Church history

[Melissa]

Someone recently asked me about violence in the Christian church. We talked about the corrupt Medici popes and about the Crusades, but I was a little embarrassed that I couldn't answer him about whether or not the Orthodox Church has a history of violent actions against others, except to say, "I don't think so but I'm not really sure."

Can anyone enlighten me on this issue?
Thanks, Melissa

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Melissa,

Specifically concerning the Crusades I would say that the Orthodox Church does not have a history of Church supported 'holy war' (ie war as an activity holy in itself- which is different than war as a defense of one's society). On the other hand who can judge the full extent of sin commited by those of the Orthodox Faith for the past 2000 years? "Our sins are as many as the grains of sands of the seas"; in our daily prayers we pray for the forgiveness of sins "known & unknown"- who can know all of our sins or their full significance in God's eyes; and since at the most profound level we share in the sin of all since we are sinners we also have exhibited terrible actions whether these were seen by others ot not.

I suspect that the question that was asked of you related to that suspicion or feeling that we have at times that the Church is defined by its sin. The more the Church is sinful the less it is the Church is our feeling. But it is better to say that the personal sin of those within the Church does not make the Church not the Church. The falling away from the Church is more a matter of conscious rejection of Her doctrine, of Her Patristic witness.

The issue of sin within the Church is for most of us a major cross and potential temptation; to some extent we often fall away due to how we react to this sin. The elder Paisios however advises, "There are people who justify their wickedness by examining others and not themselves, or by publishing predicaments of the Church to the world- even things that should not be said in public- using as a pretext the "tell it unto the church" of the Gospel. Let them do this first for their small church, their family, or their brotherhood; if they think this is good, let them then disgrace Mother Church as well. Good children, I believe, never accuse their mothers. Unfortuneately, however many inconsiderate people offer a wealth of live ammunition to heretics, enabling Jehovah's Witnesses and other heretics to seize Orthodox cities and villages and expand their missionary work."

So following this way of seeing things we are faithful to the Church not because we claim Her people are more or less sinful than others; as Great Lent approaches I say, "I am the worst sinner of all." But thank God that there is His Church and that within Her bounds I may be more fully healed of this burden of sin.

In Christ- Fr R

[Melissa]

Dear Father Raphael,

I appreciated your very complete answer. I was asked in the context of war torn societies - sort of, how violent have you Orthodox been, anyway? (it would almost have been easier if I'd been asked, how sinful have you Orthodox been...I could have just said, "Very!" http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif )

I really like your Fr. Paisios quote, and the reminder that Christ came to save sinners...of whom I am chief...

Melissa

[Owen Jones]

So, Mellissa. Why leave Rome? Why the interest in Orthodoxy? Are you looking for some argument to push you over the edge? Or to give you an out? Sorry to be so blunt, but...

In my own case, I left the Episcopal Church because it seemed to me to be no longer even remotely Christian, quite apart from theological issues. I was told by my bishop that Orthodoxy was an ethnic club. (As if the Episcopal Church isn't!!!!). That is the objection raised by most seekers or converts.

The reason I became Orthodox is simple. I have a friend who became Orthodox who I trusted. Sure, I had done a lot of reading, etc. But that was was actually pushed me. Friendship and trust. Is the Orthodox Church, from a practical, local standpoint, perfect? Of course not. But consider the alternatives. And don't make the perfect the enemy of the Good.

Of course, there are perhaps more compelling reasons for some. Some believe that if you are not Orthodox your soul is at risk, or definitely lost. Perhaps that is so, but in my view, only because Orthodoxy provides a completeness that every other approach to God lacks. A friend of mine who was at the time a deacon and is now a priest put it this way. If I drive from Augusta, Georgia to Atlanta, a VW will get me there. But why not ride in a Rolls Royce?

[Melissa]

Owen, you can be blunt - God bless you for trying to help me see something - but I'm sorry -I don't understand your post. I'm Orthodox, have never been Roman Catholic -- on another thread I mentioned moving...is that what you read? That's a possiblity we may have to move away from Utica, not from Orthodoxy.

In fact, my husband was, like you, an Episcopal priest. We left that church for what sounds like similar reasons - in our view it was moving farther and farther away from anything we could tell was Christian. I knew nothing about the Orthodox Church, but the more Sam led me gently into Orthodoxy, the more I shared his view that we had to make the change. We believed our souls would have been at risk if we ignored the awareness we had been given.
If I didn't understand what you meant, please try again, OK? http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif
Melissa

[Owen Jones]

I guess I was responding to another person's post. Sorry.

[Curt Campbell]

I ask all to please forgive my comment if it causes any offense, I do not say this to cause any hurt. I would just like to know if any others involved on the discussion boards have the same thoughts as I do about some of the sentiments I perceive in the previous posts. When I came to Orthodoxy, I came because I realized that what I had been taught in my former life was incorrect, wrong, and therefore sinful. But I see so many, especially those from the Anglican/Episcopalian background, who seem to have been drawn, not because they recognize the error of their former way, but because they feel the 'church' they were involved in before was just veering off the path more than they could stand, that they were being 'left' by their church. Even the priest of the closest Orthodox parish to our remote location, I think would still be Episcopalian if the Episcopal Church in the USA wouldn't have made some of the choices they have made over the last twenty years. This attitude of justifying our prior life confuses and troubles me, and I wonder if perhaps this is not part of the problem that we see in the Orthodox Church in the USA today. I remember being received into the Church 6 years ago this Pascha, and if I remember correctly, part of the prayers and confessions involved in the service was a repudiation of all my former teaching. Instead, it seems as if many converts, both in the priesthood and laity, want to somehow justify their former life, wishing to believe that they were still within the bosom of the Church, but now, perhaps they are more 'correct'. If I am in need of correction in my thinking, I am open to correction. Again, It is not my intention to cause any offense, especially during this season. I just need to try to understand where and why my interpretation of life inside and outside of the Church seems to be so different from many other Orthodox converts I have come to know.

[Owen Jones]

Good insight, Curt. In my case, I too went through the ceremony, led by a monastic, renouncing all of my former heresies. I elected to do that. It was not something required by my priest or bishop. In any case, I must confess to have never really adopted the Anglican party line. I was a "convert" to Anglicanism because of my wife. "Traditional" Anglicans claim to abide by the first 7 ecumenical councils, but I don't think so. It's really a Protestant movement that did not entirely throw out Catholic teachings.

I cannot comment on other "Anglicans" who become Orthodox, but I am skeptical of using a slightly modified version of the Book of Common Prayer as a so-called "Western Rite." I am not a liturgical expert, but just as a practical matter, I don't think it aids people in really converting to Orthodoxy. I do get the impression that a few, just a few mind you, believe that all they have done is change bishops, from a heretical one to an Orthodox one. Perhaps this is the problem you have encountered. But, in God's economy, perhaps this is for the best. I believe he will not condemn the Church for making such allowances.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Curt,

Yes I have over the years seen much of what you are talking about. I was under the impression it was more common 20 or 30 years ago but I could be wrong. I used to think it was better to come to the Church a complete pagan than someone looking for 'a better church'; my first spiritual father used to say that the best converts were the ones that 'fell off the boat', ie. arrived at the Church's doorstep in desperate shape aching to be saved. Above all he would criticise those who came to the Church with preconceptions of what they needed & wanted.

I don't know if this will help Curt, but over the years I have found that all of us come with some sort of baggage for really when you get down to it the baggaage is sin. The problem is not perhaps what type of baggage it is as how much that baggage is connected to pride. Pride comes in many forms & disguises but if we refuse to give it up the results are harmful or disastrous for us as Orthodox Christians.

Again God works in mysterious ways. There is a saying in the Ladder of St John Climacus to the effect that a monk came to the monastery for the wrong reasons & ended up staying for the right ones! In other words our understanding of what the Church really is and involves is often quite poor especially at the beginning. But in time people (even priests!) mature.

In Christ- Fr Raphael
May you be blessed with a spiritually fruitful Holy Week & a glorious Pascha

[matt]

I thought that these pages might be of interest to some of you regarding tradition, patristics, east west relations, etc. They are mostly from Orthodox, but a few from Protestant and RC.
THe link near the bottom has an excellent audio interview with Jaroslav Pelikan about creeds! Great stuff.
Matt

http://www.orthodoxtapes.org/index.htm

http://www.praiseofglory.com/augustinetrinity.htm

http://www.sain.org/window/Ecclesio.txt
http://www.firstthings.com/index.html

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/credenda_response.htm
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/liturgics.htm
http://home.zonnet.nl/chotki/God%20in%20Trin.htm
http://www.legacyrus.com/Religion/legacyrusCouncils.html
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/essays.html#guettee
http://er.lib.msu.edu/ejour.cfm
http://orthodoxlutheran.fws1.com/bvm.html
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/2003/09/19_pelikan/

[Owen Jones]

I received a post on Church history today which does not seem to have been added to the thread. In any case, my concern is that it seems to be a simplistic synopsis of Church history. Fact is, Rome often saved the East from heresy. For a good bit of the first 800 years or so of the Church, the East was, on and off, dominated by heretics and the Orthodox were in the minority. Often the Emperor sided with the heretical side. It was the Roman West that saved the Church from monothelitism, for example, after the East had put St. Maximos to death. Arians dominated the East for several centuries.

I think it's a fallacy to point to one thing, at one certain point in history, that supposedly turned everything bad, such as Filioque, which, frankly, is a doctrine which few people understand, as important as it is.

You know, after the Empire allied itself with the Church, this created great disruption and led to monasticism, because the "hard core" among the faithful believed that the Church had become too soft. Many of the desert monks were scornful of anything having to do with bishops, imperial Christianity, etc. So one could make an argument that the whole Church went bad when it allied itself with Empire and became socially acceptable.

One could argue, based on the Biblical witness, that the true Church is exemplified by the solitary perapatetic, well outside of the established institutional confines.

[matt]

Regarding Owen's post:
Simplistic readings of history are dangerous at worst and silly at best. The triumphalist spirit exhibited by many orthodox, usually converts, is not at all in keeping with the spirit of Christ. It is much better to give credit or blame where it is due and not to gloss over facts to make the west look like a bunch of backsliders and the east as somehow pristine. I would question, however, the emergence of monasticism as a result of fourth century politics. Of course it plays a role, but the instinct and practice goes back much further; as Owen says, "based on the Bibilical witness". But again, I would say that the monastic impulse and practice, as it has developed in the early centuries, is less the norm and more the exception of that very witness.

Also, talk of the "true church" honestly makes me a little nervous with the implications, at least in my mind, of 'superchristians' who are somehow 'in the know'. While I can't recall specific examples at the moment, such tendancies have ususally produced heretical or schismatic movements, often in association with gnostic philosophies. WHile the novationist and donatist schisms were not gnostically influenced, the question of superChristian vs. institutional Church certainly presents itself as a case study. OF course this has major influence on the whole question of 'what is church?' and the role and function of bishops and sacraments such as baptism and chrismation (a la St Cyprian).

In terms of monastic reactions to the institutional, should we say sacramental, church I would add that if their scorn led to a break in communion or lack of liturgical communion, which implies a bishop's presence or blessing, then it is certainly not biblical or patristic and is an aboration and not even the norm of the monastic movement itself. And St. Basil, a major figure in eastern monasticism, makes the point for hermits to consider, "Whose feet will I wash if I am alone?".

Also, about politics and the resentment of Constantinople-based Christianity, I remember hearing that the monophysite issue and the lack of love and reunion attempts was in part owing to their resentment of Constantinople's presumptious attitude toward them. Maybe someone else can add to this.

The book by Werner Elert, Eucharist and CHurch Fellowship in the First Four Centuries is a classic study on some of these issues and has recently been reissued by Concordia Press. An insigtful lecture by Fr John Behr of St Vlad's about the ecclessiology of the early centuries, using Sts Ignatius and Cyprian as touchstones, is also available from the St Vlad's bookstore. This page may be the one you need, but you might hav eto email for those specific lectures: http://www.svspress.com/

Also, Fr Roman Braga, a confessor from Romania who suffered greatly in communist prisons for many years (and now abbot of a convent in Michigan) delivered an excellent lecture on the orgins and meaning of monasticism that you all may benefit from hearing. Fr Roman is truly an elder and living saint, confirmed by the incredible witness of his life and love for those who tortured him relentlessly. If you ever have the chance, go the Holy Dormition monastery in Rives Junction Mi for a retreat. THeir webpage is: http://dormitionmonastery.com/

Sorry for rambling http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif
MAtt

[matt]

Not to bombard the topic, but their is a great book entitled "Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants" which goes into detail about the attempts of many Protestant groups to prove the corruption of the early church and the survival of a "pure apostolic" church which survived after Constantine's conversion and the growth of political christianity. Orthodox readers should find it quite useful and many of my protestant friends, the intended audience, have also benefited from reading it. Amazon.com has an excellent review of it from "a reader". Worth looking into!

MAtt

[Joshua Greve]

Fr. Averky,

I do appreciate your response, but I suppose I should clarify why I feel it necessary to "think" about it. Just as you warn many to pay attention to the small (yet very important) details of Orthodox piety (which I appreciate), I would like to warn anyone here for accepting anything they learn from an Internet forum as fact or the end of the story. This board should be treated as a springboard for inquiry, not as Patristic text. While I do plan on taking the Antidoron more seriously now, I still want to look into this more and talk to others about it. Now, while I admit that this seems to be a pretty cut and dry issue (so far), there are other subjects which Orthodox tend to treat as shut-and-closed issues, which honestly aren't. To support their claims, they only mention the Fathers and certain traditions (small "t") that best support their arguments but ignore (often times unintentionally) the other perfectly legitimate Orthodox traditions because, to this person, this or that tradition just happened to be in "error". In other words, we all (religiously, politically, etc) have biases... all of us here... and these sometimes tinge our view of things. But, after considering (a word for which I do not apologize for using) the information I was given here by Fr. Averky and others, I plan to follow this piety unless I find information compelling me to think otherwise. I am perfectly willing to accept that this habit of allowing anyone to eat the Antidoron at any time is simply due to our overly-lax nature here in North America and should therefore be changed.

Father Averky, I have no doubts about your sincerity and I would not dare to give you advice on how to be a better Orthodox. This is not said to flatter you and offend your humility but rather to recognize the fact that you have lived Orthodoxy (and life for that matter) longer and surely more faithfully than I have. You are one of the people I read most here. I am not saying that I agree with everything you say (sometimes I just don't know enough to agree or disagree), but I do at least take everything you say into consideration. And that goes for most people here. That's the best I can offer you. Were you my Spiritual Father, it would be different.

Please do not assume that because I "think" about something means that I don't accept it. I do believe the Orthodox Church to be the True Church and I do not believe it would lead me astray, but sometimes what is Orthodox and what is tradition is not always one in the same... in fact they may be opposed to each other.

An example stands out in my mind. I remember learning that in Greece (probably around now since it is Holy Week) they have the "tradition" of beating a life-size doll of Judas and then burning it and cheering during this. I think this is done on Holy Saturday (don't quote me on that). I'm sorry, but that "tradition" makes me sick to my stomach. May God have mercy on our souls for such an example of hatred and judgment. Jesus chastises Peter for cutting off the ear of the Roman soldier, yet we can fanaticize about burning a man to death (I don’t care how sinful or blasphemous he was, that is not our place). If I am misunderstanding this tradition, please, inform me for I would like nothing more than to find out that what I thought existed in Orthodox pop culture never really existed except in my mind.

Another example is from Romania where it is tradition to only offer the Eucharist to children (for only they are "pure" enough). This is such an offensive practice and distorts the faithful's view on why the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is given to us in the first place... for the forgiveness of sins. How can we read St. John Chrysostom’s Sermon on the one hand and then turn around and deny sinners their medicine… and on the Day in which we celebrate our freedom from sin? How can this be? Such a tradition should sadden us.

In America one of the few advantages to the over-analytical mind is that we can try and sift out what it bad tradition from good tradition. We have gone overboard on this to the point that we don’t respect it unless we understand it. This is a problem… so a balance is needed, and I believe that over generations we will find that balance (although not without the guidance and patience of the old countries).

I realize this post has turned into one giant tangent but while I'm at it I would just like for us to remember that it will naturally and necessarily take time for American Orthodoxy to find its nitch in the Orthodox family. People get frustrated with us (sometimes rightly so, other times for more neo-phobic reasons) for our "innovations" and points of view so easily. While it is important to criticize, American Orthodox are still Orthodox. Converts to Orthodoxy are still Orthodox and we deserve a certain degree of respect (not necessarily honor, by any means) (I would like to point out that I am not just talking about converts, I am talking about Orthodoxy in general in North America). Along with respect, however, we need patience. Sometimes I think that Russians (or Greeks or Middle Easterners) expect us to be just like them. That will never happen. We are American and that will always be so. It is not an issue of pride, but rather one of logic. This is not to say that Americans shouldn't try their hardest to follow their Mother Country's example (be that Russia or Greece or whomever) but that not everything from the old country can be practiced here... just like not everything that is practiced here will be practical in the old country. We are different and that is not bad. Diversity has always been a part of the Church. I am not saying that American Orthodoxy doesn't deserve criticism for its “innovations” (i.e. the Antidoron issue... there! I tied in the tangent lol) but perhaps some of these innovations are just necessary adaptations to American culture that aren’t good or bad… just necessary.

(Josh steps down from his star-spangled soap box)
Thank you very much for listening to my rambling. In the end, Fr. Averky, I honestly respect the things you have to say. Your point on the "mortar" (that you've made in earlier postings) has especially made me think hard over the last couple weeks. Thank you.

May God grant all of you a blessed Holy Week.

Joshua

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

In oblique reference to Owen's post, and in case it is of interest to Melissa, I abandoned formal membership of the RC church basically because its over-emphasis on dogmatic legalism seemed to me to be excessive and rather to kill than to nurture my profound wish for spiritual development. But the Orthodox churches in London really are "ethnic clubs" organised on national lines (Serbian, Russian, Greek, etc). So I watch and wait.

seeker

[Joshua Greve]

MA Jackson Roberts:
I guess what I would like to know is, what is it that you "wait" for? For the Church to be perfect or at least to meet your standards? I'm afraid that you will be waiting all of your life. Being part of the Church is parallel to a marriage. "For better or for worse." Now, if you don't agree with it's fundamental teachings, that's one thing; but if it's because you aren't happy with what's going on socially or with certain misplaced emphases, then I think based on that, 90% of Monachos members would not be Orthodox (or Catholic for anyone else). So, should we also just "watch and wait" or, rather, become a part of it and learn and grow.

Despite what our 20th century PC values teach us, it is alright (and in fact important) to be close to one's heritage. Are the Serbs and Russians in the UK (or the US) perfect? No. Are the converts perfect? No. Are you perfect? You can answer that. Believe me, many other people have it much "worse off" than you do being in London. I cannot speak for the UK but here in the US I have met many people on-line who travel over an hour every week to go to the Divine Liturgy. They cannot be picky about what the Church is like as long as it is Orthodox. Here in Lansing, MI (USA) we have three churches in the area, all with their particular "downfalls" and I feel so blessed to have i{three} to choose from... and a monastery 40 minutes away to boot! You've mentioned "Serbian, Russian, Greek, etc." and I'm assuming the etc. implies that there is at least one other Orthodox Church adding up to four OCs total in London (although I am sure there are more). You have such an amazing amount of choice there where some don't have any. Consider yourself blessed!

Don't you find it interesting that it seems that nothing, East or West, satisfies you? Do you think that the Churches were much better off 1500 years ago? In somes ways I'm sure they were... in other ways I'm sure they were even worse off. It's always give and take in the Church, just as with a marriage.

Another point is that manytimes what we percieve as "downfalls" really aren't so, but rather our projecting our cultural standards on something that isn't fully part of that culture. I think it was Fr. Averky who wrote an excellent post regarding Americans and how we percieve everything "ethnic" to be bad or unwelcoming. I can't find it, maybe you know what I'm talking about though.

I am not trying to say that these Churches are perfectly welcoming and love visitors (although you'd be hardpressed to convince me that there isn't one in all of London) but perhaps a bit of this is your own perspective being imposed on them.

This is beside the point though. Even if it is completely an "ethnic club," you have to ask yourself if you believe the Orthodox Church is the True Church of not. If you don't, then you shouldn't be joining the Orthodox Church even if you find this perfect parish you're serching for. This is not Protestant Chrsitianity... this is "for better of for worse" Christianity... real life. Ask yourself about the RCC too. Do you believe it is the True Church.. if you do then you need be honest with yourself and go back. Just because there is legalism doesn't make it NOT the Church, it means that an unnecessary emphasis came into play some time ago. Where do you believe the True Church lies? Pray about it and go to it. If you don't believe that such a thing exists then for this time you are not meant to be Orthodox or Roman Catholic. The Anglican Church may be the only way you can serve God to the fullest at this time.

In no way did I mean this message to be mean-spirited, but I did mean it to be blunt. MA, you've got to get out of limbo. It's not healthy to watch and wait, we don't build houses on sidewalks.

In Christ,

Josh

[Owen Jones]

Regarding frequent exchanges on monachos.net regarding "pagan philosophy," perhaps this will be edifying:

Gregory (for a short time bishop of Constantinople) himself has written some 17,000 verses of classicizing poetry, imitating and quoting Homer, Hesiod, Theognis, the tragedians, Theocritus etc., perhaps even Sappho, albeit indirectly. Throughout his work, especially in his orations and letters, he explicitly separates language and literature from religion, and claims (against Julian) "Hellenism" as an inheritance to which Christians too are entitled. As he puts it in his funeral oration for Basil the Great, that other Cappadocian "Church leader" (who wrote a short treatise "on the use of reading pagan literature", btw):
"all sensible men are agreed upon the fact that paideia is the foremost of our advantages, and that not alone the more noble form of it, our own [i.e. Christian, of course]. I mean too that external [i.e. pagan] culture which many Christians in their short-sightedness spurn as a treacherous and insidious thing which withdraws us far from God. ^[...] Rather are we to reckon such critics boorish and untutored, men who would have everyone like themselves in order that in the common levelling their own lack of culture would pass unnoticed" (or. 43,11, see also my paper The Atttitude towards Greek Poetry in the Verse of Gregory Nazianzen, in: Early Christian Poetry. A Collection of Essays, Brill, Leiden-New York-Köln 1993, 235-252).

[John Curtis Dunn]

On 02 April, 2004 Curt Campbell wrote: "I would just like to know if any others involved on the discussion boards have the same thoughts as I do about some of the sentiments I perceive in the previous posts."
-----
My first encounter with Orthodoxy was in the Army. I shared Barrack quarters with a soldier who was an Orthodox Christian for about six months. There was nothing which impressed me during this time to desire or long for Orthodoxy. In fact, three things about him prevented any interest from developing.

1. His prayer habit.

Just prior to meeting Elijah, I had lost any interest in Pentecostalism and its child the charasmatic movement. I was however in search for a "True Historical Biblical Christianity." This search was undertaken with the belief and conviction that I was capable of discerning what was: true, biblical and historical, using my own uneducated intellegience. I was twenty years old and was undaunted by others who were leaving Christianity altogether, or simply leaving their "traditional" Protestant roots for Pentecostalism and/or the charismatic movement.

It was this search which would eventually bring me near to Orthodoxy, but it would take me seventeen more years before I yearned to become Orthodox. Meanwhile, my initial encounter with Elijah gave me no impetus to want to become Orhodox.

As I stated above, his prayer habits turned me off. He followed a rule of prayer, saying prayers written by others out of a book. This was quite disconcerting, for it appeared in my eyes contrary to sincerity and a denial of true love for Christ.

This was not the worst part of Elijah's habit, no, for me it was his use of Icons and a knotted rope. Often he would excuse himself from eating in the cafeteria with me, and I would return to find him saying the "Jesus Prayer" and kissing his Icons. This was a mind-bender, and many times I attempted to engage him in argument about this practice, but he never attempted to prove me wrong. He told me I was wrong, but never would he engage in debate about the correctness of his habits. He never offended me, but I was offended by his rule of prayer.

2. His refusal to debate.

I needed debate, and I attempted to engage anyone and everyone who gave me opportunity. It was through this means that I came to embrace a form of Calvinism called "Reconstructionism," and it would be through this same means that I eventually entered into Eastern Catholicism. I attempted to enter Orthodoxy in this same way. I learned about an Orthodox Monastery within a few hours of my home and frequently drove up to engage them in debate, at least I debated. They never attempted to prove my arguments wrong, but only stated what was the Orthodox Way. I visited several time over three years before I finally attended an Orthodox service.

Elijah's refusal to debate, and later this same quietness towards my argumentativeness was perceived by me as a kind of "anti-intellectualism." It appeared to me as if Elijah and these monks were Orthodox through default rather than by precision of reason. It was because of this, that I first opted for Eastern Roman Catholicism over the Western Roman Catholicism and over Orthodoxy.

3. Elijah's passivism.

Elijah was only half way through his enlistment period and he was desperately attempting to get a general discharge out of the Army. He would explain how his enlistment had been a mistake. He was supposed to be monk but had decided to enlist into the Army. Once he had gone through basic training he knew he could never kill anyone. After listening to his explanations, I surmissed his true reason was because he wanted to be a Priest, and killing someone would have prevented him from become one.

Eventually, all three of these things caused me to yearn for Orthodoxy. I ached for it and lamented in prayer with tears that I could not see how to become Orthodox. I wanted to be Orthodox, but my reasoning kept getting in my way. Yet, never had I attended an Orthodox service, though I thought my experience in the Eastern Roman Catholic to be Orthodox at that time.

After three years in the Uniate Church, I received permission to attend a retreat at the Monastery I had visited so often. Attending the services there stirred a yearning which caused my bones to ache and gave me insomia. I had made a mistake, using my best reasoning had brought me close to Orthodoxy, but attending these services had made my heart acutely aware that I was as yet so far from that which I had sought: "True, Historical, Biblical Christianity."

I shared my experience and resulting struggle with my Uniate Priest. He attempted to assure me that this experience was only because of the context of my experience, i.e., a Monastery. He explained to me how this kind of experience follows after being in a place of prayer. This answer was unsettling, because I truly believed every Church was to be a place of prayer. Something for me was missing in my Uniate experience, but my reason could not formulate the answer.

A few months later I traveled across the USA to visit my parents and while there I opted to attend an Orthodox vespers, without any plan to go to its liturgy that Sunday morning. That one service convinced me more than ever, I had to become Orthodox without resolving all the issues or questions raised in previous attempts to prove Orthodoxy to be the true Church.

I left Catholicism that day and never have I looked back longing for anything I left. For me, it became Orthodoxy or nothing. My heart had been overpowered by the quietness of a reasoned defense unexplained.

For me, the issue was, "Who else has the words of life." I see only religious bones elsewhere, nicely arrainged and even guarded with zeal, but the Resurrection of Christ for which I had sought, I only see in Orthodoxy.

And the Resurrection of Christ is the essense of True Historical Biblical Christianity, everything else deteriorates into dust without this one thing which seperates Orthodoxy from all other Christianities.

Certainly, other Christianities believe in the Resurrection, but only in Orthodoxy has my soul found the Resurrection as a living presence. It is this Living presence of the "Word(s) of Eternal Life" which binds me unfettered to Orthodoxy.

May all have a blessed and joyous Pascha in the prayerful, undisturbed quietness of their heart, expressed with the triumphalism of "He is risen indeed!"
john dunn

[Melissa]

God bless you, john dunn.

Your heartfelt words about your path to Orthodoxy felt like a prayer. You provided a wonderful start to this very special, deeply moving day of services.

In Christ,
Melissa

[theotokodoulos]

Glory be to JESUS CHRIST!!!++++ God bless you all!!

In our times it is very hard and difficoult to discover and be true orthodox!! Not everything what is called orthodox is orthodox!!

When you look today to some Orthodox Churches I am not sure if they can realy be called orthdoox ?????

They are changing Holy Traditions from Aapostolic times day by day!! It started wih the new calender, they sit during Divine Liturgy,they introduced pews and chairs (horrible - blasphemous) the priest have no long hair and beard the women do not cover theire hairs they stand mixed in church(not w left and m right) when I was in greece and went to church I saw no one making a prostration on weekdays not even bevor kissing an icon. western styled icons western styled chanting- polyphonic singing like in theatre and so on.......

May GOD forgive them!!
In GHRIST++++