Eastern Orthodox

[Bluegoat]

Mardukm, I don’t know if you quote that way for a reason, but I find it really confusing.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Did you know there are two Western Rite Orthodox parishes in Virginia? I think they are a bit of a drive but if I were there I would totally check them out!

There is an OCA parish only 15 minutes from my house. That is a blessing too. Just hit interstate 288 and I’m there in no time. I’ve been itching to go to liturgy there but I think that finding it too alien is what holds me back.

 

[mardukm]

This might be the case in Egypt and among the Syrians, but what of the other OO? You can’t seriously be suggesting that the Armenians or Ethiopians (the two earliest Christian kingdoms in the world) had this experience, or that they only became conservative as a result of the work of outside powers. They were officially Christian, by the action and support of the king’s court!

I would defer to an Armenian’s explanation of its own history, but AFAIK, Armenia was a truly independent nation for only about 150 years during the whole of the Middle Ages, and only recently after the fall of the Soviet Union.

The Ethiopian Orthodox have preserved the Faith for the same reason as the EO - because it has had a secular ruler sympathetic to it for most of its existence.

How do you figure? What do secular politics have to do with ecclesiology?

Secular politics plays a role in the life of the Church in creating or preserving the social atmosphere in which the Church will exist. In general, a country with a monarchical or dictatorial regime will be very traditional and conservative in social principles, and thus help preserve the traditional paradigm and institutions of the Church (not always directly, but indirectly through the social conservatism that type of secular governance promotes).

Finland has had its own Orthodox church for about as long as it has been independent, and it is a democracy. Granted, it’s a rather small church, but I still don’t see anyone from it begging that the Finnish Orthodox elect a Pope or submit to the Pope of Rome. I don’t think you’re making very much sense, Mardukm. Please, leave some room for the work of the Holy Spirit. Not everything is the result of politics.

How long has Finland been a true democracy? 50 years? How does such a drop in the chronological bucket in the history of the Church prove anything? And I agree with you that its small numbers in Finland is a social factor in helping to keep its identity and Traditions.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnnyReb]

I sort of painted myself in a corner spiritually. A few years ago I set out to show my Opus Dei wife that the original NT church was more like my low Anglican church than her RC church. After reading extensively from the Early Church Fathers, I had to conclude that the Early Church was more liturgical, sacramental and episcopal than my low Anglican church. At first, I ****just tried to live like a 1st century Christian by fasting every Wednesday and Friday and 40 days before Christmas and Easter.

After a while, however, I found myself increasingly feeling alone in my Anglican parish. I found myself unable to participate in a Eucharist that was considered purely symbolic.

Discovering Orthooxy was a pleasant surprise, starting with their continuation of 1st century fasting practices as described in the Didache. I then immersed myself in Orthoox books. In my local parish there are no inquirers classes, but I think I got more than enough theology from Met Ware, Frederica Matthews-Greene and St. John of Kronstadt.

After considerable reading, most of my objections disappeared. I think theologically Orthodoxy and high Anglicanism are not so far apart. I struggle with many post Schism RC dogma, so Orthodox theology seemed relatively easy.

Eastern Orthodox liturgy by contrast, takes some getting used to. My humble advice: don’t just attend a DL once and conclude that it is too alien. Print a copy of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and follow along. Invest a bit of time in your exploration. For me, the experience has been rich.

Its the post schism dogmas that have bothered me the most when I was a practicing Catholic too, and I can’t get to the bottom of why. I was at a point a couple of weeks ago where I thought it was because I was too “by grace through faith” for either Catholicism or Orthodoxy and that Anglicanism fit me like a glove. Now I am not sure that is the case.

I have read Ware’s books, and read through a copy of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Father Michael Pomazansky. For the life of me I cannot find my copy of ODT anywhere, I think it got lost in my last move

I found both to be very informative. Thanks for answering my questions.

 

[dzheremi]

I would defer to an Armenian’s explanation of its own history, but AFAIK, Armenia was a truly independent nation for only about 150 years during the whole of the Middle Ages, and only recently after the fall of the Soviet Union.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by “independent”, but I would say that Armenia was most definitely independent (or at least more independent than in later eras) at the time it was converted to Christianity in 301 AD (under the Armenianized Arsacid dynasty), and for the 127 years following that time, before the Arsacids fell to the Sassanids on one side and Rome on the other (only three years before the first council at Ephesus).

The Ethiopian Orthodox have preserved the Faith for the same reason as the EO - because it has had a secular ruler sympathetic to it for most of its existence.

In what ways was Ethiopia’s royal court “secular” after the adoption of Christianity? Evidence of lineage shared with Ethiopia’s primarily-Muslim Cushites (like the Oromo, whose native Christianity was basically destroyed following the Islamic uprisings of the 16th century) was suppressed, the Solomonic aspect of the court was constantly emphasized, minorities were given Christian/Amhara names, etc.

Secular politics plays a role in the life of the Church in creating or preserving the social atmosphere in which the Church will exist. In general, a country with a monarchical or dictatorial regime will be very traditional and conservative in social principles, and thus help preserve the traditional paradigm and institutions of the Church (not always directly, but indirectly through the social conservatism that type of secular governance promotes).

This seems to be confusing correlation with causation. Yes, certainly politics help to define the atmosphere in which the church will exist, and churches in more conservative societies are likely to be more conservative, but we’re not talking about the relation of the church to the state if we’re talking about the composition of the church itself, are we? Did the EO become conservative only starting during the Soviet period? Or the Copts only once the Muslim Arabs showed up? I’m sorry, I don’t buy it.

How long has Finland been a true democracy? 50 years? How does such a drop in the chronological bucket in the history of the Church prove anything? And I agree with you that its small numbers in Finland is a social factor in helping to keep its identity and Traditions.

I don’t understand you. On one hand you are saying that 50 years of freedom shouldn’t mean anything; on the other hand, you are predicting that increased democracy in former Soviet lands will lead to some sort of recognition that centralized authority is what is most befitting the Church in those places. It hasn’t among the Orthodox population of Finland, but 50 years is too soon to make such predictions? Well, then why are making such predictions about the Orthodox in other places who haven’t even lived in democracies for half that time? (Some could argue that they’re still not living in democracies…)

Again, you’re not making very much sense to me.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Have you read John Meyendorff? He’s really my favorite, hands-down. I actually like his stuff a little better than Ware. I like Schmemann also (sp?). I have a few Meyendorff books including The Primacy of Peter (which is a MUST-read if you haven’t already) and Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective. They’re all great.

Its the post schism dogmas that have bothered me the most when I was a practicing Catholic too, and I can’t get to the bottom of why. I was at a point a couple of weeks ago where I thought it was because I was too “by grace through faith” for either Catholicism or Orthodoxy and that Anglicanism fit me like a glove. Now I am not sure that is the case.

I have read Ware’s books, and read through a copy of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Father Michael Pomazansky. For the life of me I cannot find my copy of ODT anywhere, I think it got lost in my last move

I found both to be very informative. Thanks for answering my questions.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It is pretty alien. I still am nervous about going to it. Not sure why? If I hadn’t gone with a friend, I don’t know if I’d have had to guts to enter the incense!

There is an OCA parish only 15 minutes from my house. That is a blessing too. Just hit interstate 288 and I’m there in no time. I’ve been itching to go to liturgy there but I think that finding it too alien is what holds me back.

 

[Bluegoat]

You pick the hugest signature pics, Meghan!

I’ve changed it just for you!

 

[JohnnyReb]

Have you read John Meyendorff? He’s really my favorite, hands-down. I actually like his stuff a little better than Ware. I like Schmemann also (sp?). I have a few Meyendorff books including The Primacy of Peter (which is a MUST-read if you haven’t already) and Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective. They’re all great.

No I have not… the summer reading list is piling up fast and I still want to keep up with learning meds by classification, and I will be training to become a football referee starting in June. Oh boy! This is getting exciting!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I hear ya…literally three days after we get “off for summer vacation” from school, I am signed up to go to eight days worth of inservice trainings in english language development, math curriculum planning, and language arts planning plus cooperative learning. Oh joy! The only reason I signed up for them is that they give you $200 per day for going. We’re probably going to take a HUGE paycut this year. They say it could be as much as 11%!! That would be a loss of about $6,500 for the year for me plus possible furloughs…So I’m taking every class I can get and socking away $$$. I probably won’t even go to San Fran to watch my Giants this year. Normally Kate and I take the kids to AT&T Park and then she and I also go on our own to see the G-Men. The economy here is in ashes…Kate is going to try to take a CNA job as soon as she’s done with the second semester to supplement our income PLUS get the experience for an RN job. They won’t hire here without prior exp.

It should be an interesting “vacation” this year!

No I have not… the summer reading list is piling up fast and I still want to keep up with learning meds by classification, and I will be training to become a football referee starting in June. Oh boy! This is getting exciting!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

In what ways was Ethiopia’s royal court “secular” after the adoption of Christianity?

In the sense that none of the political rulers of Ethiopia were priests of the Orthodox Catholic Church (notwithstanding the Prester John legend, which I think originated from that region).

This seems to be confusing correlation with causation. Yes, certainly politics help to define the atmosphere in which the church will exist, and churches in more conservative societies are likely to be more conservative, but we’re not talking about the relation of the church to the state if we’re talking about the composition of the church itself, are we? Did the EO become conservative only starting during the Soviet period? Or the Copts only once the Muslim Arabs showed up? I’m sorry, I don’t buy it.

I don’t buy the idea that socio-political atmosphere is a principle of causation of the orthodoxy of a Church either. I certainly never said that. I just said it helped. And I also stated that the Holy Spirit will use any situation to preserve the Church. So the Holy Spirit is the actual cause, no matter what the socio-political situation is.

I don’t understand you. On one hand you are saying that 50 years of freedom shouldn’t mean anything; on the other hand, you are predicting that increased democracy in former Soviet lands will lead to some sort of recognition that centralized authority is what is most befitting the Church in those places. It hasn’t among the Orthodox population of Finland, but 50 years is too soon to make such predictions? Well, then why are making such predictions about the Orthodox in other places who haven’t even lived in democracies for half that time? (Some could argue that they’re still not living in democracies…).

It is the small size of the Eastern Orthodox Church in Lithuania that is the main factor in preserving its identity and Traditions. I don’t think that situation is too difficult to understand? Also, as a few of the participants in this thread have affirmed, democracy has not helped the moral stability of the Russian Orthodox Church.

My main point is that the preservation of Tradition and unity of Faith among the Orthodox despite a lack of universal papal solicitude in the Orthodox Churches is a very weak argument against the papacy. There have been other socio-political factors that helped in that stability and preservation. On the other hand, that the Catholic Church has managed to preserve its identity, Traditions and teachings despite almost 1000 years of a liberal, free-thinking socio-political milieu is a great testament to the Papacy.

Also, keep in mind that the Orthodox Churches have historically had a High Petrine model of governance. One has to take that into account before anyone starts pretending that the principle of a head bishop was not the operative factor in the success of the maintenance of Tradition in each particular Orthodox Church. The Low Petrine model is just a novelty in the Church’s ecclesiological history.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

With all due respect, Marduk, it seems the opposite to me? The Church has caved into the pressures of modernity in the liturgical life of the Church. Where the priest used to orient himself toward the altar of Christ with reverence, he now faces the people. Where incense abounded, it is largely absent. Where reverent liturgical language thrived, now a watered-down verbage supplants it. Where there was Gregorian Chant we have Gather Us In and Bread of Life with guitar-strumming accompaniment, liturgical dancers. I even remember a naked woman as a lector on some native island in front of John Paul II. There is hand-holding, Eucharistic ministers doling out the Eucharist, altar girls, you name it. Just in a Eucharistic liturgical context alone, to appease the populace and modernity, things have gone awry terribly.

The doctrine of Infallibility wasn’t proclaimed de fide until the 19th Century.

You talk about how the traditions and teachings of the Church have survived the liberal lunacy of the ages and how this is a great testament to the papacy but anybody could walk into a time machine and look at a 18th Century Tridentine Mass and a modern Novus Ordo and know full well that modernity has left a nasty mark! Or take the catechism with its overtures to Islam and the Muslims “first of whom” are in line for God’s mercy. I cannot fathom a 15th Century pope or council of bishops even considering something so audacious? Or look at extra ecclesium non sallus at Trent and then look at the catechism today with its outreach to non-Christian and non-Catholic religions and invincible ignorance and the possibility of salvation?

And look at how the Church succumbed to the psychiatric community of the 1960’s and their philosophy that child molestors can be “rehabilitated” and brought back into society. they bought into that thinking and look where it has gotten them? I’ve heard more Catholics and priests make that observation than I can count.

There are inconsistencies that didn’t used to be there. Neither John Paul II or B16 would allow female altar boys, communion in the hand, or any of the other liberal trappings yet they allow it at the discretion of bishops? It boggles the mind.

I think the Orthodox are the opposite. Despite communism and Islam, you see none of these disturbing trends. Sure, as you pointed out, there are old vs. new calendarists and small points of contention, but overall things have changed far less than in Catholicism.

I wonder if a time traveler went back to the 1500’s and 1600’s to, let’s say the era of Trent to 2011 from one Mass to another then he went back to the 1600’s to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy then to one in 2011, which one would appear more altered and innovated?

Open your missal hymnal in your church and you’ll see one of the first hymns in there is “A Mighty Fortress is Our God…” Martin Luther is cracking up in his grave!

My main point is that the preservation of Tradition and unity of Faith among the Orthodox despite a lack of universal papal solicitude in the Orthodox Churches is a very weak argument against the papacy. There have been other socio-political factors that helped in that stability and preservation. On the other hand, that the Catholic Church has managed to preserve its identity, Traditions and teachings despite almost 1000 years of a liberal, free-thinking socio-political milieu is a great testament to the Papacy.

The Low Petrine model is just a novelty in the Church’s ecclesiological history.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[hazcompat]

first Corinthians 12:12 For as with the human body which is a unity although it has many parts – all the parts of the body, though many, still making up one single body – so it is with Christ.13 We were baptised into one body in a single Spirit, Jews as well as Greeks, slaves as well as free men, and we were all given the same Spirit to drink.14 And indeed the body consists not of one member but of many.

peace

 

[hazcompat]

Come holy spirit, come!

peace

 

[dzheremi]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

In the sense that none of the political rulers of Ethiopia were priests of the Orthodox Catholic Church (notwithstanding the Prester John legend, which I think originated from that region).

That’s an odd definition of “secular”. By that definition, nearly every country on the face of the earth is “secular”.

It is the small size of the Eastern Orthodox Church in Lithuania that is the main factor in preserving its identity and Traditions. I don’t think that situation is too difficult to understand?

I’m not so sure that this is the case.

Also, as a few of the participants in this thread have affirmed, democracy has not helped the moral stability of the Russian Orthodox Church.

I never said it did. You are the one who is asserting this or that particular system of government fitting a particular style of religion. I am merely questioning why you think it should be so, because I am not seeing the correlation that you are seeing.

My main point is that the preservation of Tradition and unity of Faith among the Orthodox despite a lack of universal papal solicitude in the Orthodox Churches is a very weak argument against the papacy.

Why?

On the other hand, that the Catholic Church has managed to preserve its identity, Traditions and teachings despite almost 1000 years of a liberal, free-thinking socio-political milieu is a great testament to the Papacy.

This is the most debatable statement I’ve ever walked away from a debate about…

Also, keep in mind that the Orthodox Churches have historically had a High Petrine model of governance. One has to take that into account before anyone starts pretending that the principle of a head bishop was not the operative factor in the success of the maintenance of Tradition in each particular Orthodox Church. The Low Petrine model is just a novelty in the Church’s ecclesiological history.

I won’t pretend to know the inner workings of every church on the face of the planet, but I will say that such sweeping generalizations and fairly useless labels aren’t very helpful. If the Orthodox Churches have always held such views as you say they do, then obviously they must not lead them to the conclusion that you have embraced by coming into union under Rome. So that’s really neither here nor there, since obviously it doesn’t demand that they bow to the modern Roman Papacy as you do.

 

[hazcompat]

first corinthians
14 And indeed the body consists not of one member but of many.15 If the foot were to say, ‘I am not a hand and so I do not belong to the body,’ it does not belong to the body any the less for that.16 Or if the ear were to say, ‘I am not an eye, and so I do not belong to the body,’ that would not stop its belonging to the body.17 If the whole body were just an eye, how would there be any hearing? If the whole body were hearing, how would there be any smelling?18 As it is, God has put all the separate parts into the body as he chose.
19 If they were all the same part, how could it be a body? 20 As it is, the parts are many but the body is one.

peace

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

first corinthians
14 And indeed the body consists not of one member but of many.15 If the foot were to say, ‘I am not a hand and so I do not belong to the body,’ it does not belong to the body any the less for that.16 Or if the ear were to say, ‘I am not an eye, and so I do not belong to the body,’ that would not stop its belonging to the body.17 If the whole body were just an eye, how would there be any hearing? If the whole body were hearing, how would there be any smelling?18 As it is, God has put all the separate parts into the body as he chose.
19 If they were all the same part, how could it be a body? 20 As it is, the parts are many but the body is one.

peace

 

[hazcompat]

What is that blue head with question marks?

peace

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Wondering what the relevence is to the discussion about Eastern Orthodoxy?

What is that blue head with question marks?

peace

 

[hazcompat]

not just EO or OO, or any O. Wether we know it or not we are1 in the Spirit!!.

peace