|
Dealing with your points in turn:
Christ preached *one Church*, not *many Churches.* Mutually contradictory
positions are clearly not compatible with it. He also preached one Truth,
Himself, not many Truths. Even an atheist, like Bertrand Russell,
recognised, that mutually contradictory religious positions, can not,
logically, both be right.* *
It is the collective continuous and faithful tradition of the church which
counts. Not the personal opinions of one individual, yours or mine or even
the Apostle Peter who betrayed Christ thrice before the cock crowed thrice.
This must be faithful to every word of the bible, properly understood as
well as all of the unwritten tradition it refers to as well (e.g. on
marriage rites).
The Church is also apophatic. Thus it states what it is *not*. Thus
rejecting Arianism, iconoclasm, and any change to the system of calculating
the date of Easter, Nestorianism, filioquism, Monophysitism, ecumenism,
etc., as well as those who do not believe that the bread and wine are not
transformed into the body and blood of Christ.
Remember, there shall be many false Christs, and they shall deceive many.
Take care that they do not deceive you.
Also: fear not oh small flock, it is thy father's good pleasure to give thee
the kingdom. And, many are called, few are saved. And, many and broad are
the paths to perdition, straight and narrow is the gate of salvation and few
are those that shall find it.
So, who does this leave? Certainly not the "two sides of the same coin" of
the "Pseudo-Christianity of the Pseudo-Churches of the West".
Nor the Ethiopians who are Monophysite Coptic heretics who in additions
follow neither the original calendar, nor even have the correct year (2000
vs 2008).
So, who does this leave? Only potentially some of those who call themselves
True Orthodox Christians...
Apart from some (though certainly not all) saints, we will only find out,
those of us who claim to be True Orthodox Christians, whether we are in the
True Church when we die. Those who do not even claim to be True Orthodox
Christians certainly are not in the True Church. This is not a personal
opinion. It is the consensus (or to translate the Greek literally "symphony"
of the Holy Fathers (and Mothers) of the Church. It is also necessary to be
part of this consensus. Personal opinions are only compatible with the Truth
to the extent that they cover areas where a Patristic consensus has not yet
emerged and are known as "theologoumena". For example St. Andrew of
Chernigov said that the world would end when the number of saints equals the
number of fallen angels.
Those who turn out not to be in the True Church at the time of their death
are automatically consigned to Hades in the initial judgement. Though not
necessarily in the Final Judgement.
George was not a Roman legionary posted to Britannia, though we do have a
small relic of his (a piece of bone) in our reliquary box in Guildford. The
Church there is in a stunning location in the Old Borough Cemetery, on a
Hill above central Guildford and going down the
What happened in Russia is that the Church decided to come into line with
the other Patriarchates. The "Old Rite" was never banned. Those who wished
to practice it were simply asked to recognise that the "New Rite" (in fact
that of the Church as a whole) was permissible and valid. Those who did not
were ultra-nationalists (the error of philetism) who refused to recognise
any "non-Russian" traditions, and even tried to insist on different Russian
pronunciations of certain words rather than the Greek original. Absurd!
A minority of Old Believers did recognise that the "New Rite" is
permissible. That is why there are people who practice the "Old Rite" to
this day and it is recognised by the Church. I use an Old Rite Prayer Book
(bilingual Old Church Slavonic and English) regularly.
Every detail matters, including every "jot and tittle" of the law. And we
are required to "perseverate" until the end!
Pascha (aka Easter) falls according to a formula confirmed at the First
Ecumenical Council (at Nicaea) and must always come after the Jewish
passover. It can come quite a bit after it. Never before it! The "Western
Easter" does sometimes come before it.
I welcome your celebration of Laurentius. However it can be dangerous to
celebrate at the wrong time. When the official State "Orthodox" Church fell
away in 1924 when the calendar was forcibly changed (apart from the
calculation of Easter and the movable feasts linked to it) to the Gregorian
(i.e. Western) calendar, thus creating the "New Calendarist" schism, the New
Calendarist "Archbishop" of Larisa (which is now the 4th largest town in
Greece) was warned by St. Spyridon (whom he dismissed as a "silly old man")
that if he attempted to celebrate Christmas, rather than St. Spyridon's
day, he would die before he could complete the celebration.
He died in the middle of the Liturgy. To this day, the True Orthodox "Old
Calendarist" faithful in Greece (and elsewhere) return "Happy Christmas"
greetings from the "New Calendarist" majority with "Kalos Ayios Spyridonos":
"Happy St. Spyridon's day".
The so called "Great Schism" was in fact when most of "Western Christendom"
fell away by excommunicating itself by placing an anathema on the Holy Altar
of St. Sophia's, Constantinople. In 1054.
However, the English under Archbishop Stigand of Canterbury, excommunicated
the unrepentant Patriarch of the West (aka "the Pope of Rome" (with the
support of Ireland and most of Scandinavia and many resistors in the West
(including St. Anthony the Roman who fled to Novgorod) in 1052. So, it is
arguable that it started in England with its rejection of Romanist claims to
supremacy and to place one bishop over all.
Stigand refused to crown William the Conqueror and remained faithful to the
end.
Yours in Christ, attempting to act in accordance with the consensus of the
Holy Fathers (and Mothers) of the Church,
Sinful layman Adrian
On 24/04/2008, Larry Arnold <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> For Heaven's sake Adrian you ought to know that you are in my estimation
> along with your traditional
> Church heretics from an early time, though not having your knowledge of
> Church Councils, I can't
> tell you from exactly when :)
>
> It does get a little ludicrous when different traditions have different
> processes for canonisation
> and only recognise a particular subset of "saints"
>
> It may well be that George as a Roman legionary was at some time posted to
> Brittania, but I will
> tell you this much I prefer him to Santiago Matamoros.
>
> Incidentallty, schisms apart I was recently reading about the old believers
> in Russia, it seems that
> after all they were more faithful to original liturgies than the "reformed"
> orthodox Church.
>
> Whatever it is Ethiopia who keep the most ancient version of the calendar,
> and quite possibly (I
> believe so) that is where the ark of the Covenant resides today.
>
> For all our differences as to what constitutes Apostolic succession I am
> not going to doubt your
> sincerity as a believer, but I think you sometimes get more than a little
> Aspie over your
> perseveration on details.
>
> My patron saint was Roman too, Laurentius, before the schism so we can both
> celebrate his martyrdom.
>
> Incidentally how is it this year that Easter fell so far from Passover?
>
> Larry
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adrian Whyatt
> > Sent: 24 April 2008 21:10
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [politicsofautism] HAPPY ST GEORGE's DAY!!!
> >
> > Dear all
> >
> > I have ccd this to Vladimir Moss, a leading expert, for him
> > to correct any inaccuracies.
> >
> > No, in fact the patron saints, as established at the Council
> > of Chelsea in
> > 759 (if memory serves) of England are:
> >
> > 1. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome, who sent
> >
> > 2. St. Augustine, First Archbishop of Canterbury, Apostle to
> > the English; and
> >
> > 3. Hieromartyr, Boniface of Crediton, Archbishop of Mainz,
> > and Apostle to the Germans.
> >
> > Interestingly enough part of Chelsea and its environs
> > remained part of the Royal Demesne through to the reign of
> > St. Edward the Confessor (died 1066) (and to whom I am
> > related via Margaret of Scotland and Robert the Bruce).
> > The Royal Arms of the time, a Single Lion holding a bishop's
> > stave, are still in use by a descendant of his, Viscount
> > Chelsea. The then Viscount Chelsea allowed it to be used by
> > Chelsea Football Club in its arms and badge, when it was
> > founded in 1905. This club is on ground which formed part of
> > the Royal Demesne at Chelsea. Given the presence of Stamford
> > Brook there (hence Stamford Bridge), this is quite likely to
> > be the exact location of the Council of Chelsea. The current
> > Club Badge is based on this lion holding a bishop's stave, as
> > has been stated in official publications (including club
> > programmes). So, actually, as a lifelong supporter of my most
> > local club I am very happy that it has the most holy and
> > exalted English origins in its club badge (in contrast with
> > the evil evocation of the devil by the Red Devils, Manchester
> > United). The Council of Chelsea is widely regarded as the
> > southern equivalent of the Synod of Whitby which confirmed
> > the universal Christian calendar and Easter celebration dates
> > (in line with the First Ecumenical (or Universal) Council at
> > Nicaea confirmed by every other Ecumenical Council since.
> > This is currently 13 days behind the current global civil
> > calendar. It is still used as the Civil Calendar on Mount
> > Athos, Greece.
> >
> > Edward the Confessor's deathbed prophecy, properly
> > understood, stated that Orthodox England would be destroyed
> > and a false king, bishops and nobles would be crowned a year
> > and a day after his death. The date of the crowning of the
> > Romanist (more correct than "Roman Catholic" (and therefore
> > pseudo-Christian) false king of England, Guillaume Le Batard
> > (William the Bastard). It also indicates an eventual, though
> > very distant, restoration.
> > This has not yet happened.
> >
> > The "Three Lions" (on a shirt, nowadays) - and notably
> > without the bishop's stave would seem to be added to
> > represent the Plantagenet dynasty (itself an offshoot of the
> > Normans). It was the Romanist crusaders who invoked St.
> > George's aid in their successful siege of Antioch during the
> > Crusades. These Normans then imposed him as "England's Patron Saint".
> >
> > All of this is a matter of public record.
> >
> > So it's time English Heritage improved its research!
> >
> > Yours
> >
> > Adrian
> >
>
>
>
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
|
