Marii calugari/duhovnici - de unde stiu sa sfatuiasca asupra problemelor laice?

[AlinB]

Unde ai gasit tu ca "numai femeile virgine si cei necasatoriti sunt curati si sfinti."?

Poate asa ai inteles in final anumite lucruri, dar nu cred ca exista asa ceva in invatatura ortodoxa.

In rest, intreaba si incearca sa te lamuresti ce reprezinta pareri personale si ce este invatatura ortodoxa.

Porneste de la catehism, cauta in Traditie, intreaba in dreapta si stanga si sigur vei gasi un raspuns, problema este sa nu te cramponezi de anumite aspecte si pareri cu un soi de resentiment sau repros care se vede pe alocuri in ceea ce scrii, ci cu rabdare si intelegere, ca nu toti sunt dictionare de teologie si doldora de intelepciune si profunzime.

[Fani71]

În prealabil postat de AlinB

Probabil n-ai citit nici o lucrare Patristica in engleza..de asta nu intelegi diferenta :))
Nu intamplator traducerile necesita mai mult decat "google translate" ele sunt si adaptari.

Roaga pe Fani sa-ti dea sursa exacta a traduceriilor (banuiesc care este) si ai sa gasesti acolo si lucrari ale Sf. Ioan Gura de Aur traduse in engleza si care le avem traduse si in romana.
Fa o comparatie.

Sau, si mai simplu (gasesti si singura) o Biblie in engleza cu cea in romana..

Sau e de a ajuns sa compari Biblia Sinodala cu traducerea IPS. Anania si ai sa vezi de ce traducerea estea pana la urma o arta..

Sursa este o carte despre diactonitele in Biserica primara:
Kiriaki Karidoijamen Fitzgerald: Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church: called to Holiness ans Ministry, Brookline, Mass: Holy Cross Orthg. Pr., 1998.

Nu am cartea, mi-a copiat o prietena capitolul care continea si aceste citate.

Insa se pot gasi pe internet imense resurse din Sfintii parinti in engleza. Daca vreti va pot da cateva linkuri.

Raman datoare cu citate despre altele, ca nu am timp zilele astea.

[Fani71]

În prealabil postat de eduardd

Atunci cand un om NU POATE sa plineasca cele ale Bisericii...sau sa inteleaga pe deplin ceea ce spune un OM de talia parintelui Cleopa (spre ex) corect este (din punctul meu de vedere) sa spuna asa:
Eu nu inteleg.. sau nu pot face... sau nu vreau sa fac... ceea ce acest parinte spune..NU sa spuna este prea aspru! [COLOR=Black]Sa invatam odata pentru totdeauna sa nu mai lepadam ca pe ceva gresit ceea ce noi nu putem face sau intelege! [/COLOR]Cuvinte de genul, cine este el la urma urmei, de cere acestea? Cine sunt cei din Biserica ca sa respect ce spun? Ei sunt oameni ca noi! Da! e drept, dar au primit in DAR la hirotonie [COLOR=Red]Duhul Sfant[/COLOR]. ASta ii face diferiti de noi (sau de unii dintre noi, cel putin). Unii il inmultesc si ajung sfinti in calendare, altii il indeparteaza prin propriile caderi..Asta Domnul o stie si o va judeca la timpul potrivit, nu noi.
De aceea chiar de studiem teologia e bine sa tinem cont ca ei au in plus fata de "noi" teologii...9 ani prin pustie ( unii, altii o viata intreaga prin pustie)....9 ani de lupta fata catre fata cu diavolul. Ori daca noi, "teologii de lume" nu putem stapani (nici macar) trupul nostru darmite sa tinem vrasmasul la distanta de [COLOR=Red]inima[/COLOR] si [COLOR=Red]mintea[/COLOR] noastra Cred ca ar trebui alese mai cu grija cuvintele.. Generalizarea este o mare gresala! Cum ar spune parintele meu Teofan, ne asiguram drumul spre Iad, pavandu-l cu intentii bune....

Ai si tu dreptate, si stiu ca tu vorbesti din inima si din experienta.
Eu nu zic ca nu gresesc, si ca nu sunt in pericol si de mandrie criticand ceva ce a zios un parinte care, repet, ma depaseste in multe.
Totusi, ce sa fac? (Vorbesc aici numai de mine, fiecare are explicatia lui) Daca am aceste ganduri, nu de revolta adolescentina (in mod cudat, atunci eram muuuult mai cuminte si acceptam tot ce mis e zicea fara sa incerc sa critic ceva), ci dintr-o reflectie mai profunda si din niste experiente neplacute, atunci, sa mi le refulez? mai bine sa le zic, si poate ele se lamuresc asa si poate contribyi la o mai buna intelegere. Daca le zic si dau deoparte ce nu consider corect pot admira mai departe un om, daca le pastrez pentru mine ma amarasc.

[AlinB]

Christian Classics Ethereal Library
http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

[ory]

În prealabil postat de Fani71

Ai si tu dreptate, si stiu ca tu vorbesti din inima si din experienta.
Eu nu zic ca nu gresesc, si ca nu sunt in pericol si de mandrie criticand ceva ce a zios un parinte care, repet, ma depaseste in multe.
Totusi, ce sa fac? (Vorbesc aici numai de mine, fiecare are explicatia lui) Daca am aceste ganduri, nu de revolta adolescentina (in mod cudat, atunci eram muuuult mai cuminte si acceptam tot ce mis e zicea fara sa incerc sa critic ceva), ci dintr-o reflectie mai profunda si din niste experiente neplacute, atunci, sa mi le refulez? mai bine sa le zic, si poate ele se lamuresc asa si poate contribyi la o mai buna intelegere. Daca le zic si dau deoparte ce nu consider corect pot admira mai departe un om, daca le pastrez pentru mine ma amarasc.

Asa simt si gandesc si eu....

[AlinB]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf213.ii.vii.xxx.html

Epistle LXIV.
To Augustine, Bishop of the Angli
Augustine’s tenth question.


Whether a pregnant woman should be baptized, or, when she has brought forth, after what length of time she should be allowed to enter the church. Or, to guard also against her issue being surprised by death, after how many days it may receive the sacrament of holy baptism. Or after what length of time her husband may have carnal intercourse with her. Or, if she is in her sickness after the manner of women, whether she may enter the church, or receive the sacrament of sacred communion. Or whether a man after intercourse with his wife, before he has been washed with water, may enter the church, or even go to the ministry (ministerium: in Bede, mysterium) of sacred communion. All these things it is right we should have made known to us for the rude nation of the Angli.


Answer of the blessed pope Gregory.


I doubt not that thy Fraternity has been asked these questions, and I think that I have supplied thee with answers to them. But I believe that thou wishest what thou art able of thyself to say and think to be confirmed by my reply. For why should not a pregnant woman be baptized, fecundity of the flesh 78being no fault before the eyes of Almighty God? For, when our first parents had transgressed in Paradise, they lost by the just judgment of God the immortality which they had received. Therefore, because Almighty God would not utterly extinguish the human race for their fault, He took away immortality from man for his sin, and yet, in the kindness of His pity, reserved to him fruitfulness in offspring. With what reason then can what has been preserved to the human race by the gift of Almighty God be debarred from the grace of holy baptism? For indeed it is very foolish to suppose that a gift of grace can possibly be inconsistent with that mystery wherein all human sin is entirely extinguished.
But as to how many days after her delivery a woman may enter the church, thou hast learnt that by the direction of the Old Testament she ought to keep away xxxiii. days for a male child, but lxvi. for a female. It should be known, however, that this is understood mystically. For, if in the same hour in which she has been delivered she enters the church, she subjects herself to no burden of sin. For it is the pleasure of the flesh, not the pain, that is in fault. But it is in the carnal intercourse that the pleasure lies; for in bringing forth of offspring there is pain and groaning. Whence even to the first mother of all it is said, In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children (Gen. iii. 16). If, therefore, we forbid a woman after her delivery to enter the church, we reckon her very penalty to her for a fault. Moreover, it is by no means forbidden that either a woman after delivery or that which she has brought forth should be baptized without delay, if in peril of death; she even in the same hour in which she is delivered, or it in the same hour in which it is born. For, as in the case of those who live and have discretion the grace of the holy mystery should be seen to with great discernment, so to those who are in imminent danger of death it should be offered without any delay, lest, while time is being sought for administering the mystery of redemption, death should shortly intervene, and no way be found of redeeming the time that has been lost.

[AlinB]

Further, her husband ought not to cohabit with her till that which is brought forth be weaned. But an evil custom has arisen in the ways of married persons, that women scorn to nurse the children whom they bring forth, and deliver them to other women to be nursed. Which custom appears to have been devised for the sole cause of incontinency, in that, being unwilling to contain themselves, they think scorn to suckle their offspring. Those women therefore who, after an evil custom, deliver their children to others to be nursed ought not to have intercourse with their husbands unless the time of their purification has passed, seeing that, even without the reason of childbirth, they are forbidden to have intercourse with their husbands while held of their accustomed sicknesses; so much so that the sacred law smites with death any man who shall go into a woman having her sickness (Lev. xx. 18). Yet still a woman, while suffering from her accustomed sickness, ought not to be prohibited from entering the church, since the superfluity of nature cannot be imputed to her for guilt, and it is not just that she should be deprived of entrance into the church on account of what she suffers unwillingly. For we know that the woman who suffered from an issue of blood, coming humbly behind the Lord, touched the hem of his garment, and immediately her infirmity departed from her (Luke viii.). If then one who had an issue of blood could laudably touch the Lord’s garment, why should it be unlawful for one who suffers from a menstruum of blood to enter in the Lord’s Church?
But that woman, thou wilt say, was compelled by infirmity; but these are held of their accustomed sicknesses. Yet consider, dearest brother, how all that we suffer in this mortal flesh is of infirmity of nature, ordained after guilt by the fitting judgment of God. For to hunger and to thirst, to be hot, to be cold, to be weary, is of infirmity of nature. And to seek food against hunger, and drink against thirst, and cool air against heat, and clothing against cold, and rest against weariness, what is it but to search out certain healing appliances against sicknesses? For in females also the menstruous flow of their blood is a sickness. If therefore she presumed well who in her state of feebleness touched the Lord’s garment, why should not what is granted to one person in infirmity be granted to all women who through defect of their nature are in infirmity?
Further, she ought not to be prohibited during these same days from receiving the mystery of holy communion. If, however, out of great reverence, she does not presume to receive, she is to be commended; but, if she should receive, she is not to be judged. For it is the part of good dispositions in some way to acknowledge their sins, even where there is no sin, since often without sin a thing is done which comes of sin. Whence also, when we hunger, we eat without sin, though it has come of the sin of the first man that we do hunger. For the menstruous habit in women is no sin, seeing that it occurs naturally; yet still that nature itself has been so 79vitiated as to be seen to be polluted even without the intention of the will is a defect that comes of sin, whereby human nature may perceive what through judgment it has come to be, so that man who voluntarily committed sin may bear the guilt of sin involuntarily. And so females, when they consider themselves as being in their habit of sickness, if they presume not to approach the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, are to be commended for their right consideration. But when, out of the habit of a religious life, they are seized with a love of the same mystery, they are not to be restrained, as we have said. For, as in the old Testament outward acts were attended to, so in the New Testament it is not so much what is done outwardly as what is thought inwardly that is regarded with close attention, that it may be punished with searching judgment. For while the law forbids the eating of many things as being unclean, the Lord nevertheless says in the Gospel, Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but the things which come forth from the heart, these are they which defile a man (Matth. xv. 11). And soon after He added in explanation, Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts (Ib. 19). Hence it is abundantly indicated that what is shewn by Almighty God to be polluted in act is that which is engendered of the root of polluted thought. Whence also Paul the Apostle says, All things are pure to the pure; but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure (Tit. i. 15). And immediately, to declare the cause of this defilement, he subjoins, For their mind and conscience is defiled. If, then, food is not impure to one whose mind is not impure, why should what with a pure mind a woman suffers from nature be reckoned to her for impurity?

[AlinB]

Further, a man after sleeping with his own wife ought not to enter the church unless washed with water, nor, even when washed, enter immediately. Now the law enjoined on the ancient people that a man after intercourse with a woman should both be washed with water and not enter the church before sunset. Which may be understood spiritually as meaning that a man has intercourse with a woman when his mind is joined with delight in thought to illicit concupiscence, and that, unless the fire of concupiscence in his mind should cool, he ought not to think himself worthy of the congregation of his brethren, seeing himself to be burdened with by lewdness of wrong desire. For, although in this matter different nations of men have different notions, and some are seen to observe one practice and some another, yet the usage of the Romans from ancient times has always been for a man after intercourse with his own wife both to seek the purification of the bath and to refrain reverently for a while from entering the church.
Nor do we, in saying these things, account wedlock as sin. But, since even the lawful intercourse of the wedded cannot take place without pleasure of the flesh, entrance into a sacred place should be abstained from, because the pleasure itself can by no means be without sin. For he had not been born of adultery or fornication, but of lawful wedlock, who said, Behold I was conceived in iniquities, and in sin my mother brought me forth (Ps. l. 7). For, knowing himself to have been conceived in iniquities, he groaned for having been born in sin, because the tree bears in its branch the vicious humour which it has drawn from its root. Yet in these words he does not call the intercourse of the wedded iniquity in itself, but in truth only the pleasure of the intercourse. For there are many things which are allowed and legitimate, and yet we are to some extent defiled in the doing of them; as often we attack faults with anger, and disturb the tranquillity of our own mind. And, though what is done is right, yet it is not to be approved that the mind is therein disturbed. For instance, he had been angry against the vices of transgressors who said, Mine eye is disturbed because of anger (Ps. vi. 8). For, since the mind cannot, unless it be tranquil, lift itself up to the light of contemplation, he grieved that his eye was disturbed in anger, because, though assailing evil doings from above, he still could not help being confused and disturbed from contemplation of the highest things. And therefore his anger against vice is laudable, and yet it troubles him, because he felt that he had incurred some guilt in being disturbed. Lawful copulation of the flesh ought therefore to be for the purpose of offspring, not of pleasure; and intercourse of the flesh should be for the sake of producing children, and not a satisfaction of frailties. If, then, any one makes use of his wife not as seized by the desire of pleasure, but only for the sake of producing children, he certainly, with regard to entering the church or taking the mystery of the body and blood of the Lord, is to be left to his own judgment, since by us he ought not to be prohibited from receiving it who knows no burning though in the midst of fire. But, when not the love of producing offspring but pleasure dominates in the act of intercourse, married persons have something to mourn over in their intercourse. For holy preaching concedes them this, and yet in the very concession shakes the mind with fear. 80For, when the Apostle Paul said, Who cannot contain let him have his own wife, he straightway took care to add, But I speak this by way of indulgence, not by way of command (1 Cor. vii. 7). For what is just and right is not indulged: what he spoke of as indulged he shewed to be a fault.
Furthermore it is to be attentively considered that the Lord in mount Sinai, when about to speak to the people, first charged the same people to abstain from women. And if there, where the Lord spoke to men through a subject creature, purity of body was required with such careful provision that they who were to hear the words of God might not have intercourse with women, how much more ought those who receive the Body of the Almighty Lord to keep purity of the flesh in themselves, lest they be weighed down by the greatness of the inestimable mystery! Hence also it is said through the priest to David concerning his servants, that if they were pure from women they might eat the shew bread; which they might not receive at all unless David first declared them to be pure from women. Still a man who after intercourse with his wife has been washed with water may receive even the mystery of sacred communion, since according to the opinion above expressed it was allowable for him to enter the church.

[AlinB]

Si mai sunt intrebari si raspunsuri, in special pentru problemele ridicate de ory, Emanuel si altii..

Noi nu prea ne grabim sa traducem in romana lucrarile astea, dar deocamdata si traducerile in engleza sunt o referinta foarte buna.

[sophia]

Interesanta discutia, multumesc pentru linkul cu lucrari in limba engleza.
Pentru Eduardd:

Tu vorbesti despre altceva in cazul tau si al parintelui care te-a ajutat la operatie. Eu nu contest harul, sau clarviziunea, sau rugaciunea. Sunt astfel de oameni si printre calugari si printre mireni chiar.
Dumnezeu a dat unora astfel de daruri, i-a ales cum a vrut El.Unii chiar n-au scoala, dar suflet cat cuprinde.
Eu ma refer la alt aspect in acest fir. Si nu ma hazardez in a face comparatii intre calugari si preoti de mir. Teoretic vad diferenta, practic mai putin, adica nu inteleg anumite parti.
Si cine este mai bun si poate da sfaturi...Greu de spus.
Eu ma abtin sa dau sfaturi celor ce au copii de ex. Mai incerc eu, dar n-am loc, si au dreptate oamenii. De unde sa stiu eu.
Sunt generatii mai vechi carora nici parintii lor, sau bunicii nu le-au putut da lectii pentru viata, mai ales fetelor, pentru casatorie, sau biserica sau mai stiu eu. Si ei la randul lor au trecut orin ele, au fost femei, au fost casatoriti, au facut copii etc.

Traditia - unde este scrisa, sau la va referiti cand spuneti de ea. Ca eu nici acum n-am aflat. La ce se refera anume? La ce au lasat Sinoadele, la ce a lasat El, sau cine? Exista o asa lucrare concreta? Unde sa spuna clar asta asa si asta nu e asa dupa Iisus?
Of, este o deruta in mintea mea!

Alin - cum und scrie ce am spus eu? Nu stiu, in canoane? Ma intreb si eu ca tine.
Pai fiecare iti spune - femeia nu e curata, n-are voie aia si ailalta, cei casatoriti n-au voie aia si numai atunci. Nici preotii nu sunt curati sa intre la Liturghie daca au fost cu sotia si etc.
Repet, nu ca nu s-ar spala, ci parca ar fi un pacat in ei, in firea lor. Asta vreau sa pricep eu.
Insasi monahismul in sine, care se bazeaza pe anumite abstinente, creeaza ideea ca unii sunt mai altfel.
Eu stiu ca toti traim si ne rugam intru Hristos.