Feeling drawn towards Orthodoxy

[An1OrthodoxChristian]

I often hear we have “vague” answers. What answers do you seek?

People are people, and alienation can happen anywhere. I am not Greek, but my Spiritual Formation was in the Greek Tradition. I have attended Slavic Divine Liturgies and communed there. I think the problem here, is one of perspective. What are you looking for when you attend Divine Liturgy? Hang around for awhile, and eventually they will put a rag in your hand when it comes time to clean the Church to prepare for Great Lent, OR God forbid, they try and put you on the Parish Council!

 

[An1OrthodoxChristian]

Columbus’ missionaries were heterodox and outside the fold, so they would be considered irrelevant. Moscow makes all sorts of claims, some with merit, some not so much. That is all being worked out, slowly, messily, as disputes are worked out in any family.

 

[Vanez]

Hi there. When i first began to learn about Orthodoxy, the answers seemed very vague because i was still strongely influenced by RC teachings so it was very hard for me to separate Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology. But now, i have learned a lot, read a lot. Even though i am still learning, i now know the basic teachings. But when it is about other stuff e.g. contra against Orthodox study bible (for example), i dont understand why some people recommend it and some dont. Or when it is about ecumenical, etc etc. I dont know why people argue or what they are arguing for. I am just a simple woman who wants to know her belief in the Orthodoxy.

 

[Vonsalza]

You want some sort of top down pronouncement? That isn’t how traditional Ecclesiology functions.

I think this is a point of contention between us.

The writings of the apostles were considered authoritative, in part, because they were apostles. The council in Jerusalem within the book of Acts displays the need for pronouncements from leadership. The disciples submitted to the teachings of Christ. The laity of the local Church are to submit to the Bishop and his priestly representatives in the local congregation…

All these are top-down leadership models. It’s how traditional ecclesiology has functioned since before there was even an ecclesia. Moreover, without it the Church cannot function.

Papal supremacy, on the other hand, is a different issue.

We have not held such a council because we are actually open to re-establish communion, with conditions.

That’s sort of my point. You haven’t had an ecumenical council that has decreed for the whole Church that communion has actually been broken… At least, not one I’m aware of. Synods of limited participation and reach are as close as I’ve ever read about.

The politics between Moscow and Constantinople is well established.

I energetically agree. It’s extremely reminiscent of the politics between Rome and Constantinople after the 5th century; Present “Constantinople” playing the part of old, fallen Rome and present Moscow playing the part of old, dominant Constantinople.

The Vandals and Goths of the then are even replaced with the Turks of now. It’s a good comparison, imo.

Our squabbles are turf wars and political. Yours, I’m afraid are matters of Faith.

No sir. The squabbles within Orthodoxy and the squabbles within Catholicism are virtually the same. Your desire to label your own problems as “not as bad as theirs” is just a social survival mechanism kicking in.

They’re likely every bit as bad.

As long as one pays lip service to Papal Authority, one can do all sorts of questionable things.

I think you display a lack of understanding as to how Catholics regard the pope, which is unsurprising when talking to Orthodox and protestants. He’s not a king. We don’t swear fealty to our papal lord when we become baptized and confirmed into the Church.

The issue of American Orthodoxy is a tragic by product of the Russian Revolution. It is being sorted out, slowly (as is always the case with us).

No, not always (Constantinople was very quick to quash American autocephaly and claim headship). And tying American autocephaly to the revolution is less relevant than many hope. The push for it was largely in the 1970s.

But I’ll agree that the Orthodox are slow. Maybe untenably so.

You’re right though, Orthodoxy has it’s own issues and one should not romanticize anything.

Catholicism does too, and one should also avoid comfortable over-simplification when considering other faiths. The other guy might actually end up being right.

 

[pacloc]

Hi Vanez,

I know you were asking An1, but please allow me to offer some recommendations. The disputes about certain “newer” things that people are trying to do and teach simply are too close to being heretical, and serious Orthodox Christians are not going to recommend doing or reading these at best poor examples of Orthodox faith and at worst heretical views. I’m not saying that the Orthodox Study Bible is in this category, because I have not read all of the commentary in it. I have heard from very good priests that the OSB is fine, but the commentary is very vague and doesn’t represent all that the Orthodox Church teaches on even very important topics. The ecumenical stuff also sometimes goes too far and begins to claim heretical views of those outside the Orthodox Church. A lot of Orthodox see the history of how the outside ends up corrupting those in the Church more than those in the Church helping draw more people to the Church.

The safest way to understand the Orthodox faith is to read the many beautiful writings available that go nowhere near heresy. I see that you say you have read a lot, I am interested in what you have read. This could be the reason for the confusion if you have been reading mainly American convert’s writings. I would recommend getting the Prologue of Ohrid or reading it online daily, it contains a summarized account of the Saints of the day, reflections on scripture, and homilies. And St. Theophan the Recluse has a book that has a reflection for the daily Gospel reading that can be read rather quickly and contains great insight. It is titled “Thoughts for Each Day of the Year.” And of course if you have time you can read commentaries from Sts. John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria on almost the whole new testament and some of the old testament. And for summaries of the faith, I recommend reading almost anything from St. Gregory of Nyssa; the life of Moses, the Beatitudes, on Virginity, etc. And there is a book of St. Gregory Palamas homilies for almost every Sunday Gospel, and most of the major Feast days. This book will teach you almost all you need to know about the Orthodox faith.

 

[Lenten_ashes1]

The Church is NOT liberal. She is the only one standing firm on all issues such as contraception, divorce/remarriage and same sex ‘marriage’.

But there are many liberal heads in here and I see why it frustrates you as it does me, as well.

The great falling away prophesied by Paul is happening before our eyes. Fear not, the Church will not be conquered as she has a promise from the Lord.

 

[AlNg]

I’ve also never seen a post-schism council that unambiguously declares that 1. Rome has fallen from the “true” Church and…

Fordham university has a copy of the 1848 encyclical of the eastern patriarchs which outlines their position.
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.asp

 

[An1OrthodoxChristian]

“I think this is a point of contention between us.”

My Reply: As it has been for centuries.

“The writings of the apostles were considered authoritative, in part, because they were apostles. The council in Jerusalem within the book of Acts displays the need for pronouncements from leadership. The disciples submitted to the teachings of Christ. The laity of the local Church are to submit to the Bishop and his priestly representatives in the local congregation…”

My Reply: Of course they are authoritative, but the Apostles worked in concert with each other. The Synodical structure was THE way of doing business. There is no “Cathedra” Bishop for the Bishops to “submit” to, as the head of the Church is Christ.

“All these are top-down leadership models. It’s how traditional ecclesiology has functioned since before there was even an ecclesia. Moreover, without it the Church cannot function.”

My Reply: Perhaps I was unclear in what I meant. I was referring specifically to the Supremacist model where the Pope declares, and the Bishops “assent.”

“Papal supremacy, on the other hand, is a different issue.”

My Reply: I would say it is THE issue of which all our other problems hinge.

“That’s sort of my point. You haven’t had an ecumenical council that has decreed for the whole Church that communion has actually been broken… At least, not one I’m aware of. Synods of limited participation and reach are as close as I’ve ever read about.”

My Reply: Again, why do we need a council for this? It is very simple. We have the Diptychs. Listen to who is commemorated at Divine Liturgy. Don’t hear Pope Francis’ name? That means we are not in communion. What more do we need?

“No sir. The squabbles within Orthodoxy and the squabbles within Catholicism are virtually the same. Your desire to label your own problems as “not as bad as theirs” is just a social survival mechanism kicking in.”

They’re likely every bit as bad."

My Reply: How is it possible to look at the Liturgical and Spiritual wreckage that came from Vatican II and then tell me that our problems are the same?

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. Your church has a very SERIOUS problem with this. There is no social survival mechanism here. We’re ok, by the grace of Our Lord.

 

[An1OrthodoxChristian]

“I think you display a lack of understanding as to how Catholics regard the pope, which is unsurprising when talking to Orthodox and protestants. He’s not a king. We don’t swear fealty to our papal lord when we become baptized and confirmed into the Church.”

My Reply: What misunderstanding? Your Pope claims the authority and power to depose any bishop, anywhere. To appoint any bishop, anywhere. He can rewrite your Canons whenever he wants (tossing ancient canons out the window), he can take a 500 year old Liturgy and stuff it in a closet, replacing it with a “New Missal” at will. He can create and dissolve whole organizations as he likes.

How are we Orthodox supposed to view this? You may say “The Pope wouldn’t do that, he is bound by Tradition, etc.” But the reality is, that the “Tradition” is whatever the Pope says it is. There is no mechanism to depose a Pope, as you claim he is above councils (which makes the Council of Constance an awkward episode) there is no mechanism for correction by Brother Bishops because he “has no equal.”

Again, how are we supposed to view this?

“No, not always (Constantinople was very quick to quash American autocephaly and claim headship). And tying American autocephaly to the revolution is less relevant than many hope. The push for it was largely in the 1970s.”

My Reply: This isn’t about relevancy. This is about what happened. The Russian Church had jurisdiction before the Revolution, and when the Communists took over, the various groups were left in the lurch. This resulted in the mother countries sending bishops and clergy to clean up the mess.

“But I’ll agree that the Orthodox are slow. Maybe untenably so.”

My Reply: Slow and steady always wins the race.

“Catholicism does too, and one should also avoid comfortable over-simplification when considering other faiths. The other guy might actually end up being right.”

My Reply: That cuts both ways.

 

[An1OrthodoxChristian]

My advice would be to stop reading. If you want to get some spoken advice in a simple way:

Christ the Saviour OC - YouTube

Father Maxym is great, and his talks have helped me greatly in my own Spiritual Journey.

Pray, and Love. May Our Panagia guide you.

 

[An1OrthodoxChristian]

Why do you want to attend the Divine Liturgy?

Forgive me, I was sucked into the side discussions here that I didn’t address you directly.

Why? My advice would be to reflect on that question first.

You say our Liturgy and Spirituality are “amazing.” Why do you say that?

I am not trying to make you feel bad brother/sister, but it is very very important to discern carefully.

If you are nourished by the Catholic Mass, why seek elsewhere? If you are not, that is probably a good starting point.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I’ve also never seen a post-schism council that unambiguously declares that 1. Rome has fallen from the “true” Church and…

Fordham university has a copy of the 1848 encyclical of the eastern patriarchs which outlines their position.
Internet History Sourcebooks

I’m familiar with it. Written as a knee-jerk reaction to Pius IX’s encyclical to the Orthodox, calling them to resume communion with Rome.

But most importantly, you seem to have deliberately left out the second half of my sentence there. I’ll paste it: “and 2. meets their own standards as genuinely ecumenical (and thus authoritatively binding on the whole of Orthodoxy).”

As such, the point remains intact. It was binding only upon the signatories and not the Orthodox Church at-large; an age-old problem in Orthodox doctrinal methodology.

 

[Vonsalza]

My Reply: Of course they are authoritative, but the Apostles worked in concert with each other. The Synodical structure was THE way of doing business. There is no “Cathedra” Bishop for the Bishops to “submit” to, as the head of the Church is Christ.

Oh come now. You might have a presentable argument that Petrine headship may have died with Peter (even as that doesn’t particularly make sense), but the reality of Petrine headship over the original apostles is a historical fact that is assented to by legions of Orthodox theologians throughout history and the present. Should you require citations, I have them at the ready.

My Reply: Perhaps I was unclear in what I meant. I was referring specifically to the Supremacist model where the Pope declares, and the Bishops “assent.”

I’m happy to entertain any argument that perhaps the Petrine bishop enjoys more power than his office originally demanded. But very, very often I find that the Catholic understanding of papal supremacy is much more limited than the views of non-Catholics on the topic. Straw-men are easy to come by, here.

My Reply: Again, why do we need a council for this? It is very simple. We have the Diptychs. Listen to who is commemorated at Divine Liturgy. Don’t hear Pope Francis’ name? That means we are not in communion. What more do we need?

Arguments from absence are poor arguments. I don’t hear the “Orthodox Church in America” specifically affirmed, so by that errant standard they are also out of communion, then?

My Reply: How is it possible to look at the Liturgical and Spiritual wreckage that came from Vatican II and then tell me that our problems are the same?

You could not possibly be more meaninglessly vague here. I’m very, very much a “Vatican II” Catholic. Go Papa Francesco!

There is no social survival mechanism here. We’re ok, by the grace of Our Lord.

As over half of all the Christians on this planet are Catholic, I’d say the Lord has blessed the Holy Roman Catholic Church in abundance as well.

 

[Vonsalza]

My Reply: … He can rewrite your Canons whenever he wants (tossing ancient canons out the window),

No, he can’t.

he can take a 500 year old Liturgy and stuff it in a closet, replacing it with a “New Missal” at will.

Any Church that wishes to continue the extraordinary form is free to do so, as I understand it. Just as there was a time before the Tridentine, there will be a time after it. Do you think Chrysostom’s liturgy, as you experience it now, is identical to the one used in the 6th century? Of course it isn’t…

He can create and dissolve whole organizations as he likes.

If they are his organizations, then sure. Is there a specific example you’d like to discuss where you felt that this was unjust?

You may say “The Pope wouldn’t do that, he is bound by Tradition, etc.” But the reality is, that the “Tradition” is whatever the Pope says it is.

A pope is powerless to change the deposit of faith. It’s an old link, but one I’ve referenced several times over the years.

Limitations to the Power of the Pope

My Reply: This isn’t about relevancy. This is about what happened. The Russian Church had jurisdiction before the Revolution, and when the Communists took over, the various groups were left in the lurch. This resulted in the mother countries sending bishops and clergy to clean up the mess.

The majority of the Orthodox in 1970s America probably couldn’t have cared less about the immediate after-shocks of a revolution that had happened two full generations prior…

Yours here is a canned, “band-aid” reply taught to many American Orthodox in order to keep the money flowing across the Atlantic. And Orthodoxy in America will continue to suffer until it is remedied…

My Reply: That cuts both ways.

Oh yes. Yes it does.

 

[An1OrthodoxChristian]

“Oh come now. You might have a presentable argument that Petrine headship may have died with Peter (even as that doesn’t particularly make sense), but the reality of Petrine headship over the original apostles is a historical fact that is assented to by legions of Orthodox theologians throughout history and the present. Should you require citations, I have them at the ready.”

My Reply: No citations necessary. I think we have very different ideas of what “headship” means and the implications of that understanding.

“I’m happy to entertain any argument that perhaps the Petrine bishop enjoys more power than his office originally demanded. But very, very often I find that the Catholic understanding of papal supremacy is much more limited than the views of non-Catholics on the topic. Straw-men are easy to come by, here.”

My Reply: Will answer in separate post

“Arguments from absence are poor arguments. I don’t hear the “Orthodox Church in America” specifically affirmed, so by that errant standard they are also out of communion, then?”

My Reply: The OCA are still viewed as the Metropolia under Moscow. Patriarch Kyrill is commemorated. Not recognizing a questionable autocephalous claim is not the same as broken Communion.

“You could not possibly be more meaninglessly vague here. I’m very, very much a “Vatican II” Catholic. Go Papa Francesco!”

My Reply: Meaninglessly vague? Go over to the Dubia thread in the Catholic news section, read the anguish of your brothers and sisters and then continue with this reply.

“As over half of all the Christians on this planet are Catholic, I’d say the Lord has blessed the Holy Roman Catholic Church in abundance as well”

My Reply: The numbers game is a losing one. By that criteria Muslims have it made.

 

[An1OrthodoxChristian]

“No, he can’t.”

My Reply: So you’re saying he can’t change the Canons and never has?

“Any Church that wishes to continue the extraordinary form is free to do so, as I understand it. Just as there was a time before the Tridentine, there will be a time after it. Do you think Chrysostom’s liturgy, as you experience it now, is identical to the one used in the 6th century? Of course it isn’t…”

My Reply: It is available now, after years of suppression and bitterness (to say it was never abrogated is disingenuous when the reality said otherwise). Liturgies change, yes…but there is a difference between organic change and scrapping it to go back to the drawing board. The unilateral change to the Liturgy is to us the biggest example of Papal overreach.

“If they are his organizations, then sure. Is there a specific example you’d like to discuss where you felt that this was unjust?”

My Reply: You are missing the point.

“A pope is powerless to change the deposit of faith. It’s an old link, but one I’ve referenced several times over the years.
Limitations to the Power of the Pope1”

My Reply: “The Deposit of Faith.” As vague as Infallibility. Which statements are Ex Cathedra? The debate never ends.

“The majority of the Orthodox in 1970s America probably couldn’t have cared less about the immediate after-shocks of a revolution that had happened two full generations prior…

Yours here is a canned, “band-aid” reply taught to many American Orthodox in order to keep the money flowing across the Atlantic. And Orthodoxy in America will continue to suffer until it is remedied…

My Reply: Says you.

 

[Vonsalza]

My Reply: No citations necessary. I think we have very different ideas of what “headship” means and the implications of that understanding

I think you’re right. But I also think that we have different ideas as to how WE THINK the other party understands it, as well.

My Reply: The OCA are still viewed as the Metropolia under Moscow. Patriarch Kyrill is commemorated. Not recognizing a questionable autocephalous claim is not the same as broken Communion.

My only point there was that the liturgy makes no specific references to specific Orthodox. As such, arguments from silence are worthless.

You and I assume, reasonably, what groups it includes. But I’m sure we also agree that there are groups out there that disagree, or think they’re included and aren’t by the views of some Orthodox.

The Orthodox share schismatic borders with more than just the Catholics, I’m sure we agree.

My Reply: Meaninglessly vague? Go over to the Dubia thread in the Catholic news section, read the anguish of your brothers and sisters and then continue with this reply.

In the same vein, read the other posts by folks like my self that were absolutely elated by “the breath of fresh air”.

Whenever there is change, no matter how minute, there will always be people unhappy with it. Such is life.

My Reply: The numbers game is a losing one. By that criteria Muslims have it made.

No numbers game played. Just pointing out how richly and unambiguously the Lord has blessed His Church. That’s all.

 

[Vonsalza]

My Reply: So you’re saying he can’t change the Canons and never has?

He can’t change the deposit of faith.

My Reply: It is available now, after years of suppression and bitterness (to say it was never abrogated is disingenuous when the reality said otherwise). Liturgies change, yes…but there is a difference between organic change and scrapping it to go back to the drawing board. The unilateral change to the Liturgy is to us the biggest example of Papal overreach.

Again, if you go to a parish that want to be “All Tridentine, all the Time”, no one is going to stop you. No one is going to stop the parish. So I’m not super-sure what your problem is, here.

And calling the NO as fresh from the drawing board is objectively wrong. Any detached anthropologist that looks at the two would be able to identify the myriad of similarities and conclude that the differences pertain exclusively to form rather than function.

Calling them radically different is just mind-blowingly incorrect.

My Reply: You are missing the point.

No, I think you’re making a point that can’t really be made in that particular case.

My Reply: “The Deposit of Faith.” As vague as Infallibility. Which statements are Ex Cathedra? The debate never ends.

Since the canonization of papal infallibility 150 years ago, I know of two; both pertaining to relatively innocuous Marian dogma.

His reach just isn’t as large as you pretend it to be. If it were, Vatican II would have never happened. The pope would have made his decrees and that would have been it. But Vatican II DID happen, even after the declaration of papal infallibility. So how do you interpret that?

My Reply: Says you.

Look, the overwhelming majority of American Greek Orthodox aren’t Greek. The majority of the Russians aren’t Russian. Same goes with virtually any other nationalist Orthodox Church in America.

This is a problem and you know it. It holds Orthodoxy back in America as “the immigrant Church”.

In the 1970’s, the Russian Orthodox Church took some very gallant steps to right this. Constantinople (and every other OC that stood to lose serious American money) slapped it down.

 

[AlNg]

Many feel drawn to the beauty of the Orthodox liturgy and chanting.

 

[phil19034]

The politics between Moscow and Constantinople is well established. Brothers fight. Communion has not been broken, and Commemorations continue. This is the only marker of Unity in the Faith. Catholics mistaken political or temporal “union” for the real thing. We share the same Faith, and believe the same things. Our squabbles are turf wars and political. Yours, I’m afraid are matters of Faith. As long as one pays lip service to Papal Authority, one can do all sorts of questionable things. Is that Unity?

The issue of American Orthodoxy is a tragic by product of the Russian Revolution. It is being sorted out, slowly (as is always the case with us).

You’re right though, Orthodoxy has it’s own issues and one should not romanticize anything.

I’m referring to the text I italicized above. Orthodoxy has the similar issues as the Catholic Church. The Orthodox are just better at hiding it. After Vatican II (really after World War II), Catholic clergy and laity became more open about airing the dirty laundry.

I know many Orthodox lay people who are “Orthodox in name only,” meaning they hold on to the tradition but are not very well evangelized. It’s no different from the Catholic Church.

Rest assured, if Orthodoxy had a council where they were encouraged to talk about any issue without fear of punishment, the dissents would start going crazy with that freedom.

NOTE: I do not have any ill will towards the Orthodox. I honestly feel that Catholics and Orthodox should be more united in joint defense against communism, secularism, Islam, and Protestantism.