon me, but I don't have any topic ideas.
But skimming a few episodes, I do have some concerns. If you are open to hearing them, I can share.
God bless the service.
Likewise. I actually am geographically a little closer than you think to you, marina lol. Wow I sound like a stalker. Since you are excited to be part of this community, I feel it fair to warn you that most here are hard knockers, which means that while you may find support, you will find criticism just about as much. We do this in love, though we do not censer the reality of our views.
God bless your service, and that of your family!
RO
Keep doing what you do; your show is a fun, accessible and authentic Orthodox witness to Christ.
God bless you.
Dear Marina,
Keep doing what you do; your show is a fun, accessible and authentic Orthodox witness to Christ.
God bless you.
I appreciate your spirit of encouragement, InChrist7, but to call this show an "authentic Orthodox witness to Christ" is a stretch. If we were to censor the CYC label in the background, this show could pass for a TBN program. You wouldn't call a program on TBN an "authentic Orthodox witness to Christ", would you? Assuming you wouldn't, why do you label this show as such? Is it merely because the host is Coptic Orthodox?
The show neither begins nor ends in the name of the Holy Trinity; the reflections on the passages from the Bible do not appeal to any of our Fathers' interpretations; the guests do not seem to be Orthodox, the undertone of each episode I've seen is feminist. . .etc.
I am sincerely disappointed that your criticism was in the name of 'orthodoxy'. That being said, please don't ever post this kind of criticism on the internet in the name of my faith- because what was said was simply judgmental - now, is that a Christian virtue? No, its not.
Let's act as Christians with one another first, and not as 'Orthodox' extremests.
I appreciate your spirit of encouragement, InChrist7, but to call this show an "authentic Orthodox witness to Christ" is a stretch. If we were to censor the CYC label in the background, this show could pass for a TBN program. You wouldn't call a program on TBN an "authentic Orthodox witness to Christ", would you? Assuming you wouldn't, why do you label this show as such? Is it merely because the host is Coptic Orthodox?
The show neither begins nor ends in the name of the Holy Trinity; the reflections on the passages from the Bible do not appeal to any of our Fathers' interpretations; the guests do not seem to be Orthodox, the undertone of each episode I've seen is feminist. . .etc.
Hey Andrew. Nice name. Interesting post. It sparked my curiosity...
I just finished watching the show linked in the original post. When I read your comment, it made me wonder why you believe this show should not be considered orthodox. Is it only because of the reasons you listed?
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=14150.msg162691#msg162691 date=1358233044]
I appreciate your spirit of encouragement, InChrist7, but to call this show an "authentic Orthodox witness to Christ" is a stretch. If we were to censor the CYC label in the background, this show could pass for a TBN program. You wouldn't call a program on TBN an "authentic Orthodox witness to Christ", would you? Assuming you wouldn't, why do you label this show as such? Is it merely because the host is Coptic Orthodox?
The show neither begins nor ends in the name of the Holy Trinity; the reflections on the passages from the Bible do not appeal to any of our Fathers' interpretations; the guests do not seem to be Orthodox, the undertone of each episode I've seen is feminist. . .etc.
Hey Andrew. Nice name. Interesting post. It sparked my curiosity...
I just finished watching the show linked in the original post. When I read your comment, it made me wonder why you believe this show should not be considered orthodox. Is it only because of the reasons you listed?
I have yet not said the show is un-Orthodox, though there are some concerning aspects I raised above.
Just because the host is Orthodox, does not mean the show is. It may contain beneficial advice, and that is great.
For me, this show is on somewhat neutral territory. My only issue was with InChrist7 anointing this show as an "authentic Orthodox witness to Christ". That type of language is much too charitable.
Look - my intention was not to criticize the show. I gave Marina an opportunity to express openness to receiving my thoughts, but she did not respond, so I withheld them. I really have nothing further to say.
That said, I do hope this has made some people think about the question underlying some of our discussion: what makes something Orthodox?
That said, I do hope this has made some people think about the question underlying some of our discussion: what makes something Orthodox?
Sounds to me like that's the exact question you dodged. But since you're the one asking it now, I'll let you answer it first :)
Why do you believe that labeling this show as an "authentic orthodox witness to Christ" is a stretch?
I am much more privy to a lot of information than one may assume. I am currently working with CYC on a project which I am hoping to launch soon (apart from another pitch which I was thinking of delivering.) I have been in contact with some priests who share the exact same concerns as me regarding much of the shows on CYC. I have reserves about the Marina Show, regardless of how others may see me, or how my fellow thinkers are demeaned.
It is a shame that true dialogue is over-ridden by hostile defenses of people rather than the defense of the truth (from both sides.) Orthodoxy, you were correct to take down your criticism. I did not see it, but I am going to assume that the were not accepted by the general consensus. This, however, does not mean that you should shy away from voicing them. Speak to the CYC committee, and try to get straight to the top.
Any time that I know Abouna Bishoy or Bishop Marcos is coming to my city, I prepare a list of things that need to go on CYC. Some of them have gone. I have recently sent a message to Abouna Bishoy regarding 2 shows, and he assured me that he will deal with the issue. I guess what I am trying to say is that while Tasbeha.org may no longer be a place for dialogue (instead replaced with two extremes; being: A- Wars of opinion, or B- Misguided agreeableness) that need not shut us up.
Solidman, there is no dodging of questions, but a desire for mutual understanding. I don't think what Andrew is doing is trying to pigeon hole you into describe Orthodoxy, but rather, trying to reach along with you a common ground for qualifying something as Orthodox. This need not turn into a debate that wastes both all our time, or hurts the feelings of Marina (who, regardless of my opinion of the show, I can admit is a true Christ-like individual). So why do we not try to work together, first, to come up with a qualification of what Orthodoxy is. From that point, we can move forward, and assess together. This prevents us from forming extreme opinions which polarize through the conversation.
If I may begin, I would like to put together a few ideas of what it means to be Orthodox. I would appreciate if others did the same, and then we use a Socratic approach to see whether the Marina Show is fine. If it is fine, we leave it, and support it. If we realize it has problems, then we try to fix it lovingly, and I am more than certain that Marina is by no means opposed to suggestions (in fact, the very reason she came here was for our suggestions.)
Orthodoxy is:
I am by no means saying that the Marina Show contradicts all of these. In fact, I think that it wonderfully fulfills many. I just want to, for once, have a conversation directed on ideas common to all, with the intent that it will lead to a conclusion common to all, and a better understanding of one another.[li]Built on a Scriptural foundation (both verbal and spiritually implied)[/li]
[li]Built on a spirit of love[/li]
[li]Built on a deep devotion to the words of our divinely inspired fathers[/li]
[li]Built on an academic understanding of theology, lived out and made clearer by prayer. It is not, however, over-rational, nor heartlessly academic. [/li]
[li]Orthodoxy is an ethos. There cannot be Orthodox spirituality, without an Orthodox spiritual demeanor. This means that calmness, love, wisdom, and sacramental spirituality must be an integral component of this Orthodoxy[/li]
Pray for me,
RO
Solidman,
I did not dodge your question, but perhaps my answer to it did not meet your expectations. You
should realize that your question and mine are not the same. You ask a question that merely requires
me to list things that can disqualify something as Orthodox. I, on the other hand, have asked you to indirectly define Orthodoxy. Answering your question may give us a picture of Orthodoxy, negatively -answering my question requires a positive account.
In any case, I have said all I wanted regarding this show. If you want to start another thread to continue this discussion, please do. But, out of respect for marina's thread, I won't continue here.
This need not turn into a debate that wastes both all our time, or hurts the feelings of Marina (who, regardless of my opinion of the show, I can admit is a true Christ-like individual). So why do we not try to work together, first, to come up with a qualification of what Orthodoxy is. From that point, we can move forward, and assess together. This prevents us from forming extreme opinions which polarize through the conversation.
If I may begin, I would like to put together a few ideas of what it means to be Orthodox. I would appreciate if others did the same, and then we use a Socratic approach to see whether the Marina Show is fine. If it is fine, we leave it, and support it. If we realize it has problems, then we try to fix it lovingly, and I am more than certain that Marina is by no means opposed to suggestions (in fact, the very reason she came here was for our suggestions.)
I like the option ReturnOrthodoxy came up with. We first define what is Orthodox & then we can work from there.
The Orthodox Teaching boils down to 5 sources or rather one source - Tradition. To be specific the The Church Fathers, those who have passed before us, starting with the Apostles to the Fathers that are with us i.e. our Bishops & priests. Anything that comes out side of this pure apostolic line might not be heretic but we are not interested.
So, the one source is the Tradition of the Church Fathers. The five sources of Orthodoxy that are derived from this one source of the Church Fathers are the following:
1) Holy Scripture - Bible
2) The Divine Liturgy
3) The Patristic Writings
4) The Church Councils & their Canons
5) Art: Icons, hymns & architecture
Ideally, homilies & lessons should have more than one of the above to maintain the strong Patristic root & the moderate approach of Orthodoxy.
Can we agree that this approach is Orthodox enough? ;)
In Christ
Theophilus.
Marina, it would be awesome to have your valuable input in this! :)
RO
Very well put, RO.
Solidman,
I did not dodge your question, but perhaps my answer to it did not meet your expectations. You
should realize that your question and mine are not the same. You ask a question that merely requires
me to list things that can disqualify something as Orthodox. I, on the other hand, have asked you to indirectly define Orthodoxy. Answering your question may give us a picture of Orthodoxy, negatively -answering my question requires a positive account.
In any case, I have said all I wanted regarding this show. If you want to start another thread to continue this discussion, please do. But, out of respect for marina's thread, I won't continue here.
I agree that RO's bullets regarding orthodoxy are well-put. However, Andrew, I will have to insist that you still failed to answer anything definitively. In fact, RO's type of answer (as well as Tehophilus1's reply) is what was required of you to give a real response to my question; instead, you shuffled around the sentiments of your old post and decided not to commit to a responsive answer. At least own up to it.
No matter--someone else stepped in and answered for you, and now we have a starting point. So let's go with that...
I think Theophilus1's reply is the most concentrated, so here it is: This is great, but I'd like to point out one very important line (and word): We all would agree that Orthodoxy is a way of life, a path to salvation. It is an "approach", as Theophilus1 put it. Orthodoxy provides us with tools, from the agpeya to the church fathers to the sacraments; it might be fair to say Orthodoxy is a very special set of preserved rites/tradition that we use as tools.
But that begs the question: what is the purpose of Orthodoxy? What is the purpose of these wonderful tools that have been perserved and passed down to us? Tools are never the end--they are only the means. When's the last time you bought a hammer to hang on your wall? I doubt there are many hammer enthusiasts among us... Besides, you'd have to buy another hammer to hammer in the original hammer.
At the end of the day (or rather, at the end of the world), Orthodoxy is a tool to help us reach salvation (by GOD's grace). Here's the kicker: salvation comes from a relationship with GOD. And I think that's very key here: we use Orthodoxy to build a relationship with GOD. That's the point.
So why do we hail our orthodox faith so much? Well, for one thing, we know it works. It's a set of tools, yes, but it's a tried and true set. We know all the tools within Orthodoxy link us to our GOD. They are points of contact with the Divine.
Unfortunately, many of us (myself included) are so caught up in defining and recognizing what is orthodox (i.e., what are the tools) that we fail to recognize the relationship that orthodoxy urges us to build with Christ. We shy away from focusing on the emotional side of that relationship. We shy away from examining the individual's story of using those tools... we just stick to learning about the tools themselves.
From what I saw of the Marina Show, I've noticed that it is more focused on the emotional aspect of an individual's relationship with Christ. It's not a discussion about the most recent canonical debates, nor is it providing us with updates on the latest findings in hymnology (or what some call "hymnastics"). It does not necessarily provide us with more orthodox "tools", which is what we're used to hearing as Orthodox youth. What presentations like the Marina Show are doing is actually showing us those tools at work. They are not concerned with telling us about the tools directly, but they show us the results of using those tools.
If we reexamine RO's post and Theophilus1's post, we can easily see that the discussion on the linked show relates to several of those points. We're just hearing it differently because the focus is shifted away from the tools themselves and onto the person who used the tools.
Now, I'd like to go back to Andrew's post which originally drew my attention: Friends, this is NOT sufficient to portray Orthodoxy. To say the name of the Holy Trinity before each show would be nice, but I don't think that defines or negates the presence of GOD. We're not muslims here. And yes, we all love the interpretations of the Fathers, but whose interpretations do you think they had when they were reading the Bible? Did that make them any less Christian? (hint: they had a relationship with Christ). And if you say that an orthodox host does not make the show orthodox, why do you think that orthodox guests would do the trick?
As for the whole feminist thing, yeah I agree. I only hope PRAY that these women weren't speaking while inside a church...
The point I'm making is that many of us (myself included) seem to miss the purpose of Orthodoxy: that it is a tool by which we forge a relationship with GOD. Sometimes, I feel that we think the point of orthodoxy is orthodoxy itself, so whenever we hear a sermon or have a discussion about something other than the study of the tools, we condemn it to be "unorthodox". Au contraire... it is in fact very valuable for us to see the tools at work in the lives of others to fully understand "the orthodox approach".
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=14150.msg162701#msg162701 date=1358270143]
Very well put, RO.
Solidman,
I did not dodge your question, but perhaps my answer to it did not meet your expectations. You
should realize that your question and mine are not the same. You ask a question that merely requires
me to list things that can disqualify something as Orthodox. I, on the other hand, have asked you to indirectly define Orthodoxy. Answering your question may give us a picture of Orthodoxy, negatively -answering my question requires a positive account.
In any case, I have said all I wanted regarding this show. If you want to start another thread to continue this discussion, please do. But, out of respect for marina's thread, I won't continue here.
I agree that RO's bullets regarding orthodoxy are well-put. However, Andrew, I will have to insist that you still failed to answer anything definitively. In fact, RO's type of answer (as well as Tehophilus1's reply) is what was required of you to give a real response to my question; instead, you shuffled around the sentiments of your old post and decided not to commit to a responsive answer. At least own up to it.
No matter--someone else stepped in and answered for you, and now we have a starting point. So let's go with that...
I think Theophilus1's reply is the most concentrated, so here it is: This is great, but I'd like to point out one very important line (and word): We all would agree that Orthodoxy is a way of life, a path to salvation. It is an "approach", as Theophilus1 put it. Orthodoxy provides us with tools, from the agpeya to the church fathers to the sacraments; it might be fair to say Orthodoxy is a very special set of preserved rites/tradition that we use as tools.
But that begs the question: what is the purpose of Orthodoxy? What is the purpose of these wonderful tools that have been perserved and passed down to us? Tools are never the end--they are only the means. When's the last time you bought a hammer to hang on your wall? I doubt there are many hammer enthusiasts among us... Besides, you'd have to buy another hammer to hammer in the original hammer.
At the end of the day (or rather, at the end of the world), Orthodoxy is a tool to help us reach salvation (by GOD's grace). Here's the kicker: salvation comes from a relationship with GOD. And I think that's very key here: we use Orthodoxy to build a relationship with GOD. That's the point.
So why do we hail our orthodox faith so much? Well, for one thing, we know it works. It's a set of tools, yes, but it's a tried and true set. We know all the tools within Orthodoxy link us to our GOD. They are points of contact with the Divine.
Unfortunately, many of us (myself included) are so caught up in defining and recognizing what is orthodox (i.e., what are the tools) that we fail to recognize the relationship that orthodoxy urges us to build with Christ. We shy away from focusing on the emotional side of that relationship. We shy away from examining the individual's story of using those tools... we just stick to learning about the tools themselves.
From what I saw of the Marina Show, I've noticed that it is more focused on the emotional aspect of an individual's relationship with Christ. It's not a discussion about the most recent canonical debates, nor is it providing us with updates on the latest findings in hymnology (or what some call "hymnastics"). It does not necessarily provide us with more orthodox "tools", which is what we're used to hearing as Orthodox youth. What presentations like the Marina Show are doing is actually showing us those tools at work. They are not concerned with telling us about the tools directly, but they show us the results of using those tools.
If we reexamine RO's post and Theophilus1's post, we can easily see that the discussion on the linked show relates to several of those points. We're just hearing it differently because the focus is shifted away from the tools themselves and onto the person who used the tools.
Now, I'd like to go back to Andrew's post which originally drew my attention: Friends, this is NOT sufficient to portray Orthodoxy. To say the name of the Holy Trinity before each show would be nice, but I don't think that defines or negates the presence of GOD. We're not muslims here. And yes, we all love the interpretations of the Fathers, but whose interpretations do you think they had when they were reading the Bible? Did that make them any less Christian? (hint: they had a relationship with Christ). And if you say that an orthodox host does not make the show orthodox, why do you think that orthodox guests would do the trick?
As for the whole feminist thing, yeah I agree. I only hope PRAY that these women weren't speaking while inside a church...
The point I'm making is that many of us (myself included) seem to miss the purpose of Orthodoxy: that it is a tool by which we forge a relationship with GOD. Sometimes, I feel that we think the point of orthodoxy is orthodoxy itself, so whenever we hear a sermon or have a discussion about something other than the study of the tools, we condemn it to be "unorthodox". Au contraire... it is in fact very valuable for us to see the tools at work in the lives of others to fully understand "the orthodox approach".
I deleted my previous comments because they were simply too long and people wouldn't have read them. Here's one of my concerns condensed.
There's some truth to what you're saying, Solidman. But what's worrying some of the members here are the lack of things being taught..Orthodoxy. Indeed, Orthodoxy does carry within it tools and traditions that cultivate a fuller communion with God and perhaps a person's speech stems from that without having to mention them.
But the person being interviewed, I still assume, isn't Orthodox. So, with all due respect, I don't see how your point is valid. If Abouna spoke in a sermon without mentioning the Eucharist we can let it pass because he believes in it, he's implying it and the Eucharistic language permeates his words. Do you see the difference?
But what is a person to think when he sees a non-orthodox, although a very nice person, speaking about her relationship with God on an Orthodox channel. This may provoke the idea in some minds that sacraments aren't important which could lead to neglect.
There are plenty of youth who don't pray the Liturgy regularly anymore, believing they can foster and cultivate spirituality without the Holy Eucharist, let alone needing the Orthodox Church.
Did not st Cyprian say "He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother."
Many centuries ago non-believers could only attend the Liturgy of the word (up to the gospel) and left once the Liturgy of the believers commenced. This is how Holy the faith was regarded. Now we allow anyone to speak on our channels to millions of believers. We should see the disconnect and damage this can possibly do.
Marina, we would appreciate it if we heard your input. I'm sure you're not new to these concerns, which I assure you are done in the spirit of love. But these things need to be talked about.
Andrew and "Orthodoxy" were correct all along. It is really sad that "Orthodoxy" had to delete his valuable posts because of abuse and intimidation.
In Theophilus' list, I would change #2 from "The Divine Liturgy" to "The life-giving Sacraments". While the Divine liturgy may mean the Eucharistic sacrament, it can also mean liturgical customs or rites. If it is the latter, I would place it with #5. I would rename #5 to "Religious culture". Art, icons, hymns, history, architecture, foreign language use and sermons all reflect a religious culture which is specific to a locale but share common features we would call "Orthodox". Keep in mind, all items in #5 reflect the themes in the other 4 sources. A Coptic icon is a reflection of the iconographer's biblical, patristic and often sacremental understanding of the saint or even in the icon. The same with sacred music or hymns. It is a reflection of the hymnographers understanding of a spiritual theme he draws from biblical, patristic and sacramental language and music. I would also move #4 into #5 since councils and history often are a matter of interpretation from one locale. (And as we saw last year, even canonicity is a matter of interpretation). On the other hand, I would rename #4 to "Theology" which encompasses "Trinitariology, Christology, Soteriology, Mariology, Ecclesiology, Canonology, Eschatology, angelology, demonology, histioriography, monastic theology (or monasticism), and religious philosophy"
So my list would be
1. Holy Scripture
2. Sacramental faith
3. Patristic writings
4. Theology
5. Religious culture
In reality all 5 are so interconnected that you can't have one without the other. Many patristic writings, especially Sts Athanasius and Cyril, are a reflection of an Orthodox understanding of the Trinity's manifestation in Scripture and Sacraments. Many hagriography stories (saint biographies) are a reflection of Chalcedonian and Islamic rhetoric. I can give multiple examples. I have to agree these 5 sources are actually a definition of Tradition, which is also the definition of Orthodoxy.
Solidman, I don't agree with your concept of defining Orthodoxy as a tool. Usage of a tool implies it's optional. It implies there are other tools to get to the goal that are as effective. From scripture, we know some sacraments are not optional. Christ Himself said no one can enter heaven without baptism. We also know that Christ Himself sometimes responded to conflict by quoting His human elders with phrases like "what is written in the prophets and law of Moses." We learn from His example and respond to conflict with patristic writings. I would consider the Scriptures, the sacraments and the patristic writings more than tools. They are a glimpse of what is to come given to us already. In other words, these devices (a better word is grace but I'll use devices for clarification) are the end we are promised given to us now before the end. In the words of St Basil, in the end [of times] we will become God, to the limit of our nature by grace, where we will live with God and be partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). But this is already happening in these "devices" or sacraments. So these tools or devices are simultaneously both the end and the means to becoming everything God promised us. And this can only be found in Orthodoxy.
Secondly, I want to point out that beginning or ending with the Trinity, is not simply a lifeless name calling excerise. It is a way of life. As I mentioned already, St Cyril and St Athanasius interpreted all scripture as a manifestation of the Trinity. All our theology is a manifestation of God. God, by Orthodox definition, can only be defined as "Father, Son and the Holy Spirit". All other definitions of God are inadequate. All theology, philosophy and manner of thinking that does not portray the Trinity is not life. I agree that we should not hold people in contempt if they do not specifically mention the Trinity, but at the same time, we must forget or dilute our Orthodox identity.
By the way, I haven't even seen the TV show and the episodes. But I don't think it was Marina's intention to show an "un-Orthodox" or even a "not-so-Orthodox" view point. Nor was it Andrew's or anyone else's intention to discourage or challenge. Rather, God in His mercy gave Marina an opportunity for the TV show, an opportunity to discuss modern issues on that medium and bring her here to ask her question while God also brought others here to offer good criticism so we all can explore our faith and make our inheritance more sure, living according to His "exceedingly great and precious promises" (2 Peter 1:4 again).
I deleted my previous comments because they were simply too long and people wouldn't have read them. Here's one of my concerns condensed.
There's some truth to what you're saying, Solidman. But what's worrying some of the members here are the lack of things being taught..Orthodoxy. Indeed, Orthodoxy does carry within it tools and traditions that cultivate a fuller communion with God and perhaps a person's speech stems from that without having to mention them.
But the person being interviewed, I still assume, isn't Orthodox. So, with all due respect, I don't see how your point is valid. If Abouna spoke in a sermon without mentioning the Eucharist we can let it pass because he believes in it, he's implying it and the Eucharistic language permeates his words. Do you see the difference?
But what is a person to think when he sees a non-orthodox, although a very nice person, speaking about her relationship with God on an Orthodox channel. This may provoke the idea in some minds that sacraments aren't important which could lead to neglect.
There are plenty of youth who don't pray the Liturgy regularly anymore, believing they can foster and cultivate spirituality without the Holy Eucharist, let alone needing the Orthodox Church.
Did not st Cyprian say "He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother."
Many centuries ago non-believers could only attend the Liturgy of the word (up to the gospel) and left once the Liturgy of the believers commenced. This is how Holy the faith was regarded. Now we allow anyone to speak on our channels to millions of believers. We should see the disconnect and damage this can possibly do.
Marina, we would appreciate it if we heard your input. I'm sure you're not new to these concerns, which I assure you are done in the spirit of love. But these things need to be talked about.
I'm glad you responded Orthodoxy. I understand your reason to be cautious here. You'd rather not sell the youth on a path that is not orthodox, since we are only truly sure of the apostolic faith. I side with you on that principle.
However, what you are arguing is a logical fallacy. To discredit the argument based on the source is a red herring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring You do this in two ways:
First, you state that if Abouna did not mention the Eucharist (something unique to the apostolic faith), we can imply that he is still speaking with the spirit of the apostolic faith. While we trust the great priests of our Church, that is not necessarily true. What if an Abouna (GOD forbid) preaches heresies? What if a bishop preaches a heresy? Is that not what happened in the early Church? To simply pass off on the argument based on the source would not only be unwise, it would be illogical.
The second time you use red herring is the converse: you believe that a non-Orthodox person speaking about her relationship with GOD somehow refutes orthodoxy altogether (e.g., the need for sacraments). Not only is that an assumptive argument (invalid to make that jump when she never mentioned sacraments), but it also is red herring because you are disputing what she is saying (which is actually true) by attacking the source (whether or not she is orthodox).
To demonstrate why this doesn't work, I urge you to watch the show again, but instead of assuming that the guest is not orthodox, assume that she is. Does anything she says sound like heresy to you? If you determined that she was in fact orthodox, would you not show this to your sunday school on the grounds that "it is not orthodox"? Doubtful.
While I understand you want to preserve the orthodox faith while simultaneously shielding the youth from believing that there are "easier" alternatives, I find it unwise to shut out everything we're not used to by one sweeping brush that doesn't actually examine things for what they are. In fact, that sort of narrow outlook on anything that seems different can be viewed by others as a lack of us knowing what our faith really is. Think about it: if we really knew our faith, we would be able to recognize (and articulate) what it is that makes this video (or any other "new" media) orthodox or non-orthodox. We wouldn't just condemn it because it doesn't look like everything else we're used to.
If you're worried that our sunday school kids won't know what to think, that's on us for not teaching them what our faith really is.
Solidman, I don't agree with your concept of defining Orthodoxy as a tool. Usage of a tool implies it's optional. It implies there are other tools to get to the goal that are as effective. From scripture, we know some sacraments are not optional. Christ Himself said no one can enter heaven without baptism. We also know that Christ Himself sometimes responded to conflict by quoting His human elders with phrases like "what is written in the prophets and law of Moses." We learn from His example and respond to conflict with patristic writings. I would consider the Scriptures, the sacraments and the patristic writings more than tools. They are a glimpse of what is to come given to us already. In other words, these devices (a better word is grace but I'll use devices for clarification) are the end we are promised given to us now before the end. In the words of St Basil, in the end [of times] we will become God, to the limit of our nature by grace, where we will live with God and be partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). But this is already happening in these "devices" or sacraments. So these tools or devices are simultaneously both the end and the means to becoming everything God promised us. And this can only be found in Orthodoxy.
I appreciate your clarifications and response, Remnkemi.
A device is a tool... I think we're getting caught up in semantics here. I did not mean to belittle the grace of all that our orthodox faith has preserved for us. I merely meant to clarify that orthodoxy, in and of itself, is NOT salvation.
Yes, Christ taught us that some sacraments are necessary to enter heaven. Do you think He made an exception for Moses and the prophets of the Old Testament? What about all the other examples people can think of where the necessary sacraments were unavailable to believers? The thief on the cross? The point is, we are not the Judge, and He will decide who enters and who does not.
But see that's the thing... it's about entering heaven, not just about living a good life. We do as our orthodox faith has taught us for one purpose and one purpose only: union with GOD. You mentioned that can begin while on Earth, but the point isn't for it to be on earth and that's it. The end goal here is eternal life. And the One who determines who receives that end goal is the Judge Himself. The rule of measure will not be orthodoxy; it will be when the Bridegroom tells us to enter. I agree, but did you mention the Holy Trinity to me before posting this? Of course, I would never believe that you are not acting in the love of Christ when you post it, so this point is moot.
Orthodoxy is not a tool. Orthodoxy is Christianity. It is the ONLY way to God. There is no other way through which one can know God.
Tell that to the thief on the cross when you meet him :) What qualifies you to decide with such definiteness what will lead to salvation?
[quote author=Stavro]
Orthodoxy is not a tool. Orthodoxy is Christianity. It is the ONLY way to God. There is no other way through which one can know God.
Tell that to the thief on the cross when you meet him :) What qualifies you to decide with such definiteness what will lead to salvation?
Salvation is through the sacrements of the church. Christ formed the church by choosing Apostles to perform His work.
This video gives me a little trouble. Begin watching from 3:24. Please listen to the whole thing. I cannot agree that this is merely counter-culture, since I have been engaged in a plethora of Orthodox jurisdictions, and have never seen a poem like this. I can only say that it absolutely does not agree with an Orthodox ethos. Orthodox poetry, and music stands above this. I don't know how to say this any other way, but this kind of poetry does not seem like the soothing poetry which is abundant in our fathers. Rather, it seems like what "black culture" dictates. Can we stand to pray with such a method of speech? Can we then speak about God in such a way? We are not on the streets of Brooklyn. A service to God must be ecclesiological, and not reductionist. I feel that such a method of speech is reductionist.
This poem is only the product of the first video I clicked on. I have much to say, but I will restrict it to a topic of discussion of ethos.
Marshal Macluhan said it best, "The medium is the message." Therefor, we must ask ourselves. What medium are we using? After this, we can easily declare what message we deliver. Orthodoxy breeds a spirit of calmness. It was this calmness in which our desert fathers sought out their salvation, and it is this calmness which the Gospel paints a picture of as abounding in Christ. Wow. I did not know that such unthinking answers existed. The thief on the cross was Orthodox insofar as he had resources. He confessed the faith, evangelized in suffering, and took communion in the suffering of Christ. So I have no idea what you are trying to imply. If I tell you that you need the Eucharist for salvation (a fact attested to thoroughly in our Orthodox fathers, and scripture) would you then ask me to speak to the right hand thief? Yes, the right hand thief was Orthodox. He was tight by Christ himself. A direct lineage. The same which qualifies the fathers who rejected Arianism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism and every other "ism" out there! If it contradicts scripture in light of the fathers, it does not lead to salvation. Whether or not such people will be saved is generally in the hands of God, but from what we know, (according to the revelation of God in scripture and tradition), only Orthodox faith and Orthopraxis lead to salvation.
RO