Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 426
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 295
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.6K
- Hymns Discussion 2.6K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Comments
And why is Fr. Mark more credible than Bishop Youssef? ::)
Because it reinforces what Cephas believes.
I had begun to budge from my position that dressing up as saints and celebrating the saints instead of Halloween is ok, but after more consideration, I still can't find a strong enough reason to object to it. I see nothing terribly wrong in replacing something evil with something good. HGBY says there are 364 other days to dress up and eat candy, but likewise there are 364 other days in which any satanist cult may do something to honor the devil. I've always been of the belief that if something is wrong one day, it's usually wrong every day; likewise, if something is good/right one day, it is good/right every day.
That being said, even the parts of his article that I didn't completely agree with sounded more logical to me when reading it a second time. The reason I read through the article again is because I tend to end up being wrong about issues like this. But what confused me most was that HG goes on to say: Which to me almost seems like a contradiction. Is his biggest objection, then, that the All Saints' Day celebrations held by churches don't focus on St. Mary and St. Roewis and St. Luke? Would changing the day's focus be more appealing to the kids? That is what it's about, after all. If the kids aren't interested, then they will more than likely spend their night trick-or-treating in their skeleton costumes.
I say let them dress up as saints, remind them that this day is especially the celebration of St. Mary and St. Roweis and St. Luke, and nobody gets hurt. If someone can further clarify the paragraph I quoted I would appreciate it.
He's saying we shouldn't have an "alternative" (for the sake of being an alternative) in church by creating fake feasts to distract the kids from Halloween.
Attending Vespers, glorifying saints, and acting in plays are all normal things to do on any week.
He was just giving a list of things we would do on any day of the year.
On a side note, my church does nothing on October 31st. My priest teaches what's right and leaves everyone to do as they wish. If they want to trick or treat, no one is going to pull them back.
This is exactly how Orthodoxy works. We're given directions then left to the wolves. For those who are weak, they have spiritual guidance whenever they need it. But the church isn't going to hold our hands and make sure we never do anything wrong. Free will.
Same with the transition to college: when you were little, you had people telling you "yes" and "no". But now, you know what to expect, you know when something is a bad decision (hopefully!), and you have counselors available in time of need.
Children don't know right from wrong, but the parents do. They can/do control whether or not their kids go out, accept candy, or dress up... but the church shouldn't create an "alternative" (for the sake of being an alternative lol), give it an official name, and expect to teach kids "this way is better". It's not. You're still teaching them to dress up and eat candy. You're still, in a way, celebrating Halloween, except now it contains the word "Saints" (making it "holy") and is in church (making it "evil-free").
Remnkemi said something profound in another thread, and I'd like to emphasize it again:
"Regardless, dating a feast to fight off a pagan holiday is a very weak argument. What does it say about the Church? The Church is insecure in its followers that we need to distract them with Church feasts. This is foolish. Do we need to create a holiday to fight off Ramadan and Eid al fitr? Do we need to create a holiday to fight off holloween? Doesn't the Church date all of our holiest days on what the Bible and tradition tells us?"
Don't forget:
[quote author=George_Mina_Awad link=topic=12513.msg146986#msg146986 date=1320264443]
The reason I read through the article again is because I tend to end up being wrong about issues like this.
I will talk to the head of the servants at my church, show her the article, and get her thoughts.
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=12513.msg146964#msg146964 date=1320254524]
[quote author=TITL link=topic=12513.msg146956#msg146956 date=1320246503]
And why is Fr. Mark more credible than Bishop Youssef? ::)
Because it reinforces what Cephas believes.
Debating 101: You have a thesis and you present evidence to support it.
The irony of this statement is... Well it speaks for itself. What’s sad is that you seem to think you’re clever. The fact of the matter is, the articles I have provided are not only here to present another perspective but are also grounded in fact and reality (as can be seen by the well referenced Wikipedia articles you both seem to have ignored) and not in some sort of warped pseudo-reality (a la Westboro).
The beauty of Orthodoxy is that we are asked to used our brains and to think and research and understand; not to mindlessly accept things we are told by those who may be in a position of authority, who may not have properly researched what they are talking about. Seeing as how this is not a doctrinal issue, there won’t be any Patristics (seeing as how All Hallow’s Eve did not exist until the 7th Century or so and was not celebrated on it’s current date until the 8th Century courtesy of Pope Gregory III) or Ecumenical Councils regarding it.
Regardless, feel free to wallow in your ignorance and keep living under those rocks. I’m sure they’ve become very comfortable and the separation of fantasy from reality is just something that is too difficult for you both to do. Kinda reminds me of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.
‘There are none so blind as those who will not see.’
‘There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.’
Anyway, I’m done.
Cephas, I have nothing to say except you're not going to convince me (and I'm obviously not going to convince you), so let's just agree to disagree, I guess.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=12513.msg146964#msg146964 date=1320254524]
[quote author=TITL link=topic=12513.msg146956#msg146956 date=1320246503]
And why is Fr. Mark more credible than Bishop Youssef? ::)
Because it reinforces what Cephas believes.
Debating 101: You have a thesis and you present evidence to support it.
The irony of this statement is... Well it speaks for itself. What’s sad is that you seem to think you’re clever. The fact of the matter is, the articles I have provided are not only here to present another perspective but are also grounded in fact and reality (as can be seen by the well referenced Wikipedia articles you both seem to have ignored) and not in some sort of warped pseudo-reality (a la Westboro).
The beauty of Orthodoxy is that we are asked to used our brains and to think and research and understand; not to mindlessly accept things we are told by those who may be in a position of authority, who may not have properly researched what they are talking about. Seeing as how this is not a doctrinal issue, there won’t be any Patristics (seeing as how All Hallow’s Eve did not exist until the 7th Century or so and was not celebrated on it’s current date until the 8th Century courtesy of Pope Gregory III) or Ecumenical Councils regarding it.
Regardless, feel free to wallow in your ignorance and keep living under those rocks. I’m sure they’ve become very comfortable and the separation of fantasy from reality is just something that is too difficult for you both to do. Kinda reminds me of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.
‘There are none so blind as those who will not see.’
‘There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.’
Anyway, I’m done.
Debating 101: Once you have a thesis. State how your sources back it up. Don't just post them.
Debating 101 for dummies: If you are going to favor one article over another you better make it clear why that is the case.
Debating 101 for dummies that don't know they're dummies: Just listen to those with more knowledge than you (Bishop Youssef).
I hope those lessons helped you out, Cephas. If you want me to elaborate, I can give examples or something.
It seems like a lot of Tasbeha threads end up devolving into personal debates like this.
Now say sorry to each other and lets all be friends again :)
My apologies to Cephas and everyone else.
I'm sorry. Want to be my friend again?
The fact of the matter is, the articles I have provided are not only here to present another perspective but are also grounded in fact and reality (as can be seen by the well referenced Wikipedia articles you both seem to have ignored) and not in some sort of warped pseudo-reality (a la Westboro).
Wait a minute, Cephas, was this a crack at me? Am I living in some sort of warped pseudo-reality because I work in Westboro, Mass and you don't agree with my comments? What does "a la Westboro" mean?
BTW, I am not saying that the Church is creating feasts to combat secular celebrations. I am saying that these feasts exist: It is a fact that Christ was born. When it happened is unclear. It might be the case that you kill two birds with one stone by placing it near a pagan feast. You bring people to celebrate Christ's birth and Incarnation while at the same time drawing people away from participation in foolish and worldly feasts.
This is not true .. there is a tradition and patristic writings that point to both the Nativity and the Annunciations feasts to be on the 29th of Kiahk and the 29th of Baramhat respectively.
If you need references let me know.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12513.msg147043#msg147043 date=1320332208]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12513.msg147008#msg147008 date=1320280696]
The fact of the matter is, the articles I have provided are not only here to present another perspective but are also grounded in fact and reality (as can be seen by the well referenced Wikipedia articles you both seem to have ignored) and not in some sort of warped pseudo-reality (a la Westboro).
Wait a minute, Cephas, was this a crack at me? Am I living in some sort of warped pseudo-reality because I work in Westboro, Mass and you don't agree with my comments? What does "a la Westboro" mean?
A crack at you? I don't think you actually think this is the case, least of all because I neither know you personally (or you me) nor do I know where you live or work.
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=12513.msg146881#msg146881 date=1320085065]
BTW, I am not saying that the Church is creating feasts to combat secular celebrations. I am saying that these feasts exist: It is a fact that Christ was born. When it happened is unclear. It might be the case that you kill two birds with one stone by placing it near a pagan feast. You bring people to celebrate Christ's birth and Incarnation while at the same time drawing people away from participation in foolish and worldly feasts.
This is not true .. there is a tradition and patristic writings that point to both the Nativity and the Annunciations feasts to be on the 29th of Kiahk and the 29th of Baramhat respectively.
If you need references let me know.
Yes I would like those references.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12513.msg147073#msg147073 date=1320372426]
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=12513.msg146881#msg146881 date=1320085065]
BTW, I am not saying that the Church is creating feasts to combat secular celebrations. I am saying that these feasts exist: It is a fact that Christ was born. When it happened is unclear. It might be the case that you kill two birds with one stone by placing it near a pagan feast. You bring people to celebrate Christ's birth and Incarnation while at the same time drawing people away from participation in foolish and worldly feasts.
This is not true .. there is a tradition and patristic writings that point to both the Nativity and the Annunciations feasts to be on the 29th of Kiahk and the 29th of Baramhat respectively.
If you need references let me know.
Yes I would like those references.
its not primary source but the Service of the Deacons book has a good entry for that. See the 29th of every coptic month section.
Well I know those dates are when the feasts are celebrated. I was hoping imikhail was going to point to some references to show how those dates were determined.
Before going into the references, one has to know that the Old calendar, the Julian calendar was the one used in the West and the East except within the Coptic Church who kept her Egyptian calendar. The Nativity feast used to fall on the 25th of December of the Julian year till Pope Gregory of Rome changed the calendar on October 5th 1582. The 25th of December used to coincide with 29th of Kiahk. Nowadays, it coincides with the 7th of January (of the Gregorian caldar).
Here are some ancient writings pointing to a traditional acceptance of when Christ was born.
1 - Hippolytus states that Jesus was born on the 25th of December in his book "De Pascha Computus"
2 - Calendar of Filocalus used by the Roman Church in 354 puts nativity feast on the 25th of December.
3 - Pope Benjamin the 1st (no. 38) celebrated Nativity on the 29th of kiahk as was the custom in the Church of Alexandria (Sawiros ben al Moqaffa Historia Patriarchum Alexandrinorum)
4 - Pope Christodolo No. 66 fixed the Nativity fast in the Coptic Church from 16 Hatour to the 28th of Kiahk as mentioned by Ibn Sebaa'
5 - The Arabic Didascalia (a 12th century document and a translation of the Syriac one) encourages the believers to celebrate nativity on the 25th of the 9th month of the Jews which is the 25th of the 4th month of the Egyptians.(Kiahk) [Chapter 18]
Hope this helps.
Just some comments about the above information.
First off, the work 'De Pascha Computus' was not written by Hippolytus. My search has indicated that it was an anonymous work and if it is attributed to anyone, it is to Cyprian.
Based on my search, Hippolytus dates Christ's birth to be in April. Furthermore, Origen did not think the date of Christ's birth was important and his teacher, St. Clement dates it in the spring according to the custom of the people at the time:
From The Stromata (Book I) Chapter 21 by St. Clement Source
As Remnkemi had pointed out, the date of December 25 does not become the official date celebrated by the Church until the time of St. John Chrysostom. Additionally, the early Christians did not celebrate the Nativity, instead opting to celebrate the Epiphany (and maybe the Nativity) together.
Based on the Gospel accounts, a spring birth makes far more sense than a winter birth for the simple reason of what the shepherds were doing on the night Christ was born. They were out in the fields tending their sheep. For those of you who have lived in the Middle East, you know how cold it gets in December at night. Thus, the behaviour of the shepherds (i.e. tending their sheep out in a field in the dead of winter) does not make logical sense.
In the end, the actual date of Christ's birth is not important. What matters is that He became incarnate, was born and granted us the means of attaining salvation.
The issue we are dealing with is how ancient is the fixing date of 29th of Kiahk and whether there is any reference in patristic writings that refer to it. Those I have pointed out in my last post. We also have an ancient document the Didescalia that dates to the time of Clement that fixes the date of Nativity to the 29th of kiahk.
There is no way to know for sure when Christ was born. However, the Church from around the 3rd century had fixed the date to the 25th of December (Julian) that is 29th of kiahk according to the Egyptian calendar.
The fact that St. Clement illustrates that there were those who believed Christ's birth to be in the spring clearly indicates that the date of the Feast was not fixed in his time (the 3rd Century). There is more evidence to suggest that it happened in the 4th Century during the time of John Chrysostom. I looked up chapter 18 of the Didascalia Apostolorum, and it says nothing about the date of Nativity being fixed.
From the Didascalia Apostolorum Source
"De Pascha Computus" being written around the year 240
The Arabic Dediscalia translated from the syriac.
Please look up the Arabic or the Coptic Didescalia.
The argument that Cephas raises, is not really valid: the argument that if you are unsure about your faith, then don't celebrate Halloween.
This is absurd. I might as well say that because I know that Jesus Christ IS Lord, and God, I might as well become a muslim, if not, I'm not sure about my faith.
This isn't a game where we have to do silly things in order to prove to others that we are strong in our faith and can celebrate halloween because we KNOW that this is just simple fun. We are also members of One Body that have to act with One Will, with One Voice, and with One accord.
This discussion has gone on far enough!!!!
Now, all i wanted to say is that if you have read H.G's message that was posted on this thread, PLEASE pass this around.
ENOUGH ALREADY!
Thanks.
I agree completely with you .
Bishops were chosen through the Holy Spirit to lead the Church. If the congregation do not submit and obey then the congregation is in direct conflict with God Himself.
OK.. look this thread is getting out of hand. I just asked a simple question, and I got the answer. I feel that as a Church, we cannot go off and disagree with Bishops who make statements like H.G. Bishop Youssef concerning . We are all One Body, and must be united.
The argument that Cephas raises, is not really valid: the argument that if you are unsure about your faith, then don't celebrate Halloween.
This is absurd. I might as well say that because I know that Jesus Christ IS Lord, and God, I might as well become a muslim, if not, I'm not sure about my faith.
This isn't a game where we have to do silly things in order to prove to others that we are strong in our faith and can celebrate halloween because we KNOW that this is just simple fun. We are also members of One Body that have to act with One Will, with One Voice, and with One accord.
This discussion has gone on far enough!!!!
Now, all i wanted to say is that if you have read H.G's message that was posted on this thread, PLEASE pass this around.
ENOUGH ALREADY!
Thanks.
Zoxasi, nobody is denying that the bishops are our loved and respected leaders and that no matter of what our stance on this minor issue is, we should try our best to be obedient to our diocesan bishops etc.
At the same time, our bishops are not the Pope of Rome...its not that what they say goes, period. That is the beauty of Orthodoxy which allows us to (in humilty and obedience) ask questions to our leaders when we have issues or another point of view on a topic. Also, not everything in the church is set in stone. Some things definitely are. What has been revealed and handed down to us is of course, but others require us to research and to use our common sense. In the end, even if I disagree with my bishop, as I mentioned before, I should go and bring up my issue with him and in the end be as obedient as possible. Thanks
[quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=12513.msg147102#msg147102 date=1320426611]
OK.. look this thread is getting out of hand. I just asked a simple question, and I got the answer. I feel that as a Church, we cannot go off and disagree with Bishops who make statements like H.G. Bishop Youssef concerning . We are all One Body, and must be united.
The argument that Cephas raises, is not really valid: the argument that if you are unsure about your faith, then don't celebrate Halloween.
This is absurd. I might as well say that because I know that Jesus Christ IS Lord, and God, I might as well become a muslim, if not, I'm not sure about my faith.
This isn't a game where we have to do silly things in order to prove to others that we are strong in our faith and can celebrate halloween because we KNOW that this is just simple fun. We are also members of One Body that have to act with One Will, with One Voice, and with One accord.
This discussion has gone on far enough!!!!
Now, all i wanted to say is that if you have read H.G's message that was posted on this thread, PLEASE pass this around.
ENOUGH ALREADY!
Thanks.
Zoxasi, nobody is denying that the bishops are our loved and respected leaders and that no matter of what our stance on this minor issue is, we should try our best to be obedient to our diocesan bishops etc.
At the same time, our bishops are not the Pope of Rome...its not that what they say goes, period. That is the beauty of Orthodoxy which allows us to (in humilty and obedience) ask questions to our leaders when we have issues or another point of view on a topic. Also, not everything in the church is set in stone. Some things definitely are. What has been revealed and handed down to us is of course, but others require us to research and to use our common sense. In the end, even if I disagree with my bishop, as I mentioned before, I should go and bring up my issue with him and in the end be as obedient as possible. Thanks
Indeed, our clergy are very much fallible. But this is a dichotomy. It has nothing to do with the chain of argument presented here. Because they are capable of making human mistakes does not mean that their guidance, their advice, their wisdom, and their message to us should be thrown down the drain.
Why, by your logic, we might as well NOT EVEN BOTHER attending sermons, because if a member of the Coptic Clergy is going to speak, he may say something we disagree with, so we won't bother.
What on earth is hard to comprehend that halloween is not a Christian feast. Its a pagan feast.
Why are we magnifying this for???