|(12 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)|
|−|== Other Narrative == |+|
| || |
|−|Hi, as an Orthodox Christian, I feel that (and this thought extends to other topics also) if we are presenting an 'Encyclopedia of Orthodoxy' then what 'facts' do we use to populate the Encyclopedia? Do we use God's 'facts' (ie. Miracles that have been recorded within the scope of the Orthodox Tradition that prove a fact in a meta-physical way) or do we use human logic (ie. Historical evidence based on 'probabilities')? If so, should a human comment be supported with Theological discussion to explain why the Church may/may not support what is considered a human theory? |+|
I that of the that the the ., be the
| || |
|−|My point is, anyone who has visited the Church of St Demetrios will attest to the fact that underneath the church is a massive cave that has been credited as the location of his final martyrdom ( not Rome) . MANY MIRACLES FROM THE SAINT HIMSELF have been recorded in THIS place and it is very obvious that the town has the Saints blessing not some other location ... how can we using human based research/theories change a fact that the Saint himself has given his blessing to? |+|
| || |
|−|I think this is a very important distinction and removing these miracles from an Encyclopedia leaves open the scope to change Orthodoxy as it was passed down through tradition and thereby opening up "Orthodoxy" to no longer be the ' Body of Christ' as is a fundamental ENCYCLOPEDIC FACT and is what distinguishes its identity from religion(s ). That is is instituted by Christ not by man ... |+|
to the 's .
| || |
|−|For me, this is very important because if I was not an orthodox and reading into Orthodoxy I would want to understand why Orthodoxy is always commented as having its own unique identity to the 'other Christian' religions ... that is FAITH! |+|
, to is to the . ..
| || |
|−|Vasiliki - Ixthis888 |+|
Latest revision as of 18:32, January 30, 2012
this article should be reviewed for its content and "Merged" INTO the article:
I think that titles of Saint should reflect the way that Sinaxaria normally categorise the Saints. Usually they will refer to the Saint from what town they are from and then any pet names ... for example, rather than St Demetrios the Myrrhgusher ... it would be Saint Demetrios of Thessalonike the Myrrhgusher.
Vicki 22:19, January 14, 2008 (PST)
- Different synaxaria render saints' names differently. OrthodoxWiki's standard has been to use the most common referent, rather than exclusively by one particular synaxarion's usage.
- Based on some Googling, Demetrius of Thessaloniki (sic) seems to be the most common rendering. Once the merger is complete, this article should be moved to that name, and a redirect from Demetrius the Myrrhgusher should be directed there. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 10:46, January 17, 2008 (PST)
Hi, I apologise for removing this word before discussing it. It was really bothering me for the following reason. Cult is a word that is used as negative ... from what I can read, we are supposed to remain neutral when presenting factual information. So, if a group of followers formed sometime during the 6th century, then we can not label it a cult or otherwise since in an encyclopedic context we can not imply if their objectives for following the saint are a negative or positive. Vicki 22:19, January 14, 2008 (PST)
- Cult (often rendered as cultus) is a technical term used in traditional religious studies to refer to the spread of veneration of a saint. It does not refer in any sense to the saint having "followers." This meaning derives from the older meaning which refers to the totality of religious practice of a particular religious community.
- This meaning has nothing to do with the popular use of cult to mean "weird religious group" or the religious sociological usage which refers to a religious group which has a negative relationship with the surrounding society yet does not see itself as having exclusive legitimacy. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 05:20, January 15, 2008 (PST)