You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 04:27, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Economia - Bishops can bend the rules, Perhaps his deacon was sick. Usually in such cases one of the priests will function as the deacon.
As to the other issue, Logic supports me. All our experiences are different. I belong to a very traditional Greek Orthodox Parish. The Abbot of the local monastery is my spiritual father. One of my brothers is a priest. I speak with my bishop on a regular basis as he resides in the monastery. The monastery is a satellite of the monastery at Patmos in Greece (Also a very traditional and ancient monastery). My other brother is a monk on the Agion Oros. My sister a Nun. So my sources of information are pretty legitimate. These practices without meaning should not be done, they are aberrations seen commonly in Non-Orthodox and modern Liberal Orthodox Churches. The blessing of icons and crosses is unheard of in my church for the very good reasons listed in the article. Phiddipus 19:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, though, at least two of those practices (kneeling on Sundays and kissing the chalice) are done by Old Believers, and I doubt anybody can accuse *them* of liberalism in liturgical matters.
This might have to be chalked up to a difference between Greek and Russian practice. That doesn't mean it's wrong (especially since we outnumber y'all haha :p). Does your church also refuse to bless liturgical implements such as chalices before they are used? What about altars and church buildings themselves? Surely they have been built for the specific purpose of being sacred things, so there is no need for them to be blessed? YBeayf 20:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A Very good question. I do not know about the blessing of chalices, my guess is probably not considering they are instantly purified the moment they are first used (do you imagine that holy water is somehow more effective than Christ’s Blood). In the case of the church and altar there are canons specifically prescribing the consecration of a church and its altar (there are not any for Icons or Crosses). You may be surprised to know that most churches, especially in the USA are not consecrated. The reason for this is simple: Once consecrated the land and building can only be used for Orthodox Church services. In Orthodox countries we can expect that if the church falls into disuse, it will never be sold for the purpose of anything but being a church. In the USA, as sometimes happens, a church goes bankrupt and ends up selling the property. The church may be torn down and something else built instead. This is strictly forbidden if the church is consecrated. Can a church building be used as a church without consecrating it? Yes, absolutely. In this case the priest uses an Antiminsia, which contains the relic of a Martyr. Now the question is: Is it a church even if not consecrated? Yes, it is by purpose. Some churches, for whatever reason never get consecrated. This is not unusual. But back to the issue of Icons and Crosses let me ask some simple questions: What is the difference between something blessed and something not blessed? Considering food, blessed food must be consumed or burned; unblessed food can go down the garbage disposal. Water that is blessed conveys grace and the power of God; unblessed water does not. In chasing away demons you could say Holy Water “works”, plain water doesn’t. But if I stand in front of an Icon or a Cross and venerate it, It “Works”. My prayer and veneration are still effectively transferred over to the Archetype. That is not to say that an Icon isn’t holy or blessed, but that simply by being what they are they are already sacred. Lets put it another way…If I held in my hand two apples, one blessed and one not, could you tell the difference? No, probably not. There is no way of recognizing the “Holy” apple with our earthly eyes. But if I hold up a cross or an Icon we have immediate recognition of something Holy and with special purpose. Phiddipus 22:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, because the Russian service books prescribe for liturgical items to be blessed, and without such they can't be used for services. It's true that the precious Blood is infinitely more powerful than holy water, but the purpose of blessing the chalice beforehand is to make it to be a fitting recepticle for the Body and Blood in the first place.
I think there may be more consecrated churches in the US than you think -- all the established (i.e. with a proper Church building) churches in Texas seem to be so, at least -- I was even at the consecration service of one of them. I'm well aware of using an antimens when a proper altar is not available -- my parish church rents a storefront, and so our priest serves on an antimens on an altar-shaped table.
It would seem that blessing Church buildings and liturgical implements is directly analogous to blessing icons. They appear intrinsically as holy things, but nevertheless are still blessed by the Church.
Another example just occurred to me -- bread used for a litiya (I think the Greeks call it artoklasia) is clearly intended to be a sacred object, as it is usually stamped on the top (at least in the Russian tradition) with a cross or icon. However, it's still blessed at the litiya service, but by your reasoning, there should be no need to bless the loaves, as they already appear as holy objects, but rather only the wheat, wine, and oil should be blessed, as they appear as ordinary instances of their respective substances. This would indicate that, at least in some cases, an object bearing an icon should be blessed, no matter what tradition you're following. YBeayf 22:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not so sure there is not a fundamental difference between the two. First of all, there are Canons specifically about consecrating a church, and although I admit I don’t know, there are probably canons about blessing Chalices, Patons, etc. But there is no canon describing the blessing of Icons or Crosses. Artoklisia is an interesting subject as is Prosphora and Andideron since these are set aside for holy purpose before they are even baked, and prayers are said over them while being made. It is also interesting to note that the Great Entrance takes place before the consecration and we bow and cross ourselves before the Gifts held high by the clergy. So is the bread and wine already the Body and Blood of Christ? The answer is simple: We Don’t Know – It’s a Mystery.
As to Icons and Crosses: think of it as a before and after picture: The Water, Oil, and flour exist before the bread is made. The bread is made and exists before it is blessed – it was just bread, its nature was just the nature of bread. The church building was just a building, the Chalice, just a cup. The nature of its being was first mundane, then made sacred. But an Icon , once painted, is not mundane. An Icon of Christ, whose nature is to be a window into heaven, was never anything before it was an Icon of Christ. Its ingredients were something else, but its ingredients remain mundane, we do not count as Holy the substance of the Icon, but the Image depicted on it…and that image was never anything before but an Image of Christ. I think, therefore, that Icons hold a very special position, different from most other things, because their nature is special. Phiddipus 16:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It just occured to me that we don't bless bibles either. Bibles are already sacred simply by being bibles. What would be the point of "Blessing" the Word of God. And the entire argument in favor of the use of Icons is based on their comparison to, and likeness to Scriptures. Phiddipus 16:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! As a member of the Mediation Cabal, I've taken care of mediation of the issues regarding The Andy Griffith Show. I've already filled myself in the details, but before proceeding, I'd like everyone interested to offer me a (very) brief view of the core dipute before proceeding. Any suggestions and thoughts will be heeded. Regards and hugs, Shaurismile!23:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.
You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damicktalkcontribs 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to mention on the Duke University edit you had (here: [1]) that you fixed the spelling of a vandal! It's been corrected. Thanks. DukeEGR93 11:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Seamus Heaney. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Demiurge 22:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Stegosaurus, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Demiurge 22:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for trolling for a period of 31 hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Luna Santin 00:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a valid point you're trying to make I don't see it. Please retract your votes and try to do something helpful for the project. Your current behavior looks like a clear attempt at disruption. - TaxmanTalk 04:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I was not disrupting, but merely voting as is my privilege as a longtime contributor to Wikipedia.
Decline reason:
A privilege that you were abusing with absurd voting rationales. -- Netsnipe ► 05:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Per above requests that were denied. I also protected this page so only administrators can edit it due to excessive use of the unblock template. Sorry
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
smile! 23:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
