Primary Reasons for People Becoming Orthodox?

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Cecilianus:

Not all raskolnik sects lack priests or bishops, but in answer to your question - yes, or rather, it doesn’t seem to decide either way. Traditionalist Catholicism has a better claim in my mind than the hippie Novus Ordo version to be real Catholicism, and yet traditionalist priests are few and far between.

When you say traditionalist, do you mean groups and their followers like the SSPV, SSPX, independent Catholics, sedevacantists, conclavists, etc.?

Or, do you mean traditional, meaning mainstream groups of Catholics that accept Vatican II and the Novus Ordo yet who may prefer to offer the Tridentine Latin Mass and include other forms of traditional Latin spirituality?

 

[Madaglan]

Without a Magisterium headed by the Pope and guided by the Holy Spirit, you don’t have an objective criterion for where to draw the line. Who has the right to change anything? By whose right can you change anything? By your own? By an ecumenical council (even though none has taken place for over half a millennium)? Modifications in the practice of the Faith can only be undergone in the name of the Vicar of Christ - whom Orthodoxy rejected.

The guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The bishops are capable guardians of the Apostolic Faith.

 

[Shewho]

Regarding Orthodoxy…

As a particular or local Church, yes. As a national denomination with its own existence separate from the whole (Catholic) Church, it came into existence when it separated from communion with Rome.

It seems that Catholics think the Orthodox left, while the Orthodox think that the Catholics left. I’ve yet to find evidence that one split from the other rather than them both splitting from each other. They were both the same church (off and on) until about the 11th century. Who is to say which one was the original Church?

I’ll grant the see of Peter primacy, but the Orthodox do not seem to believe that it implied any superior qualities, rather that he was “the first among equals.” So they deny the Church at Rome having any precedence over the other Churches.

How do you know, then, that the Catholic (Roman rite) Church is in the right on this issue, and the Eastern Orthodox is not? How can you definitively say that the Orthodox Church came into being when it separated from communion with Rome, instead of saying that the Roman Catholic Church came into being when it separated from communion with Constantinople?

 

[marymol]

God bless our Orthodox brethren for all that is good in the beliefs and practices !

Yet , for one who wants to discern , the fruits that has been revealed through history , can they be ignored so easily !

Christianty, The Church , was brought to pagan Mexico a mere 500 years ago , to a human sacrificing culture …and we see now how those people are mostly God fearing, hard working , simple , humble people …

( Not meaning to be wounding - yet …) ; we can also look at Russia ,Eastern Europe … the rest of Middle East …in spite of centuries of Christian culture , the enemy of true God given freedom has been ruling …one has to wonder , how did things go so wrong …was that due to the God given truths and freedom having been mis used , to foster hatreds and fears …rebellion …

Yet , there is plenty to hope for …that hearts are seeing the truths better !

Peace !

 

[Madaglan]

God bless our Orthodox brethren for all that is good in the beliefs and practices !

Yet , for one who wants to discern , the fruits that has been revealed through history , can they be ignored so easily !

Christianty, The Church , was brought to pagan Mexico a mere 500 years ago , to a human sacrificing culture …and we see now how those people are mostly God fearing, hard working , simple , humble people …

Except in the Sierra Madres, where the murder rate is higher than the worst American city.

( Not meaning to be wounding - yet …) ; we can also look at Russia ,Eastern Europe … the rest of Middle East …in spite of centuries of Christian culture , the enemy of true God given freedom has been ruling …one has to wonder , how did things go so wrong …was that due to the God given truths and freedom having been mis used , to foster hatreds and fears …rebellion …

Yet , there is plenty to hope for …that hearts are seeing the truths better !

Peace !

I don’t know what exactly you are saying… but atheism is a problem in Western Europe and in countries of Central Europe as well.

 

[John_Larocque]

Over at another forum, someone reminded me that the current Byzantine practice of the sign of the cross dates as far back as 1000 AD. It was a common practice in both East and West. The Catholic Encyclopedia entry he provided is worth a read (by Father Herber Thurston).

No, it was not an innovation of a few centuries ago but it is the ancient way. If you see the quote below from England in 1000 AD they were using three fingers.

The way that the Orthodox make the sign of the Cross seems to have been common across all of Christendom, both East and West. (I don’t know about the Copts and Ethiopians.)

At the period for which we have certain information [circa 10th century] the manner of making it in the West was identical with that followed at present in the East, i.e. only three fingers were used, and the hand travelled from the right shoulder to the left.

See the Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/13785a.htm

Pope Innocent III (1198 - 1216) has a commentary on the sign of the cross making clear that the three fingers were used and that it was, in his day, right to left still.

[snip] … We know that in England the change from right shoulder first and probably also to indiscriminate use of the fingers was underway sometime in the 14th century, though there were holdouts (a 15th c. MS. York Missal has the Priest cross himself with the paten right to left).

There is an interesting sermon of Abbot Aelfric of Abingdon which he gave around the year 1000 in which he states, “Though a man wave wonderfully with his hand, yet it is not the sign of the Cross: With three fingers you shall sign yourself.”
(Sermon for Sept. 14)

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

 

[marymol]

I don’t know what exactly you are saying… but atheism is a problem in Western Europe and in countries of Central Europe as well.

Yes, same idea - just awed at the possibilty of that promise - ’ that you be one that the world may believe ’ ; just that the evidence is from the negative side of that promise seemingly in those areas that are 'against ’ …and not so on the side that does not want to be against …

As to the post that follows , on the sign of The Cross, it is puzzling to know that O.O also has the left to right custom …and if the right to left custom can only be traced as far as the 10th century , unsure this is something that has not been influenced from other predominating powers prevalent in the area prior to that ( Islam was a pretty strong force in the vicinty , way earlier !)

It seems a very benign practice on either side , with enough to suppport either method ; left to right, as mentioned , to indicate the return to The Father …to the right side …

Hopefully more and more persons would see the diffrences for what they are …and not as dividing lines to take away true freedom , to be one …not to be against each other …

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/08/24/freedom-in-the-bible/

Would that not even fulfill the Father’s promise !

Peace !

 

[Madaglan]

I don’t know what exactly you are saying… but atheism is a problem in Western Europe and in countries of Central Europe as well.

Is it just the Coptic Church that signs left to right, or the other Oriental Churches as well (Armenian, Syriac, Ethiopian, Eritrean)?

 

[Cecilianus]

Madaglan:
Is it just the Coptic Church that signs left to right, or the other Oriental Churches as well (Armenian, Syriac, Ethiopian, Eritrean)?

Maronites sign left to right, like Latin Catholics. I don’t know about the others, but I once saw a black kid (and I mean a VERY black kid) cross himself right to left - I assumed he was Ethiopian or Eritrean. But I’d expect them to follow the Copts.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

Is it just the Coptic Church that signs left to right, or the other Oriental Churches as well (Armenian, Syriac, Ethiopian, Eritrean)?

All Oriental Orthodox traditionally sign themselves from left to right.

If Maronites do so, they are simply following the Syriac Tradition.

How do the Eastern Orthodox Antiochenes do it? Do they sign according to the Byzantine Tradition, or the Syriac Tradition?

Blessings

 

[Aramis]

Dear brother Madaglan,

All Oriental Orthodox traditionally sign themselves from left to right.

If Maronites do so, they are simply following the Syriac Tradition.

How do the Eastern Orthodox Antiochenes do it? Do they sign according to the Byzantine Tradition, or the Syriac Tradition?

Blessings

Byzantine. R to L.

 

[Cecilianus]

Here is the symbolism of the sign of the cross, as Chrysostom explained it in one of his homilies:

The sign of the cross corresponds to the Creed. We touch our head to acknowledge God the Father - “maker of Heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible”. From Heaven Christ descended to earth and became man - and we touch our stomach to acknowledge His Incarnation. He was crucified for us, and descended into Hell - so we touch our left shoulder. “On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures. He ascended into Heaven” - and here we touch our right shoulder.

Evidently all the Churches originally made the sign of the Cross from left to right, and the right to left practice was (like the iconastasis) a later development.

 

[Shewho]

I have a friend that is Eastern Syriac Orthodox, so I asked her about the sign of the cross and here’s what she said:

As for the Cross sign, i believe all Orthodox do it the same way, From left to right, and we have an additional thing at the end, i,.e we say, in the name of The Father(forehead) , The Son ( the abdomen), the Holy (left Shoulder) Spirit (right) then One God(palm on the middle of the chest) , Amen.

 

[Mickey]

The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because it is done together with the invocation of the Trinity…It is done from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from heaven to the earth, and from the Jews He passed to the Gentiles (De sacro altaris mysterio 2, 45).
Pope Innocent III

Others, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right…[Some priests] do it this way so that they and the people will be signing themselves in the same manner. For example, imagine the priest facing the people for the blessing — when we make the sign of the cross over the people, it is from left to right*…***(Ibid.)

 

[Mickey]

Here is the symbolism of the sign of the cross, as Chrysostom explained it in one of his homilies:

The sign of the cross corresponds to the Creed. We touch our head to acknowledge God the Father - “maker of Heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible”. From Heaven Christ descended to earth and became man - and we touch our stomach to acknowledge His Incarnation. He was crucified for us, and descended into Hell - so we touch our left shoulder. “On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures. He ascended into Heaven” - and here we touch our right shoulder.

Do you have a source for this quote? I would like to read it. Thank you.

 

[Kyrillos_NY]

To kneel on sundays has been prohibited by the CATHOLIC CHURCH, as gathered at the 1st Ecumenical Council, and promulagated by the Council and the Pope, ***for over 1600 years. ***

At some point, Rome decided to ignore that canon. So be it.

From the Divine Liturgy of St. John, at the beginning of the anaphora (consecration):
“Let us Stand Aright, let us stand in awe, let us be attentive, to offer the Holy Oblation in peace!”

The Byzantines have kept their tradition and the canons of Nicea. Arrogance is believing that Roman posture is motivated out of humility any more. (And those most vocal about it tend to use it as a point of pride, no less!)

Most of the Romans I know attribute no particular meaning to kneeling, other than obedience to the rubrics… it says kneel, so they do. It says stand, so they do. The Roman liturgy is a poor tool for teaching the faith. It never says why we do the things we do. It merely lists what must be done. But catechesis is abysmally poor about the Roman Mass, in either form.

The Byzantine liturgy (and the Coptic Liturgy, as well) is a teaching tool as well as worship. It tells us about how and why we stand: We stand aright, we stand in awe, we stand to pay attention, because we begin the holiest prayer in all Christian worship.

You want the Byzantine theology? you grab the Irmologion and the Menaion. It’s all there, and it is used in the liturgy. And kneeling is sorrowful, or so the Troparia, Kontakia, Irmosi, and other propers teach. If we do not stand in awe, we fall to the ground in awe and hide our faces.

We should NEVER be Sorrowful when celebrating the Resurrection! Shout with Joy and be Glad! Christ is Risen!

Not to hijack or go off track, but FWIW the Copts do kneel on Sunday, in three places:

1. the Absolution of the servants right after the Offertory
2. The Epiclesis
3. The Confession right before Communion

The Coptic Liturgy does tell us to “stand aright” at the beginning of the Anaphora. It also tells us to “look to the East”, food for thought for those who like versus populi.

 

[Cecilianus]

Do you have a source for this quote? I would like to read it. Thank you.

No - sorry. It was a very long time ago; from a homily. (That wasn’t a quote; it was my paraphrase.) I’d like to read it again as well, but reading through all of Chrysostom is going to be a long job. If I misremembered it, my apologies - it struck me when I read it the first time because I had always thought that the Eastern Church always did it r to l. Maybe (in light of your quote from Pope Innocent) the customs flip-flopped over time.

Do you have a source for the quote from Pope Innocent? That’s something I’d like to read.

 

[Kyrillos_NY]

At another one, people were arriving up to 30 minutes late and it was difficult to focus on the liturgy with all the comotion going on.

I love the Orthodox Church, but punctuality is not a virtue practiced by many there. I can’t recall having seen a liturgy where the congregation at the end of Liturgy wasn’t at least twice as large as at the beginning.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I love the Orthodox Church, but punctuality is not a virtue practiced by many there. I can’t recall having seen a liturgy where the congregation at the end of Liturgy wasn’t at least twice as large as at the beginning.

It’s funny you say that, I once visited a Greek Orthodox Church and after the priest knew I wasn’t an Orthodox Christian because I had arrived early. He said it was something he’d always lectured his congregation about, but they always arrive late. He said he even changed the time to 30 minutes later, from 10 to 10:30 and still all people arrive late!

Apparently, in much of the Orthodox world time is a relative, not exact? But in their defense, their services are like 2 to 3 hours long, so I guess if someone is 30 mins. late, they may not notice that they’ve missed anything? If a Roman Catholic was 30 mins. late to a weekday Mass, they’d have missed the whole thing by 10 mins. or if they were 30 mins. late on Sunday, it’d be half over already.

I recently heard on Catholic Radio that in order to fulfill the Sunday Obligation in the Roman Catholic Church you have to arrive prior to the Gospel Reading. I wonder what the requirement is in the Orthodox Church?

 

[Mickey]

If I misremembered it, my apologies

I do believe you misremembered it.

Do you have a source for the quote from Pope Innocent? That’s something I’d like to read.

I found it here: melkitenebraska.blogspot.com/

But I’m sure if you do a search on Pope Innocent III it would be easy to find the entire quote.

God bless.