Conclusion from Peru and Mexico

email from Randall Easter | 25 January 2008 | Randall Easter

[kosta50]

But empirical models only work for things that are included in the model. And empirical models are normally short term projects that usually don’t include all variables at the time of formation.

I agree on all points. The empirical model makes no pretense, nor does it demand acceptance beyond human comprehension. But it works on demands, predictably and repeatedly. They are dependable to the degree to which they produce the same results on demand, predictably.

The subjective model has none of these qualities. It is model of man's fancy (imagination); it cannot produce visible or otherwise tangible results; it's highly unreliable and unpredictable, but it claims omnipotence and eternal viability.

[kosta50]

Why would that offend you so much. It doesn't seem to offend the Orthodox Research Institute. Here is an excerpt from The Name of God: Abba by Fr. Paul Tarazi. "Father Paul is Asst. Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at St. Vladimir Orthodox Seminary and pastor of St. George Antiochian Church of Danbury, Conn."

First, on a personal note, I am not impressed with titles and positions. Let's not forget that such theological giants as Origen and Tertullian ended up falling into heresy. Don't forget that Arius and Marcion were bishops, and that many sho strayed were a Patriarchs of Contsantinople! (that's a lot higher than the very reverend Fr. Tarazi). No one is ever high enough not to be subject to error.

I am also very supsicious of clean shaven Orthodox priests. There is a "message" behind it.

More importantly, he is not a spokesman for the entire Church. To the best of my knowledge no Church Council has ever accepted such a definition. His statements are no different that the statements of Church Fathers whose speculations, although not heretical, did not make it to the Councils, and were never elevated to doctrine or dogma.

You are creating a straw man, FK. His opinions are just that, theological opinions, Orthodoxy calles them theologoumenna. I submit that no serious Orthodox priest would ever say that Chirst called the Father "Daddy."

[Kolokotronis]

“Fr. Paul Tarazi. “

Tarazi is a heretic in my opinion ( and in the opinion of many, many others).

“I submit that no serious Orthodox priest would ever say that Chirst called the Father “Daddy.”

And I submit that the only thing Tarazi is serious about is heresy!

[stfassisi]

“”I am also very supsicious of clean shaven Orthodox priests.””

Just curious,nothing more. Is there something about facial hair that Orthodox feel is important ?

...Or is it just tradition?

[Kolokotronis]

“Is there something about facial hair that Orthodox feel is important ?”

Yeah; priests aren't supposed to be clean shaven. If you see an clean shaven Orthodox priest, he's some sort of radical. There may be a canon on it too. I'll look.

[stfassisi]

Yeah; priests aren't supposed to be clean shaven. If you see an clean shaven Orthodox priest, he's some sort of radical. There may be a canon on it too. I'll look.

Thanks. Did all of the Eastern Early Church Fathers have beards?

[kosta50]

Just curious,nothing more. Is there something about facial hair that Orthodox feel is important? ...Or is it just tradition?

It is strictly a carryover from Judaism, based on OT requirement not to trim facial hair. Some Orthodox priests who appear to wear "stylishly" trimmed beard are actually on "thin ice." Such habits are considered vain.

The roots of this tradition it is to be found in Lev 19:27, and in Num 6:5-6 (so-called Nazarene vow). In both instances, complete devotion to God includes not trimming your hair or beard. See also Judges 16:17-19.

As a nota bene, St. Paul's directions about short hair for men (1 Cor 11:14)are not directed at clergy (he himself wore his hair long in the Hebrew tradition), but at laymen.

Remember that some practices were required by Jewish clergy only, such as ceremonial hand washing, which the laity imitated, but was not required to follow. The clergy are also required to wear long hair and untrimmed beards as per VI Ecumenical Council referring to those "who adorn and arrange their hair to the detriment of those who see them, that is by cunningly devised intertwinings, and by this means put a bait in the way of unstable souls." [Canon 96]

Stylish hair and trimmed beards or clean-shaven faces were not part of the Hebrew lifestyle. Short hair was distinctly a pagan practice that somehow found its way into the west and, in contradiction to the VI EC becomes one of the "arguments" of Cardinal Humbert against Patriarch Michael in Constantinople,

"While wearing beards and long hair you [Eastern Orthodox] reject the bond of brotherhood with the Roman clergy, since they shave and cut their hair." (Bull of Excommunication, placed on the altar of Agia Sofia by the Cardinal on a horse, in the name of an already deceased Pope, during the Divine Liturgy, July 15, 1054)

As an aside, the First Ecumenical Council also prohibits kneeling on Sundays. Ecumenical Councils are binding to both Churches. Whether it's beard, hair or kneeling.

[kosta50]

Did all of the Eastern Early Church Fathers have beards?

Yes, absolutely. The appearance of "stylized" beards and fashionable haircuts appears after WWI and especially after the intrduction of ecumenism.

[Kolokotronis]

“Thanks. Did all of the Eastern Early Church Fathers have beards?”

Photos of them are few and far between! :)

The icons show them with beards. BTW here’s a comment on beards for the clergy from The Rudder:

“MAN
The Apostles in their Injunctions, Book I, Chapter 3 command that no one shall
destroy the hair of his beard, and change the natural visage of the man into one
that is unnatural. “For,” says he, “God the Creator made this to be becoming to
women, but deemed it to be out of harmony with men.” The innovation of
shaving the beard ensued in the Roman Church a little before Leo IX. Gregory
VII even resorted to force in order to make bishops and clerics shave off their
beard. What a most ugly and most disgusting sight it is to see the successor of St.
Peter close-shaven, as the Greeks say, like a “fine bridegroom,” with this
difference, however, that he wears a stole and a pallium, and sits in the chief seat
among a large number of other men like him in a council called the college of
cardinals, while he himself is styled the Pope. Yet bearded Popes did not become
extinct after insane Gregory, a witness to this fact being Pope Gelasius growing a
beard, as is stated in his biography. See the Dodecabiblus of Dositheos, pages
776-8. Meletios the Confessor (subject 7, concerning unleavened wafers) states
that the king arrested a certain Pope by the name of Peter on account of his
lascivious acts and one half of his beard was shaven off as a mark of dishonor.
According to another authority, in other temples too there were princes, even on
the clerical list, who had a beard, as in Leipzig they are to be seen painted after
Martin Luther in the church called St. Paul’s and that called St. Thomas’s. I saw
the same things also in Bardislabia.”

and this:

“BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND DEACONS MUST BE BEARDED
Note that the present Canon censures the priests of the Latins who shave off
their moustache and their beard and who look like very young men and
handsome bridegrooms and have the face of women. For God forbids men of the
laity in general to shave their beard, by saying: “You shall not mar the
appearance of your bearded chin” (Leviticus 19:27). But He specially
forbids those in Holy Orders to shave their beard, by saying to Moses to tell the
sons of Aaron, or, in other words, the priests, not to shave the skin of their
bearded chin (Leviticus 21:5, Not only did He forbid this in words, but He even
appeared to Daniel with whiskers and beard as the Ancient of Days (Daniel 7:9);
and the Son of God wore a beard while he was alive in the flesh. And our
Forefathers and Patriarchs and Prophets and Apostles all wore beards, as is
plainly evident from the most ancient pictures of them wherein they are painted
with beards. But, more to the point, even the saints in Italy, like St. Ambrose, the
father of monks Benedict, Gregory Dialogus, and the rest, all had beards, as they
appear in their pictures painted in the church of St. Mark in Venice.
Why, even the judgment of right reason decides the shaving of the beard to be
improper. For the beard is the difference which in respect of appearance
distinguishes a woman from a man. That is why a certain philosopher when asked
why he grew a beard and whiskers, replied that as often as he stroked his beard
and whiskers he felt that he was a man, and not a woman. Those men who shave
their beard are not possessors of a manly face, but of a womanly face. Hence it
was that Epiphanios blamed the Massalians for cutting off their beard, which is
the visage peculiar to man as distinguished from woman.”

[irishtenor]

***You cannot prove the existence of God. ***

I would be more worried, Dear Kosta, that God can prove the existence of you.

[irishtenor]

There’s always Jeanie :>)

[kosta50]

I would be more worried, Dear Kosta, that God can prove the existence of you

That's nonsense. Why should that be a source of worry? It always amuses me that, when faced with their own impotence while trying to impose their beliefs as "facts" on others, some resort to scare tactics and threats in the name of God.

My existence is no more a proof of God's existence then the existence of the rest of the Universe is. The Creation suggests that soemthing created it; it doesn't say much more about it. For, all indications are that the Creation had very little purpose vis a vis our own existence. We could literally be blown to pieces out of existence, and neither the nearest star (four light years away) nor the Galaxy, let alone the Universe would not even notice.

It should really make one wonder why would God make this vast structure, void of life, harsh and barren and, where there is life—without compassion. For there is no mercy among animals and men left to their own devices

It is actually our knowledge of mercy that betrays an out-of-this-world existence.

[Marysecretary]

Well, I would say Christians, but anyone looking for God’s will is probably either a christian or seeking.

You always seem to be mocking people who feel the Holy Spirit is within the believer. How sad for you.

[Marysecretary]

I feel sorry for you, kosta. You have a religious spirit but I doubt you truly know Christ in a personal way. You mock all who do, which is a dangerous place for anyone to be. I pray for you.

[irishtenor]

Oh, the lack of a smiley. Add this to the end of my other post :>)

I was trying to be funny.

[Forest Keeper]

But where are we on the "class" issue? I don't want to get into another question if we haven't dealt with the prior one.

By "class" I'm mostly referring to the supernatural powers claimed that set apart the clergy and hierarchy into a different class of Christian. This class has powers and authority that by definition are unavailable to the laity. I noted it as a difference in Catholicism because the laity are taught to obey the authority of the Church almost regardless of where the Church leads.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: And this truth [Christianity was divided from the getgo, just as it is today] is why many of those on my side have trouble understanding or accepting the idea of "always and everywhere believed".

I usually underscore the point with evidence of official "book burning" which I will not repeat here since it has already been addressed on this thread.

Yes, I remember reading your excellent post and was actually thinking of you when I commented. :)

Peter was not like John who was not like Paul who was not like James who was not like doubting Thomas - but Christ chose each one of them. Moreover, He did not treat them exactly the same.

Yes indeed. God has a specific path for each of us and they will be different. It is not for us to question, but rather to rejoice in what God has chosen for us.

Let us love God absolutely and our neighbor, unconditionally. Let us believe God and trust Him.

Amen. Our personal-infinite God tells us that this is our place in the universe.

[Forest Keeper]

The Eucharist would be denied in the Catholic Church to me and to you, not because we are "less worthy" then our Latin brothers, but because neither you nor I profess the same faith as they do.

Thanks for your post, Kosta. I think my post sounded like it was charged with more emotion than it really was, so that's my fault. And, I'm sure you saw my post yesterday where I said I had misunderstood what MD was saying.

[stfassisi]

“”The Eucharist would be denied in the Catholic Church to me and to you, not because we are “less worthy” then our Latin brothers, but because neither you nor I profess the same faith as they do.””

FYI

Canon 844 states: “It is lawful for the [Catholic] faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid” (Ibid.). Since the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Orthodox Eucharist, a Catholic may, in case of necessity, receive Communion in an Orthodox church.

But (with a capital B), the Orthodox churches generally do not allow Catholics (or members of any other denomination) to receive communion in their churches. So for a Catholic to ignore such a prohibition would be to show disrespect for Orthodox regulations. By the same token, Orthodox are generally not allowed by their own leadership to receive communion in a Catholic (or any other) Church.

On the matter of Catholic-Orthodox intercommunion, the U.S. Catholic bishops summed up the matter nicely in their November 1996 Guidelines for the Reception of Communion at a Catholic Mass: “Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches.”

[kosta50]

I was trying to be funny

No problem. I like your "funnies." That comment, however, just didn't strike me as such. Sorry.