Evangelism

[Owen Jones]

It strikes me that there are some earthshaking events in the religious world that our Orthodox hierarchs ought to be paying close attention to but probably aren't. One is the disaster in the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S., relating to sex abuse, but which is the logical consequence of 50+ years of heretical teachings and practices in the seminaries. BEcoming Orthodox ought to be an option available to many disillusioned people in the Catholic Church, if they only knew about us. The Catholics evangelize in Orthodox Countries. Why can't we evangelize in the U.S.?

A more significant event is what is happening in the Anglican Communion. There is going to be a schism between the African/Asian bishops and the Anglo bishops, that have so crossed the line both in terms of theological teachings and on sex matters, that this split is now inevitable. It seems to me that the Patriarch ought to be visiting AFrica and meeting personally with Anglican Bishops in Africa to point out to them that they have an opportunity to come home to Orthodoxy, rather than creating their own denomination of Anglicanism.

[Elizabeth Hanson]

My dearest Owen:

Here in the USA, the SCOBA bishops feel bound by the Balamand Agreement (an international agreement signed between certain hierarchs in the Roman Catholic Church and in the Orthodox Church). Therefore, they will not evangelize Roman Catholics. When I converted to Orthodoxy from the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Bishop told me that I would never be able to return to the Catholic Church because of the Balamand Agreement. During my search of the Orthodox Church, I was told not to alienate myself from the Catholic Church. Only when the Orthodox Priest realized that I no longer believed in the Pope nor in Papal infallibility did he feel free to offer me instructions in the Holy Faith. That process took me three years.

I have known several Roman Catholics who looked into the Orthodox Church only to be refused instruction by the Orthodox Priest. In these cases, they were told about the Balamand Agreement. They were also told that unevenly yoked spouses suffer more divorces.

Hopefully this answers some questions.

Your sister in Christ,
Elizabeth

[Fr Averky]

Dear Owen.

I am sure that you are aware that the Pope of Rome has within the last few years, especially within the last year, has set up twelve Catholic dioceses in Russia, and within the last two months, two in Kazahkistan.

On top of this, he has had the audacity to express the desire to return to Russia an icon of the Kazan Mother of God at first claimed to be the original-of course with the proviso that he can step onto Russian soil, making yet another papal conquest.

But how did this happen, and why? Because for forty years, at the behest of the Soviet authorites, the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate involved themselves in what the late Metropolitan Philaret of the Church Abroad termed the most dangerous of all heresies to ever attack the Church-the heresy of Ecumenism. Orthodox bishops have for years openly prayed with the Latins, and as Elizabeth mentions concerning the Balamand Agtrement, made concessions and compromised our precious Orthodoxy, while the Latins have essentialy made none. Both Roman Catholics and Orthodox have made concessions and compromised the integrity of their Churches to placate the Jews, who admirably have kept their own integrity. I am in no way being anti-semitic -no, I am saying that in their haste to proclaim "Universal Love," Christian bishops have crossed their own boundaries, which has gained them nothing.

The World Council of Churches (of Christ?) now includes and prays with Buddhists, Shintoists, and a whole array of other non-Christian groups. At the meeting held in Australia several years ago, delegates walked through Aborigianal ""sacred smoke" as they entered the meeting area. During a solemn community service, an Orthdodox bishop carried the Holy Gospel, surrounded by men and women offering bowls of incense, and a Korean woman burned paper as an offering to the "Spirits of the World," as drums beat and people chanted-she stated in an interview that "Christianity is my mother, and the Buddha is my father." At the most recent meeting with the Pope in Asissi, a small statue of Buddha was placed on a Catholic altar to accomodate the Buddhists, and many crucifixes were taken down in the famous Franciscan monastery so not offend the non-Christian "bretheren."

Until the Bishops of World Orthodoxy return to the Orthodoxy for which the maryrs died and which Holy Fathers and Hierarchs proclaimed and defended throughout the centuries, then more and more compromises will be made. Someone the other day mentioned how the calendar question and other innovations are "inconsequential,." I am sorry, but those which are deemed by some as being inconsequential have become a threat to the unity and purity of the Faith.

What are the faithful to believe when the most prestigious of all Orthdodox bishops presents a silver chalice to the openly homosexual archbishop of a major Protestant church in Sweden ( who recently did a service of union for his lesbian sister and her theologian partner) and states that he prays for the day when all Christians will commune from one chalice, and when at the end of the service, which includes loud Gospel music as the communicants swaying and dance on their way to communion, gives his Apostolic blessing along with the said archbishop and the Catholic cardinal?

I will say, that despite nearly eighty years of enslavement, and sometimes willing cooperation with godless authorities, the Church of Russia did not tamper with Orthodoxy even though if it had, it would have pleased its evil masters, who would have rewarded it greatly. The bishops were forced to join the Ecumenical movement, which was seen by the government as yet another means to undermine the Church. Sad to say, there were those who all to happily sold their souls for beautiful homes and hand-made limousines.

The Church of Russia is now breaking away from its imprisonment, but a price has to paid for the willing involvement of those bishops who were KGB operatives. They prayed with Protestants and Catholics and gave them rich gifts while it might have pleased their godless masters, it did not please God.. Did they think that Rome would treat them truly as "brothers?" when I was a high school boy, plans were already then being made for the "conversion" of Russia.

I am sorry that I have gone on so long, but Orthodoxy is so precious to me, and I am in anguish when I see Orthodox bishops, who vowed at the time of the consecration to uphold and protect the Orthdox Church, and then compromise those ideals in order to sit "at the head table." I was a Roman Catholic, and I well remember the contempt that the Catholics had for the Orthdodox. The original intention in sending delegates to ecemneical meetings was to witness that the Orthdodox Church is the Church, but lately, the Orthdodox have had to complainbitterly that they are all but totally disregarded, yet for many years they have signed documents which refer to the WCC as the "Church."

Fr. A.

[Hermit]

One is the disaster in the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S., relating to sex abuse, but which is the logical consequence of 50+ years of heretical teachings and practices in the seminaries.

Yes, there have been heretically leftist teachings denying the mainstays of Catholic and common Christian teachings in Catholic seminaries. Occasionally there is rot and corruption in any branch of Christianity (including the Orthodox). One big problem was that homosexuals were allowed to become priests as long as they vowed celibacy ... but what's a vow to someone used to lying ... many gay activists and pedophiles entered the priesthood with no intention whatsoever of keeping the vow of celibacy.


I was a Roman Catholic, and I well remember the contempt that the Catholics had for the Orthdodox.

I've never heard any single word of contempt for the Orthodox. I'm a cradle Catholic (although I left for many years to explore the New Age and Hinduism) and have listened a lot over the past couple of years to EWTN, the conservative Catholic satellite channel (and website). They say that the Orthodox have valid sacraments, priesthood, etc - something of course they generally deny Protestants with the exception of marriage. The Pope has stated that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox are the left and right lungs of Christianity.

There's no contempt, but a real desire to unite that I don't believe the Pope extends to Buddhism etc. I suppose we won't get over the issue of whether the leader of a united Church should have a lot of authority, or be first among equals, and of course there are the ridiculous little theological bickerings about who proceeds from whom. But eventually Jesus will return and set things right.

[Fr Averky]

Dear hermit,
Please don't be offended, but even when I was in high school in the 60's, the priests teaching religion would say that Orthdoxy was stale and lifeless, living in the cumbersome and dead past of Byzantium. Our principal did not like ti when I went to Divine Liturgy at the local Greek Orthodox Church, warning me that "They are not in line with Catholic thought, and they have no respect for the Magreterium." When I was a Catholic seminarian in Canada, I came upon a shope in the Ukrainian section of Tornto which sold icons, three bar crosses, prayer ropes and the like. I bought some icons for my room, but the Dean of Discipline made me take them down from my wall, telling me to have such things could be "dangerous" for my soul. He told me to go to the chapel and say a rosoary, and to ask the Virgin's forgiveness for having offended her. We got into quite a row, because I refused to be "sorry" for praying before an icon of the Mother of God, rather than a statue. From then on, he let it know that I was "suspect."

When our seminary choir went to the cathedral to sing for a pontifical mass, at the dinner afterwards, the Latin rite priests completly ignored the Uniate priests in the most shameful manner.

Of course, much has changed since then, but I feel that on the part of Rome, while it is true that "union" is desired, I fear that in the end it would be "absorption," and the Eastern Orthodox at first would be treated with honor, but in time a new and larger Unia would arise, and the Pope would still be the Vicar of Christ, and the ancient patriarchates would be reduced to those like the Melkites whose Patriarch along with all of the other Uniate patriarchs were told by the present Pope that it is the cardinals who are higher in rank, even though the patriarchs represent far more ancient sees, and who during Vatican II were given a place of honor by Pope Paul VI. It is moments like this that the real attitude towards the Churches of the East is seen. Dear hermit, I try to base what I say on either what I have been taught, or from my own experience. I still have many wonderful memories from my days being a Catholic, but these are not among them.

Fr. A.

[Elizabeth Hanson]

Dear Father A. and fellow members:

In 1995, at a prominent Catholic Church in North Hollywood, the pastor told the parishioners that St. Anne's Melkite Greek Catholic Church was not in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles and that they shouldn't go there. Talk about disinformation. Of course St. Anne's is not in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, it is in the Eparchy of Newton, Massachusetts, under the jurisdiction of the Melkites, and the Melkites are in communion with Rome.

Furthermore, I personally know a Melkite woman who was reconfirmed in order for her to get married in that same Roman Catholic Church because they did not recognize the Melkite Chrismation. Then there are the countless numbers of Melkite and Orthodox children who attend Catholic Schools and who are given "First Holy Communion" and "Confirmation" because the nuns don't want them feeling left out of these "coming of age" ceremonies. There is still a lot of ignorance about Eastern Catholics.

A thought just occurred to me. The people accuse the Orthodox of having many jurisdictions in America, but so do the Roman Catholics! There are the Roman Catholic Bishops of the Latin Rite, and then there are the Melkites, the Ruthenians, the Romanians, the Ukranians, the Armenians, the Syrians, the Chaldeans, and one from India -- all these Eastern Churches all have their own bishops with dioceses that overlap.

Just a little bit of confusion reigns in both East and West due to jurisdictional squabbles and bias.

Your sister in Christ,
Elizabeth

[Owen Jones]

If the hierarchs refuse to evangelize, then the laity MUST do it.

[Katrina Delsante]

Isn't that how it should be done, through the laity?

Shouldn't we, by our example in humbly serving our local communities(both in America and abroad) in outreach programs and the like, be evangelizers this way?

And I don't mean evangelizing to those we help like a captive audience, but by living the life Christ told us to live. Being an example that others want to emulate. Being of calm disposition, not greedy, not gossiping, not flamboyant in any way.

I've been thinking about this a while now and maybe a month ago spewed out here what I thought was "zeal" for the Orthodox church to start our own TBN or EWTN. You know, take over the airwaves to contradict those heretics!! I don't know now if that is the best way at all, especially if done by the laity. Certainly we shouldn't hide ourselves away and claim "members only", but is "in your face, do it our way or the highway" going to convince anyone? The educational resources are out there for those interested. It is our job as Orthodox Christians to get people interested by our example and then lead them to the proper resources.

This in itself is frightening to me. I can think of dozens of times I have gone out into the world, boldly wearing my 3 bar cross, and then snapping at the lady in Customer Service or gossiping about so and so at work. And I want to evangelize? Is this the true face of Orthodoxy? As much as it pains me to watch TBN and the hogwash that they preach sometimes, I am NOT qualified to be an evangelizer to rebutt them. Truly, I want to evangelize more than anything else in the world. However, if I struggle every moment to save myself, how do I intend to save the world? Additionally, weren't we warned that the teachers of the Gospel are judged more harshly? Based on my life, my judgements are going to be hard enough. I don't need to compound the problem when I haven't been specifically called to teach by the Holy Spirit.

As far as protecting others from leaving Orthodoxy by the hands of other evangelizers, that is the duty of the clergy. It has been my personal experience that people leave Orthodoxy for no other reason than they don't know diddly about it. My brother and sister were swept away by the Baptist church because they were easily swayed by their arguments against Orthodoxy. Educating ourselves about our faith is so important!! Otherwise, as our parish priest put it to our youth a few weeks ago, "We are food for the wolves".

So now my daily struggle to evangelize is to watch my behaviour internally and externally. Forgive me for my ignorance in not knowing the source of the quote, but "save yourself and thousands around you will be saved" certainly applies here. This quote makes more sense to me every day!

I apologize for the ramble here. I seem to have drifted all over the place and it sounds like I have contradicted myself. I guess what I have been trying to say is that yes I think we are all called to evangelize, but this evangelization should come from our actions not our words or what we see as modern day "conventional" means of evangelization.

Did I make any sense? And please, anyone, correct me if I am wrong.

Forever trying to be "In Christ",
Katrina

[Elizabeth Hanson]

My dearest Katrina in Christ,

The quote you mentioned is from St. Seraphim of Sarov: "Acquire the Holy Spirit, and a thousand souls around you will be saved."

Your sister in Christ our God,
Elizabeth

[Katrina Delsante]

Thank you Elizabeth for the source and the correction of the quote!

My personal argument remains the same even with the correction. My daily struggle with acquiring the Holy Spirit and not offending Him by my selfish and prideful actions is an ongoing battle. I cannot be an example to others without the Holy Spirit. I wouldn't want to. It seems awfully dangerous!

Lord Jesus Christ, Son Of God, Have Mercy On Me A Sinner!

Katrina

[Elizabeth Hanson]

My dearest Katrina:

My Orthodox Priest told us to say nightly prayers as a family and to confess our sins to one another. At first my son would sneak into bed and fall asleep so that he could avoid this nervous ordeal. Then, my husband would say that he had some last minute work to do and asked to be excused, or he too would sneak off to bed without our saying prayers together. However, our priest persisted and corrected us whenever we mentioned that we had not prayed as a family.

Finally a good habit was formed. Our marriage has improved and our son has a very nice disposition. People come up to me tell me that they admire his good behavior.

Thank you Lord Jesus for blessing me with a good spiritual Father.

O Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, through the intercessions of Thine Immaculate Mother, and of all Thy Saints have mercy upon me, and save me a sinner, for Thou art a merciful God, and lovest mankind. Amen.

Lovingly in Christ,
Elizabeth

(Message edited by chanterhanson on 27 July, 2003)

[Elizabeth Hanson]

Re: Recent Balamand Agreement violations

This is taken from the Internet:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-religion/950628/posts

Re: The Dominican Sisters of Nashville, TN

Last week, friends Katie Vaughan, 17, and Katherine Melton, 18, of Charleston, S.C., visited the Motherhouse. The recent high school graduates of Bishop England High School in Charleston, S.C., are contemplating entering the convent.

"I'm a convert. I came into the Catholic religion this year," Melton said, adding that she converted from Greek Orthodox.

"I've always been Catholic," Katie Vaughan said.

Comment -
Yet, the Orthodox seem to be strictly abiding by the Balamand Agreement.

This news was dated July 20, 2003

[Justin]

Balamand is about word games. Very few people, except for professional ecumenists, cared about the Balamand agreement for the better part of the mid to late 90's. Many traditionalists, Mount Athos, and even not a small number of moderate Orthodox Christians spoke out against Balamand. Which is really quite amazing since probably something like 98% of the Orthodox in the world have never heard of the Balamand agreement. The only exceptions to these negative reactions are further statements made by the same type of ecumenical theologians that were responsible for the balamand agreement, the monophysite communion debacle, etc. to begin with. The joint Catholic-Orthodox statement on baptism from a few years ago, in which each Church recognizes the other Church's baptism, is one such example. Beyond this type of ecumenical discussion and word games, I've rarely heard of anyone giving any weight to the document (from both the Orthodox and the Catholic side).

[Justin]

PS. I do apologize for the above, I realise that it was uncharitable. I'm just not sure what to call it other than word games. How many regular Orthodox Christians have ever heard of Balamand? How many know that some Catholics and Orthodox theologians recognized the baptism of the others? How many know that monophysites now commune in Orthodox Churches all over the world (including America), and that there may soon (or even now) be concelebrations between the monophysite and Orthodox bishops? Other than a few eggheads, a few gossipers, a few professional ecumenists, and the priests who are given orders "from above" to start communing heretics, how many Orthodox people know of such things? Please forgive me if it seems like games (albeit deadly games) to me.

[Elizabeth Hanson]

Dearest Justin and other members of this forum:

Ecumenism raises some very difficult questions but the poor catechumens do seem to get caught in the middle.

Re: Reception into Orthodoxy by Baptism or Chrismation

In the Antiochian, OCA and Greek dioceses, the Bishop of each diocese decides. However, it does seem to be a general rule that those Protestants and Catholics who were given a recognized Trinitarian Baptism are accepted into Orthodoxy through Chrismation, Holy Confession, and Holy Communion; they are not rebaptized.

Then there is the question of who can be a sponsor for baptism. In many parishes (Greek and Antiochian) the priest allows a Catholic to be a godparent as long as one sponsor is Orthodox. Now is this practice allowed by the bishops or is the priest just doing his own thing? Are the lifting of the anathemas done in the 1960s by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagorus recognized as valid now?

This practice really confuses the child who is raised up going to both churches. I know one child who was beaten up by some Orthodox youths when he responded that he was an Orthodox Roman Catholic who went to both Churches. That's sad. His mother pulled him out of the Orthodox church. Now he's Catholic.

Perhaps there is an Antiochian or Greek priest online who can shed some light on this controversial subject.

Almost every priest of the Antiochian and Greek archdiocese whom I have met is careful not to violate the Balamand Agreement. Some of these priests have even boasted that they have encouraged Catholic inquirers to return to the Catholic Church. However, it seems that Roman Catholic priests are being told that they can give Holy Communion to the Orthodox, so many do. There does seem to be some confusion here.

When people convert to the ROCOR, does the ROCOR automatically baptize all non-Orthodox Christians (Protestants and Catholics) who previously received a Trinitarian Baptism? Or is this decision left up to the individual bishop?

Your sister in Christ,
Elizabeth


(Message edited by chanterhanson on 28 July, 2003)

[George Hawkins]

In response to Justin,
It is quite a worry that Monophysites may take Holy Communion in some Orthodox Churches, as they are, after all, not Orthodox, and their understanding of Jesus is different to ours. I remember in Japan there were some Ethiopian monophysites who while they attended the Orthodox Liturgy, were of course unable to take Communion, though some have, I understand had their children born in Japan Baptised into the Orthodox Church of Japan. The Ethiopians would always take off their shoes before entering Church.
George H

[Elizabeth]

My dearest friends in Christ:

An acquaintance of mine was looking into Catholicism but is now becoming very discouraged with all the changes going on in the Catholic Church. He is now looking into Orthodoxy and here is his observation:

Well the Bible wasn't canonized, and then diminished, like the other practices I mentioned. However, priests were allowed to marry, and then they weren't. People were penanced for years, and then they weren't. Fasting was compulsory, and then it wasn't. This puzzles me.

Lovingly in Christ,
E. Hanson

[John Wilson]

You may be interested to know that it was originally the practise of all orthodox christians to take off their shoes before entering the church. Its one of the things that Mohammed copied from the church when he created Islam.

John

[Elizabeth]

Dearest John:

The Coptic Christians still take their shoes off before entering their church as a sign of respect.

The Moslems took many of our customs: prostrations; fastings; feast days; we face East, they fact Mecca; praying at set times during the day; wearing the veil (but they carry it to extremes); church architecture (minus the icons); finally look at their Quran - it has many passages from the Old and New Testaments.

[Fr Averky]

Dear Just,

Perhaps you are right; perhaps there are many people who have not heard of the Balamand Agreement, but its effect is being felt, and on many levels. As you know, our Church suffered a schism just a few years ago. Only a handlful of people left, but its effect on the life on our Church has been very great; Balamand was signed by representatives of several of the local Orthdodox Churches. As I think I pointed out, the Latins made no concessions or compromises, but the Orthodox did, and therein lies the danger. Agreements were also reached between Nestorian and Orthodox Christians, allowing for clergy of either Church to perform some of the Mysteries like baptisms and weddings. It might seem insignificant at the moment, but a foul seed has been planted, and I fear its dangerous harvest.

Fr. A.

[Herman Blaydoe]

An acquaintance of mine was looking into Catholicism but is now becoming very discouraged with all the changes going on in the Catholic Church. He is now looking into Orthodoxy and here is his observation:

Well the Bible wasn't canonized, and then diminished, like the other practices I mentioned. However, priests were allowed to marry, and then they weren't. People were penanced for years, and then they weren't. Fasting was compulsory, and then it wasn't. This puzzles me.

Is this person commenting on the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church? It is difficult to tell from the way it is worded. If he is talking about Catholicism, we don't need to discuss it in this forum I think, we are not here to complain about Catholicism but to discuss Orthodoxy. If these comments pertain to Orthodox Churches then I am the one who is puzzled.

[Elizabeth]

My dearest Herman and fellow members of this forum:

Sorry for the confusion. It was very hot and humid over here with thunderstorms. I was not thinking clearly.

quote:

An acquaintance of mine was looking into Catholicism but is now becoming very discouraged with all the changes going on in the Catholic Church. He is now looking into Orthodoxy and here is his observation:

Well the Bible wasn't canonized, and then diminished, like the other practices I mentioned. However, priests were allowed to marry, and then they weren't. People were penanced for years, and then they weren't. Fasting was compulsory, and then it wasn't. This puzzles me.

The young man in question made the italicized statement concerning Catholicism. Please pray for him. He is now looking into Orthodoxy, but he cannot understand the canonical differences in the Catholic Church or in the Orthodox Church. Some Holy Canons rule on church discipline while others rule on dogmas. How can you tell the difference between tradition with a "big T" and a "little T" as the Catholics would say?

His main hurtle with Orthodoxy is the "whims" of the bishops in the reception of previously baptized Catholics: some mandating baptism while others mandate chrismation, or the reception of the candidate by reciting the Creed and receiving Holy Communion. On the other hand, Protestant candidates can be accepted by Baptism or Chrismation depending on the Bishop's decision.

Perhaps it boils down to this: the Orthodox hierarchs seem to be fighting among themselves calling each other heretics and excommunicating each other over Ecumenism and the poor catechumens are caught in the middle in their search for the truth.

I hope I have clarified the problem. He's asking me to explain all this and I don't really know the answer except that we are all sinners in need of God's mercy.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us and save us.

Lovingly in Christ our God,

Mrs. Hanson

(Message edited by chanterhanson on 29 July, 2003)

[Elizabeth]

Perhaps I can put it bluntly:

How can we Orthodox evangelize the world if we are divided in the faith?

[Justin]

Father A.,

Yes, I'm sorry if it seems like I take the Balamand thing lightly... I don't take it lightly so much as worrying that it's mostly unknown. So are a lot of things done in the Orthodox world. The priest who married me (an Antiochian, a good man), for example, was told one day (essentially) "Patriarch Ignatius IV and Met. Philip require that you admit monophysites to communion if they need it" (of course they didn't call them monophysites). I've been in two Antiochian Churches where this was done in, in both Churches the people seemed like a typical congregation (certainly no lack of piety) and the priest were very nice, intelligent, fellows. Yet now they're told to commune monophysites, and most people in the Church probably have no clue that they're communing and praying with monophysites. When this stuff becomes so common place that to question it will be seen as an "attack by fringe extremists," then I'll really worry. For now, I'm just saddened (and don't take it lightly, of course).

Also, I must admit that I should not have made such sweeping generalisations as I did in the last two posts. ROCOR's 1983 anathema of ecumenism is probably unknown to 98% of Orthodoxy to, but that doesn't make it "word games". With that in mind, I apologize for using such a term. I still do think there is a great difference between the two documents (the 1983 anathema and the balamand agreement) in many ways, but having thought about it I should not have been so hasty with my words. I wonder if I'm falling into the same pit in this post. :-|


Mrs. Hanson,

For what it's worth, I've not seen any Orthodox hierach condemn or any council excommunicate any other hierarch or Church. I've seen sectarian bishops make bold claims, but nothing more.

[Herman Blaydoe]

How can we Orthodox evangelize the world if we are divided in the faith?

1 Corinthians 3:3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?

Divisions happen. They have happened and they will continue to happen. Have there ever been any halcyon days of the Church? Some of what we perceive as "division" is often merely a tension, the pull and tug that helps keep the Church on the Path of Salvation. There will always be controversies and disagreements, sometimes they cause division. That is not my problem. I don't have to save the Church. According to the Holy Apostle, this is what I have to do:

"But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you are blessed. 'And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled.' But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed."
1 Peter 3:14-16

How can we evangelize the world if we are divided in our own hearts? We must show evidence of hope, to the point that those around us feel moved to ask us to defend it, and be ready at all times to do so, yes? Good conscience, meekness, fear. When I have those in myself, I will worry about sharing them with others, but that is just me.

Herman the simple

[Herman Blaydoe]

Truth is a fine thing. But it is NOT the whole picture. Is correctly defining "Truth" the greatest commandment? Is it not to love the Lord above all else and your neighbor as yourself?

You can explain and proclaim the "Truth" as much and as loudly as you want, but as St. Paul says:

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.
1 Corinthians 13:1

The only hope I have of convincing anybody of anything is if that person can see Christ in me. Beyond that I can only pray for that particular person that God send them Christ, if not through me then through some other Godly person.

<font size="-2">Your mileage may vary, not legal in all states, consult a physician/priest before taking any medication/advice.</font>

OK, I&#39;m going to shut up for awhile, honest.

[A Desert Aspirant]

Removing shoes before entering a sanctuary, and a home, is customary in the East. India&#39;s sadhus often face east for their meditations. In a Philokalia chapter, A Discourse on Abba Philimon it says &#34;... again he sat down, facing eastward, and alternately chanted psalms....&#34;

[John P. Nasou]

To E. Hanson, post number 39

I agree with you that there is much high level confusion over what is = Dogma, Holy Tradition, and &#34;tradition.&#34; These varied misconceptions are = the very basis for all the name calling, uncalled for &#34;anathemas&#34; and = &#34;schisms.&#34; Moreover, many highly authoritarian hierarchs are arguing = over points that thorough historical and biblical exegesis shows that = are not true Orthodox practices or teachings. Many of the changes = wrought by Vatican II of the Latin Catholic church were corrections of = such invalid policies. Orthodoxy has been under great stress through the = past two millenia from its Graeco-Roman Emperors and heretical or = non-Christian conquerors that it has not been in a position to call = PanOrthodox councils to straighten them out. It is forced to depend on = the rulings of hundreds of local councils. Even some rulings of the = Ecumenical Councils are based entirely on then-current social = conditions. For example, the Julian Calendar on which our Paschal Date = is based was the only calendar available at that time, other than the = Hebrew Calendar which they did not even consider because of the then = prevalent antisemitic feelings of Rome. Yet history shows that = Mid-eastern prelates of the immediate postapostolic period followed the = Jewish Calendar and Passover &#34;as had our Father St. John the Apostle&#34;. = If it was good enough for the Apostles, why was it not good enough for = us? Yet there are so many of our people who consider it anathema to = change our calendar and insist on using a pagan calendar which is = grossly out of line with God&#39;s creation of the seasons. Which is the = greatest sin: to change the calendar or to observe fictitious seasons by = ignoring what God has created? - John P. Nasou, M.D. =20

[Padraeg]

Having skimmed the many posts in this area, here is my initila post ever:
ALTHO I agree completely with the losses cited of original Christianity, eg, ordaining practicing homosexuals, I hope there is a better way to protect truth without animosity. I don't believe current pope is evil, and I do believe Pope JP2 was saintly, tho not necessarily infallible.

My impression is that Peter was chosen as the first 'Pope,' but that is a tilte that could reside in Moscow, or Athens as easliy as Rome. Perhaps under a differnet name, even 'first among equals.' So much semantics confuse me, I am interested in the truth, and the obligation of Christians to 'go forth and proclaim the word.' I am much more inspired by the first milennium of Christianity than the secend. That is my model, and HOPE, which clearly would put Orthodoxy in the lead. But I don't think anyone has a monopoly in proclaiming perfect truth completely, unless we have some true supernaturals in any hierarchy.

So, my question: Is there any particular link focused on what can be done to unite the 2 closest communions continuing Christianity?

I am frustrated that more open proseletyzing is not done by BOTH Orthodox and Latin, such that more error is spread than either Orth or Latin churches contain.

In Latin America, I'd love to see Orthodox take up some burden of proclaiming Gospels, but in Russian, where Evangelicals grow fastest, Orthodox should welcome any such contribution from Latin.

I am interesting in any response that will consider the fundamental statistical model that accepts that wherever a new church enters another's 'so-called' territory, the current residence will lose market share.

I belive that truth becomes more clear when subjected to the best competition. Hopefully we are beyond any more physical violence, and now must work to undo that burden from the past.

Your comments great appreciated.


My dearest friends in Christ:

An acquaintance of mine was looking into Catholicism but is now becoming very discouraged with all the changes going on in the Catholic Church. He is now looking into Orthodoxy and here is his observation:

Well the Bible wasn't canonized, and then diminished, like the other practices I mentioned. However, priests were allowed to marry, and then they weren't. People were penanced for years, and then they weren't. Fasting was compulsory, and then it wasn't. This puzzles me.

Lovingly in Christ,
E. Hanson

[Nina]

Here in the USA, the SCOBA bishops feel bound by the Balamand Agreement (an international agreement signed between certain hierarchs in the Roman Catholic Church and in the Orthodox Church). Therefore, they will not evangelize Roman Catholics. When I converted to Orthodoxy from the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Bishop told me that I would never be able to return to the Catholic Church because of the Balamand Agreement. During my search of the Orthodox Church, I was told not to alienate myself from the Catholic Church. Only when the Orthodox Priest realized that I no longer believed in the Pope nor in Papal infallibility did he feel free to offer me instructions in the Holy Faith. That process took me three years.

I have known several Roman Catholics who looked into the Orthodox Church only to be refused instruction by the Orthodox Priest. In these cases, they were told about the Balamand Agreement. They were also told that unevenly yoked spouses suffer more divorces.

Hopefully this answers some questions.

Your sister in Christ,
Elizabeth

Wow! I never knew about Balamand Agreement. What does it mean in the last sentence of the last paragraph 'yoked spouses'. I know what yoke is and what spouse is, but I do not understand. Can someone please explain?

[Paul Cowan]

Yoked spouses I believe refer to spouses of two different Faiths. I can't say for certainity, but I don't think the Balamand agreement is observed by all priests.

Paul

[Nina]

Yoked spouses I believe refer to spouses of two different Faiths. I can't say for certainity, but I don't think the Balamand agreement is observed by all priests.

Paul

Wow to belong to two different faiths means also to be yoked?

I do not obey to Balamand agreement anyway. ;) Daily I tell my fiance something about Orthodoxy.

[Paul Cowan]

No, it means you are not yoked if you are of two different faiths.

[Irene]

I can't say for certainity, but I don't think the Balamand agreement is observed by all priests.


The Balamand Agreement (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/athos_bal.aspx)



The following delegates participated in the Seventh Plenary Session of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, held at Balamand School of Theology, Lebanon, 17-24 June 1993.

From the Eastern Orthodox Churches:

Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople:
His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos of Australia Orthodox Co-President of the Joint International Commission

Patriarchate of Alexandria:
His Eminence Metropolitan Dionysios of Nubia
Professor Constantine Patelos

Patriarchate of Antioch:
His Eminence Metropolitan George of Byblos and Botrys
Father Archimandrite Youhanna (Yazigi)

Church of Russia: (Moscow Patriarch)
Father Hegumen Nestor (Zhilyaev)

Church of Romania:
His Eminence Metropolitan Antonie of Transylvania
Father Archpriest Dumitru Radu

Church of Cyprus:
His Eminence Metropolitan Chrysanthos of Morphou
Professor Macarius Papachristophorou

Church of Poland:
Father Hieromonk Barsanuphius (Doroszkiewicz)

Church of Albania:
Professor Theodoros Papapavli

Church of Finland:
His Grace Bishop Ambrosius of Joensocu

Executive Secretary:
His Eminence Metropolitan Spyridon of Italy

[The Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and the Churches of Georgia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, and Czechoslovakia were not represented.]

Originally published in Eastern Churches Journal 1:1, pp. 17-27.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Wow! I never knew about Balamand Agreement. What does it mean in the last sentence of the last paragraph 'yoked spouses'. I know what yoke is and what spouse is, but I do not understand. Can someone please explain?

Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. (Matthew 11:29)

Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14)

Two different faiths, two different (unequal?) yokes.

[Father David Moser]

Yoked spouses I believe refer to spouses of two different Faiths. I can't say for certainity, but I don't think the Balamand agreement is observed by all priests.

Paul

Actually I don't know of any Orthodox jurisdiction that officially views Balamand as binding. The Balamand document (for those unfamiliar it was the product of an ecumenical dialogue a few decades ago) was not formally adopted or approved by any Orthodox Synod that I know. (it was signed by the delegates to the conference - some of whom were Orthodox bishops - but that only reflects the personal opinion of the signer until and unless the document is adopted by the Synod of Bishops that sent him as a delegate) This is not to say that in some places and at some times the Balamand agreement did not have influence in the actions of individual priests or bishops (as Elizabeth noted, it does) however, whatever influence remains is waning fast. The most recent Orthodox/Roman Catholic dialogue in Ravenna has produced another document which likewise has not been adopted officially by any Orthodox Church and which in some Churches is being actively dismissed by the hierarchs.

Fr David Moser

[James Blackstock]

Actually I don't know of any Orthodox jurisdiction that officially views Balamand as binding. The Balamand document (for those unfamiliar it was the product of an ecumenical dialogue a few decades ago) was not formally adopted or approved by any Orthodox Synod that I know. (it was signed by the delegates to the conference - some of whom were Orthodox bishops - but that only reflects the personal opinion of the signer until and unless the document is adopted by the Synod of Bishops that sent him as a delegate) This is not to say that in some places and at some times the Balamand agreement did not have influence in the actions of individual priests or bishops (as Elizabeth noted, it does) however, whatever influence remains is waning fast. The most recent Orthodox/Roman Catholic dialogue in Ravenna has produced another document which likewise has not been adopted officially by any Orthodox Church and which in some Churches is being actively dismissed by the hierarchs.

Fr David Moser

Dear Fr David:

I am really curious, do the hierarchs of our church really ever consider the opinions of the laity? surely they must have staff who are familiar with the dialogue on various Orthodox forums. Do they not recognize the very strong opinions expressed in this genre? The people posting on these forums are people who in the main are saddened and confused by the actions of our Bishops regarding all the issues posted concerning chrismation without baptism, ecumenism, the Balamand Agreement, the apparent lack of respect and dialogue with monastic communities, etc., etc. ad nausem. I don't want to be unkind, but these issues are not some isolated little problem that has no effect on the Faith once given to the Apostles. It seems to me that these questions demand answers from our hierarchy that never come. I am aware that the wheels of the church grind slowly, but these issues are not new! What conclusions are we to draw from this apparent lack of response? That there are some in power who act in accordance with their own agendas? That these times will pass and all will be well some time in the future? I have always been a fan of Fr Seraphim Rose whose opinion was that it is later than we think! Frankly, I think we need to be concerned! The Greeks have a saying; "The fish rots from the head down" are they right? Perhaps it is unfair of me to ask these questions of you because from the many posts I have read by you, I am sure that you are one who cares and tries hard to say and do the right things, but frankly I don't think they send you emails on this stuff for your opinion. I am fervently praying for my Church!

INXC,
Seraphim

[Michael Stickles]

What does it mean in the last sentence of the last paragraph 'yoked spouses'. I know what yoke is and what spouse is, but I do not understand. Can someone please explain?

You need to look at the whole phrase: 'unevenly yoked spouses'. Spouses are already yoked together by the 'bonds of matrimony', but the yoke can be 'even' or 'uneven'. Paul, in 2 Corinthians 6:14, used "unequally yoked" to refer to "bound" relationships (such as marriage) between believers and unbelievers.

Think of two similarly-sized oxen yoked to a plow. The yoke will rest evenly across their "shoulders", and they can plow efficiently and in straight lines. Now, take out one ox and replace it with a donkey. The yoke will no longer rest evenly, and plowing a straight line will be very difficult (at best). So it is when one spouse is a believer and the other is not. I have, occasionaly, also seen "unequally yoked" used to refer to spouses who are members of different (and seriously differing) Christian churches.

I'm not sure (given the context) of the point of the warning about unevenly yoked spouses suffering more divorces, unless it was given to married Catholics investigating Orthodoxy apart from their spouses.

In Christ,
Mike

[Father David Moser]

Dear Fr David:

I am really curious, do the hierarchs of our church really ever consider the opinions of the laity? surely they must have staff who are familiar with the dialogue on various Orthodox forums.

Serpahim,

I note that you are in the GOA. It is hard for me to speak about the leadership of the GOA since it is generally outside my experience. My only real contacts are a couple of personal friends who are among the clergy. (Perhaps Fr Anthony could speak to the position of the GOA on this?) The Russian Church (of which I am a part) has not been unclear on its position - from the Patriarch on down. There is a delegation from Moscow that attends these meetings, but it is clear that they do not speak for the Church at large, but are present in order for the Holy Synod to be aware of what is going on.(Also there has been a significant shift in the visible position of the Russian Church away from ecumenical activities since the fall of their Soviet overseers) Sometimes things are signed by all present that are vague and general in meaning allowing every side to interpret it in its own light, but there is never any doubt on the part of the clergy or the people that if it goes up to the top and doesn't come back down through the hierarchy, it has no effect. Just because a document is produced and the Roman Catholic publication department report it in a certain way has no real meaning for Orthodox Christians. I choose to trust my hierarchs to "rightly divide the word of truth".

Fr David Moser

[Nina]

You need to look at the whole phrase: 'unevenly yoked spouses'. Spouses are already yoked together by the 'bonds of matrimony', but the yoke can be 'even' or 'uneven'. Paul, in 2 Corinthians 6:14, used "unequally yoked" to refer to "bound" relationships (such as marriage) between believers and unbelievers.

Think of two similarly-sized oxen yoked to a plow. The yoke will rest evenly across their "shoulders", and they can plow efficiently and in straight lines. Now, take out one ox and replace it with a donkey. The yoke will no longer rest evenly, and plowing a straight line will be very difficult (at best). So it is when one spouse is a believer and the other is not. I have, occasionaly, also seen "unequally yoked" used to refer to spouses who are members of different (and seriously differing) Christian churches.

I'm not sure (given the context) of the point of the warning about unevenly yoked spouses suffering more divorces, unless it was given to married Catholics investigating Orthodoxy apart from their spouses.

In Christ,
Mike

Dear Mike,

Thank you for your very good and thorough explanation. :) The example with the oxen was also in my mind last night when I was thinking about this. However what puzzled me is the 'unevenly yoked spouses' in a context of Catholics and Orthodox (since the talk here is about Balamand agreement and evangelism/proselytism). If the other person is Christian why would that be an uneven yoke? It is not that Catholics and Protestants are unbelievers. And Saint Paul in his advise distinguishes clearly between believers and unbelievers.

[Andrew]

The Balamand Agreement is heretical... it's basis is in "Baptismal Theology," which is basically a modified version of the Branch Church heresy. The Orthodox Church is the Church. Salvation is within her, and to deny the opportunity of entrance into the Body of Christ to not upset the Pope is silly. What would St. Mark of Ephesus say about all of this?

The creation of saints is the greatest mission of evangelism. A holy man sanctifies the area around him and is a spiritual magnet, drawing others towards him, towards Christ who lives within him. Technology, slick marketing, and jurisdictional unity are not the keys to evangelism in the modern world. Fidelity to the deifiying mysteries of Christ in the ascetical-sacramental life of the Church is the key to true evangelism.

[Mary]

If the other person is Christian why would that be an uneven yoke? It is not that Catholics and Protestants are unbelievers. And Saint Paul in his advise distinguishes clearly between believers and unbelievers.

Orthodoxy is as different from Catholicism and Protestantism, as the difference between believers and unbelievers. On the surface, the similarities seem small, but the deeper you get, the further apart you get. That's why, we're not even one with our own family and friends anymore... just two years ago, we were one with them. We've especially been cut off from those with whom we had the deepest spiritual connections, in fact, that severing, was quite painful.

In Christ,
Mary.

[Sean M.]

The Balamand Agreement is heretical... it's basis is in "Baptismal Theology," which is basically a modified version of the Branch Church heresy. The Orthodox Church is the Church. Salvation is within her, and to deny the opportunity of entrance into the Body of Christ to not upset the Pope is silly. What would St. Mark of Ephesus say about all of this?

The creation of saints is the greatest mission of evangelism. A holy man sanctifies the area around him and is a spiritual magnet, drawing others towards him, towards Christ who lives within him. Technology, slick marketing, and jurisdictional unity are not the keys to evangelism in the modern world. Fidelity to the deifiying mysteries of Christ in the ascetical-sacramental life of the Church is the key to true evangelism.

This works both ways, i'm all for people being able to evangelize where ever and however they like.

This would also open the door to the Catholic church in Russia.

[Owen Jones]

Since I started this thread, I suppose I ought to contribute something. But most of what I have to say on the subject, based on my personal experience and history, would come off sounding like sour grapes. And there is an intrinsic arrogance when trying to state how things ought to be, or how people ought to be doing things differently, whilst sitting at the keyboard of a computer, or by pointing to one's personal example of doing things differently. With that said, I attend a parish that, when compared to my old home in the Episcopal Church, is nothing short of a taste of heaven. However, when I compare it to the possibilities, it is quite nerve wracking. I can't help thinking that we are committing a grievous sin by keeping our light hidden in a basket. My way of looking at it is that if we don't give away what we have, we lose it. And we are simply clinging to what we have got and doing little or nothing to give it away. There are so many possibilities for evangelism that exist, that do not fit into the gross forms of American promotionalism, even little things that we could be doing, even in our own internal prayer lives, that it is difficult not to feel aroused by feelings of frustration and discontent. I can think of no greater area than that of education. And of course the Greek people still consider themselves to be a kind of repository of classical wisdom, both Christian and philosophical, including the mathematical arts, architecture and aesthetics. As one humanities teacher of mine many years ago put it, the Greeks had a word for it. So why not respond to the hunger of many wrong people today for something other than ideological nostrums in education? How about some stronger presence on our college campuses? What about a national magazine for college students that draws from our knowledge of the spiritual life, and what it means to live in an anti-spiritual environment. With all of the experimentation going on with exotic spiritualities, why not offer an experimental approach to young people? But it seems like we are operating on the principle that what is at rest stays at rest.

[Rick H.]

It seems that while operating in fear of a spiritual ADHD setting in (akin to what is perceived as an Evangelical-Protestant hyperactivity), there is an opting for a mode that manifests itself as a spiritual autism which provides a status quo that is in deed severely introverted and in this sense most sinful. It seems the thinking here is to hide that light lest someone would attempt to blow it out. I wonder what the Apostle Paul would have to say about this way of being in the Church today? I think I know what he would say.

[Nina]

And of course the Greek people still consider themselves to be a kind of repository of classical wisdom, both Christian and philosophical, including the mathematical arts, architecture and aesthetics. As one humanities teacher of mine many years ago put it, the Greeks had a word for it.

LOL A word for it? That is why Washington DC (not to mention other cities) looks more Greek than Athens itself?

[Paul Cowan]

This is a speech from Metropolitan Jonah (http://southern-orthodoxy.blogspot.com/)from Fr. Joseph Homeycut's blog; Orthodoxie. In case the exact segment does not show, look in the archives under January 3, 2009.

[Andrew Pantelli]

Orthodoxy is as different from Catholicism and Protestantism, as the difference between believers and unbelievers. On the surface, the similarities seem small, but the deeper you get, the further apart you get. That's why, we're not even one with our own family and friends anymore... just two years ago, we were one with them. We've especially been cut off from those with whom we had the deepest spiritual connections, in fact, that severing, was quite painful.

In Christ,
Mary.

Romans 10:15 "How beautiful are thre feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring tidings of good things!"

There are differences between us, but what is it that bonds us? Our love of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ! Should we not be showing and telling people about what He has done for us in our lives.


In Christ Alone Andy