Talk:Holy orders
What about Holy Orders in Eastern Orthodoxy? Or Holy Orders in Anglicanism?
This is Wikipedia. Put in a subhead and start typing. I started with what I know best, and people added things. (Notice that the entry makes no claims to completeness even for Catholicism - it says 'in modern Catholicism'. I hope we'll get the history eventually). --MichaelTinkler
- I would -- except I don't know anything about them, and I am too lazy to do any research myself :) I was just hoping someone else might know, and chime in...
The article says:
- Not all priests have lived up to these ideals: see Catholic priests' sex abuse scandal.
Catholic priests have broken every commandment. There have been mass murderers among them, serial adulterers, thieves and con-artists. In past centuries indulgences (forgiveness) was sold. And what about the Spanish Inquisition?
Yet several articles about the Catholic Church here at Wikipedia mention none of that but with unseemly prurient interest they mention at the slightest excuse the recent sex abuse scandals.
I am inclined to remove the remark I have quoted. Would I be right to do so?
Psb777 11:32, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
On the subject of Holy Orders in the Eastern Orthodox Church there is an error, though one that is commonly made, and is even in some books. The article says that one is tonsured to the rank of reader and subdeacon, and this phrase is used in common speech, though it is not technically correct. The tonsure occures prior to the ordination of a man to the rank of reader. He is ordained a reader by the laying on of hand of the celebrant ( which is normally a bishop, though for these lesser orders an archimandrite or abbot may perform this ordination). The ordinand is then latter ordained to the rank of subdeacon by laying of of hands. In the Greek a distinction is made in these two types of ordinations. The lesser form is called chirothesis ( for minor orders) and the greater one is called chirotony ( for major orders). This may be an arcane point, but it is very significant and I would like to hear some feedback before I make any changes. I am new and I don't wish to step on any toes.
--Frmaximos 03:50, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
problem with researching religion
people make the hugest emphases on the smallest details, therefore making it nearly impossible to absorb everything they say. to put it bluntly, its extremely boring. im doing a project on the history of religious orders and i nearly fall asleep when reading pages about it. i wish everything could be more clear and concise. on christianity- yes there are many faults with the religion, for example, if God created adam and eve, and they were perfect, why did they eat the forbidden fruit (which is never identified as an apple in the bible). we also come to the question why is there evil in the world? if god is a loving being why did he put evil in the world and why does he allow the innocent to die (helpless babies etc.) yes of course there is the common saying that it was meant to happen, but who wants a god that ordains the death of their family? these same imperfections plague the church as well. we cant expect them to be perfect because they are human. to me, christianity is an example of how powerful the mind is, if you catch my drift. look at what we can make ourselves believe.
some philisophical questions
what is truth what is evil can god create a rock he cant lift? are adam and eve real people?
my name is Sky, skyd@culver.org, aim:culverpolopimp feel free to respond.
by the way, as i have just learned anyone can make a post on this page by clicking the plus (+) tab at the top of the page.