PDF Archive search engine
Last database update: 16 June at 08:32 - Around 230000 files indexed.
Results for «ecclesiastical»:
Total: 25 results - 0.03 seconds
livingsynodofbishops HERESIES, SCHISMS AND UNCANONICAL ACTS REQUIRE A LIVING SYNODICAL JUDGMENT An Introduction to Councils and Canon Law The Orthodox Church, since the time of the Holy Apostles, has resolved quarrels or problems by convening Councils. Thus, when the issue arose regarding circumcision and the Laws of Moses, the Holy Apostles met in Jerusalem, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (Chapter 15). The Holy Fathers thus imitated the Apostles by convening Councils, whether general, regional, provincial or diocesan, in order to resolve issues of practice. These Councils discussed and resolved matters of Faith, affirming Orthodoxy (correct doctrine) while condemning heresies (false teachings). The Councils also formulated ecclesiastical laws called Canons, which either define good conduct or prescribe the level of punishment for bad conduct. Some canons apply only to bishops, others to priests and deacons, and others to lower clergy and laymen. Many canons apply to all ranks of the clergy collectively. Several canons apply to the clergy and the laity alike. The level of authority that a Canon holds is discerned by the authority of the Council that affirmed the Canon. Some Canons are universal and binding on the entire Church, while others are only binding on a local scale. Also, a Canon is only an article of the law, and is not the execution of the law. For a Canon to be executed, the proper authority must put the Canon in force. The authority differs depending on the rank of the person accused. According to the Canons themselves, a bishop requires twelve bishops to be put on trial and for the canons to be applied towards his condemnation. A presbyter requires six bishops to be put on trial and condemned, and a deacon requires three bishops. The lower clergy and the laymen require at least one bishop to place them on ecclesiastical trial or to punish them by applying the canons to them. But in the case of laymen, a single presbyter may execute the Canon if he has been granted the rank of pneumatikos, and therefore has the bishop’s authority to remit sins and apply penances. However, until this competent ecclesiastical authority has convened and officially applied the Canons to the individual of whatever rank, that individual is only “liable” to punishment, but has not yet been punished. For the Canons do not execute themselves, but they must be executed by the entity with authority to apply the Canons.
To the pious Orthodox Greek people, The Faith of our Fathers is at trial. The enemies – and many are cunning – lurk outside the National and Ecclesiastical bastions. They who betray the precious treasure of our National and Religious ideology and cast their eyes away from the valuable pearl of Orthodoxy make use of every treachery and machination to demolish the unshakeable bulwarks of our National and Ecclesiastical glory and repute. Materialists, Communists, Chiliasts [i.e., Jehovah’s Witnesses], Theosophists, Masons, and other manifold internal and external
HEREBY GRANT Kerubale Getachew Abegaz, as Apostolic Mendicant Minister Plenipotentiary, the Ecclesiastical Right of concession, or pardon or remission for registering “UCADIA” and “UNIQUE COLLECTIVE AWARENESS OF DIA” as a Trademark with the United State Patent and Trademark Office (U.S.P.T.O.) on behalf of The Kerubale Abegaz Estate (also known as True Trust Identity:
01608696645 Glaziers in Warwickshire Church Glass 17 Walker Rd, Adamsdown , Cardiff , CF24 2EH Glass Suppliers, Full Glazing Service, Manufacturers Of Stained Glass, Mirrors Cut To Size, Ecclesiastical Experts, Glass Cut While You Wait, Leaded | Phone:
The officers of State, ecclesiastical and lay, will _find their lands seized and their other property confiscated, and they themselves made to serve their enemies or wander about the country as beggars do.
Untitleddocument EASTERN ORTHODOX HERESY Recapitulation Theory of Atonement Recapitulation Theory denies the “redemption through the Blood of Christ” or Blood Atonement. Accepts that the hypostasis of Christ and His undergoing the phases of life from infancy to adulthood as sufficient enough for us to be saved. This is the foundation of Eastern Orthodoxy's doctrine of theosis. In the recapitulation view of the atonement, Christ undoes the wrong that Adam did and, " BECAUSE " of his union with humanity, leads humankind on to eternal life (including moral perfection)" Robert S. Franks, A history of the doctrine of the work of Christ in its ecclesiastical development vol. 1 (London: Hodder and Stoughton), p. 3738 "In him we have redemption " THROUGH " his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace" Ephesians 1:7 "For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ , a lamb without blemish or defect." 1 Peter 1:19 "In whom we have redemption " THROUGH " his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"
The war of (ecclesiastical) thrones or a geopolitical battle between East and West through the ground of their common religion.
HEREBY AUTHORISE Kerubale Getachew Abegaz, as Apostolic Mendicant Minister Plenipotentiary, the Ecclesiastical Right of Occupation, Possession, Use and Fruits (produce) of the scanned images (i.e.
pre1924ecumenism3eng Historical Contact of the Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Churches A review of the relations between the Orthodox Church of the East and the Anglican Church since the time of Theodore of Tarsus By William Chauncey Emhardt Department of Missions and Church Extension of the Episcopal Church New York 1920 EARLY RELATIONS The creation of a department for Church Work among Foreign‐born Americans and their Children under the Presiding Bishop and Council, calls for a careful consideration of the Orthodox Church. It seems most desirable first of all to review briefly the historical contact which has existed between the Church of England and the Orthodox Eastern Church from almost the very beginning. There are, of course, many traditions, unsupported however by historical documents, which indicate that the English Church was of Grecian origin, and that contact between Greece and the British Isles prior to the time of Saint Augustine (A. D. 597) was continuous. The attendance of bishops of the British Church at the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), the first historical reference toʹ the Church in England, proves that there was some contact. In 680 A.D., a Greek, Theodore of Tarsus, was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury, thus bringing the Greek Church to the Metropolitan See itself. Theodore left deep imprint upon both the civil and the ecclesiastical life of England, unifying the several kingdoms and organizing into a compact body the disjointed churches of the land. To him, more [1/2] than to any other source, we should trace the spirit of national unity and independence in national and religious ambitions that has since characterized the English nation. It is worthy of note that under Theodore the famous Council of Hatfield was held, at which the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Ghost was accepted by the English Church, long before this doctrine was officially recognized in either Spain or Rome. It seems strange that
But Becket unexpectedly finds his true calling on the ecclesiastical side, and aligns himself against the king's selfish wishes, causing a rift and an eventual showdown not only between the two men, but also the institutions they represent.” Francis of Assisi (1961) “ Francis Bernardone (Bradford Dillman) is the son of a wealthy cloth merchant in Assisi, who gives up all his worldly good to dedicate himself to God.
MatthewBresthenaReBaptismEng The Position of Bp. Kirykos Regarding Re‐Baptism Differs From the Position of Bp. Matthew of Bresthena When Bp. Kirykos receives New Calendarists, Florinites, ROCOR faithful, etc, under his omophorion, he insists on rebaptising them even if they had already been baptized in the correct form of triple immersion and invocation of the Holy Trinity. He insists on doing this due to his belief that he is the only valid bishop left on earth and that anyone baptized out of communion with him, even if baptized in the correct form, is in need of re‐ baptism by his hands. But was this the position of Bp. Matthew of Bresthena? In 1937, Bp. Matthew of Bresthena issued an Encyclical in which he declared the following: “…We knock against the slander that supposedly we re‐baptize or request the repetition of the service of marriage. We request only, according to our sacred obligation, as Genuine Orthodox Christians, to follow the Sacred Ecclesiastical Tradition, and according to which, we must guide the faithful towards salvific pastures, and thus to those approaching the Genuine Orthodox Church, those who are of age we receive by libellus, as for the children which were baptized by Schismatics, we re‐chrismate them according to the 1st Canon of St. Basil the Great.” So there you have it. Bishop Matthew of Bresthena adhered to the correct practice of the Second and Quinisext Ecumenical Councils, and of St. Basil the Great, whereby he received New Calendarist converts to his Synod only by chrismation, and sometimes only by mere libellus, because the converts had already received the correct form of baptism. This clearly correct method is that practiced today by the Kiousis Synod, Makarios Synod, Nicholas Synod, Gregorians, Maximites, HOCNA, Tikhonites, Valentinites, ROCIE, etc. Almost every Old Calendarist Synod adheres to the Patristic use of receiving Orthodox converts by chrismation. Thus all of these Synods prove by their methods to be truly “Matthewite,” since they adhere to Bishop Matthew’s practice. Only Bp. Kirykos has fallen from this principle and has ignored the Patristic Matthewite approach, by beginning to “re‐baptize” those who are already baptized in the canonical form of triple immersion!
1957MatthewiteEncylclicalEng The Matthewite Encyclical of March 1, 1957, Accepts a Synodical Regularization for the 1948 Consecrations (Which Became a Reality By Cheirothesia in 1971) …And the portion of those who disagree, being led astray and leading others to stray, causes division by preaching that the Bishops not be recognized because of the taking place of the supposedly anticanonical consecration of a Bishop by one Bishop. Children beloved in the Lord, this refusal to recognize is an error; it is an excuse for division. It has been witnessed scientifically and historically that dogmatically the consecration is valid. Dogmatically, the Bishops are in order. They are Bishops having the fullness of Episcopal authority. The matter is solved. For the sake of ecclesiastical order from the standpoint of administration in this matter the question is judgeable before the appropriate Synod for investigation if the consecration was justified, and if it was not, then the application of the appropriate penalties. Therefore there might be some justification to contend that there is here a matter yet to be judged, which neither invalidates, nor impedes, nor suspends the full exercise of the Episcopal authority. All of our Episcopal activities and deeds are absolutely valid canonically and dogmatically until the calling‐together of an Orthodox Synod in which circumstance we might be condemned administratively. Therefore it is an excuse which is put forward as an unjustified reason to justify the work of division. Even though this canonical and not dogmatic pretext is offered, it is not generally accepted, yet, for the sake of unity, for the sake of the Struggle, for the sake of love, for the sake of peace, we accept being administratively subject to trial, eager to come before a Canonical Orthodox Synod, whenever it might come together to render an account and to be judged for the administrative rationale of the consecration of a Bishop by one Bishop, which took place in a time of circumstantial need for the sake of the faithful… Your Fervent intercessors before the Lord, The Holy Synod + [Metropolitan] Demetrius of Thessalonica, President + [Bishop] Spyridon of Trimythus + [Bishop] Andrew of Patras + [Bishop] Callistus of Corinth + [Bishop] Bessarion of Tricala and Stagae + [Bishop] John of Thebes and Lebadia + [Bishop] Meletius of Attica and Megaris
contracerycii11 IS IT SINFUL TO EAT MEAT? ARE MARITAL RELATIONS IMPURE? In his first letter to Fr. Pedro, Bp. Kirykos writes: “Regarding the Canon, which some people refer to in order to commune without fasting beforehand, it is correct, but it must be interpreted correctly and applied to everybody. Namely, we must return to those early apostolic times, during which all of the Christians were ascetics and temperate and fasters, and only they remained until the end of the Divine Liturgy and communed. They fasted in the fine and broader sense, that is, they were worthy to commune.” In the above quote, Bp. Kirykos displays the notion that early Christians supposedly abstained from meat and from marriage, and were thus all supposedly “ascetics and temperate and fasters,” and that this is what gave them the right to commune daily. But the truth of the matter is that the majority of Christians were not ascetics, yet they did commune every day. In fact, the ascetics were the ones who lived far away from cities where Liturgy would have been available, and it was these ascetics who would commune rarely. This can be ascertained from studying the Patrologia and the ecclesiastical histories written by Holy Fathers. The theories that Bp. Kirykos entertains are also followed by those immediately surrounding him. His sister, the nun Vincentia, for instance, actually believes that people that eat meat or married couples that engaged in legal nuptial relations are supposedly sinning! She actually believes that meat and marriage are sinful and should be avoided. This theory appears much more extreme in the person of the nun Vincentia, but this notion is also found in the teachings of Bp. Kirykos, and the spirit of this error can also be found in the above quote, where he believes that only people who are “ascetics and temperate and fasters” are “worthy of communion,” as if a man who eats meat or has marital relations with his own wife is “sinful” and “unworthy.” But is this the teaching of the Orthodox Church? Certainly not! These teachings are actually found in Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Paulicianism, Bogomilism, and various “New Age” movements which arise from a mixture of Christianity with Hinduism or Buddhism, religions that consider meat and
He attended the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy and joined the diplomatic service of the Holy See's doing his service in the Korean nunciature and Brazil.
Tall towers and building have fascinated mankind from the beginning of civilization, their construction being initially for defence and subsequently for ecclesiastical purposes.
anglicanserbia1865 The Church of Serbia Permitted Anglicans to Commune in 1865 (The below article is taken from an Anglican source) ORTHODOX PRECEDENT Orthodox precedent for the admission of non‐Orthodox in destitution exists as far back as the twelfth century, and was justified by the Orthodox canonist Balsamon, but no precedent exists, so far as is known, for the public admission for non‐Orthodox not in destitution. Neither the Patriarch nor the Serbian Church is committed to any repetition of the action, nor is the Orthodox Church as a whole, nor is the Anglican Church committed in any way. But it has nevertheless no small importance. Evidently some of the Orthodox in Belgrade were not very happy about it, fearing it might be premature. The Politika said: ʺAlthough the manifestation of the relationship made so beautifully among us at the cathedral was both touching and praiseworthy, some people did not approve the action of the Patriarch because the Anglicans are not in formal communion with us.ʺ Frank Steel, an attaché of the British legation, who was one of the eight communicants, writes a letter to the Church Times of which I give some extracts: ʺAs there is no English church or chaplain in Belgrade, a letter was sent to the Patriarch, asking if he would permit us to make our communion at the cathedral on Christmas Day. The Patriarch replied expressing his approval, and personally administered the Sacrament to four Americans and four English people, of whom I was one.ʺ ʺI understand that no patriarch has ever officiated in this capacity before, but His Holiness insisted on administering the Sacrament himself. I hear that a large number of Orthodox priests have expressed their disapproval of His Holinessʹ action, and the newspapers have given diverse views on the matter.ʺ It would be indeed interesting if Mr. Steel would give us some more details of what must evidently have been a very wonderful experience. A WAR PRECEDENT Another letter has also been printed in the same journal from an English country parson who was communicated by a Serb priest during the war: ʺIt may be of interest to know that during the war, while I was stationed at Salonika, I was admitted to the Sacrament of Holy Communion by the express consent and with the utmost goodwill of the Serbian ecclesiastical authorities. There could be no question of destitution in this case, for English chaplains
Be sure to situate your discussion within the context of their religious differences (theological, ecclesiastical, liturgical, etc.) 7.
1 1 Note that, according to the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret (Book V, ch. 17), notwithstanding the fact that the believer Emperor Theodosius was absolved by St. Ambrose of guilt due to the foul murder he had caused, yet, in spite of this, when he offered the gifts to God inside the Holy Bema and expected to commune there, St. Ambrose would not let him in, telling him that “the inner sanctuary, O Emperor, is accessible to priests alone”; and he was ordered to stay out of the Bema. Thereafter even when the Emperor went to Constantinople, he offered the gifts to God inside the Holy Bema, but immediately stepped outside, and did not go back in to commune, according to custom. For, says Theodoret, after offering the gifts at the sacred table, he at once went out, the most faithful emperor thus showing by his example that emperors who have committed foul murders ought not to commune inside the Bema. See also Nicephorus Callistus, Book XII, ch. 41. Hence let priests and confessors be induced to see to it that the unlawful custom prevailing in many places be cut out — the custom, I mean, of letting laymen come into the Holy Bema, which, failing to distinguish between priests and laymen, causes the latter to incur the penalty which befell King Ahaz, who, though a layman, undertook to perform the functions of those in holy orders. For they too, in such a case, are in a way usurping the functions of priests by entering the place allotted to priests. But if it is unlawful for laymen even to enter the Bema, how
It has no constitution, charter or bylaws, and no formal or informal ecclesiastical, corporate, or other management structure.