Chrismation rather then baptism into the Holy Orthodox Church

[Ronald J. Brotzman]

I would like to know what all the fuss is about that I have been hearing about whether Baptism is required of a convert. I was christmated and have been told by my bishop and other bishops of other jurisdictions that the Holy Spirit is thoughout the world and the Orthodox like many other churches feeels that if one is baptisted in the name of the Holy Trinity even though by as the orthodox see it a hereitic that the baptism is valid. I need comments both ways. As a convert, I find this somewhat disturbing.

[Richard Leigh]

You are safe to go with your Bishop, presuming he's "canonical". I know that St. Elizabeth in Russia, Lutheran wife of a Russian (and Orthodox) prince, was received into Orthodoxy by Chrismation.

I have heard that lay baptizms are accepted, but there's a proviso that the rite & ceremony are repeated in the church by the duly ordained cleric. This is an argument for the rebaptism of the convert from RCism and Pro'ism.

I'm not worried. I know I was baptized by my Lutheran pastor, and would not be seeking admission to Orthodoxy through that sacrament.

The Orthodox, as you must know by now baptize by trine immersion -- this is a confession of the true faith of the Holy Trinity, and a group called "the Jacobists" only practiced single immersion, that was taken (I don';t know if rightly or not) to be a confession of a wrong unitarian beliefe. At any rate, that's what most of the fuss is about. In the Didache, or "Teaching of the 12 Apostles" it says that immersion in a large body of water is the expected mode, but that if there's not enough water, pouring three times is sufficient. This document was only rediscovered in the late 19th century in the Patriarchial Library of Jerusalem in Constantinople, so, I could understand why it wouldn't be considered "Orthodoxy" by now, but, I don't really know.

Anyway, don't worry, be happy :-)

Richard

[Owen Jones]

The Didache is unfortunately misused by liturgical "reformers" in Anglicanism and RC in order to gut the liturgy, since its a description of pre-Constantinian liturgical practice that is comparatively simple. So these "reformers" want to eliminate everything in the liturgy that is not expressly cited in the Didache. I have endured many hours of boring lectures on the didache, all part of a kind of cultural Marxist agenda.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear in the Lord, Ronald. You recently wrote:


I would like to know what all the fuss is about that I have been hearing about whether Baptism is required of a convert. I was christmated and have been told by my bishop and other bishops of other jurisdictions that the Holy Spirit is thoughout the world and the Orthodox like many other churches feeels that if one is baptisted in the name of the Holy Trinity even though by as the orthodox see it a hereitic that the baptism is valid. I need comments both ways. As a convert, I find this somewhat disturbing.

This is actually a very 'complex' issue in the sense that there is far more to its consideration than what may at first appear to be at hand. Beneath and behind it lie the concepts of the Church being one, and how this relates to the notion of the holy Mysteries (sacraments) in the life of the One Church.

In terms of doctrinal proclamation, all Orthodox churches are bound to the canonical teaching that the Mysteries (of which holy baptism is one) are only administered in their fullness from within the bounds of the undivided Church. Taken at 'face value', this means that the fullness of bapism is seen to reside only in the Orthodox Church, in the same manner that the fullness of the Eucharist is seen to reside only in the Church (thus the absence of 'intercommunion' between Orthodox and other Christian traditions), or the fullness of confession, or of the other Mysteries. Orthodoxy does not practice 'open sacramentalism' with other religious bodies, precisely because it believes the Mysteries to be holy activities that themselves cannot be divided: what is one can only exist and be practiced in its own perfect unity.

With the question of baptism in particular, the issue at hand is one of the use of economia or canonical 'leniancy' (economy). By firm definition of the Orthodox understanding of the sacraments, there is only one full baptism, and that is the baptism of the Orthodox Church. But must one have an 'Orthodox baptism' in order to be a member of the Church? According to the strictures of the canons, the answer is a clear yes. However, the sad divisions within Christianity have led many Orthodox bishops and theologians to recognise the human inability to define the limits of God's grace and the activities of the Spirit. Without ever saying that 'non-Orthodox baptism is the same as (i.e. a parallel or perfect alternate for) Orthodox baptism', this strand of Orthodox thought expresses an appreciation for God's willingness to work amidst the destructive divisions formed between Christian peoples, and to begin outside the Church that which can then find its fulfilment and fullness within it. It is in this sense that the economia of receiving 'converts' by chrismation has become more common: chrismation is understood as the completion and fulfilment of the mystery of holy baptism, begun outside the Church and now brought to its fullness within her grasp.

Within this understanding, people baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity while outside the Orthodox Church (i.e. in the rite of another Trinitarian Christian tradition) and then chrismated in the Orthodox Church, are seen in fact to then possess an Orthodox baptism. The baptism which was in some sense 'incomplete' before chrismation is therein 'finished', made whole and full, and what was once a non-Orthodox rite is taken up in the mystery of the Church to be completed as an Orthodox sacrament. Such people can thereafter answer 'yes' to the question, 'did you receive an Orthodox baptism?'

However, this view is not shared by all. There is a valid point made by many, that this practice amounts to a widespread use of economia, or 'leniancy', which by very definition ought to be the exception rather than the norm. Thus certain Orthodox jurisdictions in our present day (as an example, the ROCOR), believe in the necessity for re-baptism of all converts, whether or not they received a previous baptism in another Christian tradition (though, notably, the ROCOR has not always been of this mind; in its earlier days, it was not its widespread custom to re-baptise converts). There are strong arguments made in support of this practice. What is becoming problematic is the interrelationship of those churches and jurisdictions which require rebaptism, and those which more commonly employ chrismation. How shall members of one Orthodox jurisdiction be received (i.e. in communion or not) by another?

This is one of the struggles with which our present-day Church is engaged.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

regarding your comments, Matthew, I think for traditional, classical Orthodox Christianity to survive it must become more severe. Severe in the good sense. It's severity, tempered by charity, that marks the difference between Christ and the world. So regarding baptism and other things like communion discipline, but also, perhaps most importantly, the classical virtues like voluntary poverty and virginity, severity I think is the underlying principle.

[John Kapetan]

Dear list:

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Does anyone know if in the early Church, an Arian or a monothelite wanted to gain entry into the Church, would he/she be rebaptized? That is if they were baptized to begin with. I know this is a for oeconomia, but does anyone know?

In Christ,

John K

[Heather M]

Hello all--

I am watching this thread with interest, since my baptism (God willing) will take place later this fall. An interesting thing though, is that it was basically left up to me whether I want a full baptism or just to be chrismated. I was baptised in a "non-denominational" Protestant church (also called inter-denominational). I was fully immersed, but only once.

I was pretty confused at first...and in ways, I still am. But it seems well with me to receive an Orthodox baptism, which there won't be any lingering questions or confusion left over afterwards in my heart. This may just be an indicator of my frail faith though. Of course, I can only speak of myself, and only GOd knows our hearts...

Any recommendations of any books that might help prepare me for my baptism? and also my children?

My daughter is so weird with water...I will be trying to take her swimming alot this summer...she flips out anytime water touches her face, especially her eyes...I'm afraid I won't have the resources to get her swimming lessons at the "Y".....It would be so terrible if her baptism turned out to be a traumatizing experience....

---heather

[Stephen Keeler]

There is on the St. Vladimir's Seminary site and on the site of the Church of Greece a document on Orthodox-Catholic baptism issues from North American diaglogues. It seems to have some historical clues you are looking for.

[Justin]

The canons from Church Councils (which can be found in lots of places online, such as CCEL (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2)) will provide a good amount of information regarding how various heretics (and also schismatics and just normal sinners) were received in the Church. Reading over the Councils would be much more time consuming, but it would also give more of a context in which to understand the Church's position.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Heather,

I am very familiar with the "non-denominational" church situation and the variety of teaching that comes through them, as well as the baptismal pracice you describe. Since you have decided to alleviate all doubt (what we do in doubt is sin, what we do to alleviate doubt is faith feeding, so, have no fear!)there would be no point in your investigating it. I will just say at this point it was possibly not baptism into Christ anyway.

For your daughter, may I make a suggestion (but, run this by your spiritual advisor first, if you have one, and/or the priest who will be administering the sacraments). Prepare her for what is going to be done. As Orthodox, she (all of you) will be baptized, chrismated, and communicated (I'm sure this is true). Baptism is how you (all} "get into Christ", chrismation is how Christ gets on you; once you're in, you're "sealed" that way, and communion is how "Christ gets in you," because he's there, body and blood as bread and wine to take (we don't want to complicate things for the children, they easily receive the purity of the faith, I'm pretty sure given that Jesus said it takes becoming like a little child to enter the kingdom). You might tell her from Mark 10:15, or Matthew 18:3 that Jesus said great big grown up people, in order to get into the kingdom of Heaven, God's kingdom, must become like her, a little child. Then from John 3:5 that he said people get into that kingdom by being "born of water and the Holy Spirit." Tell her that the water of your and her baptisms will not be ordinary water like she takes a bath in, but because its baptism the Holy Spirit will be there too for her in a special way. Then, most of all for you, don't worry, trust God and he will take care of everything.

Glory and blessings on you and your family!

Richard

[Fr Averky]

Dear All,

As Matthew says, this question is complex. It is not just a question as to how a person has been baptized, but by whom. The question arises - if we recognize the baptism performed by any minister of any denomination, then how far are we going to stretch recognition of their " sacraments?" Also, different Christian groups who do baptize, do so in different ways and with different intentions and understanding as to what baptism means, what the "church" means.

Putting that aside, I would like to make a comment from a pastoral view. If all of you look back just in the last few months, you will find that several people who entered the Orthodx Church through the economia of Chrismation have big problems with very concrete doubts within a rather short period of time. Until about twenty years ago, the Church Abroad also allowed converts to be received through chrismation, and is some rare occasions still does. However, it was found that those people who wanted to be fully "immersed" into Holy Orthodoxy were more successful when they were baptized. One important factor is the reading of the prayers of excorcism, which drive away the demons which torment the one comming to the bosom of the church. I think that it is just as much of pyschological value in that one goes through the physical action of dying to one's old self in the cleansing waters of Baptism. Starting off one's new Orthodox Christian struggle already with an exception to the rule is to me, already a disadvantage, for anything worth having is worth the struggle. Of key issue here is the question of "one Baptism." In the last several years, many bishops have handed down strict decrees stating that any one who has been baptized in the Name of the Trinity is already a Christian, and does not need to be baptized. This has led to situations, where some Orthodox bishops have actually turned prospective converts away, telling them that they are already Christians, and that they should ony witness the truth to their own congregation. From the point of view of Traditionalist, this is but an accomodation to the heterodox, further paving the way for yet another attempt at false union.

Again, not wanting to offend, and having to keep with my own adjuration, if your priest or bishop has decided to grant the economy of reception by Chrismation rather than full trtiple immersion, then there simply is no question. The bishop, who has the fullness of grace, has the right to make such a decison as to the reception of converts. Further, if it has become general policy of a particular church, then there also is no question. There might be those of us who wish to keep more to the classical Tradition of the Church, but in the situation of the decision by a bishop or a synod bishops of another local Church, we have no right to judge one way or another. And, when converts who have been received by chrismation by another church wish to join our church, there is no question - they are members of the Orthodox Church. It is only extreme fanatics who will also deny that there is even grace in new calendar churches who will raise the question of the validity of reception. What is important, is that once we are in the Orthodox Church, that we adhere to her teachings, and strive to gain salvation. Don't let the issue bother you - any of you. Strive to say your souls, and with all your hearts love God and your neighbor as yourself.

Father Averky

[Fr Averky]

One quick note - the economia of allowing chrismation from the Tradition of the Orthodox Church does not say that the sacraments of the heterodox are "valid," but that the chrismation as an economy makes up for that which is lacking. Here is where there is an important difference in the understanding of economy. By strict teaching of the Orthodox church, the Holy Spirit resides only in Holy Ortrhodoxy, but God is not limited either in His love or in His mercy.

Fr. A.

[Ronald J. Brotzman]

Fr Averky: Thank you for your well resoned letter. I take pride, not a good word, a humble satisfaction that as a convert, I am now fully Orthodox. I look at the baptismal bans of the Lutheran church, which follow the RC Church almost to the letter, as well as follow the formulas of the Orhtodox church, all seem very close in each church's attempt to set us into the faith of our Lord. The chrismation as was expalined to me was that the Orthodox took what the Lutheran church gave me and perfected it tinot the church. This generation is coming as converts or children as true fully baptised Orthodox. Here in the US there seems to be more conversions than births into the faith. Woe to those baptised that have left the church for the treacerous shores of RC or evangelical, I have just met Momor Greeks, how can that be? Thank you again

[Len Northfield]

A very interesting thread and a very interesting topic which is particularly relevant to me at the moment.

As a child I was "christened" into the Church of Scotland. As I grew this christening seemed effectively meaningless to me and when I redevoted my life to God when I was 26 I was baptised by full immersion in the Baptist church.

After many years of prayer and research I discovered the reality of Orthodoxy and sought to become Orthodox under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. I expected to be accepted by chrismation but discovered a few weeks before the scheduled date that neither of my earlier "baptisms" were acceptable. Initially this perturbed me somewhat as, in my own mind, I had become a Christian in heart and deed when I joined the Baptist church. However, as I pondered I recognised that the reason I wanted to become Orthodox was that this IS the Church and therefore who was I to argue with the teachings of the very body I so much wanted to belong to, the truth is not a matter of what I want..

On 10 May this year I was baptised and chrismated and I am happy that this is the route I had to take. I love god and for me to be part of the body of Christ I had to listen to what the body said.

Greetings to all.

mungo

[Richard Leigh]

Hi Len,

Yours is an interesting story. To have come in as a youngster by chrismation indicates that you had been previously baptized (perhaps as an infant) in what at the time of your chrismation was deemed appropriate per the "economy of the church" Your falling away, and coming back toward (if not to) Christ via the Baptist church, which does not hold a sacramental view of anything, much less baptism itself, but rather regards it as merely the obedience to a command and an "acted out" declaration of the faith you have in Christ (so as you say, you thought that should be sufficient to make you Christian) cast doubt on your earlier experience: you doubted your christmation and baptism in getting baptized as an adult, by those whose only regard for baptism at all was legalistic and what we might call "proposi-tional," making it your work only, not God's at all.

It's faith and baptism which saves, according to Jesus in Mk.16:16 (and St. Peter in 1Pe.3:21.

I'm curious, did you parents bring you to Orthodoxy as a child?

Richard

P.s., Oh, and welcome to the board!

[Len Northfield]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the welcome.

No, as an infant I was christened in the Church of Scotland which is the national presbyterian church, very Calvinistic and home of the "protestant work ethic"!

I had, of course, heard of Orthodoxy but thought it was an offshoot of the Roman church (ignorance is bliss, eh?). It wasn't until I was older and rededicated myself to Christ that I began to study the history of Christianity, primarily to find out what the RC church was about and also to learn about celtic christianity. That being the Christian church in Scotland, Ireland Wales and parts of France up until around 800 ad.

St Columba of Iona, St Mungo, St Patrick, St Aidan, St Martin of Tours etc were all Celtic saints who must have been Orthodox and it was my study of them and my search for authenticity that led me to Orthodoxy. I also had a lot of good advice and help from a priest of the Antiochan Orthodox Church who had previously been a priest in the Anglican church.

Interestingly, the thing that excited me about Celtic christianity was the way their faith was completely woven into every aspect of their lives and that is what I love about Orthodoxy. God really is real!

Len

[Ronald J. Brotzman]

Len: To digress, the history of the Celtic church, in England, Scotland and Ireland is fascinating. The whole idea that St Helen was originally converted to Christianty while in her homeland of Britian has always stirred by imagination. It is an irony of history that Ireland probably the most Catholic meaning Roman country in Europe was the last surviving Celtic church, much more aligned to Constantinople than Rome. Our patriarch in Damascus has stated time and agin that the trinitarian baptism of another faith with the vows and the bans of chrimation into Orthodoxy are sufficient. Unlike the Arians who ere brought back into the church by chrismation there is not the five year ban from communion. I have heard that the strict Orthodox churches may impose that ban if baptism is not redoen. I belive that the one holy catholic and aposolic church, meaning Orthodox has the power though its bishops to define and devive the will of God in this matter. I can look no farther than my bishop, metropolitan and patriarch. They are the men to whom I must listen and obey.

[Richard Leigh]

Ah, Len,

That explains everything. The Presbyterians practice infant Baptism by trine effusion and hold a "covenantal" view of it, I don't know if they use the word "sacrament" but they at least make it as much an NT comvenant sign with God (and therefore "real") as OT circumcision.

I'm Scots Canadian on my Mother's side and my Grandmother at least grew up Presbyterian. I too have a deep attraction to Celtic Orthodoxy (but the only church I know of is in Ohio (I think), I reside in St. Louis MO.

Great to hear from you.

Richard

[John Kapetan]

Len, Richard or anyone interested:

Have you ever visited http://CelticChristianity.org. Think you may find it interesting.

In Christ,

John

[Richard Leigh]

Hey John!

No, I hadn't, or at least not since two or three years, way before it was so updated! That's the congregation I meant when I referred to Ohio!

BTW, take a look at that Bishop's Statement! Pretty brutal!

Richard

[Richard McBride]

Chrisstos Anesti!

Blessed of the Lord, John K.

Thnaks for the Celtic address; I've seen it before, but I cannot remedmber whether it is truly an Orthodox church. I don't believe they mention being under a Patriarch?
This is not to say that Celtic liturgies are not received by Orthodox; probably, the Antiochians have taken in Celtic Churches.

Quite apart from that, the Celtic Saints are solidly Orthodox (which does not mean that this Church is), and the various pilgrimages offered to them are wonderful. Bishop Kalistos may even still take a group once a year. Those are truly holy sites.

richard mcb

[John Kapetan]

aliqinwV O KurioV

Blessed in the Lord Richard,

I also wondered how canonical they were. When I saw the picture of them performing liturgy in the bishop's apartment, I wondered. I realize that they could have been a poor church, but I wasn't sure.

I had not realized how important the Celtic Saints were until I read an article in 'The Orthodox Word' that showed want


Quite apart from that, the Celtic Saints are solidly Orthodox (which does not mean that this Church is), and the various pilgrimages offered to them are wonderful. Bishop Kalistos may even still take a group once a year. Those are truly holy sites.

[John Kapetan]

alhqinwV O KurioV

Blessed in the Lord Richard,

I also wondered how canonical they were when I saw the picture of the liturgy being performed in the apartment. Granted, they could be a poor church with limited funds, but I wasn't sure.

I had not realized how strong an influence there was that was left by the Celtic Saints until I read an article in The Orthodox Word that paraphrased St. John of San Francisco relating how important it was to read the lives of the Saints (the lives of the Saints were a continuation of the Acts of the Apostles, and the Gospel). Especially, we should read the lives of the Celtic Saints (the saints from England, Wales, and Scotland) and the American Saints.

Take care; in Christ,
John K

[Ronald J. Brotzman]

I am interested in that Celtic site for the history it gives; however, it is heretical and of course non-canonical.

[John Kapetan]

Christ is Risen:

Ronald;

Thanks for letting us know. Weeding through the miles of junk on the internet, how can one know.

In Christ,

John K

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Ron,

"...however, it is heretical and of course non-canonical."

I'm currious to know how you know this.

This is what I know:

Bp. Maelruain was originally under the Archbishop of the supposed American Orthodox Catholic Church, claiming orders from Archbp. Aftimios Ofeish, the original charter from the Russian Orthodox in the early part of the 20th century. Maelruain discovered that his Archbp's orders were uncanonical and it came out that Metropolitan Victor Prentis presided over the true AOCC. He apparently took news of his Archbp's situation to this REAL prelate (I know that he in fact told that person of the lack in his own Archbp's orders). I do not know if he tried to transfer to this canonically correct ArchBp, I do know that Metropolitan Victor only allows, for a western rite, that of St. Tikhon, for what he considers canonical reasons, I am sure. Therefor Maelruain would not have been able to get permission for the Lohra liturgy he, I believe worked so hard on translating, if he tried. He was able to get under an eastern european jurisdictional representative, I think it was Ukranian, but I do not remember exactly (though I donot actually know whether his orders came out in the wash. I only know Maelruain was highly insistent on exactness). This Archbp was in Canada. I see no notice of this on his site or what his current connections to Orthodoxy are. I shall send him a copy of this by way of asking. I'm sure he won't mind.

You probably have more recent information than I, Ron, I'd appreciate hearing what it is (even privately if need be so as not to furthe sully this thread.

Richard

[Richard Leigh]

Ron, and John,

Bp. Maelruain informs me that he said nothing to Metropolitan Victor regarding the inappropriate orders of the other claimant to the chair of the American Orthodox church, but just left it because the controversies surrounding it were "not salvific." I decided that I probably misunderstood the Metropolitan in my earlier communitacion with him.

He says the Celtic church had canonical pre-eminence in the western hemisphere and was restored with the help of UAOC (?) Bishops, who have since joined other churches. His does not have any current affiliation, and they are waiting.

So, that takes care of that.

Richard

[John Kapetan]

Richard:

In laymans terms...http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/smile.gif

Does that mean that they really aren't or that they positively are -a heretical group. I don't think I would travel there to sign up, but their web site, as Ron had pointed out, seems full of good historical pieces.

In Christ,

John K

[Fr Averky]

There are over 1,500 men and women in the United States claiming to be Orthodox bishops. There are several groups claiming to be part of the Church of Aftemios, and are other groups claiming "succession" from Villatte. There was a book published about forty years ago called "Bishops at Large," which chronicles the many claimants to "orthodox" episcopal orders. We also have a "pope" recently elected in a tiny mountain cabin in Colorado or Monatana. For many years in San Franciso there was an aged "patriarch" who would attend various religious function accompanied by his beautiful young "wife" ( a different one each time) wearing a mitre made out of tin foil. One problem is that these groups see "apostolic succession" from a Latin point of view, so that while their ordtnations might be "valid," they are also "illicit." This cannot be in Orthodoxy. I personally have not heard of any Celtic Church, but I know so little of the religious situation in the U.K. Can someone tell me who they are? We have one group in the U.S. claiming to be Orthodxx whose metropolitan and primate is "Mother Saron of the Roses"
I in no means desire to question this particular group, but here in the U.S. we have such a myriad of groups, it is hard to know who they are.

[Richard Leigh]

Hi Fr. Averky and others,

You mention "Mother Sharon of the Roses" related to Celtic so-called Christianity. It happens that there is a group here in St. Louis affiliated with that one you mention. The "Mother" actually has, (or had) membership in a REAL Orthodox church on the Southern Seaboard somewhere. I know this because a patien was admitted to the psychiatric ward where I worked (don't laugh) claiming "Orthodox holy orders" I think he said he was a priest. All the staff thought he was delucional (we had "God" himself as one of our patients, not to mention "Jesus Christ"). I could't believe priestly orders would be such a grandiose delusion (sorry Father), and suspected he might indeed have "valid" oreders from some Orthodox jurisdiction. So, I took his references (they were a little strange, ordination by telephone!)but I checked them out. Well, the woman involved was a member of an Orthodox church, as I said, apparently here priest didn't know what she was up to at home. Not that she was the ordinator. Anyway, the group here was clearly Pelagian (they say so) and I found a Pelagian "Celtic Orthodoxy (sic)" on the Net.

There is another Orthodox group here in St. Louis besides the more recognizably Greek Orthodox St. Nicholas, ArchBp Iakovos' seat)which uses a Gallican Rite. Their ArchBp is in France, but they are having difficulty with him, or he with them. I was trying to visit them but they didn't want any visitors until they got their orders straigtened out.

Maelruain Cele De is a different matter. I think he's legitimate -- though in your ethos I can understand your problems with them. I don't see anything heretical in his current material. When I said "brutal" regarding his "bishop's statement" I was using overstatement. He is clearly against any useless PC driven sugar coating "ecumenism" and wants to drive to the center of the truth, and that right quickly. Sounds Orthodox to me.

He read my previous statement about him, says he never communicated with Metropolitan Victor (I responded that I had that info from Victor himself. He does not want to be defended.

My question to this list is, does anyone know what UAOC is?

Richard

[Richard Leigh]

John,

In layman's terms :-) I don't know, but they don't look heretical to me,as far as E Orthodoxy goes, but then again, who am I?

Richard

[John Kapetan]

Christos Anesti:

Hi Richard;

I believe that the UAOC is the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church here in America.

They are opposed (I say opposed)- but I am not sure of the true story- to the The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (I have heard that they are the canonical Ukrainian group, UOC).

I am not certain if the UOC is under the Ecumenical Patriarch, Patriarch Alexii in Moscow. I had spoken with someone in Metropolitan Constantine's office (UOC) about them at one time. I was interested in online instruction by the UAOC. The priest in the office told me to steer clear of the UAOC. Something about when their bishop was ordained, something wasn't right or was pretty questionable.

I hope this helped and my thoughts weren't everywhere, but the page that they should have been.

In Christ,

John K

[Nicholas Stanosheck]

As I understand it the UOC of USA is directly under the EP while the UAOC is an uncanonical group headed by a former MP priest or bishop that was deposed.

In Christ,
Nicholas
Euphrosynos Cafe (http://www.EUphrosynosCafe.com)

[John Kapetan]

Nicholas:

Are they under the EP or the The Church of Ukraine? Just wondering. I think you're right though, EP sounds right.

In Christ,

John K

[Nicholas Stanosheck]

John, just the EP for the UOC of USA.

In Christ,
Nicholas
Euphrosynos Cafe (http://www.EUphrosynosCafe.com)

[Fr Averky]

Richard,

Take a look at the following site:

www.ind-movement.org (http://www.ind-movement.org)

Here, you will find more than one "Celtic Orthodox" church, plus a whole list of others - some are no longer online. What is interesting, every single one of them will inform yoiu that they are "canonical," but their reasons for being so are a little flimsy. You will see that they are fond of showing "lines of Apostolic Succession," to prove their canonicity. A lot of them are "inclusive," allowing for personal choices of every kind. I find it amazing to read, and it makes me a little sad. The Orthodox Church of France of whom you speak, had a bishop by the name of Germaine, an Englishman, who for years was recognized as an Orthodox bishop by the Church of Rumania until they perceived that he mixed Eastern religious concepts with his orthodoxy. He recently decided to marry, so his priests are all trying to regularize themselves with other Orthodox churches.

[Fr Averky]

Dear Richard, Christ is Risen!

Another thought - you mention that the position of the Celtic Church is not "heretical." What is important here is who they received their episcopacy from, that is, are they really Orthodox, or have they just given themselves that appelation? - if you will look at this site, you will see that the so-called "churches" run the full range- from continuing Anglican dioceses with several parishes, to churches having only one parish, which has a "patriarch," or a "metropolitan." After awhile, you will see how difficult it is to give much credence to the validity of "orders" of any of them. At any rate, take a look, and we will talk about it later. Look at the section "people," and that will give you a very good idea of the clergy involved. I pass no judgement, I just ask you to to look...

[Fr Averky]

I just went to the site, and their are six "Ukrainian Autocephelous Orthodox Church" listings. The group in Texas has an odious reputation here in the U.S. There is also an "American Patriarchate" which also claims its orders from one Ukrainian group or another. There are also so several more or less "legitimate Ukrainian groups, so you see, it is rather a mess.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Fr. Averky,

I checked the site. I was surprised to find "+C. Leigh" associated with one of those "churches". (Though there's an English proverb that runs "there's as many Leighs as fleas..."

I was also surprised to find the name Denis Garrison. He was the Metropolitan of Baltimore for the "The Holy Eastern Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church of North America"(THEOCACNA) claiming Aftiemos Ofeish as its first Metropolitan, chartered by the Russian Orthodox Church before the revolution. Victor Prentis won a law suit against him and holds that name as the legal "service mark" of the church he is Presiding Metropolitan of. Garrison was a friend or acquaintance of the Orthodox Church of France here in St. Louis I told you about. Yes, they are trying to regularize themselve, I would think, because they are Orthodox. It was my sense that Maelruain was trying to be "regular" as well. He does not want to be part of those intramural battles. They are clearly "of the flesh" and worldly. Not to mention devisive, proving their participants to be non-orthodox.

My involvent in all this, simply by the internet stemmed from learing, from ligitimate sources, that the Russian Bishp Tikhon had modified the Book of Common Prayer to conform to Orthodox teaching while he was bishop of the church in this country, for use by Episcopalian congregations which had converted en masse to Orthodoxy. So, when I was new to internet use, I began a search for Western Rite churches, and this is how I ran into all this stuff.

I know that the Antiochian Archdioces in America authorized Tikhon's Divine Service, and I have a copy of it.

What I relly think though is that I've probably "lost the original thread" and for that I appologize to the list.

Richard

[John Kapetan]

Richard,

I know that this is off of the subject on Chrismation also. But, actually, maybe we'll start heading back into the proper territory with this question. Since you brought it up, what exactly is Western Rite? I have seen it on the Antiochian diocese page. Are they in communion with Orthodoxy or is it just a type of holding area?

Was it something really necessary that Bishop Tikhon rework the book of Common prayer to make the Episcopalians more at home in the church? Shouldn't we have just taught them everything necessary in the Orthodox tradition?

Just wondering, In Christ,

John K

[Beryl Wells Hamilton]

Those interested in Celtic Christianity might want to peruse this web site:

http://www.orthodoxireland.com/celtic.htm

Beryl

[Fr Averky]

Thw whole question of the "Western Rite" is one which come up again and again in Orthodoxy. There have been attempts at various times and by various people to permit Divine Services which are similar to the old Latin rite of teh Catholic church. Even St. John of San Francsico blessed such an attempt, but I have to say, they have never been very successful. Several years ago, Fr. Alexey Young wanted to bring in a large number of Old Catholics to the Russian Church Abroad, but Archbishop Alypy of Chicago protested, stating that those who are in the Western rite never have unity with the rest of the church. The Synod of Bishops agreed, and the group did not join. Fr. Alexey then left the Church Abroad and entered the Western Rite of the Antiochean Church, but said that in six moths he realized that he had made a mistake. The mentallity of the Orthodox Church is Eastern, and Western rite parishes are so completely different that the two worlds cannot in any mesh.
Several years ago, Fr. Schmeman of the OCA wrote a brilliant paper on the very subject why a Western rite Orthodoxy cannot be successful. I myself wish I could find it.


Richard, I do not know which of the Orthodox churches you belong to, but please, pleawe forgive me - you seem to use the words "Orthodox" and "canonical" rather loosely. NONE of the groups on the list that I directed you to are canonical anything - none of them. Aftemios Ofeish ran off and got married, and there is no canonical church that will claim him. These "bishops" claim apostolic succession by reason of having been consecrated by bishops who themselves are not bishops. Richard, anyone can claim to be Orthodox, or have the name orthodox in the name of their church, but that does not make them so, any more than it makes them catholic or anglican. Did you take the time to read the claims of some of these groups? They all say that they adhere to the seven ecumenical councils, that they have an "unbroken" line of succession. In the Orthodox Church, it is not a matter of succesion in this case - it is if the Bishop teaches and maintains the Truth of Holy Orthodoxy, and if indeed he was consecrated by true Orthodox bishops. These men mostly trace their origines to a bishop named Villate, who went all over the country "consecrating" bishops, and Ofeish, who in the end did not have a church to belong to. For example, there was a metropolitan Pangratios in Queens , New York, recently arrested, who was consecrated by two retired bishops and a man named Christopher Contageorge who was a married priest, and not a bishop at all! Retired bishops are forbidden even to tonsure a reader, and in this case, one came from France - and a married priest does not have the grace to ordain. If, for instance, a Ukrainian bishop and an Old Catholic bishop consecrate a man a "bishop", it has no validity, even if the Ukrainian is a true bishop by virtue of the fact that he did so with an Old Catholic, nothing happens at all. And furthermore, by rights, the orthodox bishop should be deposed or at least retired for participating in such a fiasco. The Holy Orthodox Church is the true Church, Richard, the Vessel of Grace, the Ark of Salvation. One has to pity the men and women calling themselves "bishops". Rather than being humble and moving up the ranks in a Christian manner, they want to start at the top, enjoying being called "Your Grace," having people kiss their hands, and so on, if it is only one small parish. You say that the priests of the Church of France are "Orthodox," just what do you mean by "orthodox?" Are they orthodox just because they say that they are? This is a serious question, and I prayerfully ask you to take a very serious look at all of this. Please forgive me, but I have been very disturbed and unsettled by what this thread has revealed. The Orthodox Church is One, and even though there might be some differences and tensions, the Faith and the teaching must remain the same. These small bogus groups claiming to be "Orthodox" bring many problems. In our area there is a man who was ordained by one of the many Old Calendar Greek bishops and who claims to be the head of an "IGreek Orthodox "Church." Only problem is, he seems to have no parishioners. He goes around raising funds, sayng that "We are doing this or that," "We are doing work on the church" but nothing gets done. He is a nice person, but the Truth has nothing to do with personalities.
God's grace and the Holy Spirit can only reside where the Truth is, and these groups do not have sacramental grace. I am sure that many of them are good an sincere people, but that is not enough to make them part of the Orthodxx Church.
I know that many of you who read my posts think that I am hard-nosed and unbending. Well, I am, and I will be, because The Orthodox Chiurch is the most precious thing to me, and I do not like to Her teachings compromised. It is not my opinion or anyone eles that counts - it is what the Church teaches that matters

On another thread we have been talking about the Jesus Prayer. One of our hieromonks was in Russia last year, and when his group was at the St. Sergius-Holy Trinity Lavra, among the many items for sale at the books store was quite a variety of prayer ropes. When people would ask to buy one, the monk in charge would ask them if they had a blessing from their spiritual father to say the prayer, and to tell him honestly. If they said "No." he would not sell it to them Also, if a foreign tourist who was not Orthodox wanted to buy one, the monk would tell them that he was not permitted to sell it to them. My friend just told me that story today, and it is in keeping with what I have been telling you. I am bound to say what I have been taught by very holy and stable men who grew up in Russia, some of whom were born before the revolution. These men learned from other saintly people, always preserving unsullied by their own "opinions" the truths of Orthodoxy that they were given.
Orthodox "ethos" is the same for all of us - just as the rules for fasting and keeping the rules of the church is not just for monks, but for everyone. If we are to call ourselves Orthodox, then we are bound to be firm in our faith and knowledge of our precious Church.

[Fr Averky]

Dear Richard,

I just looked at your profile, and came to realize that you are a Lutheran, and that solves the mystery for me. I simply could not figure out where you were coming from in your opinion concerning the orthodoxy of these unfortunate groups. I am sorry, for I can see where you might have a different idea as to what "Orthodox" means. At any rate, I must again inform you that these groups having orthodox in their name are no part of the church by any stretch of the imagination.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear John,

Let me quote from the English translation of
Russian Obserations Upon the American Prayer Book Alcuin Club Tracts XII, London/Milwaukee; A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd./ The Young Churchman Co., 1917, (translated from the Russian which was printed in 1904):

The following "Obseravations" represent a
report drawn up by order of the committee
appointed by the Holy Snod on Old Catholic
and Anglican questions. The report was drawn
up by some of its members and submitted for
consideration at ne of the meetings of the
committee. The authors examined the
American edition of the "Book of Common
Prayer" wih the special object of preparing
material for an answer to the queseion which
was raised by a memorandum to the Holy Synod
from the Right Rev. Tikhon, bishop in
America. If an entire parish with its
minister should simultaneously leave
Anglicanism to join the Orthodox Church in
America, then would itbe possible to
authorize the "Common Prayer Bok" for their
liturgical use? If so, then what in this
book shold be deleted, what corrected, and
what supplemented: The opinions given in
these "Observations" are only an expression
of the indibidual views of the authors.

If you want to start a parish in the Antiochian Archdiocese in North America, you should be asked whether you want to be Eastern or Western Rite.
The Western Rite is published as The Saint Andrew Service Book 2nd Ed. 1996.

I would suggest that any problem with it would be the tendency of the Western mind to conceptualize his religion as a mere matter of getting the words right and making the bows and crossings at the right place, not that one isn't thinking of having one's heart in the right place, but Orhodoxy (Christianity, really) is so much more than simply getting the words right, even if they are from the heart. So, for example, if yours was a under the Vicarate of the Western Rite, and an Episcopalian walked in who was miffed at his own denomination's liberalism, and wanted to return to what he considered "True Christianity" he could easily continue in his erroneous western way of thinking, or rather viewing the universe, and believe he was converting to Orthodoxy while not really doing that. I personally believe it would be possible to really convert to Orthodoxy (but remember my perenial disclaimer, I am not Orthodox, so what do I know -- I am serious about this, folks) and worship rightly (Orthodoctically, if I may coin a word. But, that's just my opinion. I would encourage everyone to search for that article of Fr. Schmeman's Fr. Averky mentioned, he is one of my Orthodox heroes. He did say, though, that those "Evangelical Orthodox" folks were Orthodox. He said that, not me.

And now, to Fr. Averky about my "loose use" of the term "canonical." I do't mean to get testy here but as I understand the Canons, there can be only one Orthodox jurisdiction in any given country. So, what is SCOBA? (Schmeman had something to say about that too).

Love,

Richard

[Daniel Jeandet]

Why are you not Orthodox Richard?

[Heather M]

Hi---

Father Averky, is this the article you mentioned?
www.schmemann.org/byhim/westernrite.html (http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/westernrite.html)

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Daniel,

I am not Orthodox because Christ came to me through the Gospel preached in a Lutheran Church at the age of 12. My family was unchurched, my Father not Christian, I myself had declared myself atheistic (repudiating God, contrary to my Mother's faith) at the age of 9. My best friend, a Roman Catholic, evangelized me during his own catechism period. My father taught respect for all religions, but none for God himself. I found that I could not enter a Roman Cathoolic church and therefore did not convert to Catholicm.

I entered Christ's Church through baptism shortly after I began my own (2 year) Lutheran catechism
instruction period. My pastor taught that "Lutheranism was Catholicism before all that other stuff was added" ("all that other stuff" amounts to everything that Catholicism has that Lutheranism doesn't have, and I will not go into it here.) In short, at the age of 12, I had the idea that Lutheranism was "the original first century Christianity one would hope to find." Therefor, I engaged on a study of the fathers (to the best of my ability and their availability in the sixties) to discover patristic rationale for my faith. Thus, I became, over the many years of my life since then highly educated in many aspects of Christianity, including, these recent years, Orthodoxy now that more publications regarding Orthodoxy are available. I do not mean to imply, BTW, that I consider "Orthodoxy" merely "an aspect of Christianity", and I would rather not be thought of as a "shopper" but as a "student." I may be following the path of the esteemed scholar, Jaroslav Pelikan, one of my Lutheran heroes, or rather ex-Lutheran now OCA Orthodox heroes.

Yours in Christ,

Richard

[Fr Averky]

Dear Richard,

Allow me to apologize publicly for my sharpness and lack of patience, but as I said, I am very firm when it comes to the integrity of the Orthodox Church and as to where She does or does not exist.

You are one of those people who stand on the very door step of Orthodoxy, and one can only hope that in time you will have the courage and love to walk through that door. It is obvious that you have spent many years considering and studying Christianity, and I would say that a large number of converts "read" their way into the Church. She is bekoning to you, do not falter!

As to regards to Orthodxy in America. For almost a century, it has remained in an almost a "missionary" status. At the turn of the last century, all Orthodox Christians came under the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. This was so because although the Greeks came to Florida early, it was the Russians who established a diocese in Alaska. The first Russian bishops could serve in Church Slavonic, Greek, and Arabic, and travelled around the country serving for all Orthodox people. As more and more Greek and Arab Orthodox Christians arrived, it was thought best to invite them to have their own bishops. Until the tragedy of the Russian revolution, there was real unity among the Orthodox in America. The Russian revolution also caused that church to divide into three groups inthis country.

There now seems to be a longing for one autonomous church in America; some Greeks have voiced this desire, while the Antiochean Archdiocese recently received autonomous status form its patriarchate. The OCA has been an independent church for thirty years. In light of recent documents, it seems that the Russian Church Abroad is slowly moving towards eventual union with the Church in Russia, ending a breach of some 80 years. This a rather complex situation, and will take love, patience and lots of work and good will on both sides. All of the Churches I have mentioned are Orthodox - they have very different views, but throughout the history of the Church, there has been differences, but one can only pray that there will be unity among them in the end. As to small, spurious groups having "orthodox" in their names. we can only hope that they will come to repentence and seek the True Church.

Heather, thank you very much, for I think that the article indeed is the one I was mentioning. At any rate, it elucidates very clearly the point I wanted to make. Richard, you see, you also made a very clear and incisive commentary as to the inherent weakness of the Western Rite insofar as disgruntled Episcopalians and others can come to such a church and never fully grasp what it is to be Orthodox. This comes from an understanding of Orthodoxy that you shoiuld consider to be compelling...
As to spurious small groups who have "orthodox" in their names, one can only hope and pray that they will come to repentance and will embrace True Orthodoxy.

Much love in Christ,

Fr. Averky

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Fr. Averky,

Thank you very muh.. for all of it. And yes, I do feel it is compelling. Let me give this sit:
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/johnson_western_rite.htm

This is an article on the Orthodox Research Institute. It gives a valuable critique of the Western rite, and says much better than I was able to guess on my own.

The home page for the Institute is:

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

I recomend it for anyone who wants to find good articles on Everything Orthodox. Let us ask Fr. Averky to go there first and make sure I'm right first ;-) But I think Fr. you will appreciate my taste, as you have shown already.

Later I will outline what the Russians critiqued about the American Book of Common Prayer. It will say a lot about Orthodoxy.

Richard

[Fr Averky]

Dear Richard,

Thank you for the article. I am no expert on this, but it certainly is a very well written and argued point. when I lived in San Francisco many years ago, there was a Western Rite monsignor. Whenever he would show up at either the OCA cathedral or ours, or at the Greek church, no one knew "what to do with him." I am quite content where I am.

Fr. Averky

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Father Averky,

It is sad that Orthodox wouldn't know what to do with someone. It shows at least that they did'nt recognize him as "their own." I think the gospel message is clear, isn't it? Your own motto in fact, Father. Or in the words of St. John, "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God, and everyone who loveth is born of God, and knoweth God..." (1Jn.4:7) Dare I sing the next verse?

Love,

Richard

[Fr Averky]

Richard,

Sorry that I did not make myself clear at all. The problem was that this man would arrive at an Eastern Orthodox church dressed like a Catholic monsignor, which caused much confusion, especially among the older Russians. They were hesitant to take his blessing or would not, thinking him to be Catholic. This is what I mean. In time, he was asked to give a talk before an assembly of Orthodox clergy, and it was soon evident that he knew nothing about Orthodoxy at all. He was sent to St. Vladimir's seminary, and for the last several years he has been a priest of the Serbian Church, having given up the Western rite altogether.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Father Averky,

Oh, I see. Then he was a living example for you of what I'd guessed could easily happen to say an Episcopalian convert to a Western Rite, use Orthodoxy. Worse, a clergyman no less! I'm glad for everyone's sake he "came around".

Richard

P.s., Love, at times demands "redirction" of the loved by the lover, doesn't it? --R

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Father Averky,

Father bless:

I note on re-reading my own post to you that it was rather cheeky of me to make such a snide comment to you (and in front of all, to boot!) about what can only be for me (as I was not there) the imagined behavior of people who are beholden to me for nothing. [I hadn't thought I was being anything of the sort but merely conversational -- yet on reconsideration, that does not appear to have been the case, I admit myself]

For this I am thoroughly ashamed of myself, heartily sorry, and beg your, and God's forgiveness for my transgression against the commandment regarding "Bearing False Testimony," which Luther taught meant "We should fear and love God so that we do not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, nor defame our neighbor, but defend him, speak well of him, and put the best construction on all he says and does."

Richard

[Fr Averky]

Beloved in Christ Richard,

God Bless you!

It is alway fortuitous when we catch ourselves, having been prompted by our guardian angel to the Good. How many times on this board have I found myself babbling on, not taking into consideration the consequences of my words.

So Richard, let us pray for each other that we be careful, for we do not want to hurt or lead astray others by our chance remarks. May God bless you in all your good efforts!

In Christ,

Father Averky

[Aristibule Adams]

It may be that the confusion with the Russians was a cultural issue, coming from their experience with the Jesuits. I dont think most of us American Orthodox would react in the same way, except those who are taught a hatred of all things Western as being Orthodoxy.

However, Fr. Michael Johnson's article is flawed, and his points are all answered or corrected in the article Lux Occidentalis (available as a .pdf) from www.westernorthodox.com (http://www.westernorthodox.com) (the webpage of the Antiochian Western Rite). I'm betting that if it was re-written today it would not make the same charges. Fr. Alexander Schmemann himself was not 'anti-Western rite', but cautious and even supportive in person of Western rite people. Fr. John Meyendorff is also quoted from an article as being anti-WRITE, but his book the Orthodox Church written a year later is quite positive instead. St. John Maximovitch is another positive witness to WRITE.

On L'ECOF ... the charges of Theosophy and such have never stuck or been proven. The problem is solely with the Bishop marrying (and thus breaking his vows), and with the politics of certain Patriarchates who have deals with the Anglicans and Rome.

In any case, the Orthodox Western RIte is not just to make some converts comfortable... it is the restoration of the Orthodoxy in the West. Western Rite Orthodox are in communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church, and the difference in rites is no more confusing than the difference between Great Church or St. Sabbas usage of the Byzantine usage. Most reactions against seem to be either without direct experience of Orthodox Western Rite, or from personal issues stemming from a person's pre-conversion experience with Anglicanism, Romanism, or some other confession.

Good Western rite communities still exist in ROCOR, and in Antioch. Those that were under Moscow, Romania, and were traded off for peace with Rome still exist in some places as individuals or clergy.... either waiting for restoration of WRITE, or to be regularised again.

I recall that the group that resisted WRITE the most in ROCOR was Holy Transfiguration, that ended up in Schism altogether. The WRITE ROCOR clergy and people have remained more faithful than the anti-WRITE critics (such as Dom James at Christminster, Abbot Augustine of the original Mount Royal, or Fr. Hieromonk Michael of St. Petroc's... all who were/are under the most Orthodox Archbishop HILARION of ROCOR. Bp BASIL, my own bishop, has care of the WRITE communities in Antioch under Met. PHILIP. Their own writings on the subject can also be found at www.westernorthodox.com (http://www.westernorthodox.com)

There should be caution about equating Orthodoxy with Byzantine rite or 'Eastern'. As Bp BASIL says, 'There are those who have the same prayers, the same vestments, the same language, the same music...but we know they are not the same Church'... Western RIte Orthodoxy is far more Orthodox than Eastern Rite Uniatism. The assumption is that something Western cannot make one Orthodox, which stems from a misidentification of everything Western as being Modernist, or heretical. If Western cannot be Orthodox, then our Presanctified liturgy is not Orthodox as it is the product of the same Western saint who compiled the Roman liturgy. Accusations of 'dead traditions' and 'liturgical archaeology' only make sense from a scholastic theology standpoint. A tradition is not dead as long as it is either kept by oral or written method. A living tradition also changes over time .... if the Holy Spirit can move and the Byzantine rite change (and it has, even over the past few hundred years) then the Holy Spirit can restore the Western Rites to use. Beyond that, the accusations against our Western Rite brethren seem to often use non-Orthodox methods to attack, or to be lacking in charity ... and often to not, be just so much false testimony. Thank God not all Byzantine rite Orthodox are like that (I'm Byzantine rite myself).

But there is often also something that smacks of phyletism with those of us Byzantists who include Occidentphobia along with our Russophilia or Grecophilia (or Romaioiphilia )... and confuse any of the above with our Orthodoxy. It leads not only to horrible attacks on the venerable usages and descendants of our beloved Western Orthodox Saints, but horrible things committed against various Eastern Traditions (things like calling beautiful Byzantine chant 'snake charmer music', or saying that St. John Chrysostom was not as Orthodox as 19th c. Russians.)

[Ronald J. Brotzman]

A. Adams: A well reasoned response. I am now an ANtiochian. I attend an Easetern Rite church, but am acting as attorney for and am very close to the Western Rite Church a mere three miles away. I see a great deal of Orthodoxy in both expressions of the faith. Being Western does not mean being Orthodox as being eastern means being Orthodox. The Patriarchs of Russia and of Antioch have both stated that the western expression up until the great schism were as Orthodox as their own practices. The Byzantines from Nicea until the schism would worship in the Western Rite of that time as expressed by the Roman Orthodox Catholic Church. To say that God only hears the prayers of an Eastern rite church within Orthodoxy is incorrect. Christ did not found a liturgy he founded a church, which man has broken into many frgaments. Orthodoxy can reside in any form of liturgy, as long as the dogma is present and is accepted by the bishop. I can appreciate both expressions. There has always been a western expression and an eastern expression, give it time and there will be an oriental expression in the far east. Times and cultures change the expression, not the dogma. The Russians the offshoot of the Greek differ substantially from the Greeks, are they wrong? No. The Roman church of 1054 was well set in its own expression of Orthodoxy was it wrong? No. It became wrong with the change of the dogma and the separation from the true Orthodox church. If the dogma is put back in place, into the western expression all is well that ends well.

[Fr Averky]

Dear Aristibule,

Thank you for your good answer. The WRITE ( your term) priest of which I speak was in the Antiochean Church when I first met him. There was no "hatred" on the part of the Russians, simply confusion, because in appearance he looked like a Roman Catholic monsignor with the burgundy buttons, sash, and so on. He was treated kindly and with respect, but people were just not sure..

I am not an expert in the Western rite, and really know little aout it. At the same time, I have met very few who thought of it as beeing sucessful. I do not think that any of the people that you mention as having been under the omophorian of Vladika Hilarion are any longer. Fr. Augustine whitefield, if still alive is quite old. As you know, St John of Shanghai and San Francisco as well as Fr. Herman and Seraphim Rose were very interested promulgating knowledge and devotion to early Western Orthodox saints. For myself, while I can say I have nothing againt the Western Rite per se, but to be honest, I have no interest in it at all, and moreso, I am not comfortable with it. I do have greater concern for those groups who call themeselves any number of things which include "orthodox," catholic," anglican," or "ukraninaian autocephalous" in them when they are in fact, none of these. They are all rather small, but they are guilty of misleading the innocent, and that bothers me. A legitimate Western Rite living under the omophorion of a rightful bishop is another question altogether, but as I say, I am quite content with what I am doing and know personally - I have no need for such an expression of my Orthodxy. I very much appreciate your clarification, and hope that you will become a member and will post again in the future. God bless you!

Love in the Risen Christ,

Father Averky

[Aristibule Adams]

Father, bless

Thank you for your kind reply. I think that is the wisest thing, that for many it has no bearing on what they do. For others, it has every bearing on who we are as Christians, as human beings, and for our call to evangelism and to honour our local saints.

You might be interested to know that though Abbot Augustine is retired and living in Florida, that Dom James is still alive and well and still under Abp HILARION (including one other monk). They also have several Oblates, one of which is one of my friend's Godfather, a Reader and master of ceremonies at my parish, and a dearly respected elder friend of mine. Fr. Michael is alive and active in Tasmania, with another priest Fr. Barry Jeffries ... and again, under Abp HILARION.

I do note that many who worry about WRITE are focused on different things: mostly the pastoral care of the diaspora. Those who are WRITE are focused on conversions (not proselytization). So, there seems to be much talking past each other. As for sucess, it depends on what they mean. The Antiochian WRITE has been a success as far as we are concerned (as Fr. Paul Schneirla described in the WORD this year, the most successful ministry.) While Byzantine rite myself, I was converted by the witness of WRITE laity and clergy, and still keep in touch. I dont see a failure, though I still see the movement in a juvenile stage. The only internal problems I can identify are lack of vision outside individual parishes, and thus lack of coordination. That is changing though. Most of the problems WRITE has had are external, and WRO parishes have been far less trouble for bishops than us Evangelical convert BRITE folk. I can affirm that by and large they are not just 'disaffected Anglicans', or 'disobedient Catholics' ... but committed Orthodox of Western culture. (And not necessarily committed Westerners of Orthodox affiliation ;) Success isnt always numbers. If it was, only the Pentecostals and Roman Catholics would be successful. The WRO impact on my own life is enough for me to consider them a success.

I'm glad that someone has pointed out that there is a difference. I have heard some clergy consider even the legitimate WRITE under Orthodox bishops as the same as Bishop BOB of Atlantis, and the Autocephalous Gnostic Church of the Holy Grail or other such silliness. Discretion does need to be had, and converts, inquirers, etc. to be given a clear distinction between the Church and the many protestant like little groups. Sadly, most of them are not Western Rite... there are more such groups that are Eastern Rite (though not all Byzantine). I spent a year before Orthodoxy in such a muddled mess because of a Church that called itself Orthodox. It took a ROCOR WRITE Hieromonk, an AWRV priest, and one of his laymen to give me a wake-up call as to the true nature of the Church, what I was really involved in, and the true cost of being a true Orthodox Catholic. And of course, thanks to my welcoming ethnic Lebanese Byzantine rite parish, that was revived by a WRITE missionary priest (Fr. Michael Keiser), and pastored by a priest who was a convert from ORU and our own dearly beloved Priest and Father still. And finally, my most beloved and Orthodox Bp BASIL, whose presence as a true bishop finalized my decision for conversion. All have encouraged me as a Westerner to be who I am in Christ, to venerate the Saints of my people, and not to become Arab, Greek, Russian, or something other than what God deigned to have me born as.

kissing your right hand,

Drake Aristibule Adams

[Fr Averky]

Dear Aristibule.

I very much appreciate you elucidation on the Western Rite, for obviously you know what you are talking about. I have known about Father Augustine for many years, and was very saddened when, on his own initiative, Bishop Gregory removed his name from the ranks of the clergy. Archbishop Hilarion is such a kind and understanding man, and we are thankful to him for his loving missionary spirit.

I was reading the offciial statement of the bishops of the Russian Church Abroad when they lifted the anathemas and recognized the Old Rite. They stated that the Orthodox Church has always recognized a diversity in services, not binding the faithful to only one, but allowing for different recognized andf acceptable liturgical expressions. Except for Archbishop Hialrion, no 0ther bishop has Western Rite parishes that I know of. At any rate, as I said, it is not within my scope - I have never even been to a Westrn Rite service, so I have no opinion.

I am glad that yoiu see my point, for it seems that you too were innocently ensnared by one of the many fictitious groups. In Montana, there is an 82 year old man who two years ago was elected "pope" in the company of one "cardinal," and a handful of laymen, taking the name "Pope Pius XIII." There is a also a "Pope Michael," and any number of patriarchs, metropolitans, archbishops and bishops, both men and women. I pray for those poor ones who have fallen into the net of these even more unfortunate people. Thank God that you were guided to Holy Orthodxy. may God richly bless you and yours,

Love in Christ Risen,

Fr. Averky