Pascha at the Holy Etchmiadzin


Comments

  1. Fr. Peter Alban HeersMay 5, 2014 at 1:09 AM

    With regard to the photo of Pascha in Armenia: Why are you putting the Monophysite Armenian Parasynagogue up as if it were an Orthodox Church? Many are of this opinion, but the Church's position has never changed since it anathematized the monophysites at the 4th Oecumenical Council. When you put this up as you did it as if you are saying they are Orthodox now (the Church does not teach this) and therefore you are placing yourself - following the OPINION of some - above the Church, the voice of which we will only here authentically and decidedly in Council. Not one local Church has ruled in synod that any of the monophysite/non-chalcedonian groups are Orthodox. Committees of theologians do not speak for the Church. Running ahead - or rather contrary to the Church - serves neither the heterodox, namely their union with the Church, nor the Church and Her faithful, who are only thus more confused.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Byzantine, TXMay 5, 2014 at 9:32 AM

    Two points, Father.

    The first is that this gets asked quite often. I usually point to the blog's summary as a response:

    "Discussions of Eastern Christianity, often with a Byzantine flavor. Posts on the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, and even the occasional church of the West."

    The second is that a picture is not an endorsement. I've posted pictures of the Armenian Genocide. No one thinks that is any form of recommendation. I've also posted similar things of the Copts, Ethiopians, et alii.

    Lastly, what has been said in the official Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox dialogue on the topic of how monophysite the Armenians are. You might be surprised.

    Restoring the Unity in Faith: The Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox Theological Dialogue: An Introduction with Texts - http://amzn.com/1885652933

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Response to “On administering Holy Communion in a Time of a Plague”

This was sent to me and deserves a read. You can read the Calivas article here . We can all agree that we are living in unusual times. However, the nature and extent of the illness that we face, and the proper response of the Church, is a matter of much disagreement. We have seen various responses to the COVID-19 epidemic: calls to close our Churches as infectious vectors, and demands to open them as places of spiritual healing. Directives a) ordering the cessation of sacramental life as part of an effort to “flatten the curve,” and cries for access to the divine grace that flows forth from those very mysteries; b) calling for the restriction of “at-risk persons,” and serious questions about the validity of such controls, c) instructions to liturgists to wear personal protective equipment during the celebration of the divine services and the distribution of the holy Mysteries, and uncertainty about the fitness of such practices. Who has been championing what and on behalf of whom? The ...
Read more

Sr. Vassa: There's no ontological impediment to priestesses

Image
Is the male-only priesthood a discipline or essential to the nature of being a priest? Sr. Vassa (again unflinchingly taking up a contentious topic by climbing up the ladder to the highest platform and then jumping into the deep end head first) dives right in and says there is no reason beyond personal preference to not have female clergy. You know, when people ask me about women in priesthood, they say, 'Sister, why can't women be priests?' And I say, 'Women CAN be priests. We don't WANT them to be priests.' Because you see, God can do anything, and the Church, by divine authority, uh, can do anything, but, the Church doesn't want to - and that's a legitimate reason. What I don't like is when we TRY to pretend that there are other reasons for this, because it's legitimate not to want something, and there are reasons not to want this - right? - but, we shouldn't pretent that there's some... reason, that, for example, the maleness...
Read more