0 members (),
238
guests, and
46
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
|
Most Online3,380 Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,775
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,775 |
Thanks for the response, threecents.
I know of two bishops named Basil. One is Bp. Basil Schott, eparch of the Ruthenian Byzantine diocese of Parma, Ohio. The second was the late Bishop Basil of the OCA who went home to the Lord here in Washington about a year ago.
The only other bishop Basil who shows up in the episcopal register is a bishop in Phoenix, whose orders are from from Walter Propheta and Christopher Maria Stanley who lay claim to orders from Bp. Oftemios Ofiesh, a Syrian, who was consecrated by the Muscovite patriarchate for service to the non-Russian Orthodox in America. For some reason that I don't yet understand, this branch of Orthodoxy somehow became dis-enfranchised from the rest of canonical Orthodoxy. While their communities insist that their orders are valid, the rest of SCOBA Orthodoxy has left them out in the cold. (If one can say that about a diocese in Phoenix, Arizona!)
It would appear then, that answr92 belongs to the Byzantine (Catholic) eparchy of Van Nuys/Phoenix under the omophor of the recently retired Bishop George.
Bishop Basil, who posts here, then must be not the Antiochian Orthodox archdiocese, but part of the Ofiesh/DeLattre/Miller/Stanley lineage of independent Orthodox churches, not affiliated with Rome/John Paul II nor with the SCOBA, ethnic Orthodox churches.
And we wonder why people call us Byzantine! Our 'family tree' must give even the Mormons a headache.
Blessings!
[This message has been edited by Dr John (edited 06-30-2001).]
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 133
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 133 |
Originally posted by answrs92: Some of us really seem to be hung up on semantics here. Is it so out of the realm of peoples thinking that you can have an obligation to do something and still do it willingly and out of love? Are we not obligated to keep God's commandments and yet we keep them out of love for him? From what I have read, Orthodox Jews, especially Hasidic Jews, deal with this supposed dichotomy quite nicely. Two of the teachings of the Talmud are that "pious people rush to fulfill a mitzvah (commandment)", and then, "When a mitzvah comes your way, do not delay in fulfilling it." Hasidic Jews also stress "the joy of fulfilling a mitzvah." Moreover, Jews regard an action done because it fulfills a mitzvah to have a higher moral quality than an action done entirely voluntarily. (...segue...) Immanuel Kant (yes, not exactly an orthodox Christian) stated that duty was the virtue that logically preceded all others. There is a lot of truth in this. Jesus commanded us to love our neighbor as ourselves. Rewritten: You have a duty to love your neighbor as yourself. In Christ's commandment, the virtue of duty logically precedes the virtue of charity. This is not true for God, since God is not obligated to anyone (unless he obligates Himself of His own free will, i.e. covenants). (...segue...) Dr. John is right in that one who practices perfect charity is no longer bound by obligation (the virtue of duty) because that person correctly views the relationships between himself/herself and others and acts accordingly. Such a person is then more perfectly reflects God, who is not subject to obligation (St. Paul: "the law") (see above), but freely gives because of love. However, because of our fallen nature, we do not see things in perfect charity, and thus we must fall back on the virtue of duty to inform our imperfect wills. Duty, however, always has a concrete subject of fulfillment. This requires the listing of those subjects of fulfillment, and this is usually referred to a law. Hence, laws are necessary because our wills are imperfect. Only those who have perfect charity can dispense with reference to laws and obligations. And since we are all sinners ,and hence do not have perfect charity, reference to laws and obligations is necessary for us. So...yes, we Christians are working towards perfect charity, but we're not there yet, and still need guideposts for what is right and what is wrong. Eventually, we hope to get to a point where we don't think of a "Holy Day of Obligation", but just a "Holy Day". Again, I'm afraid I haven't been as clear as I wanted to be. I did want to show that obligation and caritas are not mutually exclusive. --NDHoosier [This message has been edited by NDHoosier (edited 06-30-2001).]
There ain't a horse that can't be rode, and there ain't a rider that can't be throwed.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328 Likes: 22
Moderator Member
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328 Likes: 22 |
Three Cents,
Just for clarification, I am a candidate for the Byzantine Archeparchy of Pittsburgh.
In Christ, Lance, deacon candidate
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 17
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 17 |
As one of the flock of Bp BASIL of Wichita I'd be extremely surprised to find that he was lurking on this forum.
loukas
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,775
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,775 |
Thanks, NDHoosier, for the clarification. Actually, in college, as a philosophy major, I really like Kant -- he made sense. Some of the rest of them,.....Oy, a headache.
Up above, you note:
"Hence, laws are necessary because our wills are imperfect. Only those who have perfect charity can dispense with reference to laws and obligations. And since we are all sinners ,and hence do not have perfect charity, reference to laws and obligations is necessary for us."
This makes perfect sense, and would make Immanuel Kant nod approvingly.
"So...yes, we Christians are working towards perfect charity, but we're not there yet, and still need guideposts for what is right and what is wrong. Eventually, we hope to get to a point where we don't think of a "Holy Day of Obligation", but just a "Holy Day"."
Right again. However, let me take it a step further, and look beyond the rational understanding.
As Christians, we ARE working towards perfect charity, and indeed the guideposts that laws, rules, regulations, etc. provide to us are useful. Yet, at the same time, I would ask that each Christian first examine the situation and ask him/herself, what can I do to show God's love -- and my love -- for the person? This takes a type of 'very outgoing' personality, someone who is empathic to the sufferings and needs of others and feels the desire to do good for the person. This attitude can come from years of prayerful practice. If one gets in the habit of doing this, and I see it as the everyday practice of 'praying always', then it is oftentimes quite clear right away what one should do. [Some folks have the notion that constantly reciting some external prayer is what is meant by 'praying always'. To me, that is 'reciting' always. True prayer for me means mentally saying: "God! Be here for me now!" or "Lord! In Your mercy...." anytime I need to make decisions and then relying upon God's grace to guide my decision.
In this context, I don't much think about laws or regulations.
Lord knows, I'm not perfect. Nowhere near it. But I think that the recommendations of the spiritual sages to "abandon one's self to the Spirit" guides us in precisely this direction.
Each Christian should live his/her life and confront decision-making with the ongoing mindset of "Lord! In Your mercy...." and then making the decision that most conforms to Love. It takes time to get out of the: "The Law requires....." mindset. And I think that this is what knocked St. Paul's socks off when he said: "Oh the freedom of the children of God!"
It's scary sometimes. And when practicing this kind of Christian lifestyle, especially at the beginning, there can be serious, nagging doubts about having done what is right. But at the same time, if one is truly praying, both liturgically and in the private-time by "lifting one's heart and mind to God", then it becomes vastly easier.
It's not that I don't have 'respect for the Law', I do. But as a Christian, I believe that I'm impelled to practice a different lifestyle.
As the Hebrew National franks advertisement says: "I answer to a higher authority" than the Law.
Blessings!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712 Likes: 1 |
Aftimios was a real Orthodox bishop, consecrated by the Russians in America in the 1920s for work in America, as Dr John wrote. He stopped being a clergyman when he married in 1933. At least one pseudo-Orthodox vagante group claims to have got its �line of succession� (real Orthodox don�t talk like that) from him, because some of the priests (former Episcopalians) he ordained while an Orthodox bishop later got mixed up in vagante nonsense.
Serge
<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 16
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 16 |
Hello,
I know that this is an old discussion, but it was peaked my interest. I am curious now if there is a difference between the BC's understanding of "obligation," and that of the RC? In the RC there is a penal aspect associated with missing Mass on a Holy Day of Obligation, and while I am not certain if that fits in well with the Eastern concept, I do know that there are Holy Days of Obligation on our calendar as well. I always naturally assumed it was the same understanding, but would be more than happy to be disabused of this notion.
|
|
|
|
|