The Orthodox Church

[Hesychios]

Oh ~ I was curious about something.

Anyone know why the Orthodox triple cross is slanted at the bottom?

That cross is common to Slavic regions, mostly, although anyone can use it.

The Greeks do not use it, generally speaking… nor the Antiochian Orthodox, although if they wanted to they could. It is used by Byzantine Catholics.

There are a couple of legendary explanations for the slant, some quite nice, but I think it is best to just accept it as a stylized representation of the footblock the feet are nailed to.

The person who started to make crosses of this type (perhaps 8 centuries ago) is anonymous to us now.
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...es/media/Three_Bar_Cross_on_Saint_Basil_s.JPG

 

[Wesley7]

For you it may be, for us, no.

How do you explain all the additions,innovations,and added doctrines that were not part of the ancient Catholic Church?

. . .

 

[Mickey]

Well then, if common observation and personal experience will not establish that the question posed was both personal and germane, then perhaps a brief look at history, and the words of Orthodox prelates (not just lay people) of the various groupings will.

In your efforts to undermine the Holy Orthodox Church and remain uncharitable, when you copy and paste an article by the one time Orthodox, and now polemicist, James Loukidas, please include the reference. Thank you.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

In your efforts to undermine the Holy Orthodox Church and remain uncharitable, when you copy and paste an article by the one time Orthodox, and now polemicist, James Loukidas, please include the reference. Thank you.

Noting history and quoting public statements is not uncharitable.

I cited my source, didn’t you bother to notice?

And summarizing an actual situation is not undermining.

I note, though, there are no denials of what has been noted - not one, and that there has been resort to ad hominem, and therefore logically fallacious, argumentation.

And stop calling me names.

Gerry

 

[Mickey]

Noting history and quoting public statements is not uncharitable.

Likoudis is an infamous Orthodox basher.

I cited my source, didn’t you bother to notice?

I see no link.

I note, though, there are no denials of what has been noted

Such attacks do not deserve rebuttals.

And stop calling me names.

What names?

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

I said there was an acknowledgement, not a link. That is proper and sufficient. If one wants more, one can Google.

There were no attacks. There were quotations by Orthodox prelates. It seems that it is they who are to be taken to be attackers, because theirs were the only quotes.

Yet more ad hominem arguments. In any event, the quotations were by the prelates noted, and not from that person.

And there has clearly been more than one pejorative reference to character in reference to me.

But this can be settled quite simply. It can be solved by identifying the authority which speaks, finally and definitively, for “The Orthodox Church” referenced in the title of this thread, and does so in a manner that is normative for all members of such a body. If such an authority were to be identified, then it would begin to offer a valid argument that my question could even possibly have been other than legitimate.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Mickey]

There were quotations by Orthodox prelates. It seems that it is they who are to be taken to be attackers, because theirs were the only quotes.

It is more about the way the author of the article has presented his biased point of view. The laity and clergy will tell you that the Holy Orthodox Church is united by Her common Orthodox faith. Enough with your lack of charity.

And there has clearly been more than one pejorative reference to character in reference to me.

I have not seen it. Perhaps you should grow a thicker skin?

But this can be settled quite simply. It can be solved by identifying the authority which speaks, finally and definitively, for “The Orthodox Church”

The authority of the Holy Orthodox Church is the same as the Head of the Holy Orthodox Church–Jesus Christ.

That should settle it for you.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Let me share a quote with the list:

With the collapse of the patriarchal system, the Eastern church lost its center and fragmented along national lines. Russia claimed independence from the patriarch of Constantinople in 1589, the first nation to do this. Other ethnic and regional splintering quickly followed, and today there are eleven independent Orthodox churches. The Russian Orthodox church dominates contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy, representing seven-eighths of the total number of Orthodox Christians.

The quote is extracted from here.

To follow the link is to come to an article in the site hosting this forum, and an article published with an accompanying Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat from the Church. I can therefore, and do, take the Church as my witness that the question was legitimate, and not uncharitable. Further, assertions that the question was uncharitable must be interpreted in the light of the basis for the question, which implicates more than the person who posed it when these assertions are made.

With that Catholic position as background, I restate the question:

To which part of Eastern Orthodoxy is the the term “The Orthodox Church” in the title of this thread a reference?

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Mickey]

To which part of Eastern Orthodoxy is the the term “The Orthodox Church” in the title of this thread a reference?

If you would like to believe everything that you read because it has the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, then that is your choice. The Catholic encyclopedia (New Advent) also has that tag and it is full of errors.

All Orthodox believers comprise the Holy Orthodox Church and we are united in our Orthodox faith–with Jesus Christ as the authority. If you cannot accept that, then that is your problem.

“The Orthodox Church teaches that She has no need to search for a ‘lost unity,’ because Her historical consciousness dictates that She is the ‘Una Sancta’ and that all Christian groups outside of the Orthodox Church can recover their unity only by entering into the bosom of that Church, which preserved its identity with early Christianity.”
Fr George Florovsky

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

The issue is not what I believe, but whether or not my question derived from legitimate sources, or was, as it were, “cute,” and I was being uncharitable. As for the authority of the source, it is such that, here, one may respectfully disagree with the authority, but may not abuse those who respect that authority, and predicate enquiries based upon it. Accusations of uncharity are disrespectful not only to the person against whom they are directed, but also against the Church.

And it is by no means a problem to believe that which is endorsed by the Church - quite the contrary.

One can hardly expect agreement from those who are outside the Catholic Church. But respectful behaviour, as opposed to unfounded character defamation, is mandated in this present environment.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[trophybearer]

The issue is not what I believe, but whether or not my question derived from legitimate sources, or was, as it were, “cute,” and I was being uncharitable. As for the authority of the source, it is such that, here, one may respectfully disagree with the authority, but may not abuse those who respect that authority, and predicate enquiries based upon it. Accusations of uncharity are disrespectful not only to the person against whom they are directed, but also against the Church.

And it is by no means a problem to believe that which is endorsed by the Church - quite the contrary.

One can hardly expect agreement from those who are outside the Catholic Church. But respectful behaviour, as opposed to unfounded character defamation, is mandated in this present environment.

Blessings,

Gerry

Character defamation? really?! These accusations just seem to become more and more inflated, don’t they? I truly don’t know how someone gets through life day by day when something that simple affects them so much. The “cute” comment was asking if you were making a backhanded insult; hardly “character assasination”. I can only assume that you’re either being a bit too sensitive or making a big stink so as to get the opposing view reprimanded. Either way, if it bothered you, I apologize. It wasn’t meant to upset you.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Character defamation? really?! These accusations just seem to become more and more inflated, don’t they? I truly don’t know how someone gets through life day by day when something that simple affects them so much. The “cute” comment was asking if you were making a backhanded insult; hardly “character assasination”. I can only assume that you’re either being a bit too sensitive or making a big stink so as to get the opposing view reprimanded. Either way, if it bothered you, I apologize. It wasn’t meant to upset you.

The objectionable reference was that the question was motivated by, or exhibited, a lack of charity. It was neither. (I do not believe that the person quoted above was the one who suggested there was a lack of charity.)

Speaking of escalation, “defamation” (the word I used) and “assassination” (the word put in my mouth) are not close to being synonyms, even in references to character.

I accept the apology.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Mickey]

Character defamation? really?! These accusations just seem to become more and more inflated, don’t they? I truly don’t know how someone gets through life day by day when something that simple affects them so much. The “cute” comment was asking if you were making a backhanded insult; hardly “character assasination”. I can only assume that you’re either being a bit too sensitive or making a big stink so as to get the opposing view reprimanded. Either way, if it bothered you, I apologize. It wasn’t meant to upset you.

Ditto. Some people are more sensitive than others and I should realize that.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

One interpretation I have seen is that those on the right hand of Jesus Christ (such as Saint Dismas, the good thief) go to Heaven, while those on the left hand go to Hell.

seiyaku.com/customs/crosses/eastorth.html

In addition, the link provided adds another tradition regarding the cross:

Another explanation of the slant reflects half of the ‘X’ shaped Saltire cross of St. Andrew, who was the first Christian missionary to Russia. The story goes that when Andrew preached in southern Russia, he used a large three-bar cross as a visual teaching aid. All three bars were parallel, and when relating the Passion he tilted the lower footrest to signify that those on the right side of Christ will rise up into heaven and those on the left will slide down into hell. (See also Right-hand side of God.)

 

[Wesley7]

The authority of the Holy Orthodox Church is the same as the Head of the Holy Orthodox Church–Jesus Christ.

I agree with this for intellectual and theological reasons.

 

[Wesley7]

<.>]

However, the Eastern Orthodox Church is fully consistent the Ancient Faith and Tradition preserved and kept by canonical Orthodox Bishops.((Apostolic Succession)) The Orthodox Church does not have the “so-called” heretical doctrines and the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church do not accept or subscribe to the supposed “heresies” “heretical doctrines” of the RCC. . .

I’m a member of the holy Eastern Orthodox Church in the Antiochian Archdiocese in the Western Rite . .

is your heritage.