Why I am drawn to Orthodoxy in one word

[Solomon_Wisdom]

I have felt drawn, off and on, to Orthodoxy for several years, because I felt there was a quality there I was missing as a western Catholic. Today, it suddenly came to me what the quality was: Sublimity. There is a sublimity in Orthodoxy, especially in doctrine and worship, that I don’t sense in western Catholicism… And it seems to me the True Faith should be Sublime.

I think the Orthodox Church have also helped preserve a sense of mystery - a sense that we will never understand God’s way fully. Sometimes I do find the Catholic Church wants to explain and define everything (infallibly), and is not so comfortable leaving things as a bit of a mystery. We really don’t need to turn everything into a doctrine limited by man’s understanding and vocabulary.

We can learn an awful lot from the Orthodox Church (IMO).

I could happily float between the Catholic and the Orthodox Church (and probably do so spiritually).

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I think the Orthodox Church have also helped preserve a sense of mystery - a sense that we will never understand God’s way fully. Sometimes I do find the Catholic Church wants to explain and define everything (infallibly), and is not so compfortbale leaving things as a bit of a mystery. We really don’t need to turn everything into a doctrine limited by man’s understanding and vocabulary.

We can learn an awful lot from the Orthodox Church (IMO).

I could happily float between the Catholic and the Orthodox Church (and probably do so spiritually).

The Church has proclaimed dogmas that have been revealed by God. There are plenty of “Mysteries”, they are called the Sacraments.

 

[Solomon_Wisdom]

The Church has proclaimed dogmas that have been revealed by God. There are plenty of “Mysteries”, they are called the Sacraments.

And yet it still seems to me that our Catholic Church is far more focussed on trying to argue this, that and the other with whoever, whereas the Orthodox Church is often happier just quietly “being”.

Anyhow, now I’m falling into the trap I am trying to argue against - the trap of believing that we can get anywhere near understanding and defining God’s ways by intellectual discussion. So I will away and simply work on “being” with God.

 

[eichenb2]

And yet it still seems to me that our Catholic Church is far more focussed on trying to argue this, that and the other with whoever, whereas the Orthodox Church is often happier just quietly “being”.

Anyhow, now I’m falling into the trap I am trying to argue against - the trap of believing that we can get anywhere near understanding and defining God’s ways by intellectual discussion. So I will away and simply work on “being” with God.

Too late!

 

[Ghosty]

Before I respond to Alethiaphile’s points, I want to highlight the ending statement of my previous post. I think it’s important to keep in mind during this particular discussion.

Incidentally, I’m not bringing these things up to attack Eastern Orthodoxy; these same changes have occurred throughout the Catholic Communion as well, and that’s exactly my point. If there is continuity to be found in Eastern Orthodoxy, it is also certainly to be found in Catholicism.

Now, on each particular point:

Alethiaphile wrote:

First of all, I’m not convinced there is a big discontinuity between “Patristic” and “Palamite” theology. Certainly there is a development there, but it seems to me an authentic, or to use Newman’s terminology, “organic” development.

I agree with this, but my point is that there was indeed a shift and change that occurred. Most tellingly, both St. Gregory Palamas AND his opponents utilized the Fathers for their arguments (interestingly, Barlaam drew specifically from Pseudo-Dionysis in order to refute Palamas, the same Father that Palamas drew so heavily on to form the foundation of his theological expression). Palamas’ theology could not be purely Patristic simply because it was Patristics that helped lead people to the opposite conclusions as his own.

In the end Palamas was vindicated, and his interpretation of the Fathers won out (and rightly, IMO), but the point remains that it was indeed a departure from “pure Patristics”, which was a good thing. It is a development just like one can find in the West, and in the Catholic Church in general (especially considering the fact that Palamism is indeed accepted in the Catholic Church, so in a sense it’s “our” development as well).

Second, while scholastic theology certinly made some inroads on Orthodoxy in the form of some Patriarchal prononucements and the (non-ecumenical) Council of Jerusalem, I don’t think it can be fairly said that it dominated Orthodox theology as a whole for any length of time, please tell me if you think differently.

I would say that the fact that it made it into such pronouncements and Councils is sufficient evidence that it did indeed dominate Orthodox thought, not to the exclusion of other trains of thought, but certainly to the extent that it was found to be the most proper and efficient way of communicating Orthodox teaching. Other examples abound, such as the “Baroque Period” theologians in the Slavic lands, most notably Fr. Peter Mogila. His work “Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church” was a Catechism in the Western style, and was adopted by all the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs (it also influenced the Council of Jerusalem). This was not an example of a small hiccup, it actually continued to be used and to shape Eastern Orthodox theological thought for centuries, from the 17th century until the “Neo-Palamite” revival of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During that stretch of time you won’t find many works that fit what is nowadays held up as “Orthodox theology”, but you will find Fr. Peter’s work being held up as the standard in Orthodox thought by the Patriarchs and local Councils.

For reading, I recommend looking of Fr. Peter’s book, as well as the “Neo-Palamite revival” which occurred in modern times and brought the Eastern Orthodox back towards the theology of the 14th century. There’s a lot of ground to cover on these topics, and unfortunately a lot of it is buried under polemics.

As for contraception, surely Ghosty you overstate when you say the Orthodox are “pro-conception” now. Come on.

I stand by what I said. When people support the use of abortion, even when they do so in a conditional and limited way, we say they are pro-abortion. Likewise, in the last couple of decades the Eastern Orthodox Churches have more and more come out and said that contraception can be used by married couples (oca.org/QA.asp?ID=147&SID=3 for an American example), and some have even implied that growing concerns of over-population make contraception an avenue that should be looked at (check out Population at the following link: goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8076)).

There are many within Eastern Orthodoxy which rightly stand against such things as contraception, continuing the Orthodox tradition in this regard, but the tides are obviously changing, especially when the official organs of the hierarchies, such as the above websites, openly discuss and propose the use of contraception.

But, tell me one dogmatic pronouncement of an ecumenical council or what was once a central teaching in Orthodoxy that has changed. I’m honestly not aware of one.

There are no such examples, and neither are there any such examples in the Catholic Church, and that’s my point.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

And yet it still seems to me that our Catholic Church is far more focussed on trying to argue this, that and the other with whoever, whereas the Orthodox Church is often happier just quietly “being”.

Anyhow, now I’m falling into the trap I am trying to argue against - the trap of believing that we can get anywhere near understanding and defining God’s ways by intellectual discussion. So I will away and simply work on “being” with God.

The truth is they don’t have the means to define a dogma because they have no magesterium. They seven councils are what they have simply because there was no orthodox church at that time; it was one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church: the Holy Catholic Church.

 

[jam070406]

And yet it still seems to me that our Catholic Church is far more focussed on trying to argue this, that and the other with whoever, whereas the Orthodox Church is often happier just quietly “being”.

So when those outside the Church inquire about, or challege, what Catholics believe (such as the many people in the non catholics forum) we should just shrug and say, eh, it’s a mystery?

 

[samcarter14]

And yet it still seems to me that our Catholic Church is far more focussed on trying to argue this, that and the other with whoever, whereas the Orthodox Church is often happier just quietly “being”.

Anyhow, now I’m falling into the trap I am trying to argue against - the trap of believing that we can get anywhere near understanding and defining God’s ways by intellectual discussion. So I will away and simply work on “being” with God.

Ah, but that simply “existing” sometimes, at least in my experience, would lead to, “There’s no formal teaching on it…it depends on your conscience.” That was the answer given to me by my priest at the Orthodox parish, in regards to birth control. They also believe divorce and remarriage to be licit, in particular cases. Sadly, our own parish priest was himself divorced from his wife.

I like what Flannery O’Connor said about dogmas: she said that in no way did dogma inhibit or limit her faith. She saw dogmas as a gateway to an understanding of the faith. I may have not gotten it quite exact there, but you get the idea. When I returned to the Catholic Church it was good old Flannery who helped light the way.

 

[jam070406]

What is the official teaching of the RCC on the following issues:

1. Should the filioque be said in the creed at Mass or not?
2. Does limbo exist or not? Is it a place in hell or not?
3. Are the pains of purgatory similar to those of hell?
4. Is slavery against the natural law or not?
5. Should there be capital punishment or not?
6. Is the Old Law salvific for the Jews or not?
7. Was it a mortal sin to vote for Obama or not?
8. Is there salvation inside the E. Orthodox Church, and if not should Catholics then try to convert an E. O. to Catholicism?
   Everyone has a different opinion on what the teaching of the Church is on these issues, and some say that there is no official teaching, so that would illustrate disunity in Catholic belief, wouldn’t it?

Bob, your profile says you are Catholic. why do so many of your posts show such a disdain for the Church?
If this is not your intent, then why don’t you ask your questions in the apologetics forum?

 

[Genesis315]

The Church has proclaimed dogmas that have been revealed by God. There are plenty of “Mysteries”, they are called the Sacraments.

The dogmas themselves are mysteries. We cannot know them with human reason alone, but by faith in the God who reveals them.

 

[Melchior]

Catholic churches operated the same way when first built in the U.S.: e.g. St. Stanislaus (Polish parish), St. Patrick (Irish parish), St. Anthony of Padua (Italian parish), St. Boniface (German parish), St. Elizabeth (Hungarian parish), etc. Even today, there are Catholic (and Protestant) churches that still show these roots. There is nothing wrong with ethnicity. People of similar ethnicity often have similar culture, and similar ways of expressing themselves. The problem is not with ethnicity, but exclusion on that basis. No Catholic has any real objection to 95+% of the Roman Popes, supreme bishops of the Universal Church, being Italian.

I love ethnicity, don’t get me wrong. But what you do not find, usually, is a Catholic Parish for one ethnic group with very few exceptions. The parish is for ALL catholic who live in that parish and the Church transitioned relatively quickly to such a model. The Orthodox have been here a long time. Long enough to not be able to justify three or four Orthodox Bishops in one city and three Orthodox Churches in a two block radius specifically separated on ethnic/jurisdictional grounds. Not after these churches were founded three, four or even five generations ago. There really is no justification for it any more. For a time yes. But the Greeks have no intention of uniting with the Russians and vice versa under one jurisdiction or the Arabs (though the Anthiochians do seem the most “ecumenical” with their Orthodox brethren to their credit). Buit there is simply no comparison to ethnic Catholicism in the U.S. and the jurisdictional mess and ethnic separation among the Othodox. I know this first hand as one married to a Greek and who grew up in an all Italian neighborhood whose Catholic Parish was not even close to distinctively Italian with our Irish and English priests. It was simply a parish church with Italians, Filipinos, Irish, Scots and even Germans. In Orthodoxy, many Greeks (for example) don’t know where the Greek ends and the Orthodoxy begins.

So you heard something off from an Orthodox lady.
I once heard a Catholic lady say “We have a lot to learn from the Protestants” (in the context of worship). I thought that was a little off, but I certainly couldn’t say she was a model of the Catholic attitude. It was her personal opinion, with which I disagreed.

My experience and that of many others cannot be reduced to one example I gave. It was representative of many and not the the total of my experience. My cradle Orthodox wife would tell you much that same from an insiders perspective. There is an ethos among many many Orthodox that fits my description. I am not casually aware of Orthodoxy. I am intimately aware.

Many Orthodox Churches hold events open to the public (Greek festivals, Slavic festivals, open house, miraculous icons, etc.) At these events, the priest gives tours of the church, explaining to the group the Orthodox Faith. A few weeks ago I went to a Greek church during a festival. Inside the nave, traditional Mennonites were walking around, gazing at the iconography. I was told that several Mennonites in the area had converted to Orthodoxy.

Of course the do. Most are cultural festivals. I always go to the Greek festivals. Sure there is a hint of religion because they are at churches. But that is no substitute for actual outreach and missionary work. And I am not putting down such festivals either. I enjoy them and my Greek children enjoy the cultural benefits. But it has never made them be drawn to Orthodoxy.

My priest actively lectures at the local college on the Orthodox interpretation of Scripture. And if people are near completely unaware of Orthodoxy, they cannot help but wonder about those onion-domed structures and the shaggy, black-robed fellows who walk in and out of them–not to mention the hint of frankincense on the air. The light is there for all to see. People just have to come in to see it.

But that is not sharing the good news. It is good, but it is not missions. In fact the big “Greek” or “Russian” or “Albanian” sign on the front door next to the word Orthodox does not say “come in - all are welcome”. It says “We are something exotic and curious at best but not for you.” A building with the name of an ethnic minority is not a beacon leading to Christ- it is an cultural curiosity. I am not saying if someone ends up coming in they won’t be impressed (hopefully it is in English if that does happen). But simply saying by having a building that is different looking is fullfilling the great commission is simply not so. The Orthodox Church does not do a great job at outreach. However, the more convert churches do. Which is great since it is the converts who are revitilizing Orthodoxy. This is true of Catholicism as well.

The Orthodox Churches in the U.S. are active with OCMC, which sends missionary priests to all over the world, including several places in Africa that hitherto have not known Orthodoxy.

Which is a good thing. No argument here. But it would be good if they did more in the traditionally non-Orthodox countries they are located in like the U.S., Australia, England etc.

One of the great tragedies of Christendom is the Orthodox living side by side with muslims while not evangelizing them - yet the Evangelicals come from elsewhere and do so. To be fair this is also a problem with Catholics. But it is noticable that large Catholic populations have had a much bigger impact in muslim areas over the centuries than the Orthodox have. Sharing one’s faith simply does not seem like a priority to the average (practicing) Orthodox - which I think is a reflection on the very inward focused spirituality of Orthodoxy.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

The dogmas themselves are mysteries. We cannot know them with human reason alone, but by faith in the God who reveals them .

Ephesian 3:10
so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Ghosty:

Before I respond to Alethiaphile’s points, I want to highlight the ending statement of my previous post. I think it’s important to keep in mind during this particular discussion.

Now, on each particular point:

Alethiaphile wrote:

I agree with this, but my point is that there was indeed a shift and change that occurred. Most tellingly, both St. Gregory Palamas AND his opponents utilized the Fathers for their arguments (interestingly, Barlaam drew specifically from Pseudo-Dionysis in order to refute Palamas, the same Father that Palamas drew so heavily on to form the foundation of his theological expression).

Is this much different from any other internal debate? For example, the Protestant Reformers utilized the Church Fathers in support for their arguments. John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, for example, is filled with numerous quotes from Augustine, Cyrpian, Gregory and other major Fathers, as evidence against Roman claims (e.g. concerning the Pope). There was change in the Catholic Church following Trent (e.g. the newly established seminary system, new theological emphases, etc.), yet for all this, could it be said that the change was significantly different than what went before? Change yes–but shift seems to indicate a move away from one thing to another; and I instead see clarification on an already existing foundation.

Palamas’ theology could not be purely Patristic simply because it was Patristics that helped lead people to the opposite conclusions as his own.

Then by the same token, Roman Catholic theology is not purely Patristic because these same Fathers helped lead the Protestants away from the Church of Rome and her conclusions.

In any case, where are you getting the idea that if two people employ the same Father/text in advance of their arguments, the “purity” is thereby affected?

In the end Palamas was vindicated, and his interpretation of the Fathers won out (and rightly, IMO)

, but the point remains that it was indeed a departure from “pure Patristics”, which was a good thing. It is a development just like one can find in the West, and in the Catholic Church in general (especially considering the fact that Palamism is indeed accepted in the Catholic Church, so in a sense it’s “our” development as well).

Again, what do you mean by “pure Patristics”? Is there such a thing?

Palamas did what the Fathers did before him: show a person’s teachings to be at odds with what the Church teaches concerning God. The foundation of St. Gregory Palamas’ expression of the Faith was his monastic experience.

I would say that the fact that it made it into such pronouncements and Councils is sufficient evidence that it did indeed dominate Orthodox thought, not to the exclusion of other trains of thought, but certainly to the extent that it was found to be the most proper and efficient way of communicating Orthodox teaching.

Other examples abound, such as the “Baroque Period” theologians in the Slavic lands, most notably Fr. Peter Mogila. His work “Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church” was a Catechism in the Western style, and was adopted by all the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs (it also influenced the Council of Jerusalem). This was not an example of a small hiccup, it actually continued to be used and to shape Eastern Orthodox theological thought for centuries, from the 17th century until the “Neo-Palamite” revival of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During that stretch of time you won’t find many works that fit what is nowadays held up as “Orthodox theology”, but you will find Fr. Peter’s work being held up as the standard in Orthodox thought by the Patriarchs and local Councils.

Wow, and I thought Orthodox theology had become “stagnant” since 1054!

Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain also read and drew from Western sources, and was influenced by Jesuits; yet, his compiled Philokalia (first published 1782) is regarded as a jewel of Orthodox teaching. The writings of St. Gregory Palamas as well as St. Maximus the Confessor are prominent in this compilation.

Judicious use of Western terminology and formats, rather than “being shaped” by them, seems a possibility, does it not?

For reading, I recommend looking of Fr. Peter’s book, as well as the “Neo-Palamite revival” which occurred in modern times and brought the Eastern Orthodox back towards the theology of the 14th century. There’s a lot of ground to cover on these topics, and unfortunately a lot of it is buried under polemics.

The monks who lived in the interim and experienced the Uncreated Light never departed from Hesychasm.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

So, where’s room for the Protestants and their theology? Sure, most don’t have bishops, have a different understanding of Tradition, Scripture, Apostolic Succession, the Church and authority. They don’t fulfill the lowest common denominator of Latin theology and that of “sister churches,”, but why hold it against them just because Latin and Eastern theologies of the Church are different than their theologies? According to their theology, Ecumenical Councils can and have erred on matters of faith. Why impose a Latin understanding of an Ecumenical Council (e.g. Trent) on them when their own theology tells them that Ecumenical Councils are not infallible?

What’s your point? I am not arguing for Protestants, but for apostolic Churches. Don’t bring up arguments unless you believe in it yourself. Otherwise, your arguments are simply specious.
":

One sees disunity if one looks for it, either outside or inside the Catholic Church.

Yes, according to you it is subjective. But the OBJECTIVE truth is that the OFFICIAL teaching of the Catholic Church is unified and patristic, and does not depend on the latest trends brought by certain groups among the laity. It is also objective truth that outside the Catholic Church, the Oriental, Eastern and ACOE Traditions are separated.

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.”

The responsibility to hold on to and pass on the Faith is held by all in the Church. Bishops are appointed a specific role, but the laity by no means should be passive recipients of the preserves of faith handed to them by the bishops. .

I don’t understand your point. This is the teaching of the Catholic Churches as well. However, our laity don’t have the authority to overthrow our bishops. You might think that’s a plus for Eastern Orthodoxy, but I believe that is an aberration of God’s order for His Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Wow, and I thought Orthodox theology had become “stagnant” since 1054!

Brother Ghosty is the last person to make this statement towards. He’s never hinted that Orthodoxy is “stagnant” in all the years I’ve known him.

Personally, I’ve also never charged the EOC with stagnancy. What I have a problem with is the hypocrisy in its claims that its doctrines have not developed (when in fact they have) while faulting the Catholic Church for espousing belief in development of doctrine.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

Madaglan: It seems you may have misunderstood the purpose of my post, which is why I put the opening portion in to begin with. I’m not pointing out “problems” with Eastern Orthodoxy, I’m actually pointing out how similar the experiences of the Latins and Eastern Orthodox have been in terms of developing theology and practices as the need arose.

I’m addressing the assertion that Eastern Orthodoxy somehow represents “continuity”, while the Catholic Church does not; an assertion that has no basis in reality, IMO. My point is that both have developed to address issues that come up, and in fact I even praised the work of St. Gregory Palamas in doing so (something I do often on these forums, since St. Gregory Palamas is one of my personal favorites).

Also, as Mardukm pointed out, I certainly don’t think that the Eastern Orthodox have been stagnant over the centuries. The Eastern Orthodox Churches have been quite swept up in the events of the day, and it’s intimitely shaped them every time. It’s precisely that I don’t think the Eastern Orthodox are “fossils” that I’m saying what I am.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Volodymyr]

St. Gregory Palamas is one of my personal favorites).

Happy New Year and Happy Feast nativity of Iesus Chrit to you, Ghost, my Armenian friend with visiting Russia. I do not see much of your thread lines here anymore.

Volodya

 

[bobzills]

1: In the Roman Church, yes, but not needed in the eastern churches.
2: No limbo. That definition was formally rejected only recently, but was never formally accepted prior, either.
3: Not dogmatic. In the east and west you’ll get a variety of answers. All we know for sure is that it does exist and somehow it purifies our souls.
4: Indenture isn’t against natural law. Chattel is.
5: Only when confinement is not a viable option
6: Not as such, but neither is it condemnatory; they get to wait until the second coming to find out.If they choose, they may embrace the new covenant and be sure. After all, Jesus says “not one jot nor one tidle of the old law shall pass away.”
7: answers vary, since the church doesn’t specifically endorse nor anathematize voting for specific candidates, and being a mortal sin requires having knowingly violated the teachings.
8: Yes, there is. We still should seek to reunify them with the Petrine Office.

Your answers are not the same as what some others would give, and so there is the question of disunity of belief still coming up.
For example, to whether or not there is salvation outside the Catholic Church, some Catholics say it is an infallible teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. But if I understand you correctly, you say that there is salvation inside the Orthodox Church. So that is an example of disunity of belief. Similarly with the other questions. There are Catholics who have been going around saying that it was a mortal sin if you voted for Obama, but other Catholics, such as Father Andrew Greeley, for example, have said that it was a mortal sin for a Catholic to vote for a Republican. So that is another example of disunity of belief. So to get to the original question as to why some people are drawn to E. Orthodoxy, one guess is that it might be because of the disuinty of belief in Catholicism.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Melchior:
I love ethnicity, don’t get me wrong. But what you do not find, usually, is a Catholic Parish for one ethnic group with very few exceptions. The parish is for ALL catholic who live in that parish and the Church transitioned relatively quickly to such a model.

Orthodox are not barred from the Orthodox churches of other jurisdictions. Many cases today, Orthodox parishes are multi-ethnic, or half-cradle, half-convert. At my last Orthodox parish, the Our Father was said in English, Church Slavonic, Greek, Serbian, Arabic, Romanian and German at each Divine Liturgy. A huge percentage of OCA and Antiochian Orthodox priests are converts, There are many Pan-Orthodox events as well that bring the Orthodox parishes together.

The Orthodox have been here a long time. Long enough to not be able to justify three or four Orthodox Bishops in one city and three Orthodox Churches in a two block radius specifically separated on ethnic/jurisdictional grounds.

Over-lapping of jurisdictions is irregular. Yet, the same problem is found amongst the Eastern Catholic jurisdictions.

Not after these churches were founded three, four or even five generations ago. There really is no justification for it any more.

Yes, and those three, four, even five generations put much work into the church–building the church and writing iconography for it, receiving sacraments in the church, having family members buried near the church, and so on. Many parishes are predominately elderly in membership. Why traumatize pious elders by prematurely closing their parish and forcing them to move into a new parish?

For a time yes. But the Greeks have no intention of uniting with the Russians and vice versa under one jurisdiction or the Arabs (though the Anthiochians do seem the most “ecumenical” with their Orthodox brethren to their credit).

Antiochian seminaries go to St. Tikhon’s seminary, which is under the OCA. Contacts between the OCA and the AOA are overall friendly. The differences between the OCA and AOA are largely jurisdictional, not ethnic. Relations between the Greek churches and the Russian churches in America are improving. Just a few days ago, a Greek priest friend of mine told me how two ROCOR priests from the same town con-celebrated with him. This was unheard of just a few years ago. The waves of Eastern European immigrants coming to the Americas has largely stopped, and for better or for worse, the ethnic character of many parishes will fade.

Buit there is simply no comparison to ethnic Catholicism in the U.S. and the jurisdictional mess and ethnic separation among the Orthodox.

The problems of Catholicism are different than those of Orthodoxy. In my experience, the “ethnic separation” is not as widespread a problem as some Catholics (and Protestants) make it to be. In the same way, I know the liturgical abuses (e.g. clown Masses, Barney blessings, etc.) and pedophile cases bewailed by “traditionalists” and others are not the norm for most Catholic dioceses. They’re real problems, but not all-encompassing.

I know this first hand as one married to a Greek and who grew up in an all Italian neighborhood whose Catholic Parish was not even close to distinctively Italian with our Irish and English priests. It was simply a parish church with Italians, Filipinos, Irish, Scots and even Germans. In Orthodoxy, many Greeks (for example) don’t know where the Greek ends and the Orthodoxy begins.

Sure, I’ve heard stories like that before. It can’t be said of all the Greeks though.

Many parishes today are multi-ethnic (Western and Eastern ethnicities), and this is the likely demographic of the future for Orthodoxy in America, as more converts enter the Orthodox Church.

My experience and that of many others cannot be reduced to one example I gave. It was representative of many and not the the total of my experience. My cradle Orthodox wife would tell you much that same from an insiders perspective. There is an ethos among many many Orthodox that fits my description. I am not casually aware of Orthodoxy. I am intimately aware.

Sure, I’m aware of which you speak.

Of course the do. Most are cultural festivals. I always go to the Greek festivals. Sure there is a hint of religion because they are at churches. But that is no substitute for actual outreach and missionary work.

Besides the fact that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are often abused by the Protestants for their poor outreach and missionary efforts: the Orthodox have and continue to improve in this area. The recently consecrated Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA, upon his acceptance to that position, openly spoke about the need for the OCA to build schools and hospitals, and to reach out to (especially) Episcopalians who feel that their church has abandoned them.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Melchior:
And I am not putting down such festivals either. I enjoy them and my Greek children enjoy the cultural benefits. But it has never made them be drawn to Orthodoxy.

Interesting. My experience was quite the opposite! I felt attracted to Orthodoxy, although not Greek specifically.

But that is not sharing the good news. It is good, but it is not missions. In fact the big “Greek” or “Russian” or “Albanian” sign on the front door next to the word Orthodox does not say “come in - all are welcome”. It says “We are something exotic and curious at best but not for you.” A building with the name of an ethnic minority is not a beacon leading to Christ- it is an cultural curiosity. I am not saying if someone ends up coming in they won’t be impressed (hopefully it is in English if that does happen). But simply saying by having a building that is different looking is fullfilling the great commission is simply not so. The Orthodox Church does not do a great job at outreach. However, the more convert churches do. Which is great since it is the converts who are revitilizing Orthodoxy. This is true of Catholicism as well.

The large banner to my church reads in large letters “Come and See” below the name of the church, which bears no ethnic distinction. In the opening paragraph of his conversion story, “Strange Yet Familiar,” Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos) writes of his first encounter with an Orthodox Church, a run-down Russian Orthodox church that from the outside bore nothing but a small plaque with the words “Russian Church.” God grabs us by our curiosity sometimes.

Yes, converts are very much active in Orthodoxy, as they are in Catholicism. Many of the most fervent Catholics I met when studying at a Catholic university were converts from Protestant denominations.

It should be noted that Orthodoxy in America, as small as it is, cannot be a gauge of Orthodoxy worldwide. The Russian Orthodox Church, while not sending large bodies of missionaries to other lands, have done a remarkable job in bringing the Orthodox Faith to millions of Russians who knew little to nothing under communism. There are Orthodox monasteries in now predominately Muslim countries that serve and help people who come to them, Muslim or Christian.

Which is a good thing. No argument here. But it would be good if they did more in the traditionally non-Orthodox countries they are located in like the U.S., Australia, England etc.

Relative to the far greater number of Catholics in this country, they are doing well. Ever hear of Ancient Faith Radio?

One of the great tragedies of Christendom is the Orthodox living side by side with muslims while not evangelizing them - yet the Evangelicals come from elsewhere and do so.

Orthodox are being martyred and killed in their homeland.

The Evangelicals are coming from ELSEWHERE; the Middle East is not their home. The risking of their lives for the Gospel is commendable, but let’s face it: if an Orthodox Christian is heard to convert Muslims, it can mean certain death not only for that Christian and those Muslims, but also for others of that Christian community. It’s tough living as a Christian there, Orthodox or non-Orthodox.

To be fair this is also a problem with Catholics. But it is noticable that large Catholic populations have had a much bigger impact in muslim areas over the centuries than the Orthodox have.

Like the Crusades?

Sharing one’s faith simply does not seem like a priority to the average (practicing) Orthodox - which I think is a reflection on the very inward focused spirituality of Orthodoxy.

I actually see Catholic and Orthodox similar in this regard. Throughout the years here on CA, I’ve seen several threads asking why Catholics are so reserved about their faith in comparison to Protestants. I think it’s true for both pious Catholics and pious Orthodox that sharing one’s faith primarily means living your faith. Even when Catholic, I thought “sharing the faith” more a characteristic of Protestantism, although I now think it certainly has a place in Orthodoxy (and Catholicism I suppose).