• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Serbian Patriarch Irinei has celebrated Hannukah in a synagogue

Alpo

Merarches
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
9,878
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Faith
Mongol-Finnic Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
Schultz said:
"God stopped talking to us at that point,"
That must be one of the most gloomy religious view I've ever heard. :-X
 

Alpo

Merarches
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
9,878
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Faith
Mongol-Finnic Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
Schultz said:
In her defense, she's a rather gloomy individual.
Was that her own view or was she just descriping Jewish faith in an ironic way?
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
284
Points
83
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Jetavan said:
rakovsky said:
Schultz said:
While a miracle did occur, "God stopped talking to us at that point," (she says)
What did she mean?
No more prophets.
OK. Is there a reason/explanation they give for why God would have stopped talking at that point?

Haha, maybe He kept talking, and they stopped listening! Haha!


Zechariah 13 talks about a time when Israel would attack all its prophets. The Judaic reply is that it is talking about false prophets. And it seems that is true. But it also talks about ALL prophets- "any who would yet prophesy." If the Messiah, filled with God's spirit, came at this point, it seems that he would be attacked too.

After mentioning this, Zechariah 13 does in fact talk about the Shepherd being smitten by the sword, and the people scattering.

If you can please find a place in Judaic literature that says that Judaism says that prophecy stopped in the Maccabean period, it would support Christianity, because it would fulfill Zechariah 13.
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
22,168
Reaction score
438
Points
83
Age
41
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Irish Hermit said:
But you do already question it! 
You do much better when you direct your slander toward the RCs.

Irish Hermit said:
Do you have 1 and 2 Clement in your New Testament?
According to your aforementioned Ap. 85, they are not to be published, "on account of the mystical things in them."  So this is a spurious line of thought.

Irish Hermit said:
Have you removed the Book of Revelation?
No - it was added by later Fathers and Councils, and not prohibited by the Apostles' Canons.  You do believe that there is more to the development of the canon of scripture than just one canon, right?

Irish Hermit said:
Have you removed the several deuterocanonical books of the OT which the Apostles did not accept as canonical?
No - they were added by later Fathers and Councils, and not prohibited by the Apostles' Canons.  You do believe that there is more to the development of the canon of scripture than just one canon, right?

Irish Hermit said:
And as I have mentioned the decisions of Trullo were not accepted by the pleroma of the Universal Church.  The Church which held the primacy in Orthodoxy, the Patriarchate of Rome, rejected many of these Apostolic Canons. 
And the rest accepted them; so?

Irish Hermit said:
To put it in a modern context for you...... We hold the 8th Ecumenical Council.  It formulates 85 Canons.  However the Church of Constantinople rejects the greater number of them.  Can these rejected canons be counted as binding on the Universal Church?
It matters not; if your local church accepts them, then you're bound by them.  If the PoM has ratified them at some point, and they haven't been repealed, then you're bound to them aren't you, Fr. Ambrose?  Unless you don't follow your own Church's canonical legislation, that is.  Which of the Apostolic canons did Rome reject?  Why did they reject them?  Why should this decision be binding on the rest, considering that the rest of us were well represented at Trullo/Penthekte/Quintisext and accepted them, and have not repealed them since?  Why should we disregard the canons that have been upheld so closely for so long at your word alone?  Yes, there are canons that were essentially worthless within a generation or three from when they were written; they served their purpose for a short time, and when that purpose was exhausted they fell into disuse.  But I believe one would be hard-pressed in this case to prove that the canon in question has been disregarded for so long; it is a purely modern thing, from what I can tell, and thus the Church needs to take a stand one way or another - and until it does, then the relevant, accepted, and Spirit-guided relevant canons still apply.

In short, if you'd like to accomplish what you seem to desire (i.e. avoiding condemnatory statements against the Patriarch of Serbia), then you should try arguing that the canon isn't applicable (i.e. that the ceremony is political and not religious, etc.) rather than trying to cut off a branch of our canonical tradition, which seems to me like making a window by demolishing a wall with its foundation.

Punch said:
It would seem that by the canons, the Patriarch has ceased being an Orthodox Bishop by his actions. 
He must be tried by synod and convicted and deposed first.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
ag_vn said:
ialmisry said:
Salpy said:
I can't confirm it, but I have heard that Serbs are historically more friendly toward Jews than many of their neighbors.  It could come from a shared history of persecution at the hands of common enemies.  I'm sure others know the history better than I do.  I do recall that Israel was initially reluctant to support the US bombing of Kosovo.  
Yes. Ironically the Zionist press was the only one friendly to the Serbs. Holocaust survivors took out full page adds thanking the Serbs for their lives. The only countries I've seen who can compare to Serbia for philojudaism is the Netherlands and Denmark.
You forgot about Bulgaria. Bulgarians saved their 50000 Jews.
Ah yes. I was just talking about them too.
ialmisry said:
Irish Hermit said:
Papist said:
Father Ambrose, should we bring up the Orthodox Christians in Romania and Bulgaria who were part of the AXIS?
I doubt if it is much use to debate with a man who has been discusing the Byzantine Enmpire and seems to believe that in the 1940s Romania and Bulgaria were part of Byzantium !!?  But if you wish to speak of them why don't you speak of the heroic Orthodox defence of the Jews and how not one Jew was lost in Bulgaria thanks to the actions of the Orthodox bishops who even laid down on railway lines and stopped the trains shipping Jews off to concentrationn camps.
Or the Patriach, who from the pulpit of his cathedral on Pascha excommunicated the Czar (who was of German origin, hence why he dragged the country into the Axis) if he signed the law implementing the Nurenberg laws in Bulgaria, and anyone who cooperated with them.

Or that Bulgaria ended up with more Jews after the war than it had before.
 

Schultz

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Messages
6,699
Reaction score
8
Points
38
Age
47
Location
BaltiCORE, MD
Website
www.theidlegossip.com
It is most likely her individual opinion and she has very strong ones, so she would probably talk your ear off in defending them.  She's one of those people who cannot be quiet for more than a few moments at a time and has the tendency to inundate you with information, usually repeating herself three or four times in one conversation.  Imagine a talking version of ialmisry's oft-overwhelming posts when he gets started on a given subject, only worse.

However, I think her belief is prevalent across many Jewish people, especially the more non-religious ones.  Regardless of what we, as Christians, may believe, for many Jews, God "stopped talking" to them at some point.  To us, they merely stopped listening, of course.

Even so, Hanukkah is celebrated more as an ethnic festival with a miraculous component as opposed to a religious festival, like Sukkot.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,033
Reaction score
31
Points
48
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
rakovsky said:
If you can please find a place in Judaic literature that says that Judaism says that prophecy stopped in the Maccabean period, it would support Christianity, because it would fulfill Zechariah 13.
You won't find such a statement in the Bible, that's for sure. In any event:

"Prophecy as a widespread phenomenon ceased with the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE. After the time of Ezra and the Great Assembly (350 BCE), prophecy ceased completely from the Jewish people. In the future, prophecy will be restored with the coming of the Messiah, may it be speedily in our days." (Rabbi Shraga Simmons)

From the Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 48b:

"For our Rabbis have taught: When Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi died, the Holy Spirit  departed from Israel...."
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
22,168
Reaction score
438
Points
83
Age
41
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
I do have to agree with others on another point: Jews are not "heathens," "heretics," "apostates," etc. - all terms which imply being in the Church at some time.  They were not in the Christian Church when it was transformed (at Pentecost; the Church has existed from the first creation); their ancestors chose not to join.  They are Christ's relatives, an ancient people, human beings, and - from our POV - spiritually misguided.  Oh, well.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Schultz said:
FWIW, my Jewish boss tells me every Hanukkah that it's not a religious festival but a national one.  While a miracle did occur, "God stopped talking to us at that point," (she says) and it's just a commemoration of the defeat of those who tried to kill us all.
Interesting, exonerating both the Religious Jews (who cut off the canon and hence the NT and put a safe distance between the revelation they accept and Christ) and the secular Jews (who prefer a deist God).
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
284
Points
83
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Jetavan said:
rakovsky said:
If you can please find a place in Judaic literature that says that Judaism says that prophecy stopped in the Maccabean period, it would support Christianity, because it would fulfill Zechariah 13.
You won't find such a statement in the Bible, that's for sure. In any event:

"Prophecy as a widespread phenomenon ceased with the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE. After the time of Ezra and the Great Assembly (350 BCE), prophecy ceased completely from the Jewish people. In the future, prophecy will be restored with the coming of the Messiah, may it be speedily in our days." (Rabbi Shraga Simmons)

From the Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 48b:

"For our Rabbis have taught: When Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi died, the Holy Spirit  departed from Israel...."
This is a big proof of Christianity because it matches Zechariah 13- that the people would reject anyone who prophesies at that time, then a Shepherd would be cut by a sword, then the people would scatter.

So we have discovered a proof of Christianity from our discussion of Hanukah.

Still, another part remains from Zechariah 13. What prophets were rejected and/or killed by Judean society after 350 BC?

I can only think of John the Baptist killed by the vassal king Herod
 

Punch

Taxiarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
5,799
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
61
Location
Omaha, Nebraska
Fr. George said:
Punch said:
It would seem that by the canons, the Patriarch has ceased being an Orthodox Bishop by his actions. 
He must be tried by synod and convicted and deposed first.
Given the current situation, I don't see that happening.  More likely that there will be a split.  It would be interesting to know your views on those that would leave.  IF he is guilty of a violation of a Canon that would require him to be excommunicated (or at least deposed), AND he does not repent, THEN are those that separate themselves from him schismatics? 

And BTW - I actually believe that we should give the Patriarch the chance to speak on the matter before any conclusions are made.  Granted, this looks bad, but everything may not be what it seems.  I am sure that I am goint to hear more about this at Church tonight.
 

Lichnidos

Elder
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
The Badlands
You forgot about Bulgaria. Bulgarians saved their 50000 Jews.
They did indeed, within Bulgaria. But the 7,000+ Jews that were deported from Bulgarian-occupied Macedonia - transported through Bulgaria (btw) to Treblinka they did absolutely nothing.

Lest we forget, Bulgaria was also an Axis nation in WWII.
 

Robb

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
1,537
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New Jersey and Kansas
Will these actions of the Patriarch increase Serbian membership in the anti ecumenist Serbian "True Orthodox" Church which I think is already in existance?
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Defrocked Bishop Artemius has started one recently.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Lichnidos said:
You forgot about Bulgaria. Bulgarians saved their 50000 Jews.
They did indeed, within Bulgaria. But the 7,000+ Jews that were deported from Bulgarian-occupied Macedonia - transported through Bulgaria (btw) to Treblinka they did absolutely nothing.

Lest we forget, Bulgaria was also an Axis nation in WWII.
No, its Czar was.

 

Robb

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
1,537
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New Jersey and Kansas
Fr. Anastasios said:
rakovsky said:
I highly doubt the authenticity of the Canons of the Apostles. Many Christian scholars do, and their criticisms persuade me. Further, we have it set out with approval in the New Testament, which we consider to be inspired, that the Apostles and early Church prayed and preached in the synagogues. If Chanukah is in fact the Feast of the Dedication, and if Jesus Christ celebrated this feast in the temple, then I think Christians can celebrate Chanukah in the synagogues.

What are the Church's view on the holiday, and are there other Canons on topic?

Lord, guide the Patriarch. You be our Teacher.
It doesn't matter if the Apostolic Canons were actually written by the Apostles, or they were a later codification of teachings passed down...they originated with the Apostles, their teachings are in the "stream" of Apostolic teaching, and they were accepted by later Councils, and are included in the Pedalion and other canonical collections. They reflect the faith of the Church.  If you think that you or modern, non-Orthodox scholars can opine their validity away, then you are basically putting yourself or them above the God-inspired Elders and Church Fathers, who were in deification and received the teaching from the Holy Spirit.

The Apostles did many things in the early days of the Church which we would not do now. There are no more Apostles on Earth. The early days of the Church were quite charismatic, reflecting a different reality. That being said, it's not like the Patriarch went in there and preached Christ as the ONLY way to salvation...the Apostles went into the Temple and taught Christ, and were chased out because of it.

If you sense a difference between what you read in the New Testament and what you read in the canons, the alleged discrepancy can most likely be linked to your level of understanding, and not some insurmountable conflict which would prompt us to throw out the Apostolic canons.

Moving to the point at hand; the canons of the Church which forbid prayer with Jews are not really proscriptive but rather descriptive; they state a fact: Jews deny Christ God.  One must ask himself: why would he want to pray with someone who denies Christ is God? Once that answer is clear, the canon is seen to be reflecting the reality of the situation, which is that Christians are not Jews, and Jews are not Christians. What message is being sent when we pray with Jews in their synagogues? That we accept that they are ok as they are? The Church does not teach this. It sends the wrong message.

That the Maccabees are saints in the Orthodox Church is irrelevant, because the Church celebrates them on August 1, not in December.
These Canons were written before our politically correct day and age.  At the time nobody who held different religious beliefs would want to pray with eachother or hold joint worship services together, but its just the opposite today when religious leaders feel obliged to worship together and affirm the "value" o0f each others belief systems.
We live in a much more sensitive era then did the Apostles and Church Fathers.  Back then people had no problem proclaiming their own faith to be true and all those who did not hold it (And even most of those who did) Were damned for all eternity if they did not embrace that faith.
For right or wrong, better or worse, people these days just have trouble swallowing such an insensitive and anti pluralistic vision of things (Even most religious leaders apparently).  I
 

Lichnidos

Elder
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
The Badlands
No, its Czar was.
Do have any more information on the Macedonian Jews? And did the Bulgarians?
[/quote]

Oh come on Isa! :)

Most Macedonian Jews came from Skopje, Bitola, and Shtip. (unless you count Thessalonica, which was once part of the same territory). There are plans to build a huge Holocaust Museum in Skopje, Macedonia by next year. I believe the Jews of the Balkans were Sephardic, if I'm not mistaken. All I know from my grandmother who was in Bitola at the time that axis forces (mixed German/Bulgarian/Albanian and even Macedonian sympathizers) at that time restricted people to their homes while they collected the Jews took them to the Railroad Station and transported them to Bulgaria to be taken to Treblinka. I do not believe most survived, if any.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Lichnidos said:
ialmisry said:
No, its Czar was.
Do have any more information on the Macedonian Jews? And did the Bulgarians?
Oh come on Isa! :)

Most Macedonian Jews came from Skopje, Bitola, and Shtip. (unless you count Thessalonica, which was once part of the same territory). There are plans to build a huge Holocaust Museum in Skopje, Macedonia by next year. I believe the Jews of the Balkans were Sephardic, if I'm not mistaken. All I know from my grandmother who was in Bitola at the time that axis forces (mixed German/Bulgarian/Albanian and even Macedonian sympathizers) at that time restricted people to their homes while they collected the Jews took them to the Railroad Station and transported them to Bulgaria to be taken to Treblinka. I do not believe most survived, if any.
your lising of the Albanians as axis forces is setting off my slant meter.
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
22,168
Reaction score
438
Points
83
Age
41
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Punch said:
And BTW - I actually believe that we should give the Patriarch the chance to speak on the matter before any conclusions are made.  Granted, this looks bad, but everything may not be what it seems.  I am sure that I am goint to hear more about this at Church tonight.
I'll start with this one: I agree with Fr. Anastasios - we're not here to judge him.  We know what the canons say, we know what we saw, but we're not the judges either here or in heaven, so we'll put information out there while guarding our hearts and continuing to pray for him - because right now, above all speculation and whatnot, he's still a bishop of the Orthodox Church, and thus a shepherd of Christ's flock, and until a Synod declares him otherwise, we should treat him as such.  My responses below are tempered by the following question: Has he done wrong?  And the answer can only come from the Holy Spirit through a Synod.

Punch said:
Fr. George said:
He must be tried by synod and convicted and deposed first.
Given the current situation, I don't see that happening.  More likely that there will be a split. 
See, that's too bad; either he's done something wrong and should be dealt with canonically (i.e. deposed, given a chance to recant, or anathematized), or he hasn't done anything wrong and the Church should stay together.

Punch said:
It would be interesting to know your views on those that would leave.  IF he is guilty of a violation of a Canon that would require him to be excommunicated (or at least deposed), AND he does not repent, THEN are those that separate themselves from him schismatics? 
Well, I gave my view on most of this question above, but as to "require him to be excommunicated:" there's only 3 options involved, if he's done something wrong - 1. Require him to recant his heresy/error/whatever, and accept it and move on; 2. Convict him of wrong-doing and, regardless of his recanting or not, laicize/defrock him; or 3. If he refuses to recant when offered, then Anathematize him.  There's little to no precedent for excommunicating a sitting bishop; if it's serious enough to excommunicate, then he should be laicized, and if it's of highest importance (preaching heresy openly, leading to schism, etc.), then he should be anathematized.
 

vamrat

Merarches
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
9,471
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
Omaha
Faith
Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Diocese of New Gracanica
Lichnidos said:
your lising of the Albanians as axis forces is setting off my slant meter.
The SS Skanderberg Division or Balists?
Beat me to it.

May God guide the Serbian Church through these difficult times.  I don't know much about the Patriarch so I have no opinion on the matter, except that this is looking pretty naughty so far.
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
22,168
Reaction score
438
Points
83
Age
41
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Robb said:
These Canons were written before our politically correct day and age.  At the time nobody who held different religious beliefs would want to pray with eachother or hold joint worship services together, but its just the opposite today when religious leaders feel obliged to worship together and affirm the "value" o0f each others belief systems.
We live in a much more sensitive era then did the Apostles and Church Fathers.  Back then people had no problem proclaiming their own faith to be true and all those who did not hold it (And even most of those who did) Were damned for all eternity if they did not embrace that faith.
For right or wrong, better or worse, people these days just have trouble swallowing such an insensitive and anti pluralistic vision of things (Even most religious leaders apparently).  
Let's not over-romanticize the past; in the early Christian era (when the Apostolic canons are said to have been written), there was a pluralistic, non-judgmental approach to religion in the world - which is why Judaism, and it's "Our God is the only God" attitude, was such a pot-stirrer.  Even in the very early Christian Imperial era, there were still many pagans amongst the population, and thus not as much popular condemnation of paganism as wrong.
 

Lichnidos

Elder
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
The Badlands
I agree with Fr. George. I don't think chaos is the answer. Me, I'm just interested in His Grace's thoughts on this. I've done far worse.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Lichnidos said:
your lising of the Albanians as axis forces is setting off my slant meter.
The SS Skanderberg Division or Balists?
And they differed from your "Macedonian sympathizers" how? Or, for that matter, from the French League, the German American Bund, the Nasjonal Sammling, the Parti National Social Chrétien, the Danmarks Nationalsocialistiske Arbejderparti, etc....
 

Lichnidos

Elder
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
The Badlands
And they differed from your "Macedonian sympathizers" how? Or, for that matter, from the French League, the German American Bund, the Nasjonal Sammling, the Parti National Social Chrétien, the Danmarks Nationalsocialistiske Arbejderparti, etc....
Where did I say they differed? If you notice in my post upstairs I put several "sympathizers" all pretty much guilty as charged for collaborating with the NAZIs.

The point of my posts was to communicate just a little skepticism of those who claim to be "clean" of the holocaust atrocities. Bulgaria likes to celebrate yearly like this, yet not only were they an AXIS occupier, national/ethnic assimiliator, they really didn't do jack for the Jews of Macedonia and Greece.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Lichnidos said:
And they differed from your "Macedonian sympathizers" how? Or, for that matter, from the French League, the German American Bund, the Nasjonal Sammling, the Parti National Social Chrétien, the Danmarks Nationalsocialistiske Arbejderparti, etc....
Where did I say they differed? If you notice in my post upstairs I put several "sympathizers" all pretty much guilty as charged for collaborating with the NAZIs.
So Macedonia was an Axis member too, like Albania, no?

The point of my posts was to communicate just a little skepticism of those who claim to be "clean" of the holocaust atrocities. Bulgaria likes to celebrate yearly like this,
I'll have to take your word for it, because I've never heard a word from any Bulgarian on the subject. Ever.

Btw, you do include Jews then, claiming to be "clean" of the holocaust atrocities, no?

yet not only were they an AXIS occupier, national/ethnic assimiliator, they really didn't do jack for the Jews of Macedonia and Greece.
Do much for the Gentiles of Macedonia and Greece?
 

Lichnidos

Elder
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
The Badlands
So Macedonia was an Axis member too, like Albania, no?
Macedonia, like Albania was under occupation. A small segment of Macedonian nationalists sympathetic to Bulgaria were indeed collaborators, while the larger segment of Macedonian nationalists collaborated with Tito in the end both groups were sent to "Goli Otok Gulag" by Tito.

I'll have to take your word for it, because I've never heard a word from any Bulgarian on the subject. Ever.
You don't have to, it's up to you. One set of books will tell you one thing, another set will tell you another, and every single nation in the region seems falsified whatever they have in their government archives. So good luck. Me, I'll believe my grandfather who lived through a few of these occupations.

Btw, you do include Jews then, claiming to be "clean" of the holocaust atrocities, no?
Rumor has it that George Soros, a Hungarian Jew, collaborated with the NAZIs, but he was a wee lad so I don't think it counts.

Do much for the Gentiles of Macedonia and Greece?
They didn't occupy Greece, as far as I know. As for Macedonia, they entered as occupiers and as the war ended they claimed to be Macedonia's liberators from the facists. What they did do for Macedonian gentile was to claim they're really Bulgarian and actually still do so. I guess you can say they did something for them.
 

JamesRottnek

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
6,256
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Mesa, AZ
Schultz said:
It is most likely her individual opinion and she has very strong ones, so she would probably talk your ear off in defending them.  She's one of those people who cannot be quiet for more than a few moments at a time and has the tendency to inundate you with information, usually repeating herself three or four times in one conversation.  Imagine a talking version of ialmisry's oft-overwhelming posts when he gets started on a given subject, only worse.

However, I think her belief is prevalent across many Jewish people, especially the more non-religious ones.  Regardless of what we, as Christians, may believe, for many Jews, God "stopped talking" to them at some point.  To us, they merely stopped listening, of course.

Even so, Hanukkah is celebrated more as an ethnic festival with a miraculous component as opposed to a religious festival, like Sukkot.
Actually, the general view of Orthodox Jews (I can't really talk about other types of Jews because when I have studied Judaism, it has almost always been Orthodox or Karaite, what little I could find on the Karaites that is) is that prophecy can only take place when the majority of Jews in the world are gathered together in Israel.  So they do in fact believe that prophecy has completely stopped, though will come again with the return of the Messiah.
 

ag_vn

Elder
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
409
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
[quote author=Lichnidos]
The point of my posts was to communicate just a little skepticism of those who claim to be "clean" of the holocaust atrocities.[/quote]

Well to my knowledge Bulgarians don't deny that Macedonian and Thracian Jews were sent to Treblinka.


Bulgaria likes to celebrate yearly like this, yet not only were they an AXIS occupier, national/ethnic assimiliator, they really didn't do jack for the Jews of Macedonia and Greece.
Bulgarians Jews like to celebrate this yearly. If Bulgaria wasn't an Axis partner, Bulgarian Jews wouldn't have been saved. It's the Bulgarian Jews (almost all of them emigrated freely to the State of Israel after WWII) who say, We are alive, because we were born in Bulgaria.


 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
People here seem unfamiliar with Apostolic Canon 85.

Some here are confusing the acceptance by the Apostles of 1 and 2 Clement in the New Testament with the Constitutions which are not considered appropriate for the public.  Regrettably I have even been accused of slander!

A reading of the Canon will clarify matters and exonerate me from the charge by a brother priest that I am slandering.

Canon 85. Let the following books be esteemed venerable and holy by all of you, both clergy and laity.
[A list of books of the Old Testament ...] And our sacred books, that is, of the New Testament, are
the four Gospels, of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter;
three of John; one of James; one of Jude; two Epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions dedicated to
you, the bishops, by me, Clement, in eight books, which is not appropriate to make public before all,
because of the mysteries contained in them; and the Acts of us, the Apostles.

By the way notice the very explicit claim by Canon 85 that this enumeration of the canonical books of the New Testament is coming directly from the Apostles -- "and the Acts of us, the Apostles."
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Fr. George said:
According to your aforementioned Ap. 85, they are not to be published, "on account of the mystical things in them."  So this is a spurious line of thought.
The Apostles are not speaking here of 1 and 2 Clement but of the Constitutions.

1 and 2 Clement are not mystical imho but rather pragmatic exhortation for Christian living, the first of course being directed to settling discord in the church at Corinth.

People may wish to read them for themselves....

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/2clement-hoole.html
 

cizinec

High Elder
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
943
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Houstonia
Okay, I've scanned through the thread and I don't get the big deal.

1.  St. Paul did it.  Holy cow, almost all the apostles did it.  If some canon condemns the apostles, I'm pretty sure you're either misreading the canons or the canons are wrong.  Since the canons are probably right, where do you suppose that leaves y'all?

2.  Lighting a candle isn't always a prayer.  I can light a candle because the room is dark.  I can light a candle because I need to light something bigger on fire.  I can light a candle to represent family who have died or soldiers in Afghanistan or whatever else (it's symbolic, but not *all* symbolism is prayer).  Further, if it *was* prayer, it was *his* prayer and he was not led in prayer by someone of a different faith.  Have any of you been in the military?  If you have access to a Catholic Church, you go light candles there.  About the only place I wouldn't go in to light a candle so that *I* can pray is a mosque.

3.  If you aren't Serbian Orthodox, why do you want to cause scandal in my church?  I'm sure it's because you are so much holier than us and we need you to tell us what to do.

Patriarch Irinej followed the examples of the apostles by going to a synagogue and lighting a candle in remembrance, with whatever prayer that may have been included being an Orthodox one.  Indeed, the Jews could scandalize:  Christian leads prayer in synagogue!

I swear, some of you are busy bodies always on the prowl for a . . . I can't say that word.  Starts with a "b" and rhymes with . . . oh forget it.

Carry on.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
cizinec said:
Okay, I've scanned through the thread and I don't get the big deal.

1.  St. Paul did it.  Holy cow, almost all the apostles did it.  If some canon condemns the apostles, I'm pretty sure you're either misreading the canons or the canons are wrong.  Since the canons are probably right, where do you suppose that leaves y'all?

2.  Lighting a candle isn't always a prayer.  I can light a candle because the room is dark.  I can light a candle because I need to light something bigger on fire.  I can light a candle to represent family who have died or soldiers in Afghanistan or whatever else (it's symbolic, but not *all* symbolism is prayer).  Further, if it *was* prayer, it was *his* prayer and he was not led in prayer by someone of a different faith.  Have any of you been in the military?  If you have access to a Catholic Church, you go light candles there.  About the only place I wouldn't go in to light a candle so that *I* can pray is a mosque.

3.  If you aren't Serbian Orthodox, why do you want to cause scandal in my church?  I'm sure it's because you are so much holier than us and we need you to tell us what to do.

Patriarch Irinej followed the examples of the apostles by going to a synagogue and lighting a candle in remembrance, with whatever prayer that may have been included being an Orthodox one.  Indeed, the Jews could scandalize:  Christian leads prayer in synagogue!

I swear, some of you are busy bodies always on the prowl for a . . . I can't say that word.  Starts with a "b" and rhymes with . . . oh forget it.

Carry on.
Amen. It is said that it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. The relationship between Christians and Jews in Europe is covered with much darkness and the example of Serbs and Jews during the Nazi era is one of the points of light in that darkness.  Enough said.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
I clicked on the link to look at the article, but I couldn't get past the very odd attempt to relate Christianity to the Chinese sanjiao.

Buddhism is the successor of the tribal Hindu faith. Apostolic Christianity is the successor of the tribal Jewish religion. LaoZi is the greatest prophet of the Dao. Siddhartha Gautama is Saint Ioasaph in the Orthodox & Catholic Christian Churches. Jesus of Nazareth can, in truth, be called a Buddha. Together; Buddhism, Daoism & Confucianism are actually three in one San Jiao He Yi faith. Christ is the Eternal Dao, who is also One with the Father & Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity.
Could you explain this a bit more?
 

Maksim

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
42
I must admit to being troubled by this.  We don't know all of the details, so hopefully there has been some misunderstanding as to what happened.  But it genuinely concerns me that there is such a reflexive defense of what appears to have happened.  The problem is that the pattern has become familiar….an ecumenical act causes scandal, followed by explanations about how it isn't really what it appears to be.

For example, it seems that every time there is joint prayer with Roman Catholics, there is an artful explanation about how, technically, it doesn't count.  Or how, technically, it's ok as long as X or Y wasn't done.  Followed by lawyerly arguments for years after the fact on both sides.  But why do it in the first place?  It seems clear that there is a serious potential for misunderstanding on all sides.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,033
Reaction score
31
Points
48
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Iconodule said:
I clicked on the link to look at the article, but I couldn't get past the very odd attempt to relate Christianity to the Chinese sanjiao.

Buddhism is the successor of the tribal Hindu faith. Apostolic Christianity is the successor of the tribal Jewish religion. LaoZi is the greatest prophet of the Dao. Siddhartha Gautama is Saint Ioasaph in the Orthodox & Catholic Christian Churches. Jesus of Nazareth can, in truth, be called a Buddha. Together; Buddhism, Daoism & Confucianism are actually three in one San Jiao He Yi faith. Christ is the Eternal Dao, who is also One with the Father & Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity.
Could you explain this a bit more?
Siddhartha Gautama was born into a kshatriya family; thus, Siddhartha came out of a Vedic, or "Hindu", context. The Vedic peoples were divided into different lineages, or "tribes". Likewise with Jesus of Nazareth, and the Hebrew tribes.

Laozi is considered the founder of Taoism/Daoism.

The story of the Siddhartha Gautama's enlightenment as the Buddha, entered into Christianity in the form of the Saints Barlaam and Josaphat.

In Buddhism, the highest realization is that of Buddha-hood, so (in Buddhist language) the Son of God may be interpreted as being a "Buddha".

It's common in Taiwan for people to see Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism as different manifestations of one Truth. The movement called I-Kuan Tao takes this position, and also incorporates Christianity (and, thus, Judaism) and Islam. This might be an I-Kuan Tao-influenced site.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
Jetavan said:
Iconodule said:
I clicked on the link to look at the article, but I couldn't get past the very odd attempt to relate Christianity to the Chinese sanjiao.

Buddhism is the successor of the tribal Hindu faith. Apostolic Christianity is the successor of the tribal Jewish religion. LaoZi is the greatest prophet of the Dao. Siddhartha Gautama is Saint Ioasaph in the Orthodox & Catholic Christian Churches. Jesus of Nazareth can, in truth, be called a Buddha. Together; Buddhism, Daoism & Confucianism are actually three in one San Jiao He Yi faith. Christ is the Eternal Dao, who is also One with the Father & Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity.
Could you explain this a bit more?
Siddhartha Gautama was born into a kshatriya family; thus, Siddhartha came out of a Vedic, or "Hindu", context. The Vedic peoples were divided into different lineages, or "tribes". Likewise with Jesus of Nazareth, and the Hebrew tribes.

Laozi is considered the founder of Taoism/Daoism.

The story of the Siddhartha Gautama's enlightenment as the Buddha, entered into Christianity in the form of the Saints Barlaam and Josaphat.

In Buddhism, the highest realization is that of Buddha-hood, so (in Buddhist language) the Son of God may be interpreted as being a "Buddha."
I understand that much. I just wonder where Christianity fits into this Chinese brand of syncretism. It seems to me that, if you want to bring people to Christ, starting with an attitude of "they're all the same" is counter-productive.

It's common in Taiwan for people to see Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism as different manifestations of one Truth.
The attitude is certainly not limited to Taiwan- it has a long history in Chinese popular religion. My mom (Malaysian Chinese) was fond of it and even applied it to all religions. I remember talking to some Daoist monks on Tai Shan and the only spiritual advice they gave me was "chant amituofo."

But the attitude isn't universal. The Buddhists especially tend to be more inclined to think their way is superior. Chinese Buddhists, that is, those who are particularly committed to Buddhism, tend to look down on Daoism. It is at best a "divine vehicle" for attaining a heavenly rebirth; at worst, just a racket for sorcerers and charlatans. Some of the Chinese Buddhists are fond of repeating a story from the Han dynasty where the Emperor held a contest between Buddhist missionaries and Daoist sorcerers. The Daoists flew in or teleported in; the Buddhists walked in. Both sides set up their respective scriptures opposite each other. The Daoists tried casting spells to burn up the Buddhist scriptures, but failed. Then a light emanated from a Buddhist relic that destroyed the Daoist scriptures. The Daoists were executed and the Buddhists won the emperor's favour.

I saw Hieromonk Damascene give a talk about his experiences in China, where he met with Buddhist and Daoist monks. The Daoists saw a lot of common ground with Fr. Damascene but when he talked to the Buddhists about our faith in God and an immortal soul they said "you sound like those Daoists!"

Likewise, to the Buddhists, Confucianism is only a "human vehicle". Only the Buddha-Dharma offers salvation from samsara.

Historically, many Confucians held both Daoism and Buddhism in contempt. Those who respected Laozi tended to separate him from actual Daoism.

And of course some Daoists have had their polemical moments. For example, the Hua Hu Jing was forged to prove that Laozi traveled West to India, where he became known as the Buddha, but the Indians didn't understand him, hence the creation of Buddhism.

And to be honest I don't think it's philosophically tenable to say that Daoism and Buddhism are the same. Daoism and Confucianism have much more in common.
 
Top