Orthodoxy and Catholicism

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Richard, and anyone else,

I have a few questionons about the list you posted. Is it true that you (Orhtodox) hold to the Immaculate Conseption without being explicit about it? Does anyone know of a list of this sort the Orthodox have for RC's coming into the Church?
Does anyone know where I might find such a Catholic list for Lutherans coming into the RC? And finally, what about an Orthodox list for Lutherans coming into the Orthodox Church?

Then, I'd like to say, FWIW, Lutherans are officially with what this list says Orthodoxy is on points 1, 2, 3, & 6. We likewise (?) reject (as you might easily guess) Immaculate Conception (explicitly and implicitly). We are with THEM on when the change regarding the Holy Gifts occurs, but we reject "change" language, because we reject any idea that bread and wine aren't still also present. Thus, we oppose "transsubtantiation" in any Aristotelian understanding of the material (sic) universe.

I appreciated the list, thanks Richard,

Yours,

Richard L.

[Fr Averky]

Dear Richard,

The only well-know Orthodox person who has stated that the dogma of the "Immaculate Conception" is held by some Orthodox Christians, is Bishop Kallistos Ware, who shows less and less inclination to keep to Traditional Orthodox thought as time goes by.

I was taught that we do not accept the Immaculate Conception because its entire premise is an error, insofar as we do not believe in Original Sin as do the Latins.

A good list for Orthodox to ask a Roman Catholic to renounce would be the very list that that Catholic bishop mentioned and then some.

As far as the Divine Eucharist-we believe the bread and wine remain so in appearance, but they in fact are the Body and Blood of Christ. In the life of St. John of Kronstadt, it is realted that once while he was serving the Divine Liturgy-just before communion he looked into the chalice and saw actual flesh. A similar occurence took place in the Holy Land not too long ago. It is a great Mystery, one into which we dare not delve.

With the love of Christ,

Fr. A.

[Fr Averky]

Dear Richard Leigh,

I have a question, also not for arguement's sake:

The Orthodox Church believes that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ during the epiclesis, the invocation of the Holy Spirit on the Gifts. This liturgical spiritual action can only be accomplished by a priest who has been rightly ordained and thus has been given the particular Grace to do so.

Now, if Martin Luther abolished Holy Orders as a sacrament, and therefore there is no Apostolic episcopacy, and thus no real ordinations in the sense of being a sacrament, by what means do the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ? This is something I have wondered about for years.

Can you help me understand this please?

Respectfully yours,

Fr.A.

[Herman Blaydoe]

The only well-know Orthodox person who has stated that the dogma of the "Immaculate Conception" is held by some Orthodox Christians, is Bishop Kallistos Ware, who shows less and less inclination to keep to Traditional Orthodox thought as time goes by.

Father bless,

I do not believe this is a correct statement. Bishop Kallistos has been misquoted on more than one occasion by the Catholics. I do have evidence from an Orthodox Christian who IS, for some reason, very attached to the idea of the IC. But his website actually quotes Bishop Kallistos as AGAINST the idea. The website reports that the bishop responded to this young man's inquiry as to the Orthodox position thus:

In sharing my thoughts with Greek Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, he informed me by letter that he "personally does not believe the doctrine as it changes all of history of mankind".

The "quotes" by those who claim that he supports the ordination of women are also very overstated and out of context. Being a simple person, I prefer to simply take him at his word. He does NOT support either the ordination of women or the teaching of the immaculate conception as far as I know.

And to Richard:


I have a few questionons about the list you posted. Is it true that you (Orhtodox) hold to the Immaculate Conseption without being explicit about it? Does anyone know of a list of this sort the Orthodox have for RC's coming into the Church?

Not true. It takes a Jesuitical logic to twist anything the Orthodox teach into being even favorable to the idea of IC. Orthodoxy holds that such a teaching flies in the face of Orthodox theology. The Theotokos was no more immaculately conceived than you or I were. One Church Father went so far as to say that whatever part of humanity that Christ did not assume was NOT REDEEMED. If Christ came from a mother without sin, then He did not assume our sins for us. Or something like that. I know that I am not explaining it well, but I hope you get the idea, but the idea of the IC basically stand Orthodox theology on its head, regardless of what some misguided Orthodox and agenda-driven Catholics seem to say.

Or so it seems to this simple mind.

Herman the simple

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Father Averky and Herman,

Thank you for your information on the IC. I didn't think it was Orthodox teaching and precisely for the reason that it is only logically "required" if in fact death is the result of sin, and the Blessed Virgin ascended alive into Heaven. I already understand that Orthodox teaching is that sin results from fear of death, but also that the Theotikos "fell asleep."

Yours,

Richard

[M. Rallis]

Dear Richard McBride:

I wonder if a reasonable addition to your list would be the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit which is implicit in labeling the Orthodox as being “schismatic”? Of course, since your list is comprised of the differences in their “own words”, I guess I’ve answered my own question.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Father Averky,

Father bless.


Now, if Martin Luther abolished Holy Orders as a sacrament, and therefore there is no Apostolic episcopacy, and thus no real ordinations in the sense of being a sacrament, by what means do the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ?

What Luther abolished was not Holy Orders as a Sacrament but the Mass thought of in terms of a repetition of Christ's sacrifice on the cross offered to merit forgiveness of sins and the guilt of sin. Or, in a word "priestcraft" which bound the consciences of the people.

He did deny that "anything is given at the laying on of hands", but he had a high regard for the office of the ministry, without which the church could not do, if only for the sake of order. Specifically though, we are taught that the church (generically speaking) exists where the word (in Law and Gospel) is preached and the sacraments (i.e., Holy Baptism and Holy Communion) are administered rightly. This presupposes a congregation of hearers and partakers, and the "true" church consists then, along with the preaching and administration, but the hearing with faith. So, there has to be a priest or pastor.

I won't belabor this here any more, but get to your real question. We say, with our Latin forebearers that it is the Word that makes the sacrament what it is, and the Verbum ("This is My Body, This is My Blood) pronounced by Jesus is what makes the sacrament what it is. We are to hear the pastor as Jesus Himself.

The Authority for the pastor to be the pastor is vested in the congregation, and Luther taught that "the Pastor is Bishop of the church he pastors"). We consider, technically, anything else a man-made arrangement, which will have God's blessing because (a) He has not forbidden it and (b) order is necessary for getting things done. Thus, in any denominational sense, it is the church's right and duty to determine how best to get the work done, and having so decided to do so. The bare bones of what God requires, we say, is the ministry and congregation.

Thus, we believe that our members recieve the true body and blood of Christ to their forgiveness when they believe the words "given and shed for you for your forgiveness," and to their spiritual heart if they partake not believing.

So, there it is, and, thanks for asking!

Richard

P.s., Melanchthon even said in the Aopology to the Augsburg Confession that we are willing to accept ordination as a sacrament when understood in terms of the duty to preach and administer the sacaraments. --RL

[Fr Averky]

Dear Herman,

Look at a recent edition of "The Orthodox Church," compare it with an earlier edition, and you will see changes. Bishop Kallistos only recently stated that he has come to believe that the ordination of women is an "open question." It very much struck me when I read his remarks concerning the IC.

Many years ago, I showed a print of a famous icon to the iconographer Archbishop Alypy. When I asked him if he liked it, he said, "No, it actually is a very poor icon." When I protested that this icon had been printed by hundreds of publishers over the years, Vladika replied "So, it simply means that all these publishers chose to print an inferior icon over and over again." So it can be with some opinions-because it has been given, it does not mean that it is true or wise...

As with so many converts, The Orthodox Church was my introduction to the Church. Many monastics I know tell me that they only recommend earlier editions. As with my statements concerning publications of the St. Herman Brotherhood, I trust only recognized Fathers, and that happens to be my own personal preference. I will tell you that we no longer carry The Orthodox Church in our book store. This started only after the most recent edition.

In Christ,
Fr. A.

[Fr Averky]

Herman,

In regards to Bishop Kallistos' statement concerning ordination of women, a link was posted on Monachos in which an interview with the bishop is printed out. Thus, the statement I just made came from his words in the interview. I do not mean to offend the good bishop, for he is very respectful and helpful to our Church, in which he began his Orthodox life.

I am sorry, for I did not intend to start an arguement, or to defame a bishop of the Church.

Fr. A.

[Catholic]

Greetings all.
In regard to the list: the Roman Catholic Church does not, to my knowledge, refer to the Orthodox Church as 'schismatic' but rather recognizes it fully.
Also, I am not sure who these CMRI people are: I believe they're a 'splinter' group although it is confusing to try to look them up. At any rate, just for your information, these people may not even be in communion with Rome and therefore - if this is so - then this isn't a bishop.
In His love,
Catholic

[Richard McBride]

monochos: Orthodoxy & Catholicism

It is good that Catholic pointed out CMRI's shaky position.

CMRI stands for "Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen"

The following comes from their web page, entitled:
The History of CMRI http://www.cmri.org/history.htm
"This Congregation began in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, in 1967, as an association of lay Brothers and Sisters devoted to spreading the message of Our Lady of Fatima. The Congregation held its first General Chapter in July, 1986, at Mount St. Michael in Spokane, Washington. During this meeting, CMRI established its Rule and Constitutions. In the same year, the Rule was approved by Bishop Robert McKenna, O.P., whose episcopal lineage can be traced back to Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc. (Archbishop Thuc received extraordinary patriarchal powers from Pope Pius XI on March 15, 1938. By means of these faculties, he could legitimately consecrate bishops without the usual mandate from Rome. These faculties were renewed on December 8, 1939, by Pope Pius XII and were never rescinded.)"

Thus, they admit that they are one of the many many groups among world religions which seek some degree of legitimacy from some accepted source, but that they act entirely independently from that source.
We face these problems in the Orthodox pale; so everyone should understand that the list I posted at the head of this thread should NOT be taken as a list established by the Vatican. That was what I read into it, and I see it was wrong.
Again, thanks to Catholic for pointing this out.
richard mcb

[Fr Averky]

My dear Catholicc
and Richard McBride,

Thank you for you words and subsequent clarification. I believe that I stumbled on C.M.R.I's site once, and saw that they are one of theTradionalist hold-outs, sadly doomed to failure.

I would be far more interesed in how it came about that a former Orthodox bishop would fall into such delusion. He has lost his episcopacy, his priesthood, and will be judged as a fallen away monk. Poor man!

Fr. A.

[Catholic]

Mr. McBride:
I say this only for clarification and not to promote this as a discussion topic, but I did go to the link you gave here and the important part is that these people (as stated in their 'theological position' statement on the site) say that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are heretical AND state that in their view, the "New Mass" (Novus Ordo) is INVALID. These two postitions define this group to be separated from the Roman Catholic Church indeed. Thanks for pointing out the correct link.
When one becomes a Roman Catholic there's no list regarding one's former faith that one is to 'renounce,' but rather, one simply affirms in the ceremony of baptism or profession of faith (if already validly baptized) that one affirms ALL that the Roman Catholic Church teaches.
So, as you say, no, there's no 'list' such as this, although I suppose in one's studies one might find it helpful to make up a list as necessary for studying and reflection.
In His love,
Catholic

[Catholic]

Father, Bless!
I was writing my post at the same time you wrote yours and so missed your post till this moment.
I also recall reading on some other discussion board (when someone posted the link of the conversion of this individual) that this conversion did not occur in fact ... don't ask me how nor why, as I simply cannot recall the details... but suffice it to say that the Orthodox bishop in question may indeed still be Orthodox!
And now, back to ... whatever it was y'all were discussing ...
In His love,
Catholic

[Effie Ganatsios]

A Roman Catholic explanation of the schism of 1054 can be found at : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm


This is the last paragraph of this interesting paper.

"There is not really any question of doctrine involved. It is not a heresy, but a schism. The Decree of Florence made every possible concession to their feelings. There is no real reason why they should not sign that Decree now. They deny papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, they quarrel over purgatory, consecration by the words of institution, the procession of the Holy Ghost, in each case misrepresenting the dogma to which they object. It is not difficult to show that on all these points their own Fathers are with those of the Latin Church, which asks them only to return to the old teaching of their own Church.
That is the right attitude towards the Orthodox always. They have a horror of being latinized, of betraying the old Faith. One must always insist that there is no idea of latinizing them, that the old Faith is not incompatible with, but rather demands union with the chief see which their Fathers obeyed. In canon law they have nothing to change except such abuses as the sale of bishoprics and the Erastianism that their own better theologians deplore. Celibacy, azyme bread, and so on are Latin customs that no one thinks of forcing on them. They need not add the Filioque to the Creed; they will always keep their venerable rite untouched. Not a bishop need be moved, hardly a feast (except that of St. Photius on 6 Feb.) altered. All that is asked of them is to come back to where their Fathers stood, to treat Rome as Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom treated her. It is not Latins, it is they who have left the Faith of their Fathers. There is no humiliation in retracing one's steps when one has wandered down a mistaken road because of long-forgotten personal quarrels. They too must see how disastrous to the common cause is the scandal of the division. They too must wish to put an end to so crying an evil. And if they really wish it the way need not be difficult. For, indeed, after nine centuries of schism we may realize on both sides that it is not only the greatest it is also the most superfluous evil in Christendom. "

The Orthodox viewpoint concerning "the immaculate conception" : I didn't file the link - sorry!

"The doctrine of the place and person of the Virgin Mary in the Church is called "mariology." Both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism believe she is "Mother of God" (Theotokos, Deipare) and "the Ever-Virgin Mary."

However, the Orthodox reject the Roman Catholic "dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary," which was defined as "of the faith" by Pope Pius IX, on the 8th of December 1854. This dogma holds that from the first instant of her conception, the Blessed Virgin Mary was, by a most singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the human race, preserved from all stain of Original Sin. It is a doctrine revealed by God, and therefore to be firmly and steadfastly believed by all the faithful (from the Bull Ineffabilis Deus).
Such a theory has no basis in the Scriptures nor the Fathers. It contains many ideas (such as "the merits of Christ") likewise without apostolic foundation. The idea that the Lord and His Saints produced more grace than necessary. This excess may be applied to others, even those in purgatory (see below).

But to return: the Church does not accept the idea that the Mother of God was born with the (inherited) guilt of Adam; no one is. She did, however, inherit the mortality which comes to all on account of Adam's Fall.

Therefore, there is no need to do what Latin theologians have done. There is no reason to invent a theory to support the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. There is no need to teach that, on account of "the merits of Christ," the Holy Spirit was able to prevent her from inheriting the guilt of Adam.

In fact, she was born like every other human being. The Holy Spirit prepared the Virgin Mary for her role as the Mother of God. She was filled with the Uncreated Energy of the Holy Spirit of God in order that she might be a worthy vessel for the birth of Christ. Nevertheless, several of the Fathers observed that before the Resurrection of her Son, she had sinned. St. John Chrysostom mentions the Wedding at Cana where she presumed to instruct Him (John 2:3-4). Here was proof of her mortality.
Receiving the Holy Spirit once more at Pentecost, she was able to die without sin. Because of her special role in the Divine Plan ("economy" or "dispensation"), she was taken into the heavens, body and soul. She now sits at the foot of her Son, making intercession for all those who implore her mercy. The Orthodox Church honors the miracle of her "assumption" with a feast on 15 August; likewise, the followers of the Pope.
Both also believe in the intercessions of the Virgin Mary and all the Saints. Such intercessions reflect the unity of the Church in heaven and the Church on earth.
Both also believe that there is a sense in which the Mother of God is the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ. Those who belong to the Church are identified with Him. But He is also our "brother" (Rom. 8:29). If Christ is our brother, then, the Virgin Mary is our mother. But the Church is our mother through Baptism. Therefore, the Virgin Mary is the Church. "

Effie

[Effie Ganatsios]

The Catholic Encyclopedia site : http://www.newadvent.org/

At the moment I'm reading their explanation of what the Greek Orthodox church is.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06752a.htm

Roman Catholics apparently call it the Greek Church - without the Orthodox. Very enlightening as regards the way the Roman Catholics view churches other than their own.

It's sad that the views in this encyclopedia, which presumably are official and are read by men studying to become Roman Catholic priests, should be so negative. It would be so easy to list the negative aspects of the Roman Catholic faith but it would be unseemly on our part.

Effie

[Fr Averky]

Dear Catholic,

Sorry, but your last post left me totally confused...could you try again?

In our Saviour,

Fr. A.

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

Dear Richard L:

from my recollection of being "received" as an adult convert from the Church of England to the RC church, there was no list as such, but rather three months of instruction based on the catechism. Here is a link for the RC catechism, BTW.


CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION FIDEI DEPOSITUM

www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html)

the seeker

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Regarding the Immaculate Conception: I think perhaps it would do us some good not to be quite so swift in simply stating flat-out, end-of-statement, that the Roman Catholic doctrine of the 'Immaculate Conception' and the Orthodox understanding of the conception of the Mother of God are entirely and in every way opposed. As with so many other statements and issues, what we find here is that there are deeply important aspects behind the RC doctrine with which we Orthodox cannot agree; yet there are also many with which we do.

Let me try to indicate a few on each side. First we may discuss those points against: (1) The RC doctrine of the Immaculate Conception presupposes a view of 'original sin' as centred in imputed sinfulness and guilt which, as it is stated in RC dogma, the Orthodox reject. It is because all human persons are born with this 'congenital defect' that the Virgin's lifelong purity must, according to RC doctrine, be effected by a conception which frees her from this defect. This is the chief and fundamental point of doctrinal divergence between Orthodox and RC on the matter. (2) The immaculate birth of the Mother of God, as proclaimed by the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception, poses for the Orthodox an unacceptable change and contradistinction between her nature and that of the rest of humanity. She is no longer 'like me' in the sense that Orthodox theology has always proclaimed and required, and the alteration of such a view cannot be meshed with the larger doctrines of soteriology and christology which are built upon the nature of the birth of Christ and His mother. (3) The belief that sinlessness and absolute purity of life require a fundamental change in the nature of the human person, such as is represented in Mary's person according to the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception, is to some degree at odds with the Orthodox ascetical proclamation of transformation and divinisation. The nature which one day shall be perfect and the nature which this day wallows in sin are, for Orthodox, one and the same. It is purification, not alteration, that is the focus of Christian salvation, and the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception presents, if only nascently, a conflict with this understanding.

Nonetheless, there are points of similarity: (1) Many Fathers of the undivided Church proclaim without equivocation the view that the Mother of God was 'protected from sin' from 'before her birth', specifically so that she might be pure in her life and thus purely bear the Pure One. We might give reference to Jacob of Serug, Germanos of Constantinople, Ephrem of Syria, among others. These are not simply proclamations that the holy Virgin lived a pure life free from sin, but that God protected and prevented her from sin from the moment of her own birth. (2) Some Orthodox Fathers also proclaim that it was impossible for the Mother of God to sin, for this was not in her nature. Again, these are not suggestions that she simply didn't sin, but that she couldn't sin. Jacob and Germanos stand out particularly in this regard.

The above is not meant to suggest that our two churches in the end teach one and the same thing. I am unequivocally of the view that the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception destroys something of fundamental value in the person of the holy Virgin, and simply cannot be squared with Orthodox thought. But we ought also to understand that the pure life of Mary which the RC doctrine is an attempt to safeguard, is one which has been the object of considerable Orthodox reflection as well -- often to the employment of strikingly similar language. There are aspects of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception which are and should be held by Orthodox. But, as with so much else in Orthodox thought, it is the question of wholeness, completeness and fullness that warrants its rejection. The doctrine of Immaculate Conception presents some truths regarding the person of Mary, but not the full truth. In fact, we would say, it distorts that which it does not rightly proclaim in such a manner that even its right proclamations become challenged and suspect.

But when such individuals as Bishop Kallistos (Ware) suggest that some Orthodox hold to the view of the Immaculate Conception, perhaps we should consider that he does not mean an adherence to the Roman Catholic doctrine, but to the more fundamental issue of Mary's holy birth and sinless life -- which the Orthodox feasts of the Nativity of the Mother of God and the Presentation at the Temple clearly proclaim. I have not discussed this matter personally with him, but I have a suspicion that his remarks might be meant as a balance to overstatements to the opposite extreme. It is a situation akin to the rampant proclamations that Orthodoxy 'has no doctrine of original sin'. This is of course a nonsensical statement. The Orthodox Church has a very definite and pronounced understanding of original sin, it is simply not the same understanding as that held by Roman Catholics. So with the Mother of God, the Orthodox Church has a very pronounced belief in the sinlesness and purity of her person, even in the holiness and sanctity of her conception (which marks one of our great feasts), but we do not hold the same understanding as the RCC.

INXC, Matthew

[Catholic]

Thank you Matthew for the above on the IC which I'll be interested to read when I've time.
At the moment, I wanted to say to Fr. Averky that I meant to say that according to some people's posts on antother board, they seemed to be saying that this Orthodox bishop didn't convert as it appeared - and so there's the possiblility that he is still Orthodox. I can see why you were confused, since I don't recall precisely what was said, just that there was some doubt about the veracity of the report of the conversion. Whether they simply meant the conversion was not 'valid' (since these CMRI people are not really part of the RCC any more due to their views) or whether it never really happened or whether he re-embraced Orthodoxy - this I don't know. I just had a dim memory of this conversion having been discussed but I couldn't recall exactly what was said, which is why I said in my above post 'don't ask me for the details as I do not recall' ... hope that is clear. (It's clear that I don't know what happened - only that some people were talking about it!)

[Herman Blaydoe]

Father Bless,


Look at a recent edition of "The Orthodox Church," compare it with an earlier edition, and you will see changes. Bishop Kallistos only recently stated that he has come to believe that the ordination of women is an "open question." It very much struck me when I read his remarks concerning the IC.

The Bishop's comments have since been clarified. By "open question" he has further stated that, he is not attacking or questioning the Orthodox teaching, he is simply pointing out that, in his opinion, the Orthodox could do a better job in responding to WHY we hold this teaching, rather than to only say this is what we teach and don't question it. I understand him to be saying that when we ARE questioned, it would be nice to have a well-thought-out response, beyond words to the effect of "we don't do it and we won't do it and that's that" sort of thing. If he meant something other, or more, than that originally, I suspect he has been brought to heel on the subject.

Herman the simple

[Ken H]

Just a thought. New Advent is probably not a good source for contemporary ecumenical ideas. I believe what is posted there is the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia. It is certainly dated, for example, in issues of canon law. I suspect it is not representative of RC ecumenical thinking now either. Has anybody seen a quote from the Catechism as to the RC position vis a vis Orthodoxy?

[Effie Ganatsios]

Ken, this was the site that appeared to be the most official of all those that I found.

I wasn’t aware that the information on it was outdated. The site itself is supposed to be one of the best concerning information about the Roman Catholic church. If one of the Roman Catholic members has a link to a site that has more recent information and would like to post the link, I would really appreciate it.

Effie

[John Cowan]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church can be found at http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html . The relevant section on post-1960 views of the Orthodox Churches can be found in section 838 (go to http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/church3.html#CATHOLIC and scroll down to 838):

838 [...] With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."[324]

Footnote 324 refers to Pope Paul VI's discourse of 14 December 1975.

[Adam]

Glory to the Lord! My Dear All! I write on the forum very rarely, there are many reasons, but the most important is lackness of time. But I read your posts almost every day. I am a RC priest living in Poland, I have read many things about Orthodoxy and have some icons at home, pray before them and pray on the "chotki". But I have a lot of doubts. Sometimes I am sure that Orthodoxy is the one true Christianity. Otherwise I feel like someone who traits his own religion and have a bad counsciense. Please pray for me . May Our Lord let me see where the Truth is and give to my troubled heart a little peace.
I have a question: is it possible and useful for someone who is not Orthodox formally to pray before Holy Icons and use "chotki" by Jesus Prayer? It is possible to find for myself to find an Orthodox Spiritual Father being RC? Despite of my all sympathy, even love to Orthodoxy, I am not prepaered for changing religion...I ask your prayer.
Fr Adam , sinner

[Richard McBride]

Dear Father Adam

I have often thought about you, since you mentioned your dilemma some time ago.

I pray for you daily, but I have done that only as one on my list of presbyters and priests for whom I pray. Now that I understand your dilemma has not been solved, I shall make the special effort I failed to make earlier. Forgive me, Father, for my lazyness.

I think it would be good to pray to Saint Seraphim of Sarov to intercede for you. I shall do that.

And I'm sure that you already pray arduously to the Most Holy Mother of God, the Theotokos. But I too shall ask fervently, her help for you.

As I said in my last message to you, You are in considerable danger, Father Adam, because you are of two minds concerning this problem. I am truly saddened that you suffer in this way.

"Oh Lord, Who healest every malady and every infirmity,
Look us thy children in all the ways we go astray."

richard mcbride

PS
While Father Averky is thinking about your Saint Francis question, Archbishop Constantin has said that for Orthodox, the problems of Saint Francis are not our problems.
And while you ask of specific comments made by Father Averky, please let me intrude one small note of speculation which has come to my attention.

I imagine you know well of the appearances at Medjugorje. I have written the Roman archbishop of this diocese (Texas) and other RC prelates, asking about these appearances, but no one will respond. So all I know is that the Franciscans are the ones who have sponsored those appearances. I also know that in the beginning (some 12 or 15 years ago?) the RC bishop of that Yugoslavian area refused to accept the apparitions. Then he retired, or died. The next bishop did accept them, but I understand that the Pope held off in accepting them. So, it seems no one who may know is saying anything. Nevertheless, this fits in with the Franciscan reputation for double dealing. Their reputation among non-RC's is worse than was the reputation of the Society of Jesus (who, by the way, are the ones who first set the tone in the Americas for mistreating the Indians, and where Archbishop Constantin must now deal with its aftereffects).
So, while you, Father Adam, are concerned for Saint Francis, I think the greater problem may be in what the Franciscans have done with his order since that time.

I pray for God's blessing to help you in your calling.

r mcb

[Fr Averky]

Dear Father Adam,

God bless you in your struggles. It is very difficult to be, as Dr. McBride says, torn from both sides. I was a Roman Catholic seminarian, and the more I read, the more convinced I became that if I wanted truly to be Catholic, I would have to become Orthodox.

As you may know, life for Orthosox Christians is very difficult in Catholic Poland, and in the past they suffered greatly. I have not heard anything for awhile, so perhaps it is better now. As to praying before icons, of course you can, the most revered obraz of the Mother of God is the Czenstohova icon of the Virgin, the Queen of Poland. As to the Jesus Prayer and using chotki, since you are a priest, I think you could use it, but with great caution and not for very long each day. Every person should say the Jesus Prayer with caution. Professor McBride, forgive me, in my illness, I forgot what I was supposed to be thinking about in regards to Francis of Assisi-could you please remind me?

Fr. Adam, pray with all your heart to God to show you the way.I am sure I can speak for all the Orthodox members of Monachos that we will be praying for you.

With love and prayers
in Christ,

hieromonk Averky

[Crispin Pemberton]

Please excuse my ignorance - what is chotki?

[Trudy Ellmore]

Dear Hieromonk Averky:

Why ought a person say the Jesus Prayer with caution and not for very long each day? I was under the impression one ought to say it as often as it comes to mind through out the day.

Please help me understand in my ignorance. I am fairly new in the investigation into Orthodoxy.

With your blessing, I remain,
Trudy (A humble inquirer)

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Crispin,
For those who are so inclined, there's an aide to be used in saying the Jesus Prayer, the prayer rope! They can be of varying lengths, designs, and materials. Traditionally they're made of wool. Usual lengths are 33, 50, and 100 knots. They can be made with or without a cross and tassle, or a red bead over the first knot above the cross, and another half-way through the number of beads. At the red beads is said(or not), "Most holy Theotokos save us". The more elaborate prayer ropes are usually for Bishops.
The Russian name for a 'prayer rope' is chotki. The Greek name is komboskinia.
Hope my answer isn't an information overload for you!

the sinful and unworthy servant

[Janice Chadwick]

Trudy, there is more than one way of doing the Jesus Prayer. There is the way that Jemes is talking about, and then there is a more involved way where breathing techniques and body positions are used. The second way should definitely not be done without the supervision of your priest/spiritual father. From what I understand, many people have gotten into trouble doing the second without supervision. Even if you are doing it the first way, you should talk to your priest/spiritual father (which, for most of us is the same person), and let him instruct you how it's to be done and how many repetitions.

In Orthodoxy, there are so many practices that sound interesting and helpful and we want to try them right away. However, if you are not ready to do them, they can get us into a lot of trouble. It's hard to do this, but it's best to try and be patient and not try things until your priest thinks you're ready to. I think this is especially hard for those of us from Protestant backgrounds who aren't used to being accountable to anyone and just reading about something and going out and trying to do it.

Fr. Averky, I look forward to hearing your response to Trudy's question. I pray that you are doing as well as can be expected.

[Fr Averky]

Dear in the Lord Trudy.

Since January of this year, this question has come up several times, and you could find them in Monachos' archives. One thread is called Jesus Prayer-Prayer of the heart.
As Janice just mentioned to you, if you are not Orthodox it would not be of spiritual benefit for you to start saying the Jesus Prayer, for while seemingly simple and "harmless," it can be of some danger to those who are in no way prepared for the temptations that come along with it. Every good deed, every act which brings a person closer to God, brings with it temptations some very subtle, because the Evil One is greatly opposed to a soul's getting closer to God, and thus salvation. He can easily fool people into thinking that they have reached great spiritual heights, when in fact, he has led them to the age of a cliff, and then tries to push tem off., abandoning them to their terrible fate, the loss of Heaven as he laughs cruelly.

Although some of my fellow members, whom I truly love and respect have taken me to task on what I am going to say, I still feel that I must.

In our free society, we have the right to purchase or take from a library, virtually any book and read it. So too with books of a spiritual nature. If one goes to a good sized book store like Batnes & Noble, he can find a large array of books on "spirituality." However, that he or she reads one or several of them does in no way indicate that it would be spiritually beneficial to so, and if fact, in some cases, could be quite dangerous.

As I have pointed out several times, a book like "The Way of the Pilgrim," while certainly edifying, is not a "guide" on how to say the Jesus Prayer, nor does it suggest that reading the Philokalia is open to anyone who wants to read it, although there are those who do. This book was written for Orthodox people who had a rather clear idea of the spiritual life, not for those who would just start putting it into practise because it sounded good.

If you are inquiring, do not concern yourself in any way with Orthodox practises or spiritual labours. First, find out about the beliefs, Tradition, teachings and Life of the Church, to see if it touches your heart or soul in any way. The very best way to know the life of the Church is by reading the Lives of the Saints. I noticed that the entire four volume "The Prologue from Ochrid," a wonderful compendium of Lives of Saints, sermons, and spiritual considerations, written by a great modern saint-St. Nikolaij Velimirovich of the Serbian Church is now available online. I will try to find the address for you.

Leave the Jesus Prayer and reading of the Philokalia to those who have the blessing and the grace to do so. We cannot and should not get involved in spiritual practises simply because we want to. To this day, I still talk with my spiritual father before I add something to my daily prayers, like a canon or an Akathist-it is always better to have blessing, no matter how good the action might seem.

Start simply and humbly, and do not run "to the front of the line," but meekly, like the Mother of God, keep what you learn from Holy Orthodoxy in your heart, for it is in the heart that a person meets God, not by the philosphies of this world or intellectual pursuits, or reading or thinking about Him, but seeking Him. As He said, "Seek and you shall find, knock, and it shall be opened to you."

Attend Orthodox Divine Services, for they are filled with grace, and they touch the soul in a way that no book or discussion or anything else could. Even if services might not be entirely in English, still, the soul receives and understands the sacred words and actions. Stand or sit quietly, and look at one of the icons-of our Lord or His Most Pure Mother, and open your heart. When you leave the church and go back out into the world, you will sense your soul's longing to return if it is to be your home.

We Westerners, Americans especially, love to come barging into almost any situation with our "Can Do" attitude, stepping all over everything, and then wonder why we offend so many, perhaps even God. Just a few months ago, a young woman posted on Monachos asking about monasticism. Wanting to be of help, I gave her a few words, since she soon was to enter a convent. Suddenly, to my surprise, this girl of perhaps twenty one, took it upon herself to instruct me! I was in no way offended, but thought to myself,"Is that girl going to have a time!" As others know, I am starting on my 29th year in monastic life, and I still have a lot to learn.

In approaching Orthodoxy, you have to "forget" all you think you know about Christianity, and start as a neophyte, relying on the Wisdom and knowlege of the Church. In the whole of the New Testament, our Lord points out how the meek and the humble will be invited to the house of His Father.

Trudy, be patient, pray, move slowly, and ask God to help you-and if you come to desire Holy Orthodoxy, He will show you the way. May God bless and help you.

With love in Christ,


Fr. A.

[Trudy Ellmore]

Dear Fr. A:

Thank you for your response. It was most helpful. I have been investigating Orthodoxy since January of this year. I took a class called Eastern Orthodoxy History & Theology (taught by an Orthodox professor) at an evangelical college in PA, so the reading list was quite extensive. Our class attended Pascha and I came away from church like a flower that had been deprived of water for so long and finally had received its first watering and sunshine in what felt like an eternity. I couldn't wait to go back. I spoke with the priest at that church about what had happened in my heart. He said that the calling I felt as a child to take holy orders in Catholicism (which I did not do) and teaching I had received then had been watered by the Truth of Orthodoxy. Thus the strong draw I feel towards Orthodoxy made sense to him. I couldn't wait to attend my next Liturgy and that has been the case since Pascha. Every time I stand in the church I feel like I am home. I can explain it no other way. It's like a sigh in my heart. Like when your mother hugs you after a bad day. Do you know what I mean?

I have found an Orthodox church to attend, but am only able to get there about once a month. It is an hour from my home. I am praying for God to open the way for me to go more than that. I have begun to develop a relationship with the priest there and he has graciously agreed to help me and guide me. He has shown me what daily Orthodox prayers to pray and a few other things. He has (along with many others, yourself included) warned me to proceed with cautiousness and slowly. I am working hard to slow down. Due to certain circumstances in my life, slowing down seems to be the only choice! :-) God is good!

I do feel a certain sense of peace about all of this. I always look forward to attending Liturgy and come away with peace in my heart. My heart is changing, I can feel it happen. I pray everyday for Him to make the path clear to me and I ask His Mother for help.

I look forward to receiving from you, the url for the site that has the saints lives.

You wrote about the Evil one and temptation. I have heard elsewhere that inquirers and catechumens are most vulnerable and this frightens me. Ought I be? What does one do?

Thank you for your help.

In Christ, Trudy

[Miguel Coalesco]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me a sinner

I find this an edifying prayer that I would recommend to anyone.

There is no arguing with the premise that the Divine Liturgy and Divine Praises should be experienced first hand, and inquirers should prayerfully study the theology and lives of the saints.

But I most definately would encourage anyone and everyone to pray the Jesus Prayer as much as they feel inclined to, it can do no harm.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner

Start slowly, and do not get obsessed with numbers. The quality of your spiritual life will not be determined by numbers, pray sincerely.

I seldom use the chotki any more, but if it helps you, fine.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me a sinner

And may the Most Holy, Most Pure and Illustrious Lady the ever virgin Mary pray for us!

In Christ
Miguel, that sinner

[Fr Averky]

Dear Trudy,

I was edified to hear of how far along you have progressed, and basically on your own, although we know that God watches over us and is pleased when we seek His will. We are never alone, and we accomplish nothing good without Him.

In regards to your question. From my own experience and from having dealt with new converts for many years, there are a particular set of tempatations which one who wishes to embrace Orthodoxy will have to deal with.

In the Gilbert and Sullivan Operetta, "The Mikado," there is a song entitled "Let the Punishment fit the Crime." Well, the Devil has one of his own, "Let the Temptation Fit the Situation," and he knows just how to strike, where, when and how. Yet, as in all of life, he can unwittingly be the source of our salvatioin if we will learn early on never to rely on ourselves, but on God, His mercy, His wisdom, His patience, and His love.


Once you will have declared yourself for Christ, then all kinds of obstructions will appear: friends or family members who did not care if you lived a totally dissolute life, suddenly panic when you mention your intention of joining some "exotic" religion. Perhaps a person has waited for years to meet that special person, and just as they make the decision to embace Orthodoxy, Mr. or Miss "Right" comes along, but they are a firm Baptist or a Mormon missionary. Or, out of the blue, an offer for a big promotion is made, but the new location is hours from the nearest Orthodox Chuirch. Or, often most difficult, one spouse in a marriage decides to become Orthodox, while the rest of the family is happy being what they are. As converts, we face loss of friends, difficulties, and even persecution from family members, and so on.

In the end, if we sincerely desire to "Put on Christ." then we must be willing to suffer for His sake as He did for ours.

Take you time, be patient, pray, read, continue to attend Divine Services, and put all your trust in God. Tomorow I will post some wonderful words of St. Ambrose of Optina for you. God bless!

With love in Christ,

Fr. A.

[Katherine Clark]

Hope this question is of general interest. Both Catholocism and Orthodoxy have great benefits. Both sides are good at throwing "rocks" at one another...(a big turn-off)The issue of the papacy, of the great schism and so forth....who can say? The spirituality of the general church attracts me deeply in Orthodoxy and seems "thin" in post vatican II RC. Any help out there? Please be kind...

[Melissa]

Dear Katherine,
Welcome!
I can't be of much help with your question, but there are many here who can. One thing, though, is that there is written history to look at as far as the great schism and the issue of the papacy goes (I never really knew that, until I began considering becoming Orthodox). If you find youself attracted to a church (or even a discussion group) that is clear about the Faith, and isn't afraid to stand up for what it believes, I hope you continue to investigate Holy Orthodoxy.
I look forward to reading responses to your post, and also to hearing more about your thoughts. Thank you.
Melissa

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Katherine,
Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
The idea of the papacy began taking shape when Constantine built Constantinople/Byzantium as New Rome, splitting the Empire bertween East and West. A great amount of political intrigue, and not a few episodes of ecumenical and ecclesiastical bickering led up to Cardinal Humbert, the legate from the Bishop of Rome, slapping a bull of excommunication oon the altar of the Great Church, Hagia Sophia as they were celebrating the Divine Liturgy.
Monasticism was eventually embraced by the Church after it began as essentially a revolt against the lack of ecclesiastical piety. The manner in which the Church has embraced penance & piety has evolved/developed over the centuries to where it is today. However, central to church life and individual piety then and now, is participation in the Eucharist; a sharing, a communal sharing if you will, in the life of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose life is the very life of the Orthodox Church.
Pascha, which we soon will celebrate was formerly the culmination of the catechuminates reception into the Church. Even though that reception is now not as lengthy (which encompassed the feasts of the Church Year), the celebration of Pascha is still extremely special.
Spiritual practices are as numerous as there are religions, not all of them work, and not all of them fit every Christian. Even worse, some of them are corrupt, in that their goal is not going toward God, but a deepr involvement with yourself and thusly enslavement to the enemy of souls.Forgive me for blabbering on so. Again, may God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ grant you mercy and peace.

the unworthy servant
moses

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

The only well-know Orthodox person who has stated that the dogma of the "Immaculate Conception" is held by some Orthodox Christians, is Bishop Kallistos Ware, who shows less and less inclination to keep to Traditional Orthodox thought as time goes by.


It would seem that Metropolitan Kallistos has had a sea change in his attitude towards belief in the Immaculate Conception and now rejects it because of its distortion of human history.

The Byzantine Catholic priest Daniel Barton makes a very telling remark about his private correspondence with Bishop Kallistos where the Bishop acknowledges his personal disbelief.

Barton writes:

"In sharing my thoughts with Greek Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, he informed me by letter that he "personally does not believe the doctrine as it changes all of history of mankind".

That should knock on the head the common misapprehension which Roman Catholics like to foster that Bishop Kallistos is a believer in the IC.

Taken from MY BELIEF IN THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION DOCTRINE
DANIEL JOSEPH BARTON (Of the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church of America)

http://mysticalrose.tripod.com/barton3.html

Fr Ambrose

[Vasily]

Two Sides-Two Paths:

The absolute authority within the Orthodox Church is the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the conciliatory nature of the Church, ecclesiology-the assembly of believers in communion of the Eucharist, Christ being the Head Bishop and being guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church is the Body of Christ, not the bishop alone. The catholicity of the Church has nothing to do with a universal organization, it has no need of external bonds in order to be one.

The Pope, the Latin Church's sole authority, can make or change dogmas or traditions because this is possible through the "chair of Peter' and Peter's primacy. The Latin Church being essentially monarchial. They understand the catholicity of the Church as a legal cohesion, as an interdependence regulated by some code. Their local churches are not united by the Pope and the Papal hierarchy but by their common nature.

One side makes claims that a sole central authority is more efficient and unifying. A universal authority,universal teaching, a universal church, versus a church with many heads and no central unity or authority.

The center of the early Church was in Jerusalem, where all twelve Apostles received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. From this center all were to go out and teach all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy SPirit. Did one Apostle have sole authority and leadership at this time?

Prior to the Schism, the Church was one unified Body in Christ, catholic and apostolic. Rome held a "primacy of honor" but this is disputed and lacks any historical evidence. Rome had the teaching authority and the authority concerning the Seven Ecumenical Councils decisions. Other than political conflicts, was there an equality amongst the other Patriarchates?

Both the East and West developed differently, and continue today on different paths. The East has not deviated from the Holy Faith. The West, Rome, has added and changed, and most of all created an infallible universal Pope as leader. Their claims of Peter being the sole leader, justifies their position, as related to the entire church. Most individuals overlook the ultramontanism movement, a religious philosophy within the Catholic Church, who became closely associated with the Jesuits, who defended the superiority of Popes over councils and kings. Ultramontanism achieved victory over conciliarism.

The East had its heresies, which were resolved by the Ecumenical Councils. Today, there exists two Orthodox Churches, the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. The West, devoid of any heresies, now consists of not only the Latin or Roman Catholic Church, but Protestants(via the Protestant Reformation),the Anglican Church(Henry the VIII declaring himself as the head of the church),the Hussites(in Bohemia), and various Old and Traditional Catholic jurisdictions not under the Pope. Were these Western movements the result of Rome's authority and infallibility?

Comments Welcome!