Conceptul de reforma

[catalin2]

În prealabil postat de oitza ratacita

Tocmai deaceea te tot trimit sa citesti cartea lui Cavarnos; ti-am si indicat pagina 160; sa vezi ca nu scrie Cavarnos asa ceva. Citeste si Erminia sa te convingi. Citeste carti, nu articole compilate de pseude-autori.
De fapt, e treaba ta ce faci; e cultura ta, credinta ta.... ce treaba am eu daca cineva alege sa se scalde in prostie?

E evident, pare o conspiratie impotriva ta. Inclusiv in autorii care sunt impotriva icoanei conspiratorii au introdus pasaje false, ca sa induca in eroare. Probabil si mesaje subliminale. Daca sustii o aiureala trebuie sa aiba si un minim de logica. Cum e si cu mandria asta, numai prosti te face sa vezi peste tot si conspiratii cand nu-ti dau dreptate. Pare simplu, sa constientizam ca nu putem fi perfecti si ca putem gresi, iar pasul doi sa avem puterea sa ne calcam pe orgoliu si sa iubim adevarul mai mult, atunci cand ne dam seama ca am gresit.

[catalin2]

În prealabil postat de oitza ratacita

Esti de rasul curcilor cu netul asta. Vreo bibliografie serioasa ai? La Brasov exista
librarii sau biblioteci?

Treci peste, sunt importante citatele acelea si explicatiile. Ca vezi, si astia cunoscuti, cu zeci de facultati mai gresesc.

[catalin2]

În prealabil postat de simpllu

:)) Nu am negat şi nu neg prezenţa Duhului Sfânt. Vezi în câte cântări regăsim "Cel vechi de zile" cu referire clară la Fiul.

Le vad demult, pentru ca in link-ul dat sunt citatele din cele 3 cantari la inceput. Plus citatele din sfinti care se refera la Dumnezeu (adica Sfanta Treime) si la Iisus cu "Cel Vechi de Zile". Abia apoi sunt citatele din sfintii care talcuiesc Daniel 7. Am citit ca sunt si refereriri la Sfantul Duh cu acest nume, dar nu am gasit citate.
Iisus este pictat cu parul alb pentru ca asa apare in viziunea din Apocalipsa, e un pasaj acolo. Iar Dumnezeu tatal pentur ca asa apare in viziunea lui Daniel.

În prealabil postat de simpllu

Şi cum S-a arătat Duhul Sfânt? De ce nu este pictat în chip de nor luminos, limbi de foc sau înger? De ce tocmai în porumbel?

Pentru ca, probabil, aceasta e cea mai cunoscuta/uzuala reprezentare.

[oitza ratacita]

În prealabil postat de catalin2

E evident, pare o conspiratie impotriva ta. Inclusiv in autorii care sunt impotriva icoanei conspiratorii au introdus pasaje false, ca sa induca in eroare. Probabil si mesaje subliminale. Daca sustii o aiureala trebuie sa aiba si un minim de logica. Cum e si cu mandria asta, numai prosti te face sa vezi peste tot si conspiratii cand nu-ti dau dreptate. Pare simplu, sa constientizam ca nu putem fi perfecti si ca putem gresi, iar pasul doi sa avem puterea sa ne calcam pe orgoliu si sa iubim adevarul mai mult, atunci cand ne dam seama ca am gresit.

E monolog, te adresezi ca pt sine-ti. Te impiedici in propriile sireturi.
Nu-mi pasa ca esti smintit, tu o vei tine ca papagalul inainte in eroarea ta. Dar, am speranta ca sunt altii care au citit sau vor citi si vor stii sa faca diferenta intre o icoana ortodoxa si alta catolica.

[catalin2]

Tot citatul din Sfantul Nicodim, daca cineva nu reuseste sa il gaseasca in link

St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain (c. 1749 – 1809 A.D.)

“We must note that since the present Council [the Seventh] in the letter it is sending to the church of the Alexandrians pronounces blissful, or blesses, those who know and admit and recognize, and consequently also iconize and honor the visions and theophaniae of the Prophets, just as God Himself formed these and impressed them upon their mind, but anathematizes on the contrary those who refuse to accept and admit the pictorial representations of such visions before the incarnation of the divine Logos (p. 905 of Vol. II of the Conciliar Records) it is to be inferred that even the beginningless Father ought to have His picture painted just as He appeared to Daniel the prophet as the Ancient of Days. Even though it be admitted as a fact that Pope Gregory in his letter to Leo the Isaurian (p. 712 of the second volume of the Concilliar Records) says that we do not blazon the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, yet it must be noted that he said this not simply, but in the sense that we do not paint Him in accordance with the divine nature; since it is impossible, he says, to blazon or paint God’s nature. That is what the present council is doing, and the entire Catholic Church; and not that we do not paint Him as He appeared to the Prophet. For if we did not paint Him at all or portray Him in any manner at all to the eye, why should we be painting the Father as well as the Holy Spirit in the shape of Angels, of young men, just as they appeared to Abraham? Besides even if it be supposed that Gregory does say this, yet the opinion of a single Ecumenical Council attended and represented by a large number of individual men is to be preferred to the opinion of a single individual man. Then again, if it be considered that even the Holy Spirit ought to be painted in the shape of a dove, just as it actually appeared, we say that, in view of the fact that a certain Persian by the name of Xanaeus used to assert, among other things, that it is a matter of infantile knowledge (i.e., that it is a piece of infantile mentality or an act of childishness) for the Holy Spirit to be painted in a picture just as It appeared in the semblance of a dove, whereas, on the other hand, the holy and Ecumenical Seventh Council (Act 5, p. 819 of the second volume of the Conciliar Records) anathematized him along with other iconomachs from this it may be concluded as a logical inference that according to the Seventh Ecum. Council It ought to be painted or depicted in icons and other pictures in the shape of a dove, as it appeared… As for the fact that the Holy Spirit is to be painted in the shape of a dove, that is proven even by this, to wit, the fact that the Fathers of this Council admitted the doves hung over baptismal founts and sacrificial altars to be all right to serve as a type of the Holy Spirit (Act 5, p. 830). As for the assertion made in the Sacred Trumpet (in the Enconium of the Three Hierarchs) to the effect that the Father out not to be depicted in paintings and like, according to Acts 4, 5, and 6 of the 7th Ecum. Council, we have read these particular Acts searchingly, but have found nothing of the kind, except only the statement that the nature of the Holy Trinity cannot be exhibited pictorially because of its being shapeless and invisible” (The Rudder, pp 420-421)

[oitza ratacita]

În prealabil postat de catalin2

Treci peste, sunt importante citatele acelea si explicatiile. Ca vezi, si astia cunoscuti, cu zeci de facultati mai gresesc.

De ce nu spui nimic despre descrierea din Erminie pt Daniel 7? De ce nu dai multimea aceea de biserici ortodoxe care au Treimea catolica pe iconostas? Ti-am cerut doar 1%...
Imi pare rau ca te complexeaza studiile superioare, dar fii optimist, niciodata nu e prea tarziu. Si sa stii ca la facultate te vor invata sa faci cercetare dupa o bibliografie concludenta.

[oitza ratacita]

În prealabil postat de catalin2

Tot citatul din Sfantul Nicodim, daca cineva nu reuseste sa il gaseasca in link

St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain (c. 1749 – 1809 A.D.)

“We must note that since the present Council [the Seventh] in the letter it is sending to the church of the Alexandrians pronounces blissful, or blesses, those who know and admit and recognize, and consequently also iconize and honor the visions and theophaniae of the Prophets, just as God Himself formed these and impressed them upon their mind, but anathematizes on the contrary those who refuse to accept and admit the pictorial representations of such visions before the incarnation of the divine Logos (p. 905 of Vol. II of the Conciliar Records) it is to be inferred that even the beginningless Father ought to have His picture painted just as He appeared to Daniel the prophet as the Ancient of Days. Even though it be admitted as a fact that Pope Gregory in his letter to Leo the Isaurian (p. 712 of the second volume of the Concilliar Records) says that we do not blazon the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, yet it must be noted that he said this not simply, but in the sense that we do not paint Him in accordance with the divine nature; since it is impossible, he says, to blazon or paint God’s nature. That is what the present council is doing, and the entire Catholic Church; and not that we do not paint Him as He appeared to the Prophet. For if we did not paint Him at all or portray Him in any manner at all to the eye, why should we be painting the Father as well as the Holy Spirit in the shape of Angels, of young men, just as they appeared to Abraham? Besides even if it be supposed that Gregory does say this, yet the opinion of a single Ecumenical Council attended and represented by a large number of individual men is to be preferred to the opinion of a single individual man. Then again, if it be considered that even the Holy Spirit ought to be painted in the shape of a dove, just as it actually appeared, we say that, in view of the fact that a certain Persian by the name of Xanaeus used to assert, among other things, that it is a matter of infantile knowledge (i.e., that it is a piece of infantile mentality or an act of childishness) for the Holy Spirit to be painted in a picture just as It appeared in the semblance of a dove, whereas, on the other hand, the holy and Ecumenical Seventh Council (Act 5, p. 819 of the second volume of the Conciliar Records) anathematized him along with other iconomachs from this it may be concluded as a logical inference that according to the Seventh Ecum. Council It ought to be painted or depicted in icons and other pictures in the shape of a dove, as it appeared… As for the fact that the Holy Spirit is to be painted in the shape of a dove, that is proven even by this, to wit, the fact that the Fathers of this Council admitted the doves hung over baptismal founts and sacrificial altars to be all right to serve as a type of the Holy Spirit (Act 5, p. 830). As for the assertion made in the Sacred Trumpet (in the Enconium of the Three Hierarchs) to the effect that the Father out not to be depicted in paintings and like, according to Acts 4, 5, and 6 of the 7th Ecum. Council, we have read these particular Acts searchingly, but have found nothing of the kind, except only the statement that the nature of the Holy Trinity cannot be exhibited pictorially because of its being shapeless and invisible” (The Rudder, pp 420-421)

The itsy-bitsy spider
Climbed up the water spout
Down came the rain
And washed the spider out
Out came the sun
And dried up all the rain
And the itsy-bitsy spider
Climbed up the spout again.

[catalin2]

În prealabil postat de oitza ratacita

E monolog, te adresezi ca pt sine-ti. Te impiedici in propriile sireturi.
Nu-mi pasa ca esti smintit, tu o vei tine ca papagalul inainte in eroarea ta. Dar, am speranta ca sunt altii care au citit sau vor citi si vor stii sa faca diferenta intre o icoana ortodoxa si alta catolica.

Sper, totusi, sa nu fiu hulitor al unei sfinte icoane. Sfantul Nicodim Aghioritul spune ca nu e tocmai bine. Cum vezi, totul pare in favoarea acestei sfinte icoane, pe nedrept condamnata de unii. Sfinti, Pidalion, Erminia, etc. Impotriva nimic, decat niste basme spuse din gura in gura. Ce iubesti mai mult, adevarul sau orgoliul?

[oitza ratacita]

În prealabil postat de catalin2

Sper, totusi, sa nu fiu hulitor al unei sfinte icoane. Sfantul Nicodim Aghioritul spune ca nu e tocmai bine. Cum vezi, totul pare in favoarea acestei sfinte icoane, pe nedrept condamnata de unii. Sfinti, Pidalion, Erminia, etc. Impotriva nimic, decat niste basme spuse din gura in gura. Ce iubesti mai mult, adevarul sau orgoliul?

De cateva zile iti zic ca in Erminie NU apare descrisa o astfel de icoana. Nu apare o astfel de descriere cu Batranelul Dumnezeu. Nici macar numele de Sf Treime nu apare. In ce limba sa scriu sa intelegi?

Ar trebui sa ma razboiesc cu 90% din poporul roman ortodox care promoveaza non-arta, imaginile dulcege ale Ferioarei provenite din arta apuseana, sclipiciurile si inimioarele de pe pieptul lui Iisus, ingerasii durdulii si bucalati, batranelul Dumnezeu sprijinit in toiag, etc...Cultura e o optiune personala a fiecareia; nu tine nici de orgoliu, nici de adevar.

[catalin2]

În prealabil postat de oitza ratacita

De ce nu spui nimic despre descrierea din Erminie pt Daniel 7? De ce nu dai multimea aceea de biserici ortodoxe care au Treimea catolica pe iconostas? Ti-am cerut doar 1%...
Imi pare rau ca te complexeaza studiile superioare, dar fii optimist, niciodata nu e prea tarziu. Si sa stii ca la facultate te vor invata sa faci cercetare dupa o bibliografie concludenta.

Daca te referi la pasajul dat de tine, e prima parte a vedeniei, cu cele patru fiare. Pasajul discutat aici e cel din continuare, cu Dumnezeu Tatal si Fiul.
Cum as putea sa dau toate bisericile si manastirile care au aceasta sfanta icoana? Le-am dat pe doua dintre cele mai importante. Se plangea cineva pe net ca nu se mai pot schimba aceste icoane, sunt in prea multe biserici si manastiri si unele sunt vechi, intra la patrimoniu. E grea problema asta a iconoclastilor.