W
waxwing
Guest
No insult intended. Guess when it comes to certain topics I am ill-informed on, I shall bypass this forum and either do my own research or hang on to whatever preconceived notions I may have.
- Status
T
Trebor135
Guest
Not predominantly Islamic ones–like Guinea, Senegal, and Niger? It seems strange to focus on converting those who are already Christians when there are so many others in dire need of being evangelized in general.
(The site you linked to on Orthodox missions in Africa wouldn’t load for me.)
A
AveChriste11
Guest
Hi Bezant,
As to #1 – you can easily find out enough information by searching for the various Patriarchal websites, they will have their list of Apostolic succession. To tell the truth St. Andrew came to Byzantium (it was not called Constantinople) back then, and St. Stachys was his successor from what I understand. St. Andrew was said to travel also as far north as Kiev, but the Russ were not officially converted till much later.
As to #2 – I’m not sure which EO sources you’re referring to but please don’t set yourself up for confusion. If you want to know the cannon of Scripture that the majority of Eastern Orthodox Christians accept, it can be found in the Orthodox Study Bible. That Bible includes basically every single book that’s in the Roman Catholic Bible, with the addition of 3rd Maccabees.
As to #3 – I personally don’t see how what one does with their marriage, or whether they use contraception or not has anything to do with the Patriarch, or Bishop. These types of things if sincerely questioned, should be left up to the counseling of your spiritual father. He can know the type of situation you’re in, and will probably give you the best guidance.
As to #4 – You are correct, some of us accept Roman Catholics as a sign of economy. We recognize that because Catholic baptism is Trinitarian in nature (even if not by immersion), they are received through chrismation. That is the way it is here in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, although I’ve seen and heard of Russian and Serbian Orthodox take a much hard lined stance; along with a few Old Calendarist Greek Orthodox. I question though why the issue must be officially settled?
As to #5 – The 1672 Council of Jerusalem was not ecumenical by any stretch, and there is no reason for the EO who deny its authority to condemn it as heresy or abominable. You must recognize that before the proclamation of 1672, the Eastern churches already had a basic idea of what was canonical and what was clearly not needed. These were passed down to us through Holy Tradition, the Council of Jerusalem was simply to set the record straight as Calvinism’s influence was pervading on Eastern territory. Moreover, Patriarch Cyril Lukaris was also accused of espousing Calvinist viewpoints even though I don’t believe it was ever determined that he actually did.
As to #1 – you can easily find out enough information by searching for the various Patriarchal websites, they will have their list of Apostolic succession. To tell the truth St. Andrew came to Byzantium (it was not called Constantinople) back then, and St. Stachys was his successor from what I understand. St. Andrew was said to travel also as far north as Kiev, but the Russ were not officially converted till much later.
As to #2 – I’m not sure which EO sources you’re referring to but please don’t set yourself up for confusion. If you want to know the cannon of Scripture that the majority of Eastern Orthodox Christians accept, it can be found in the Orthodox Study Bible. That Bible includes basically every single book that’s in the Roman Catholic Bible, with the addition of 3rd Maccabees.
As to #3 – I personally don’t see how what one does with their marriage, or whether they use contraception or not has anything to do with the Patriarch, or Bishop. These types of things if sincerely questioned, should be left up to the counseling of your spiritual father. He can know the type of situation you’re in, and will probably give you the best guidance.
As to #4 – You are correct, some of us accept Roman Catholics as a sign of economy. We recognize that because Catholic baptism is Trinitarian in nature (even if not by immersion), they are received through chrismation. That is the way it is here in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, although I’ve seen and heard of Russian and Serbian Orthodox take a much hard lined stance; along with a few Old Calendarist Greek Orthodox. I question though why the issue must be officially settled?
As to #5 – The 1672 Council of Jerusalem was not ecumenical by any stretch, and there is no reason for the EO who deny its authority to condemn it as heresy or abominable. You must recognize that before the proclamation of 1672, the Eastern churches already had a basic idea of what was canonical and what was clearly not needed. These were passed down to us through Holy Tradition, the Council of Jerusalem was simply to set the record straight as Calvinism’s influence was pervading on Eastern territory. Moreover, Patriarch Cyril Lukaris was also accused of espousing Calvinist viewpoints even though I don’t believe it was ever determined that he actually did.
A
AveChriste11
Guest
As to #6 – Every EO I’ve talked to and website I’ve read agrees that Augustine is a Saint, even though many of his teachings are questionable. Saint Augustine being a former Manichaen (a Persian Gnostic sect) brought some of his gnostic understandings to Christianity. We can’t say that all of his ideas were taught by the Apostles, as Calvin and Luther both seemed to excessively lean on him to the exclusion of others. As towards many of the Western Fathers, we usually give respect and recognition to those who are pre-schism; that would include Saint Patrich; and Saint Ambrose of Milan among others. Yet I would make the point that not every Eastern Orthodox Christian is of Western background, and therefore when we do emphasize Western saints it is because we find it easier to relate to them. But isn’t that what the stories of the saints are there for? To inspire, education, and give hope to the people… so that they may realize becoming like Jesus Christ, partaking in the divine nature is not such a far off goal after all.
As to #7 – Why do we need another ecumenical council? This statement that the author makes implies that somehow we need one. Remember, we don’t believe in “doctrinal development” or that things must be constantly clarified and defined. That seems to be a byproduct of Roman Latin thought; with its many emphasis on “this” and “that”. Ancient Romans of course were known for their laws and judicial systems therefore is it any wonder that such influences would cross-over when they converted to Christianity?
As to #8 – that’s implying that there is “strong testimony”. I personally believe that the Roman Catholic idea of the Papacy was developed over time, that’s why before the schism you won’t find the same ideas about the Papacy as you may find in the pronouncements of Vatican I for instance. Therefore we as Eastern Christians hold to the original understanding, before this idea was “developed” to such an extent as the Roman Catholic Church has allowed it to be.
As to #9 – That’s an important difference between the Catholics and Orthodox. Even if the Holy Father Benedict XVI were to settle an agreement with Patriarch Bartholomew and the other Eastern Patriarchates, that would not mean anything until the message was sent to the Masses. The laity, the Patriarchs, and the Bishops must agree – or if they don’t, how is that inspired by God? Our Patriarchs are not rulers who sit there and say “This is the way it is, accept it or don’t” as we don’t see the Church as being such a heirarchical structure. They are all the servant of the servants of God, as we should be too. [My other Orthodox brothers/sisters may feel free to correct me on this, because I’m not sure if I’ve been very clear in my meaning.]
As to #10 – Russia originally evangelized the Alaskans long ago, it seems even before the Roman Catholic Church got ahold of it. Have you ever heard of St. Peter the Aleut, or his spiritual father St. Herman? However it remains to be seen why the Eastern churches need to evangelize in what has traditionally been Rome’s jurisdiction [Western Europe]? Evangelizing is being done, and all who have come to the conclusion that Eastern Orthodoxy represents the original catholic and apostolic church of Christ are welcome to join. I would also say that sometimes the Patriarchs have political situations to deal with in their own home territories and that’s when evangelism gets “put on hold”, but it doesn’t mean we don’t do it.
As to #7 – Why do we need another ecumenical council? This statement that the author makes implies that somehow we need one. Remember, we don’t believe in “doctrinal development” or that things must be constantly clarified and defined. That seems to be a byproduct of Roman Latin thought; with its many emphasis on “this” and “that”. Ancient Romans of course were known for their laws and judicial systems therefore is it any wonder that such influences would cross-over when they converted to Christianity?
As to #8 – that’s implying that there is “strong testimony”. I personally believe that the Roman Catholic idea of the Papacy was developed over time, that’s why before the schism you won’t find the same ideas about the Papacy as you may find in the pronouncements of Vatican I for instance. Therefore we as Eastern Christians hold to the original understanding, before this idea was “developed” to such an extent as the Roman Catholic Church has allowed it to be.
As to #9 – That’s an important difference between the Catholics and Orthodox. Even if the Holy Father Benedict XVI were to settle an agreement with Patriarch Bartholomew and the other Eastern Patriarchates, that would not mean anything until the message was sent to the Masses. The laity, the Patriarchs, and the Bishops must agree – or if they don’t, how is that inspired by God? Our Patriarchs are not rulers who sit there and say “This is the way it is, accept it or don’t” as we don’t see the Church as being such a heirarchical structure. They are all the servant of the servants of God, as we should be too. [My other Orthodox brothers/sisters may feel free to correct me on this, because I’m not sure if I’ve been very clear in my meaning.]
As to #10 – Russia originally evangelized the Alaskans long ago, it seems even before the Roman Catholic Church got ahold of it. Have you ever heard of St. Peter the Aleut, or his spiritual father St. Herman? However it remains to be seen why the Eastern churches need to evangelize in what has traditionally been Rome’s jurisdiction [Western Europe]? Evangelizing is being done, and all who have come to the conclusion that Eastern Orthodoxy represents the original catholic and apostolic church of Christ are welcome to join. I would also say that sometimes the Patriarchs have political situations to deal with in their own home territories and that’s when evangelism gets “put on hold”, but it doesn’t mean we don’t do it.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Sorry, that was a typo. I meant to write “East Africa”, not West Africa, though the Copts do have a mission in Nigeria. Anyway, your criticism, while not without merit, is equally applicable to all missions in majority-Muslim countries. When the Catholics came into Egypt (and the Presbyterians a little while later), they mostly evangelized Copts. Ditto the Catholics and the English in Iraq, who evangelized Assyrians and Syrian Orthodox. The one (semi) exception to this in modern times has been North Africa, mainly Morocco and Algeria, where Protestant missions have been enormously successful recently among the Imazighen (“Berber” is pejorative), and in some sense in Iran (though this is mainly due to native Iranian-Armenian efforts, the most visible of the evangelists are converts to Protestantism themselves). Perhaps the lesson here is that the most fertile ground for mission in the Islamic world is among the peoples who have been marginalized by Arabization and Islamicization of their native cultures…
The website you can’t load spotlights Coptic missions in Africa, some of which are several decades old by now. They include: Kenya (1976), Tanzania (1997), Zambia (1987), Congo-Kinshasa (1997), and Nigeria (2005). I also know of Coptic missions in South Africa, though for some reason they are not featured on the website. Perhaps they are too new.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
I have been out of town…came back, and met a Byelrussian who converted to the Roman Catholic Church.
I asked him about my perception that the Orthodox appear to be ethnic bound, more allegiance and identity to their given culture, and in some cases to the national state. He told me I was totally correct. When he told some of the Orthodox in the eastern countries that he is Roman Catholic…they then did not see him as a universal Christian…they called him a Pole.
I think the Orthodox/Eastern Orthodox Churches are in great need of a council to work on this issue of lacking universality and being ethnic bound.
The other thing I noticed was how touchy the Orthodox are in regards to our impressions…and I use the word impression honestly…because it is taking me some time to understand Orthodoxy and all the different churches.
Another reason why I think the nationalistic, ethnic Orthodox—using the term to cover all those who do not accept the primacy of Peter…is just what happens when people are ethnic bound. They lose their sense of charity towards those outside the clan. Someone on a secular forum brought up the Ethiopian Orthodox and how they hold on to Jewish customs. There are several churches that were originally Roman Catholic, but then split to become Orthodox, and yet returned to the Latin rite within the past 200 years or so. But what is sad is that the Ethiopian Orthodox look down on the Roman Catholic Ethiopians as inferior to them.
The other issue is that I have yet —and I haven’t read all the posts on Orthodoxy, but I haven’t read a compliment by them towards the Latin Church. And reading some of the issues and concepts, it would do them well to bring in Latin scholarly disciplines.
Finally, in ancient times the Roman Church was primary, strong, and wealthy. The Church of Rome extended financial and other helps to emerging churches. We pay a voluntary pence to Peter every year. And likewise our local church helps towards funding if they have the means.
For the Church to have restored unity, people must draw more close to Christ Himself, and see Him as their primary identity.
I am trying to find a link my friend gave me that clearly showed which churches the 12 apostles had founded.
I asked him about my perception that the Orthodox appear to be ethnic bound, more allegiance and identity to their given culture, and in some cases to the national state. He told me I was totally correct. When he told some of the Orthodox in the eastern countries that he is Roman Catholic…they then did not see him as a universal Christian…they called him a Pole.
I think the Orthodox/Eastern Orthodox Churches are in great need of a council to work on this issue of lacking universality and being ethnic bound.
The other thing I noticed was how touchy the Orthodox are in regards to our impressions…and I use the word impression honestly…because it is taking me some time to understand Orthodoxy and all the different churches.
Another reason why I think the nationalistic, ethnic Orthodox—using the term to cover all those who do not accept the primacy of Peter…is just what happens when people are ethnic bound. They lose their sense of charity towards those outside the clan. Someone on a secular forum brought up the Ethiopian Orthodox and how they hold on to Jewish customs. There are several churches that were originally Roman Catholic, but then split to become Orthodox, and yet returned to the Latin rite within the past 200 years or so. But what is sad is that the Ethiopian Orthodox look down on the Roman Catholic Ethiopians as inferior to them.
The other issue is that I have yet —and I haven’t read all the posts on Orthodoxy, but I haven’t read a compliment by them towards the Latin Church. And reading some of the issues and concepts, it would do them well to bring in Latin scholarly disciplines.
Finally, in ancient times the Roman Church was primary, strong, and wealthy. The Church of Rome extended financial and other helps to emerging churches. We pay a voluntary pence to Peter every year. And likewise our local church helps towards funding if they have the means.
For the Church to have restored unity, people must draw more close to Christ Himself, and see Him as their primary identity.
I am trying to find a link my friend gave me that clearly showed which churches the 12 apostles had founded.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
While the Apostles were sent primarily to Asia Minor, Ethiopia, and Persia, it is SS Peter and Paul who were led to Rome.
Perhaps it could be the Rome was to be truly the seat of primacy for the Church, as well as the nature of the times considering the effect of the Roman Empire…musing here.
Perhaps it could be the Rome was to be truly the seat of primacy for the Church, as well as the nature of the times considering the effect of the Roman Empire…musing here.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
That is quite insulting, that you would belittle the faith of Orthodox Christians as being ethnically bound.
A
AveChriste11
Guest
Cavaradossi,
I believe given the context she said that was her “impression”, and the recent Belorussian convert she had met. I don’t believe she meant it as a belittlement at all reading it in context.
Just for the sake of conversation, I am of Scotch-Irish and English descent. I go to a Greek Orthodox church, where they still speak fluent Greek sometimes – yet I know Eastern Orthodox Christianity is for everyone. As St. Paul said there is no Scythian, Jew, Greek, Roman, slave or free man – for we are all One in Christ Jesus.
I believe given the context she said that was her “impression”, and the recent Belorussian convert she had met. I don’t believe she meant it as a belittlement at all reading it in context.
Just for the sake of conversation, I am of Scotch-Irish and English descent. I go to a Greek Orthodox church, where they still speak fluent Greek sometimes – yet I know Eastern Orthodox Christianity is for everyone. As St. Paul said there is no Scythian, Jew, Greek, Roman, slave or free man – for we are all One in Christ Jesus.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Yeah, pretty much. How one could actually make that claim is beyond me. In any country you go to with a strong majority religion, the people there have a strong sense of their ethnic ties to their religion. You see that to some extent with Anglicans in England; with Catholics in Ireland, or Italy, or even the Philippines, or Lutherans and Calvinists in middle Europe.
It is in places like North America or Australia you don’t find that as much, or places where secularism has become very dominant. There are places in the USA where there are separate Italian and Irish Catholic churches, and intermarriage between the two was seen as “mixed” only two generations ago!
But this isn’t a religion imagining it is ethnic - it’s about ethnicity imagining itself to be defined by a religion. In places where that doesn’t happen, Orthodoxy seems to follow a similar pattern.
And as far as evangelization - Orthodoxy spread far into the East, into Africa, and up into the Scandinavian countries, Russia, and Alaska. That seems pretty wide to me. THese days there are whole congregations converting in the USA, there are huge conversions in South America. I think there is a pretty active Orthodox movement in Wales even.
They don’t seem to have used so much the rather questionable techniques that were common in parts of the Western Church, but I’m not sure I would characterize that as a bad thing.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I can see your point. That being said, the idea of the Orthodox Church being “ethnic” is really no different from how Italians relate (or at least used to relate before the rapid secularization of the past century) to the Roman Catholic Church: they are attached to her because of how deeply she has influenced the culture of Italy. Yet when the Greeks or Russians display a similar attachment to their Church, they get called “ethnic”. I think it’s a very strange double-standard.
Agreed. God came to save humanity in general, not just the Romans, the Jews, the poor or the rich.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Exactly. It’s isn’t that the religion identifies with one ethnicity, it’s that the ethnicity identifies with the religion. For people like the Copts, the Irish, the Italians, the Greeks and the Slavs, their religion is a defining trait of their ethnicity, but we shouldn’t make the mistake of trying to reverse that association and say that their ethnicity is a defining trait of their religion. Oriental Orthodoxy isn’t Coptic or Ethiopian, and Eastern Orthodoxy is not Greek or Slavic, just as Roman Catholicism is not Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Polish, Austrian or Irish.
D
dzheremi
Guest
What an insulting few posts from Kathleen. Am I allowed to write any old thing that comes into my mind as long as I make sure to note that it’s my “honest impression”? Because my honest impressions of the Roman Catholic communion (that formed from having been a Roman Catholic myself, not from having talked to a convert to Roman Catholicism from Orthodoxy) would likely make the majority of people here very unhappy, and so far when I’ve expressed them all it’s gotten me is more infractions and names for my ignore list. Let’s try to think a little more before we use CAF as a forum for our honestly insulting impressions of other churches and the people in them.
And, no, it would not “do (Orthodoxy) well to bring in Latin scholarly disciplines.” Orthodoxy is whole and complete, lacking nothing to be filled in by “Latin scholarly disciplines” or anything else.
And, no, it would not “do (Orthodoxy) well to bring in Latin scholarly disciplines.” Orthodoxy is whole and complete, lacking nothing to be filled in by “Latin scholarly disciplines” or anything else.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Why on earth would ANY Catholic need to be re-baptized,if baptized with water and under the Trinitarian Formula?
D
dzheremi
Guest
Because belief in the Trinity is not a guarantee of Orthodoxy. The vast majority of Protestants believe in the Trinity, but they are clearly not Orthodox. In order to be formally received into the church, you must be in agreement with all of the theology taught therein. Orthodoxy is not all about form, so even a “proper” baptism in all outward ways cannot make someone Orthodox if the faith they are being baptized into is not Orthodox. Re-baptism, when it happens (and I agree with others that it is the norm), is to assure that the person is properly received, since the Orthodox do not know the status of sacraments performed outside of their churches (cf. “we know where salvation is, not where it is not”). When it is not performed, it is at the discretion of the priest. This doesn’t say anything about Catholic sacraments, either.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Hmmm I also have heard that I spoke terribly of the Blessed Mother, etc…
Christ said the greatest of all gifts is love…we all know Corinthians…is it only for our own or do we extend it to all…including non-Christians…how about to the Jews?..
May be considering the title of this thread…it is not necessarily my intention to criticize, but to give my observations and perceptions…no insult intended…
Christ said the greatest of all gifts is love…we all know Corinthians…is it only for our own or do we extend it to all…including non-Christians…how about to the Jews?..
May be considering the title of this thread…it is not necessarily my intention to criticize, but to give my observations and perceptions…no insult intended…
T
Trebor135
Guest
The only valid reason I could see for Catholics/Protestants to evangelize the Copts and Assyrians would be to “save” them from their “heretical” christology. After all–based on the little I’ve read on the subject–it’s only been in the past few decades that the Catholic Church has come to see that Oriental Orthodox (miaphysite, not monophysite) christology is compatible with its own and not some egregious deviation from Chalcedon.
Still, very disappointing nonetheless.
This is good news. If you have any links on the missionary efforts in North Africa and Iran, please share.The one (semi) exception to this in modern times has been North Africa, mainly Morocco and Algeria, where Protestant missions have been enormously successful recently among the Imazighen (“Berber” is pejorative), and in some sense in Iran (though this is mainly due to native Iranian-Armenian efforts, the most visible of the evangelists are converts to Protestantism themselves). Perhaps the lesson here is that the most fertile ground for mission in the Islamic world is among the peoples who have been marginalized by Arabization and Islamicization of their native cultures…
K
KathleenGee
Guest
One additional comment, and I truly don’t mean to be insulting here…we had a Lutheran minister visit our parish. He said his parish had pretty much the same kind of people. He noted in ours a great diversity of type of people, and he sees this in Catholic parishes.
We have parishes with strong ethnic communities, and unless they are mission parishes–now at present we have a Korean and Vietnamese mission parishes, we always work to have a more universal and integrated unity. There is always work and impetus that mission parishes contribute through liturgical and other activities in the general diocese, which they generously do.
But I hold to my ‘guns’ that yes, Orthodox churches are known as ethnic bound…I think of the Ethiopian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Armenian, Russian, etc. You don’t see the Italian Roman Church, or the Irish Roman Church, etc. See my point?
We have parishes with strong ethnic communities, and unless they are mission parishes–now at present we have a Korean and Vietnamese mission parishes, we always work to have a more universal and integrated unity. There is always work and impetus that mission parishes contribute through liturgical and other activities in the general diocese, which they generously do.
But I hold to my ‘guns’ that yes, Orthodox churches are known as ethnic bound…I think of the Ethiopian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Armenian, Russian, etc. You don’t see the Italian Roman Church, or the Irish Roman Church, etc. See my point?
M
Mark_of_Ephesus
Guest
Actually, that is only a recent change. Less than 100 years ago, Roman Catholic parishes were very ethnic (be they predominantly Irish, Italian, Polish, etc.)
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
As dzheremi has wonderfully explained, the East didn’t follow the scholarly ways of the West in defining the intricacies of Sacraments and how they work. Thus any Sacrament (or Mystery) performed outside of the Orthodox Church is questionable.
- Status