New and Old Calendarist

[sinjin smithe]

I have done a lot of reading on the internet on the old/new calenderist issue. It seems to me that the old calenderist make a compelling case for the old calender by saying that six ecumenical councils condemned the new calender and upheld the old calender. Another issue raised by old calenderists is that they say the new calenderists are modernists.

I did not know until very recently that in orthodoxy we had traditionalists and modernists. Anyway, I was very unhappy to find that the OCA is considered modernist, however my parish does not have pews and no organ, etc. I do not understand why in America they are many who want to be modern. First of all, I detest pews. They hindered movement, distract from worship, and I always feel like a sardine in them. Who is to blame? I think that many of our bishops have failed to keep them out of Orthodoxy and in general keep us in the true Orthodox worship tradition. I also think that this idea of ecumenism should be abandoned by our church. It has been a bad influence on Orthodoxy. What good has our witness been to the WCC? We have been a part of the WCC for 50 years, they are not teaching Christ as Lord and savior, no they are teaching about gaia and earth/mother worship. The WCC is a communicable disease which is spreading weakness to the traditions of Orthodoxy. I think it is time to divorce ourselves from the WCC and instead work on healing the division between the old/new calenderists.

[Justin]

In a way I understand totally what you are saying, and agree (e.g., pews hinder worship.... for me). That's the problem though, the "for me" part. Undoubtedly standing during the entire service is an ancient tradition, indeed even of apostolic origins. Yet to legalistically apply this are a rule is no better an approach than what the (so-called) modernists do (btw, I don't consider the OCA modernist, though I'm antiochian so maybe that skews my view, lol). The modernists might miss the asceticism aspect of it, but the ultra-traditionalists miss a key purpose of being at worship to begin with. Participation in worship necessitates that you are paying attention, and unfortunately for us, at this time (in America), we have a very short attention span. Asceticism is very important, and because of that I'd suggest making a move towards getting most of the pews out of our Churches. However, people paying attention is also important, and if some people, right now, can concentrate much better sitting down, then I think we should concede that to them (though they should be expected to work on recognizing that it is a problem and fixing it). What did the monks do when they got tired in services and vigils? These are monks mind you, people who have devoted their lives to asceticism and toil. Well, when many monks that I've read about get tired, they sit down! (there are of course rare exceptions to this who can stand for extremely long periods of time, but this is a special grace of God). If you don't believe me you can read about it in monastic literature like, for example, John Cassian's Institutes (I think it is in one of the first 4 chapters that he goes over this practice). There's also the point of humility while in America. For instance, if you are in a parish and continue standing the whole time because you wish to remain "orthodox," even while everyone else is sitting, then you are, IMO, doing a very unorthodox thing. The orthodox thing is to not draw attention to yourself, which standing up the entire service while the rest sit will certainly do (unless you are standing in the back, but even then people would most likely see you while the Priest does processions). I would like to see more strict discpline in America, but we need to be careful about losing the spirit of things so that we can follow normally good rules. Ekonomia is not just on a 1-on-1 personal level, but it can be for a whole flock.

I do agree that we should stay away from the WCC, that we shouldn't have organs, etc. Regarding the calendar issue, I'm not sure what to say my friend. My bishop is new calanderist, and therefore so am I (it's not a dogmatic issue as far as I can see, so I follow his lead). I would love to see us all return to the old calender, and maybe if Russia can get it's Orthodox spirit up and running again on a nation-wide bases we will see just that. I'm not sure about the old calender thing and the ecumenical councils you mentioned, that sounds like a lot of eisegesis to me, which is unnecessary and unwanted.

God Bless!

[Theron Mathis]

A couple thoughts on the calendar question.

Out of respect for full disclosure, I am a part of a new calendar archidocese (AOCA). From my reading it seems that what is canonical is the date of Easter. Easter according to the councils was determined based off of the Julian calendar. Hence the insistence on not following the Gregorian methodology. Because of this it has also made sense (until recently) not celebrate the Church year via a mixed calendar. The acceptance of the Gregorian for everything else seems to have come about as an ecumenical rapproachment.

This said, I would be pleased to return to the Julian for all celebrations. Christmas would especially be refreshingly celebrated apart from the Western commercial cult. Although it would probably create one more level of confusion for non-Orthodox relatives. This year as a New Calendarist, I saw more problems by using a mixed calendar. We did not celebrate the Apostles Fast. This never happens in the Old Calendar. Therefore by using the New we have deprived ourselves of an opportunity for repentant fasting every so many years.

I use the New Calendar, because my bishop does as well. I would gladly change and think it would be a step to reunification of the jurisdiction. However, this is not the only issue. ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate use the same calendar but are still divided.

God Bless,

Theron Mark

[Theron Mathis]

A couple thoughts on the calendar question.

Out of respect for full disclosure, I am a part of a new calendar archidocese (AOCA). From my reading it seems that what is canonical is the date of Easter. Easter according to the councils was determined based off of the Julian calendar. Hence the insistence on not following the Gregorian methodology. Because of this it has also made sense (until recently) not celebrate the Church year via a mixed calendar. The acceptance of the Gregorian for everything else seems to have come about as an ecumenical rapproachment.

This said, I would be pleased to return to the Julian for all celebrations. Christmas would especially be refreshingly celebrated apart from the Western commercial cult. Although it would probably create one more level of confusion for non-Orthodox relatives. This year as a New Calendarist, I saw more problems by using a mixed calendar. We did not celebrate the Apostles Fast. This never happens in the Old Calendar. Therefore by using the New we have deprived ourselves of an opportunity for repentant fasting every so many years.

I use the New Calendar, because my bishop does as well. I would gladly change and think it would be a step to reunification of the jurisdictions. However, this is not the only issue. ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate use the same calendar but are still divided.

God Bless,

Theron Mark

[Pamela Hristov]

I can agree to what you say to a certain point. As a person new to the orthodox faith I like the tradion of the church. Also as a person new to the faith I would like to add a different viewpoint. As a women new to the orthodox faith, I like the idea of pews. When I go to church I dress to what I feel is appropriate for the service. My church(which is serbian and has been around for almost a 100 years) has pews. As a female; I thank God for the pews. By sitting down...I am comfortable and I am able to listen to the Lithurgy without any distractions. In other words..I am not thinging about how unconfortable I am because of the high heels that I am wearing nor am I thinking about my hips or legs(one which is 3/4 quarters inch shorter than the other). If there were no pews..I would still attend the service..but my mind would not be on the things it should be on..but the pain I am suffering. I will suffer for my religion..but when it comes to the service I want my mind to be on the Lord.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Regarding pews, and the general notion of sitting or standing in the church, I would like to offer just a brief thought. But before I do, a 'disclaimer': the Church's guidelines on sitting/standing and most other disciplines and reverences have always been wholly open to oikonomia in the case of special needs. A person who physically is unable to stand is not made to stand. An individual who suffers from severe arthritis of the shoulders is not forced to cross himself or herself so frequently. One who cannot kneel is not forced to do so. It should be taken as a given that special needs are always met by the Church, and that when we speak about how one is to comport himself or herself in the temple, we do so in a more general sense, not requiring to say in every instance 'except for people who cannot', etc -- this much is always assumed and understood.

But special needs are different from individual wishes or desires. Even in the realm of personal wish, the Church is remarkably 'flexible' on its guidelines for our 'behaviour' in the temple: there are no strict, hard-and-fast rules on when one must cross oneself; there is variation on when one might reverence with a full or partial bow; etc. In very few of the world's religions, in fact, and especially among the various Christian churches, is so much liberty customary among the movements and composure of the faithful in their place of worship.

Yet the Church does offer 'rules' or 'guidelines' (the Greek is 'canons') for the manner in which the faithful are to gather in the church building. With specific regard to our present discussion, the Church teaches, traditionally, that the faithful are to stand during most times of worship. This is directly carried over from the manner of worship and prayer in the old covenant Temple (where, we might remember, sitting in the presence of the Ark would be considered incredible blasphemy). To sit is to be 'relaxed' and 'normal'. To stand is to attend to the reverence one is offering to the person (or Person) in his or her presence; to care more about this reverence than one's own relaxation and comfort. It is the recognition that it is more important to stand in honour of the King who is in our midst, than it is to attend to our own personal comforts.

The Church also teaches that standing during worship goes beyond merely this absolute sign of sacrifice and respect. She teaches that standing also helps to focus the mind and keep alert the senses. 'Wisdom: stand and attend'. The comfort of the seated position, says the Church, is inducive to wandering minds and slips of focus. To stand helps keep us alert.

Now, not all people may find this immediately to be so. Especially if one is not accustomed to the old tradition of standing throughout the entirety of the divine services (which, in some cases, especially during the feasts, can mean standing for several hours), a person may find precisely the opposite to be the case: standing causes pain the legs and feet, and then the mind focuses on this pain and is kept from the act of worship; whereas simply sitting down would allow one to be more intent upon the mystery at hand. When one is unaccustomed to the practice of standing, and this is the result, then the Church indeed says that sitting is good and proper. But only as a means of adjustment. The goal is to stand; if one is unable, then sit -- but sit only until you are able to stand again.

Much of this goes back to the issue that underlies so many of the discussions in the modern Church: obedience. It is not obedient for a person to decide to sit through all divine services simply because he or she is more comfortable doing so, even with the tradition of the Church telling him to stand. It is obedient to recognise that the Church, in her two-thousand years of experience and divine guidance, has a reason that she encourages the faithful to stand; and that just because one doesn't feel the benefits or come to personally appreciate the reason when first attempting this practice, does not mean that it is invalid. It is obedient to sit, but to do so as a 'conditioning' for standing. For some people it can take a long time (even many years) before they are gradually able to stand longer and longer during the services -- and it may take that full length of time before they personally feel the benefits to be had by this stance. But as most of them will tell you: it is 'worth it' in the end.

We must remember to be obedient to the Church. Lack of this quality is one of the greatest (if not the greatest) cause of secularisation and problems in present-day Christianity. No matter who we are, where we come from or what our experiences, it is not our place to teach the Church the best way to worship. It is our job obediently to let the Church teach us; not to try to attain everything at once, but to realise that the teaching is good and holy, and to work towards it all our lives.

Now, all of that being said: the situation is different in those jurisdictions where the hierarchy have blessed the use of pews or other seating, where one thereby has little option other than to sit during the services (though I do not believe it ever to be ostentatious for an individual to choose to stand at the back of the Church, should he or she choose to do so). In these situations, one's obedience is to the bishop above one's own will. If the bishop says sit: sit. Do not 'decide' to be disobedient because you prefer another alternative. If you are uncomfortable with what the bishop is advising, go speak to the bishop and learn from him the reasons for his decisions. Only be obedient in all things, unless the Truth of the Gospel is at stake. It is better to be obedient than perfectly to follow one's own view of the Tradition.

Finally: even in those parishes which follow the traditional non-pew design and encourage standing, some people will never stand through the services. They may be physically unable; and there are some, indeed, whose mental composition truly does and always will make standing an impediment to attention and devotion. In these cases, it is holy, blessed and right to sit. But if we are sitting simply because we 'don't like' standing or 'prefer' to be seated -- then there are larger issues to be addressed.

INXC, Matthew

[Alexis]

About standing/sitting/pews.... does anyone here know how it happened that Orthodoxy in America started using pews? Because the Orthodox missionaries who came from Russia definitely didn't use them ... so I'm curious about how this 'American tradition' of Orthodox worship began, since it seems to be widespread in the USA today. I don't have any problem with it... I'm just curious how it started.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Alexis,

The Church of England had enormous influence over the Orthodox Churches in Greece and the Middle East when it was under the Ottoman Empire. And when Greeks and Arabs came to the U.S. and Britain initially, they were told by their bishops to worship in the local Anglican/Episcopal Church. That's primarily where the pew influence came from. Russia had no such outside influence.

[Alexis]

Owen, thanks for your response to my question. Do you know of any resources that actually record this influence? Like any church documents that recommend that existing types of Anglican/Episcopal worship should be emulated? I've heard this theory before.... but I've never actually seen any kind of support for it beyond widespread assumption.

[David Galloway]

I'm not a fan of pews at all...it seems that you are watching the liturgy instead of participating the liturgy. My particular parish is located in a building that was a Methodist church. As such it was full of pews when we bought it last year. I think we made a good compromise...there are two rows of pews along the back wall and one row each on the side walls. This allows a place for the infirm to sit and also to sit for parish announcements.

[Paul N. Lalich]

I am interested in acquiring a calendar from a Greek Old Calendar Church. 2003 would be nice. I can't find any web sites. If anyone can help, please respond to: GodfatherPaul@yahoo.com

[John Curtis Dunn]

First, Since I have been quite busy since July, I am only now catching up on my Monachos mail.
Justin Kissel wrote on 12 August
Yet to legalistically apply this are a rule is no better an approach than what the (so-called) modernists do (btw, I don't consider the OCA modernist, though I'm antiochian so maybe that skews my view, lol). The modernists might miss the asceticism aspect of it, but the ultra-traditionalists miss a key purpose of being at worship to begin with.

It is never legalism to keep the commandments of Christ or/and His Church. However, I am not certain how one legalistically applies the absence of pews? These things are usually decided by somebody else in the Church. However, if I were on a Church Board I would argue and defend against the introduction of pews into the Church according to the theater pattern [lined up in rows. Certainly having a few along the wall, or even perhaps in the back of the Church would not be unacceptable [though some just don't like the pew style]. This latter would still leave the front of the Church open for standing, but those who choose to recline at worship might object to not being able to see.

By definition the word *modernist* simply means in fashion with the times.

I really don't know what an ultra Traditionalist is: To keep the commandments and Traditions of the Church is not *ultra*; it is simply keeping the faith as handed on to us.

John {http://hometown.aol.com/goldenoniondome/myhomepage/business.html , Heaven's Cupola}

[Justin]

With all due respect, I totally disagree with your first sentence. What if Protestant fundamentalists "keep the commandments of Christ," are they of necessity keeping them in the true spirit of Christ? Or isn't it rather possible that they are only legalistically keeping them without having the true spirit? Keeping the commandments of Christ isn't legalism, but it can most certainly be done in a legalistic way: with a legalistic mindset. I am actually a bit further to the right than I was when I wrote what you quoted, but I still also affirm what I said about ultra-traditionalism: it's dangerous. Anyone who knows the recent history of the Greek and Russian Churches knows that there are 1. modernist groups (Moscow, Greek State Church, etc.), 2. moderate traditionalists (ROCOR, Metro. Cyprian of Fili, etc.) and 3. ultra-traditionalists (HOCNA, etc.) It was this third set of groups that I was talking about, and who do indeed take the tradition and--totally missing it's spirit--become legalistic. They are legalistic, but I don't deny that they try to follow the commandments.

cf http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/super.htm

[Owen Jones]

Dear Justin,

I know a priest who is an anglo, a convert to Orthodoxy. He is a fanatical traditionalist who is adamant about the calendar and spends so much time at home reverencing relics that he pays no attention to his teenage son who is extremely alienated and a fan of the movie producer who did Pulp Fiction. It's unnerving just to be around him and his family. While he is faithful in all of his observances, it's faithfulness to a fault, with the wrong tone about it.

Regarding the calendar, what's wrong with observing the calender that accurately reflects the way God created the universe? I think a reasonable exception can be made for observance of Lent and Pascha so that Pascha does not occur prior to the Passover. On the other hand, what's wrong with observing the old calender that is not in sinc with the secular calendar? I try not to see it as an ideological issue, but rather as a practical one. The real problem with modernism in the Church is reflected in clergy I have met, who want to be on the right side of the money people in the Church and are frankly embarrassed by stories of weeping icons and dead monks that get up and walk. They want a Church that is socially "relevant" like the Episcopalians so that they can be considered to be socially relevant themselves. "Modernism" is really a personal crisis in which the mysticism of the Church becomes hard to bear.

[Ephrem]

Someone wrote: "Regarding the calendar, what's wrong with observing the calender that accurately reflects the way God created the universe?"

What about the fact that the miracle of the Holy Fire in Jerusalem only occurs on the date according to the Church Calendar? Doesn't this have something to say about "accurately reflecting" the way God views the universe he created?

How do other people around here feel about the calendar issue? I know that in some circles, it's almost a central dividing line. In others, it's difference-without-schism. In others, people don't care at all.

--Ephrem

[Owen Jones]

Ephrem,

I find it a bit implausible that God induces the holy fire as His endorsement of the Old Calendar. Certainly that is not His point. I would suggest that if the Holy Sepulcher chose to go to the new Calendar, then the holy fire would continue -- on the new calendar date. Who knows? Maybe we could use it as a test. But then, aren't we warned against putting God to the test?

[sinjin smithe]

Does anyone have anymore information about this miracle of holy fire? I would be more interested in learning about it.

[John Lewis]

Dear All!
As a visitor to this site, and an Anglican to boot, I would like to comment on a few points raised. Having stood, sometimes for many hours, at Orthodox liturgies from Smolensk to Perth (W Australia) I fully endorse the comments against pews. There are usually a few chairs or seats around the walls for the weary, and on occasion I have succumbed, along with others. But I have never understood the worship of God to require comfort as a prerequisite. This seems to suggest "worship as entertainment" -- make yourself comfortable, and where are the lollies for the kids? No no no! But I would inform Owen that many, if not most Orthodox churches in Greece have pews and to ascribe this to the influence of St Paul's Anglican church in Athens is a bit far fetched. In London, Holy Wisdom has a fine set of carved pews, complete with small ledges on the underside, so that they can be folded up, and the worshiper, boxed in by the lines of pews, can either stand or sit while always appearing to stand. I suspect the Greeks got the habit from observation, not any influence from specifically Anglican sources. There have been just as many Anglican/Russian links as Anglican/Greek and I have yet to see a full set of pews in a Russian church.
As for sitting down throughout the liturgy, this is a modern abomination in the Anglican church. I suspect it is rather the modern predilection for entertainment that brought it about, and I am sad to find it invading the Orthodox. The common joke used to be that anyone who sat through prayers was a Methodist -- they, apparently, receive special revelation through the seat of their pants. But nowadays Anglicans seem to have lost their knees and found their seats. I blame McDonalds --too many BigMacs leads to too many big rear ends.
As for the Old/New Calendar squiff among the Orthodox, at one level it just seems another of those squabbles which so intrigue and infuriate outsiders. The Great Calendar Wars of the 20th C! Much more important than Bismark or Hitler, or Vietnam. But despite the passion I would suggest that the argument only has force if we go back to 19th C travel and communications. In the modern world (and remember, all those passionate supporters of the Julian Calendar are modern people, not one of them is a thousand years old!) it would seem best to adopt a common calendar for religious, social and commercial use, and that calendar, by a long margin is the Gregorian.
But while the Orthodox continue their spat, I have a personal interest in the Julian/Gregorian changeover. I attended Sir John Cass College in London, founded from the estate of the good Sir John, who died in the early 18th C, in the year in which Britain changed over. His will was written and signed according to the Old Calendar, but after the changeover, and he died during the 'lost eleven days'. The result was an unholy legal battle for the loot, which lasted several years. It seems the Orthodox are fated to fight oldbattles again.

God Bless you all the Christmastide (New Calendar!)

John

[Owen Jones]

I've worshipped at the Greek Cathedral (Cypriot I think) in London and, yes, indeed, it has pews. But while someone would have to do some research, I would suggest that the British and Anglican influence on Greece and the Levant has been much much greater than any influence in Russia. Of course, all medieval catholic cathedrals were traditionally without pews as well. And let's not blame it on McDonalds, please.

Particularly in America, the Greeks worshipped as Anglicans for decades. The borrowed Anglican practice when they started to get their own priests and bishops, they buit their Churches to look like Anglican Churches, they adopted Anglican style hymnody, and, of course, they run through the liturgy like an Anglican in a hurry to make his tee time. I'm not sure my priest even says the prayer of consecration. He may zip through it in his mind, but there just isn't enough time for him to say it rapidly out loud.

Right now the church is overflowing, so he had to ask parishioners to scruntch up closer together in the pews, whereas the answer would be to rip half of them out. But heaven forbid the person who would recommend it!

[sinjin smithe]

Right now the church is overflowing, so he had to ask parishioners to scruntch up closer together in the pews, whereas the answer would be to rip half of them out. But heaven forbid the person who would recommend it!

Why not suggest it Owen? I'm sure you have nothing to lose. I have been to three different Greek Orthodox churches in America and one OCA church. All three Greek churches have pews while the one OCA church does not. I don't like the influence that the Anglicans have had on the Greek church. The Greek church needs to get back at being the Greek Orthodox church. Also, one of the Greek churches I have been to has an organ and it sounds terrible. I mean the person who plays it can't play the blasted thing.

[Effie Ganatsios]

In reply to Owen Jones' post no.247



Posted on Saturday, 28 December, 2002 - 1:15 am: =20 =20

-------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------

I've worshipped at the Greek Cathedral (Cypriot I think) in London and, = yes, indeed, it has pews. But while someone would have to do some = research, I would suggest that the British and Anglican influence on = Greece and the Levant has been much much greater than any influence in = Russia. Of course, all medieval catholic cathedrals were traditionally = without pews as well. And let's not blame it on McDonalds, please.=20

Particularly in America, the Greeks worshipped as Anglicans for decades. = The borrowed Anglican practice when they started to get their own = priests and bishops, they buit their Churches to look like Anglican = Churches, they adopted Anglican style hymnody, and, of course, they run = through the liturgy like an Anglican in a hurry to make his tee time. = I'm not sure my priest even says the prayer of consecration. He may zip = through it in his mind, but there just isn't enough time for him to say = it rapidly out loud.=20

Right now the church is overflowing, so he had to ask parishioners to = scruntch up closer together in the pews, whereas the answer would be to = rip half of them out. But heaven forbid the person who would recommend = it!=20







My answer :=20



We have just experienced the marvellous Christmas liturgy here in = Greece, something truly beautiful, and I just wanted to reply to your = message Owen, because I detected a hint of censure towards Greek = Orthodox churches - please forgive me if I'm wrong.



Here in Greece, there are churches that have a few pews - but these are = usually reserved for those that feel weak or tired. There are also = stalls for the elderly at the sides of the church. Most people stand - = the women with the women on the left side and the men on the right - = although even this practice is not rigid. Theoretically, I am against = this discrimination but I can't help but feel that it is practical = because of the danger of being distracted while worshipping.

All the churches were packed in my city and during the morning service = at St. Demetrios church, I thought how alive and vital the Orthodox = Church is. The morning service on Christmas morning started at about = 6.oo a.m. - parents had brought their children, most of the people = received communion, there was a happy atmosphere and, in reply to = another statement made in one of the discussions on this site, Greeks = both understand and take part fully in the liturgy. There is no = "rushing" by the priests, it would be unthinkable and the people here = would not stand for it. I noticed that most of the faithful know the = liturgy by heart and any attempt to cut corners by the priests would = have unpleasant results - not that I have noticed any of the priests = attempting to do this.



Effie

[Effie Ganatsios]

Reply to Owen Jones post no.247

We have just experienced the marvellous Christmas liturgy here in Greece, something truly beautiful, and I just wanted to reply to your message Owen, because I detected a hint of censure towards Greek Orthodox churches - please forgive me if I'm wrong.



Here in Greece, there are churches that have a few pews - but these are usually reserved for those that feel weak or tired. There are also stalls for the elderly at the sides of the church. Most people stand - the women with the women on the left side and the men on the right - although even this practice is not rigid. Theoretically, I am against this discrimination but I can't help but feel that it is practical because of the danger of being distracted while worshipping.

All the churches were packed in my city and during the morning service at St. Demetrios church, I thought how alive and vital the Orthodox Church is. The morning service on Christmas morning started at about 6.oo a.m. - parents had brought their children, most of the people received communion, there was a happy atmosphere and, in reply to another statement made in one of the discussions on this site, Greeks both understand and take part fully in the liturgy. There is no "rushing" by the priests, it would be unthinkable and the people here would not stand for it. I noticed that most of the faithful know the liturgy by heart and any attempt to cut corners by the priests would have unpleasant results - not that I have noticed any of the priests attempting to do this.

I don't know what the situation is like in Greek Orthodox churches in America and England but here in Greece it's as I described above.



Effie

[Effie Ganatsios]

Sorry for the double post. I tried the e-mail procedure for the first time but when I didn't see my message I thought I'd done something wrong.So I sent it again.....

Effie

[Owen Jones]

Dear Effie,

In America, the Greek church has copied many customs from the Episcopalians. This is due to the fact that when Greek Orthodox first came to the U.S., they had no priests and their bishops back home told them to worship and receive communion in Episcopal Churches. This has led to inevitable influences, most if not all in my opinion for the worse.

[Owen Jones]

On the contrary, Sinjin. I have very much to lose. It would only create unnecessary conflict. They would never in a million years remove any of the pews. btw, we also have an icon of the Father, and use electric candles (not of the same order of offensiveness, to be sure, only you get the idea).

[sinjin smithe]

I agree with Owen. That is how the Greek church is like in America. Owen, I know about electric candles. The one Greek church in my area uses electric candles before the icons. One would not think it, but the only church that has a resemblance to true Orthodox worship is the OCA church that I attend with no pews and oil-based candles. There are many converts in that OCA parish and many seek the true style of Orthodox worship. That is why, despite the fact I am partly Greek, I go to the OCA and not the Greek church because I don't like what I see there. I am sure there are Greek parishes in the US that don't have pews and don't have any Episcopalian influence to them. I wish that there would be an invasion of Greek priests and bishops from Greece into this country to straighten this whole situation out. Another thing I have noticed that many converts tend to seek the traditional worship style of Orthodox worship.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Reply to Owen's posts : no.252 "btw, we also have an icon of the Father,".

Owen, how can this be??? The Father is never depicted in icons.

no. 251

Thanks Owen for this information. I didn't know about the Episcopalians. It made me remember though that when I was very young the Greek Orthodox in the city I grew up in, used the Presbyterian Church for services, marriages, etc. as we hadn't built our own church yet. There were very few Greeks in our area and this was a temporary solution that fitted our needs. I don't think there were any negative effects though.

Effie

[Effie Ganatsios]

Reply to Sinjin's post no. 112

"The one Greek church in my area uses electric candles before the icons."

Sinjin, the churches here don't allow candles in the church itself. There are oil lamps in front of the icons but when you go to church you light your candle in the ante-room (I'm sure there's an official name for the area just before you enter the church proper but I don't know it......) and the candle stands are now kept there. This is to protect the frescoes on the walls inside the church. Monasteries use beeswax candles but churches use commercial candles.


"I wish that there would be an invasion of Greek priests and bishops from Greece into this country to straighten this whole situation out. "

Believe me you would not wish this......... LOL
Greek priests might not rush through the liturgy and the sacraments but they have plenty of other faults.

"Another thing I have noticed that many converts tend to seek the traditional worship style of Orthodox worship. "

Looking in on Orthodox discussions on the web, I too have noticed that converts are much more traditional than people born into the Orthodox faith. I think they are more inclined to go overboard and get bogged down in details. The Orthodox Church has survived for nearly two thousand years with little change - I think that it can withstand and perhaps absorb minor changes that are the result of living in a modern world.

We have both Old and New Calendar churches here and anyone who feels the need for a more rigid approach to religion usually attends the Old Calendar church. The services are the same of course but the Old Calendar faithful pay more attention to the details of religious life (each detail of course has it's own meaning and is based on the early church teachings).

Sinjin, I've written a little about the religious situation here in Greece on another thread - I think the most important thing, for me at least, is what I feel inside, understanding why I'm doing what I'm doing, and trying to live the best I know how. The rest I leave to theologians.

My own personal opinion of course and one which relates only to me. Each person has to find his or her own path and follow it.

Effie

[sinjin smithe]

Effie,

Thank you for your enlightenment. I realize that the church in Greece has problems of its own just like we have over here.

Greek priests might not rush through the liturgy and the sacraments but they have plenty of other faults.

I realize that priest will have their faults no matter where they serve. What are some of the faults that they have over in Greece? I know a while back some priests in Greece wanted the rules relaxed about wearing beards and cossacks.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Reply to sinjin's post no.116

Sinjin, I'm not an authority but here in Greece most priests seem to be interested more in money than they are in holy things. They get a government salary but they also get a a lot of money from various services they perform for people. Especially those lucky enough to serve in churches that have a cemetery attached to them. I think most priests would agree that that's where the real money is to be found - what with all the 3-day, 9-day, 40-day memorials etc. involved.

When I first came here the St. Demetrios priest would come every first of the month to bless the house (this custom is no longer valid now that they are getting a regular salary!). I remember once that I was quite depressed because I was feeling homesick and I tried to talk to him about this. All he said was he couldn't understand why I felt the way I did because I had my in-laws here!!!! He finished this short answer by sticking his hand out and saying "boethia sou" which means "your help" - he was asking for his money!!! He disgusted me because I couldn't help comparing him with the Protestant father at my school who was always ready to sit down and talk about whatever was troubling you (this Protestant pastor was the only other religious person I had ever had anything to do with up to that time).

This is just a small example of the attitude of 80 % of the priests in this country and I don't see that anything has changed much in the years since this happened to me. I have met "good" priests but my impressions, and the impression of most of the Greek faithful, is that most priests are only interested in money.

Sorry to disappoint you about Greek priests, Sinjin, but truths need to be told.

p.s. I was just wondering about your name. Sinjin is a very uncommon name and I'm curious about its origins.

Effie

After rereading what I wrote, I should also add that I am deeply religious and it saddens me when unfit people become priests and are the cause of the low attendance of our young people at church.

[Owen Jones]

Sounds like censure to me, Effie! Actually, I appreciate your candor and insight. In America, converts romanticize old-world Orthodoxy and want to implant here something that does not in fact exist. I think the problem is that we are hoping to find some easy answer or escape from our predicament through externals, while writing rhapsodically about the wisdom of the Fathers. The person who wants to be true to the faith cannot afford to get wrapped up in his or her own alienation, and then make the same mistake as the Marxists by turning faith into an ideological fixation which we then seek to impose on others. This is what happens with "super-correct" traditionalists.

The spirit of the Apostles is something that one has to appropriate inwardly, in little baby steps. We are just not going to find it embodied institutionally, at least not in our lifetimes.

[Owen Jones]

"priests will have their faults"

Dear Sinjin,

I always intrigues me to hear traditional believers fall back on this statement. I frequently heard it among so-called traditionalists when I was an Anglican, and now I hear it from Orthodox. It seems to me that we need more clarity than that. First of all, priests are not supposed to be like everyone else. If they were, they wouldn't be priests. They are not supposed to be like everyone else, just like Christians are not supposed to be like everyone else. How about saying, "Christians have their faults just like everyone else?" If there is no difference between Christians and everyone else, then what is the point of being a Christian? That leaves us with Protestant theology which says that Christians are just like everyone else, but because we proclaim Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior, therefore our faults are ignored while everyone else is condemned for their faults. This is faulty theology, I should think.

I'm reminded of Fr. ARseny, who, when in the Gulag, was asked how this tragedy could have been allowed to happen. He attributed it to the professionalization of the clergy. Because of the distinct nature of the priesthood, when you turn it into a profession just like any other profession, the priest becomes prey to all manner of depravity and perversion (even at a higher rate I should think than everyone else) because of the assaults of the demons. Alcoholism, anger and bitterness and resentment, materialism, power-mongering, etc.

The whole element of discernment of the community in the selection of priests is taken entirely out of the equation, and becoming a priest frequently involves ego and self-promotion ( in order to get through what amounts to a hazing process by the Church in order to get into and through seminary and then get ordained).

This was the great problem that in part occasioned the instigation of monasticism. Priests had become public officials under the Empire and had lost their spiritual edge, forcing pious people to not just flee the world but also to flee the worldliness of the Church by going into the desert.

It seems to me that today, the desert is simply a reality of quiet, inner suffering which must be borne in isolation, without complaint. (but should also be manifest in good works, to be sure).

btw, I think perhaps the best Orthodox Christian statement of the 20th Century is in Etty Hillesum's Diaries. While rumored that she was baptised, probably a Catholic, while in a Nazi concentration camp, her diary to me distills the essence of true Orthodox asceticism in the contemporary world.

[sinjin smithe]

Owen thank you for your edification. I should not have been so stupid to make a statement like that. The thing is, the clergy are not going to be deprofessionalized anytime soon. Sometimes I despair at the state of the church and the nature of the priesthood. Good spiritual guidance is hard to come by...you really have to ask to get some good advice. I am currently reading <u>The Brothers Karamazov</u> and I sometimes think how nice it would be to have a Father Zossima, especially in the era that we live in.

[Owen Jones]

The Bible ain&#39;t a bad place to look for spiritual guidance.

Basically, most of us should be content with obeying the 10 commandments and not getting too esoteric in our spiritual lives. Just go about our business and try not to hurt anyone.

But if you look at the Diaries of Etty Hillesum, you see some pretty incredible things. She did not try to escape the Nazis as many fellow Jews were doing. She said that everyone was caught up in the evil and we could not judge and could not escape, just by leaving the country. She said it was enough just to try not to add to the evil or participate in it. She forgave the Nazis, especially the troops who were ordered to round up the Jews. I actually compiled a spiritual book of axioms, some from the Fathers, but it includes a number of quotes from Ettie&#39;s diaries. It&#39;s called &#34;A Vast And Fruitful Loneliness&#34; and it is beautifully caligraphied.

[sinjin smithe]

The spirit of the Apostles is something that one has to appropriate inwardly, in little baby steps.

The problem is we live in a society that wants everything now, today. Patience is certainly a virtue in our times!!! The hardest thing to do is to wean one&#39;s self away from instant gratification.

[Owen Jones]

Let&#39;s not blame the world for our own personal refusal to obey the commandments.

[John Wilson]

I just wanted to post that the experience of Euterpe Ganatsios with priests in the church in Greece has not been my own. Perhaps I have been blessed in this regard but I have yet to come across a priest that has anything like the attitude Euterpe described. I will admit that I know no priests with a cemetery under their jurisdiction, so I can&#39;t comment on that. All of the priests I know express unhappiness with their being paid by the state instead of through the support of their parish. It does free priests from the concern of having to work another job to support themselves and their families if there is insufficient support from the parish, but it has the harmful side effect of taking that burden of support from the shoulders of the parish where I believe it rightfully belongs. We would be different people indeed if the health and well being of our priests and their families depended on us, and I think the body of christians would be stronger if the wealthy churches were supporting the priests of poor villages where they truly did not have the means to support their own priests. I know that I do not put as much money into the collection each Sunday as I wish, but it saddens me that instead of the silent flutter of notes being dropped into the basket, there is the distinct clink of coin&#40;s&#41;. I guess it is possible that people are dropping coins in with notes so that people will not understand by the silence that they have placed a large amount of money in the collection. I hope that is the case. However, I remember my mother-in-law&#39;s comment on how the church must be raking in so much more money now with Euro&#39;s instead of Drachmes. Instead of dropping in a 100 drachmae coin people will now more than likely drop in a one euro coin worth more than three times as much. At least something good came of the change to Euro&#39;s, paltry though the difference may be.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Reply to John Wilson&#39;s post no.9

John, I live in a large city in the north-west of Greece and unfortunately I have to stand by what I wrote in my earlier message.

Do you attend an Old Calendar or New Calender church? My experience has been with New Calender priests. I think most Greeks would agree with me regarding priests in this country, although thankfully there are always exceptions.I know that the Church has directed that no extra money be paid for services priests provide but people still continue to pay them. We have had instances of priests fighting amongst themselves &#40;especially at St. George church which is the church attached to the cemetery&#41; about &#34;stealing&#34; each others customers.

As you live in Greece, you know that memorial blessings are given by the priests over the graves of the departed and I have never known a priest not to be paid for this service. You also give him something if you want the names of your departed read during the service. I don&#39;t like to be so cynical where priests are concerned but I have been disappointed by the attitude of most priests here. I have met a couple whom I could respect but, again, the majority seem to be the way I described them.

Yes, the Euro has made a lot of difference in the amount of money collected each Sunday - I only hope this money is being put to good use and not going into the priest&#39;s and church committee&#39;s pockets. The last committee at my church resigned in disgust when they discovered that the priest received a commission from the artist painting the frescoes on the church walls.

As I mentioned in a previous message, the behaviour of priests is the main reason young people are so cynical about the Church.

Chronia Polla

Effie

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

So, Euterpe, there&#39;s nothing new under the sun. When I was studying the manuscripts in Worcester Cathedral Library for my PhD I found an account of a dispute between the Benedictine monks serving the cathedral and the newly arrived Franciscan friars over their respective rights to burial fees. This inbroglio ended with an undignified punch-up in the city streets when a tug-of-war ensued over possession of a coffin that was actually on its way to interment in the cemetery. The coffin ended on a dunghill, and the dispute was ultimately resolved in favour of the friars because the dead man had legally willed his estate and disposal of his mortal remains to them, in defiance of a centuries-old tradition that all city burial dues belonged to the cathedral monastery. Ah, let us beware the risks that are inherent in holding too fast to tradition in the face of inexorable change.

teh seeker

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

As an outsider I thought that the Orthodox Christmas was to be celebrated on January 7th?

Apropos pews versus stalls, Haghia Sophia in Bayswater, London, definitely has the latter, and no organ. I have sung there several times, and am delighted that a door has opened a crack between the Greek Orthodox community and the mainstream.

the seeker

[Effie Ganatsios]

Margaret, your post about the Benedictine monks and Franciscan friars made me laugh. I could just imagine the scene.

However, a few rotten apples shouldn&#39;t make us want to throw away the whole barrel. I would like to see a much stricter screening of men who aspire to become priests - although, again, no-one but God knows what is in a man&#39;s heart, and what I am asking for might be unrealistic.

Speaking of Benedictine monks &#40;sort of....&#41;, have you read Rumer Godden&#39;s book &#34;In this House of Brede&#34;? It&#39;s about a monastery of Benedictine nuns and is supposedly based on that of Stanbrook Abbey. It&#39;s one of my favourite books.

You write : &#34;.. and am delighted that a door has opened a crack between the Greek Orthodox community and the mainstream.&#34;

Which mainstream are you referring to? There are such fundamental differences between the various Christian churches that it seems almost impossible for there to ultimately be any sort of union between them. Personally, the fact that the Catholic pope is considered by Catholics to be infallible is something that just makes no sense to me. The Orthodox are free to criticize their priests - from the lowest to the highest - knowing that they are just men. Men who will make mistakes and ask forgiveness for those mistakes when they realize that they have made them. A lucky few in all religions - through prayer and perhaps grace - achieve a higher plane of consciousness. They are to be respected because they shine a light for the rest of us and show us a path that we could follow if we wanted to.

Looking back over my message I seem to have started at a certain point and finished at an entirely different one. Sorry. Hope you can follow my roundabout way of saying something.

Effie

[John Wilson]

Euterpe,
perhaps things are different in Thessaloniki. I get the impression that Thessaloniki has always been one of the bulwarks of orthodoxy, there are so many churches here plus many monasteries within an hours drive from the city. Not to mention the city&#39;s proximaty to Agion Oros.
The church I attend is New Calendar, although the priests express a desire for the New Calendar churches to return to the Old Calendar and have indicated that many other priests feel the same way. The only Old Calendar churches I have seen &#40;outside of Agion Oros&#41; have been purely schismatic, one of which has since closed due to lack of attendance.

Margaret,
holding fast to tradition is a good thing if the traditions are from God. What was at issue with the monks you cited was the love of money, which has never been a &#34;tradition&#34; of the church. Those monks and the priests described by Euterpe were/are ignoring the words of our Lord Jesus: &#34;You cannot serve both God and Money&#34; &#40;Matt 6:24, Luke 16:13&#41;. As you said, &#34;There is nothing new under the sun&#34; and the same goes for the inexorable changes going on around us. There are many who say that the church is no longer relevant in this modern day and age yet they fail to realise that there is nothing particularly new about modern thought. It&#39;s pretty much all been done before.

[Effie Ganatsios]

John, thanks for replying.

I live in Kozani, which is in north-west Greece. Most of the churches are New Calendar but we do have Old Calendar churches that are run by the Old Calendar Monastery for Women that we have just outside town.

The relations between Old and New Calendar are excellent as far as I can tell.

I feel a little ashamed of my previous messages because I have been very negative about the priests here but it&#39;s the truth as I and most other people see it. I should add here : at least, the truth, as far as I am in a position to judge although I have to say once again that I am totally unworthy of judging anyone.

People are deeply religious here and it&#39;s a shame that the priests don&#39;t live up to our expectations.

Effie

[Cetti]

Dear Euterpe,

When the Catholics say the Pope is infallible it doesn`t mean he can`t make mistakes as a human being. I can`t say further as I don`t have academic background in theology and I am an Orthodox myself, but here is an article about Papal infaillibity as seen by the Catholics.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

I know this infallibility issue is controversial among the Orthodox - but sometimes they get wrong the concept because of some preconceptions or lack of information. Maybe in such cases trying to see things from a Catholic point of view could be useful - that is - trying to get the right information from the original source.

It is indeed painful to see how many things have contributed to division among churches - but I believe our goodwill and our prayers can achieve unity in the Spirit &#40;not in the letter!!!&#41;. By the way, in January comes the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.

Cetti

[Owen Jones]

Papal infallibility is not that different than the Orthodox view of Conciliar infallibility. And of course Protestants believe in Biblical &#40;or individual&#41; infallibility. All of which are flawed concepts in my opinion.

[Effie Ganatsios]

You&#39;re right Cetti. I found the following :

&#34; The idea of papal infallibility is sometimes misunderstood to mean that the pope is always right. This is not exactly the case. Officially, the pope is only said to be infallible when he speaks ex cathedra or &#34;officially&#34; as the supreme authority on faith and morals to the world. Once an in fallible statement is made, it becomes irrefutable. The pope&#39;s views on other matters are subject to deception and error just like anyone else&#39;s. &#34;


There are other differences between these two churches, of course, such as, the Filioque clause, that is, the teaching concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son; the teachings on purgatory, and on the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption of the Theotokos &#40;Mary the Godbearer&#41;. These together with the primacy and infallibility of the Pope are all rejected by the Orthodox church.

I also found the following interesting item :


&#34;1870 -- Roman Catholic Pope Pius IX, convened Vatican Council I. Main item on the agenda was the infallibility of the Pope. &#34;After much intensive lobbying and some very unchristianlike pressure, the pope suffered a major moral defeat when, out of over 1,000 bishops entitled to take part in the Council, only
451 voted for infallibility. But by a strategy of politicking and threatening all but two of the dissenters left Rome before a final vote was taken. At the last meeting of the council, on July 18, 1870, it was decided by 533 votes to 2 that the pope was infallible when defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals.&#34;

Some more information :

&#34;The Orthodox Church believed that the Pope of Rome was &#34;first among equals&#34; in a grouping of patriarchs of the universal Church when sitting in Council. In addition to this, the popes of later centuries declared a primacy of jurisdiction for themselves and infallibility when defining doctrine from the Chair of Peter.
The Orthodox Church has always held Ecumenical Councils as the highest Organ of the Church where doctrine and morals can be codified and defined.&#34;

I also found the following in reply to Owen&#39;s last post. It seems clear from the last two lines that the &#34;infallibility&#34; of the Roman Catholic pope and the &#34;infallibility&#34; of the Ecumenical Councils are not the same.

&#34;The Orthodox Church rejects the papal claims that there is a vicar of Christ, infallible head of the Christian Church. It would, if union occurred with the Roman Catholic Church, consider the Pope as the first Bishop among equals. The other &#34;equals&#34; being the primates of the Orthodox Churches around the world. The Ecumenical Councils, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and attended by all Bishops, is the highest legislative body on matters of faith and morals. Decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are considered infallible and inspired by the Holy Spirit, only if consistent with the Apostolic Faith and accepted by the entire Church. Therefore, every person within the Church is responsible for Christian truth.&#34;


Effie

[Owen Jones]

Dear Effie,

I have a problem with a council &#40;a fairly late council at that&#41; declaring itself infallible. I am aware of all of the arguments but they all seem to be circular arguments to me. The Councils are infallible. Why? Because a council declared that it&#39;s infallible. I don&#39;t see how this differs substantially from a Pope declaring that declarations made ex cathedra are infallible. He&#39;s just saying the same thing as the conciliar claims. He&#39;s not speaking off the cuff but only after a lot of consultations with the bishops.

You know when there is a problem with a loss of the HOly Spirit in the Church precisely when it begins making declarations of infallibility. That&#39;s when you know that the HOly Spirit has virtually disappeared from the deliberations and discernment process.

The early Church need make no such claims of infallibility because they knew that truth is not simply something that is declared. It is something that has to be embodied and discerned by those who have acquired a deiform soul, as the desert fathers call it. There is no truth, or wisdom that exists on its own, in the abstract. Truth and wisdom take on existence when embodied in a human heart. Christian truth does not exist in the form of eternal verities.

Finally, the classical patristic and philosophical doctrine of truth is that doctrine is only a way of expressing it. It cannot be the truth itself. Truth is a realm which the deified soul participates in. this gets at the heart of the liturgy. If the liturgy were simply a worship service and celebration, then it would lack power and substance and meaning. The liturgy exists in a different world, and permits us to enter that world.

When I hear Orthodox proclaim that Orthodoxy is the truth and other Churches aren&#39;t, I look for some evidence of truth in them, more than just personal certitude. What I usually find is a kind of insecurity, that maybe, just maybe, there&#39;s a problem with all of this and if I don&#39;t assert that it&#39;s true dogmatically then maybe there is something wrong with me. That&#39;s a psychological as well as a spiritual deficit behind such an assertion.

And finally, the search for certitude is the opposite of faith. It is the death of faith.

We are all suffering from certain philsophical problems associated with a falling away from the true Apostolic spirit and having to rely on dogmatic statements as a substitute. We cannot live dogmatically. Dogma is simply a guide to protect us from certain heretical teachings that would potentially lead us astray. We can only live by faith. The kind of faith that does not lead to certitude in the modern sense, but proof in the classical sense, in which the proof of the pudding is in the eating of it.

A perfect example is the eucharist. If you were to have a chemist test the elements he would not likely find blood and flesh. Yet the truth of the matter is that it is -- but not in some objectifiable sense. Only in and through faith.

But of course what is the blood and wine but Christ himself? Yet there is no verifiable Christ. THere is no Christ who is subject to historical proof. If you had a photo of Christ, it would not prove anything. It would not prove he was God. And if you could have taken a photo of His ascension, it would not have turned up on photographic film, because only a few whose eyes were transformed by faith were allowed to see him as the ascending Christ, and we rely on the TRUTH of that witness, through faith. There is no certitude in that. ONe simply has to take the plunge.

Unfortunately, when I point out to people that the classical Christian understanding of truth is far different than the modern, I am typically accused of being a relativist and ecumenist who is denying altogther the truth of the teachings of the Church. Which just proves what a deplorable philsophical and theological state we are in today.

[irineu]

Interesting your wiew, BUT..very personal!

I think, as I have learned the faith, someone should read the fathers in the church, and not vice versa. Church is the one that encompasses all that, it it is from the Church, in its mystical sense, that the fathers get their wiews.

The church is infallible, is a fundamental truth from the biginning of christianity, and there should be no other questions about this and no link, whether someone should be holy &#40;deified&#41;to reveal the truth.

I think of it the same way, as the someone allthough might be a prist full of sins and errors &#40;morally&#41;, that doesnt stop his grace on accompilishing the sacraments of the church. In the same way, the greatest &#34;Sacrament, mystery&#34; of the church is itd infallibility in its catholicism!

I&#39;m sorry, but I dont the reasons of comparing the ecumenical conil of the church with th one person &#40;the pope&#41;. They are two different things. Christ promissed His prezence in a collecktivity &#40;2,3&#41; and not in one single person, and He came to build the church, His body, and not the authority of a person....here lies the mistake of the pope.

Of course the truth is such in its self, and none can change it, but being the truth in ints self, from the other side, is not its goal.....that is, I think, when the fathers speak of a personal experience of the truth, and not becuese the denyied its presence in the collectivity of the church.

thnx!

[sinjin smithe]

Brilliant post Owen. You are a very wise man.

I would like to see a much stricter screening of men who aspire to become priests - although, again, no-one but God knows what is in a man&#39;s heart, and what I am asking for might be unrealistic.

I have been pondering this also for the last few days. How about a &#39;boot camp&#39; for priests where they are sent away to a monastery for a while. I don&#39;t know if this would work but it is a suggestion.

[Owen Jones]

The doctrine of Papal infallibility is on behalf of the &#34;collectivity,&#34; as you say, of the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope doesn&#39;t claim that everything that comes out of his mouth is infallible.

Of course, collectivity is one of those modern, anti-Christian, ideological terms that I despise.

Regarding your argument, I really do think that it runs quite counter to the Church&#39;s reasoning. If any old body who merely gave verbal assent to the dogmas of the Church, could then get together and change the dogmas of the Church, would they be infallible? No, there has to be some inner test. People are fond of saying these days that the Apostles were just fallible human beings like you and me. But I think that misses the point. They were chosen by God because they were ordinary, but then they accomplished extraordinary things, out of their low position. That is really the key point of the Gospel, which turns the worldly hierarchies upside down. But we must also admit that they went way way beyond what we are in terms of a witness, and their nature was transformed. They knew not Jesus as the Christ until the Holy Spirit transformed their sense perception at Pentacost. So they were no longer just like you and me.

[Richard McBride]

Re: “There are many who say that the church is no longer relevant in this modern day and age yet they fail to realise that there is nothing particularly new about modern thought. It&#39;s pretty much all been done before.”

Chat-talk encourages bromides as, There is nothing new under the sun; and it is difficult to enter into chat-talkeeze without dropping them. Still, they may mask as much error as the truths to which they are supposed to refer, and I think the quote above masks a great deal of error. It covers over that which is modern, horrible and unique in its usage, by lumping Modernism into the ‘same-old-bag-of-laundry’ syndrome. Under such protective thinking one would be justified to leap to such absurdities as: Hitler, while being excessively megalomanical, was really doing nothing more nor less than that which was done by say, feudal societies, the Aztecs, or by the Persians to the Jews -- only Hitler may have been acting on grander scale.

More to the point, such convoluted thinking may all too easily mask one’s own better intentions, and without realizing it, one’s gentle thoughts become converted, again through bromide-thinking, to defending heresies as, “relevancy”. Nothing, I think, could more fairly represent the error of modernist thought, so simply, than to imagine that the Church “ought to be relevant”.

NO! The Church ought NOT be relevant. Relevancy pertains to that which is modern and worldly, and in all ways it plays into the pocket of the prince of the Modern Movement. To imagine that one’s church is somehow wrong if it fails the relevancy test is itself proof of how far one’s thinking has become absorbed into the modernist quagmire. Let it serve as a wake-up call. “Relevancy” thinking leads to turning one’s beautiful old church buildings into museums. And as far it goes, such thinking was probably correct, in the case of the Anglican Church. Their church buildings had long been only that: Buildings housing the bodies and memories of a people who had lost their stomach for God during the Catholic Wars -- if not before that. As far as it went, those buildings were indeed no longer “relevant” as the Body of Christ, so why not completely apostatize them into museums? At least, museums are relevant.

But of course, “relevancy” is merely one name for the plethora of seemingly sweet thoughts which it is the duty of Modernism to purvey: Save the whales; Support abortion; Send the children to see Harry Potter; Send the teenages to Lord of the Rings. After all, there is nothing wrong with fairy tales &#40;nothing that is, if one no longer cares about that which IS Godly, for this stuff is not of God&#41;.

richard mcb

[Stephen Keeler]

Owen wrote about the Apostles:

&#34;They knew not Jesus as the Christ until the Holy Spirit transformed their sense perception at Pentacost. So they were no longer just like you and me.&#34;

Hold it. I thought with baptism and confirmation we were also sealed with the Holy Spirit. Would that not make us like the Apostles? Are you not really saying htat we have not yet realized our potential as the Apostles did?

[Owen Jones]

That&#39;s absolutely what I&#39;m saying. The Christian life is one of making progress toward perfection, which involves a continuing change in our nature. The deiform soul, as many of the desert fathers called it, is one that has been perfected, to the extent that is possible while still in a physical body. Are you there yet? Such a soul can see what you and I cannot, can perceive what you and I cannot, can prophecy what you and I cannot.

[Owen Jones]

The idea of REvolution is a French 18th Century idea. It is a new idea that never existed before. Never before was there a society organized around the principle that you could exist without God. And, of course, all of the rest of the Western nations have eventually followed suit.

Now, there have always been people who did not believe, and there were philosophical materialists. But this is a new kind of atheism. Not a personal atheism, but a societal atheism. That never existed prior to the 18th Century.

[Stephen Keeler]

With baptism and confirmation, we have the potential, so in this way we can be like the Apostles. Whether this becomes actualized is, as you say, a different story and rather difficult, sort of like the difference between being created in God&#39;s image, but not acting according to His likeness.

To discount the potential to actualize approaches despair, a very sad and serious state.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Owen, thanks for replying. I have so little time today that I can&#39;t sit down and read carefully all that you have written -I did read your messages quickly though and there are two or three points that I would really like to discuss. Unfortunately, I won&#39;t be connected to the Internet after today because I decided not to renew my subscription. I&#39;ve been spending far too much time on my computer.... LOL and as I&#39;m trying to be a better steward of my time, I decided that the Internet has to be sacrified - at least for a few months.

I&#39;d like to wish everyone a Happy New Year. A year in which they will come closer to what they aspire to be. I&#39;d also like this year to be one of peace but I can see that war is again on America&#39;s agenda.

Peace and love to everyone.

Effie

[irineu]

Owen!

I do not agree at all with the way you represent certain things. And there is a bad sign for you. Some people are trying to represent your position as of a wise man, allthough in your writings there is a lot of &#34;I&#34;. Now, i do admitt that I&#39;m knew in this forum, and I dont know who is who, or who is orthodox, as I need some time for this. From the other side, I have other places, where I really invest my energies on such matters.

The thing with your way of saying things, starts from the begginig in a wrong way.

The virtue that has kept orthodoxy away from the heresy, is not &#34;wisdom&#34;, as many might call each others individual theories, but simplicity and humility in the mistery of the church, as the mystical body of Jesus Christ.

What I notice from your recent writings, is a individualism, as &#34;I dont like this; or i dont think of this as..&#34;, but nowheere is your opinion layid on the experiences of the body of christ.

That the collectivity &#40;catholicity in synod&#41; is the base of the truth, that comes from the holy synodes, tradition, and from the holy Scripture itself, as We have mentioned before.

Similarities of the papal infallibilities with that of the church as one in an ecumenical sinode, does not at all have to do anything with the validity of each other, the same way, that the nonexistence of a false &#34;god&#34;, doesnt prove the nonexistence of the true God...

the Truth and infallibility of the church is promissed from Jesus, not because of the sanctity of certain persons, but because of His mystical presence in the church.

Whta might seem in to your eyes as a time of the church without saints, it might be different in the eyes of God.

There is a distinction between the presence of the truth in the church, and the personal experience of the truth &#40;deification&#41;....the first is not affected from the second, at least from as so far we can see.

I&#39;m sorry if I&#39;ve misunderstood you somewhere. and I&#39;ll try to follow you better.

[Cetti]

Dear Effie,

I am aware of the differences between the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches you were writing about. I`d like to underline a few things. I believe we should be aware of those differences - we can`t claim they don`t exist - but we should be also careful not to turn them into a wall to divide us even more.
As a layperson, there is practically nothing I could do to change anything from a doctrinal point of view. What I think I can change in the relationship with the other churches is the attitude. I mean trying to see first what we have in common and not what separates us.
There are small things everybody can do. To quote a well-known phrase, &#34;attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference&#34;. For example, my friends go from time to time to pray with the Catholics. They also read Catholic literature. I also know Catholics who do the same- they love very much the Orthodox Church. I think that those small things can do a lot for a change in our attitude. Because much of the conflicts between the churches comes from misunderstanding and prejudice. If we got to know each other, we`d see there are a lot of things we have in common, apart from our doctrinal differences.
I hope you`ll be able to read this. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to write those thoughts. Have a blessed New Year!!
Cetti

[Owen Jones]

I am glad that you speak with such authority, Irineu, on behalf of the collectivity. Utilizing the royal &#34;we&#34; is, of course, especially powerful in its appeal, since I know now your wisdom. How could I have possibly...&#40;oops, there&#39;s that horrible &#34;I&#34; word again&#41; What is my penance oh great one?

[Owen Jones]

Dear Effie,

Thanks for the backhanded comment. Christ did not promise peace to everyone. He promised, in fact, just the opposite. And by the way, I do not think America wants war with anyone. The Europeans have gotten us into several this century, the latest was doing your dirty work in Bosnia and Serbia, with little or no thanks for it.

The Biblical concept of peace is an inner acceptance. We try our best not to contribute to evil. We are promised rewards in this life and the next when we practice that doctrine. But there is no promise of peace in the external sense. Just the opposite. And there is a violence to Christ&#39;s conquests.

I simply despise the modern, liberal maudlin transformation of Christianity into something akin to utopian socialism in which everyone is supposed to make nice to each other and that supposedly is going to end poverty, injustice, war, etc.

[Owen Jones]

As you imply, Stephen, baptism and confirmation are not magical incantations. What happened after Christ&#39;s baptism? He was attacked by the demons like no other. He won that battle, but it could have gone either way. So too is it with us. When we see baptism and confirmation as a guarantee of our sanctity, we are no different than the protestant fundamentalist who believes his salvation is guaranteed when he publicly professes Christ as his personal Lord and Savior. I just don&#39;t see anything in Christian teaching where there are guarantees. There are many promises that God makes, but these are all contingent on our cooperation.

[Adam Martyna]

Dears! I read your thouts with attention, because they let me know some more about my beloved Orthodoxy. I am Roman- Catholic, but my attitude to the Orthodoxy is like that of a son to his mother who is gone away abroad . So I wait for the time of our unity. Sometimes I think about making conversion into Orthodoxy, but I am full of doubts. I don`t want to betray my R.C. religion so I beg every day the Most Holy Theotokos to lead me in the church which has the plain truth. As far as today I don`t know which of the both denominations is the Lord`s own. I try to live with the Orthodox tradition of prayer: Practicing Jesus prayer and bows but I want to meet a guide on the prayer way. Maybe you could give me some advices. Adam.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Owen, I&#39;m still here - at least until tomorrow morning I think. Actually I didn&#39;t expect to get through just now, but I thought I&#39;d try anyway.

Owen, I didn&#39;t give you a backhanded compliment. Anything I say I mean sincerely. I&#39;m sorry you misunderstood me. I won&#39;t go into the dangerous political situation that is facing the whole world again. Just please don&#39;t mention Serbia &#40;Yugoslavia&#41; to me. This is a very sore subject with most reasonable Europeans and one which America and Americans would do well to avoid. Turning on former allies and killing them is nothing to be proud of. This might even be apparent to the average American in the future - the American and Canadian Veterans Associations both officially protested but no-one paid them any attention.

Peace does start with us as you mentioned and that&#39;s why it&#39;s our obligation to not bury our heads in the sand and to protest wherever and whenever we can.

Again, I wish you peace

Effie

[Effie Ganatsios]

Cetti, thank you for your blessing.

I too read both Protestant and Catholic literature. In fact up until the time I got my computer and access to the information on the Internet,this was about all I did read concerning religion. I sat for exams here a couple of years ago and one of the exams I sat for was Religious instruction. I was sure I would fail the oral part of the exam because I was examined by a priest who was a Professor of Religion and I was afraid that the knowledge I had acquired would prove to be in direct opposition to Orthodox teachings. Luckily, he gave me a very high mark, so I assume that there are many points that we can all agree upon.

One of my favourite books is The Way of Perfection by St. Teresa of Avila. Another favourite and a saint that I really admire is St. John of the Cross.

Hope you find time to reply today.

Effie

[Richard McBride]

Dear Brother Adam:

You report your struggle with calmness, which befits your marriage to Christ. While I know you are in torment over the division in your soul, it is good that you have not yet allowed it to drag you down.

But you are in a bad situation. The demons will not allow you to sit on that fence very long. I should not be surprised to find that you have already heard them cackling and rejoicing over their anticipation at your fall.

Presently, you are double minded, and it is these very doubts which caused Cephas to sink when walking to the Lord. You must not remain double minded, but make a choice. Forget the false warmth of allegories concerning two lungs. There is only one Body. And you have but one heart and one soul. You cannot serve two masters. Everyone who tries this is doomed to worse tribulations than they had experienced previously. BEING OF TWO MINDS IS NOT THE WAY OF PEACE!

I know you have thought all this already, that you have agonized over all this and more. But I urge you: Make your decision. Pray again, and again, earnestly and repeatedly to the Theotokos and perhaps she will lead you. She brought me into Orthodoxy, and as Our Lady of Walsingham She received me so beautifully that I weep over the most blessed memory I may ever possess.

Yes, it is difficult to know what this division between Rome and Orthodoxy means to the Lord -- except that it must be unbearably painful. It is such added sorrow to the One who receives all sorrow. He could have been thinking of Rome when He said so poignantly, “Jerusalem! Jerusalem!”

Bishop Basil, who is the most holy bishop in America, said that all the religions have some portion of the truth. But only Orthodoxy contains the whole Truth. Yet, you may not be able to leave your old family and take up the Cross. Which will it be, dear Brother?

richard mcb

A beautiful and most useful prayer is offered by the Antiochian Orthodox to those in a quandary:

Almighty God! Our Help and our Refuge. Fountain of wisdom and Tower of strength, who knowest I can do nothing without Thy help and guidance; assist me, I earnestly pray Thee, to divine wisdom and power, that I may make this decision faithfully and diligently, according to Thy will, so that it be profitable to those whom it affects, and that it accrue to the Glory of Thy Holy Name. For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit &#40;&#43;&#41;: now and forever and unto ages of ages. Amen.

I pray this prayer for your well being, dear Brother.

[John Wilson]

What happened after Christ's baptism? He was attacked by the demons like no other. He won that battle, but it could have gone either way.

I'm extremely surprised at this statement Owen. Which statement of the church fathers led you to this conclusion. Yes, Jesus was fully human, complete with human free will to choose between obeying God his Father or not, but to suggest that Jesus defeating Satan was anything but a foregone conclusion is ludicrous. Jesus had a human will so that by his complete obedience to the will of his Father he could restore our fallen human nature and glorify it. It is the reason he became incarnate and there could never be any doubt that he would acheive what he set out to do.

Please forgive the emotional nature of this post. I'm not terribly good at being diplomatic or at clearly expressing myself so I hope I have not caused offence.

[Elizabeth Riggs]

Owen, previously you wrote:
&#34;What happened after Christ&#39;s baptism? He was attacked by the demons like no other. He won that battle, but it could have gone either way.&#34;

I beg to differ. Christ could &#42;not&#42; have lost that battle. He is / was / will be GOD. God is indefeatable.

In Christ,
Elizabeth

[Elizabeth Riggs]

Adam,

As converts to Orthodoxy, my husband and I &#34;lost&#34; many &#34;friends&#34; and several relatives no longer are in touch with us. But we do not bemoan these &#34;losses&#34; because we have gained &#42;much&#42; more. Yes, some of these &#34;losses&#34; saddened us at the time, but we have found true friends and true family in the Orthodox Church. We count our Orthodox brothers and sisters to be more family that our blood-relatives. There is great comfort there.

Love in Christ,
Elizabeth

[John Wilson]

From Richard McBride:
NO! The Church ought NOT be relevant. Relevancy pertains to that which is modern and worldly, and in all ways it plays into the pocket of the prince of the Modern Movement.

This is actually part of the point I was trying to make to Margaret, though obviously I failed miserably at it. She had made the following statement: Ah, let us beware the risks that are inherent in holding too fast to tradition in the face of inexorable change.
Thank you for saying clearly what I seem unable to.

[Elizabeth Riggs]

Owen, you previously posted:

&#34;The Biblical concept of peace is an inner acceptance. We try our best not to contribute to evil. We are promised rewards in this life and the next when we practice that doctrine. But there is no promise of peace in the external sense. Just the opposite. And there is a violence to Christ&#39;s conquests.&#34;

Reminds me of one of my favorite Episcopal hymn:

They cast their nets in Galilee
Just off the hills of brown;
Such happy, simple fisher-folk,
Before the Lord came down.

Contented, peaceful fishermen,
Before they ever knew
the peace of God that filled their heart
Brimfull and broke them too.

Young John who trimmed the flapping sail,
Homeless in Patmos died
Peter who hauled the teeming net,
Headdown was crucified.

&#42;&#42;The peace of God it is no peace
But strife closed in the &#34;ground&#34; &#40;had to substitute another word here, but it rhymes with &#34;God&#34;.&#41;
Yet, brother, pray for but one thing
The marvelous peace of God.&#42;&#42;

That last verse is probably very true about what to expect about the &#34;peace of God&#34;

Love in Christ,
Elizabeth

[Adam]

Christ is among us!Dearest in Christ! I have red your advices and for every of them thank you so much! Your opinions are to be think over. For today I can say that I would rather make a clear choice. The theory about two lungs don`t perceive me. It is impossible that there could exist two equal but different theories. The truth is in my opinion one and only. Christ wanted to ground His One Church, but today I personally have the problem which is the Church Our Lord wanted to have. I read so much to discover the first times of the Church, the Fathers` Church, the testimony of patristic is very important. I am adult, I know that there is no ideal group on this earth, even Church is still on the way, so culd make mistakes. But when the Roman-Catholics say &#34;We are the true church&#34; and Orthodox say it as well, there must be only one church which kept the true Christianity. I dont want offense anybody, but i don`t concern the Protestant denominations as apostolic. So, I can do above all this one : I pray the Holy Mother still and beg her to show me which is the True Church of Her Son. Please, pray with me.
Adam the sinner

[Owen Jones]

It&#39;s one thing to say that we have no doubt that Christ would make the right choice. It had to be that way, of course, for God&#39;s plan to be put into full effect. At the same time, what was the point of the temptation in the first place? What was the point of God demanding that Abraham offer Isaac as a sacrifice? Come on, folks. Let&#39;s get our brains screwed on right. I guess I am naive, but it always shocks me when Christians deny, explicitly, or implicitly, our exalted doctrine of free will. Now, I&#39;m not a theological expert, so perhaps someone more studied than I can address this, but wasn&#39;t this what the monothelite heresy was all about? Where is the virtue in Abraham or Moses or Mary or Jesus making the right choice, if there is no freedom involved, that they all HAD to make the right choice, i.e. there was no real choice involved? How can I possibly hope to live like Christ if, as a sinner, I can&#39;t have the power from God to go through temptation just like Christ did, and to make the right choice, just like Christ did? Isn&#39;t that what the whole Orthodox doctrine of deification is all about. Without that, are we not left simply with the protestant doctrine of justification? We are abject sinners with no hope of being Christ-like since he is of such a totally different order of being that we can have nothing in common with him. &#40;the monophysite heresy in its extreme form I should think&#41;.

Perhaps I am totally wrong, but would someone please demonstrate where it is written that Christ&#39;s temptation was pointless and meaningless, his temptation in the desert, his suffering in Gethsemene and on the Cross????

Frankly, I think people are confusing or confating two issues: Divine foreknowledge and predestination vs. free will. All too often I think we fail to reconcile the two so we simply drop off the one we don&#39;t like.

[Owen Jones]

Well, Effie, I just don&#39;t see Orthodoxy as a religion of protest. If anything, we are commanded not to protest the evils of the world, but strike at the heart of all of the evils that we hate in the world by removing them from our own heart.

As for the political situation, it seemed to me that you were making it sound like the U.S. was looking forward to go to war, or that perhaps the U.S. was the cause of the current turmoils &#40;and not fanatical muslim terrorists&#41;. And I always get peeved about Europeans complaining about that. I was totally opposed to the U.S. getting involved in the Balkans. It has nothing to do with our national interest, first of all, and secondly, it was immoral for us to bomb Serbia. But it was the Europeans who begged us to do it, so they could wash their hands of it &#40;plus they lacked the military ability to do anything&#41;. It just struck me as a typical European double standard regarding U.S. power.

But the idea that political protests against war has any moral or practical efficacy seems to me to be a bit ridiculous. Christians are commanded to practice prudence and self-restraint and obey all of the commandments, which includes not murdering anyone. The idea that that standard could ever be imposed on nation states is more than just a bit naive to me, unless we return to a monarchical system in which the Archbishop has the power to force a monarch to do penance for his evil deeds. But today we all live in secular societies in which the idea of the sovereignty of God over politics is a non-starter. So by getting involved in protest movements, all we do is allow ourselves to get caught up in the same evil we claim to despise.

And, yes, these are all my own individual opinions.

[sinjin smithe]

Frankly, I think people are confusing or confating two issues: Divine foreknowledge and predestination vs. free will. All too often I think we fail to reconcile the two so we simply drop off the one we don&#39;t like.

It would be interesting to start another thread on this whole topic of divine foreknowledge and predestination vs. free will because I think &#40;myself included&#41; many are confusing the two topics.

[Richard McBride]

Blessed of the Lord, John:

On these message boards I become the bricoleur, pottering through other people’s dust bins, salvaging the shiny bits. And even under the salutation to you, it is often to speak to some unmentioned person -- perhaps to another even more directly and specifically than to yourself. &#40;I say this now, however, speaking to myself.&#41;

It is well that you understand your ability to speak/write only with difficulty, and often without getting the point across. I say that “it is well”, because you are then under less danger of the pride of speaking things well done, knowing the well done issues are by the hand of the Holy Spirit -- both in the writing and the reading.

Of course, you know all this; but to remind is to put in place once again, in this tiny way, the remembrance that we do none of the good stuff on our own. Thus, when it falls flat, we also know that we simply ran off at the mouth, leaving the Holy Spirit behind. That’s the important part -- realising as much; not so that which we say.

From the good love and good sense that you show, John, you easily rise above the nasty things I have to say. It is, after all, only my way of helping you avoid pride.

So, when the Holy Spirit urges, have no qualms in sending us our instructions. We desperately need each little bit. That is the wonderful thing of Monochos. A great richness is shared with all.

richard mcb

[Moses Anthony]

Hello Everyone;
I&#39;ve lurked in the bright glare of my monitor for a while, just reading, saving and deleting posts. While the topics are good, they seem to go in cycles as new members are added. Therefore, I&#39;ve lurked in the shadows.
Wow! Owen stated rhetorically, &#34;What was the point of the temptation in the first place? What was the point of God demanding that Abraham offer Issac as a sacrifice? My answer: If Jesus is the Second Adam, then the life which He lived would be the example of how the First Adam was to have lived in communion with Almighty God. As God in the flesh, Jesus could easily have made the temptations go away, but then man whom He came to redeem was not of incarnate birth. The temptations show us -all of us flesh and blood- that it&#39;s possible to overcome the devil by trusting completely in God. This is what Abraham, our forefather in the faith shows us. Against all human reasoning, an old man through angelic visitation is promised a son, and when that son is an adult, is told to sacrifice that very same promised son. A son is huge in that culture, so why the command? Abraham was tested to see just how far, or how much he really trusted in Yahweh. As it were, Abraham received his son back from the dead. Remind you of anything?
But still, could Jesus have failed in the wilderness,NO. Besides the fact that it was the will of the Father,who sent forth His Word- none of which ever fails- reconoiter the above answer.
I would say that anyone who lives under the direction of the Holy Spirit in their struggle for theosis, is engaged in the most primal, and the very best form of protest. The Kingdom of God suffers violence, and the violent take it by force! If for any reason we do not protest with our lives and our words, against the evils Satan afflicts humanity with, then who will be counted for righteousness! And especially when You or I, are the ones at the stake!
May our Lord be born in your hearts, and Himself, become your heart!

t.u.s.

[Owen Jones]

Dear James,

It was a rhetorical question, which doesn&#39;t mean that I don&#39;t appreciate your answer. The context, of course, was a statement that I took to question, substantially, Christ&#39;s free will. St. Maximos, as I understand it, insisted that Christ had two wills that worked in harmony. Otherwise, what is the point of his temptation and sacrifice? How could it possibly save us?

[Moses Anthony]

Owen,
In the vernacular of the comic book hero, Sgt.Fury of the Howling Commandos, &#34;&#39;Nuff said.&#34;

t.u.s.

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

Well, Euterpe, my illustrative story does come from the 13th century, and one hopes that such undignified squabbles are not carried out in public these days &#40;though from what I have read about conflicting claims of Copts, Armenians and Franciscan friars over possession of the church of the Nativity on Temple Mount in Jerusalem, resulting in the respective factions coming to blows over who has a right to clean which bit of wall, I do sometimes wonder&#41;.

My comment about a door opening a crack merely indicates how much progress has been made in recent years in contact of any kind being made between the Greek Orthodox church and everybody else in the UK. Most Anglicans and RCs &#40;I can&#39;t answer for other Protestant sects&#41; do not in my limited experience seem to be aware of the Orthodox tradition as a living presence in the UK, though some Anglican literature does now refer to it, as I have known The Tablet &#40;a leading independent RC periodical of intellectual bent&#41; sometimes to do, and I have seen books by Metropolitan Anthony Bloom &#40;the Russian Orthodox archbishop in London&#41; on some C of E book stalls. Indeed, I have bought and read some of these.

Be reassured that I am certainly not anticipating a reunion any time soon between the Eastern and Western churches but I would welcome any signs of dialogue. Each may have much to learn from the other&#39;s perspective, and the bitterness resulting from the split may be somewhat leavened by increased positive personal contact.

the seeker

[John Wehling]

Owen and all,

This question of freedom and choice is a complex one and I doubt I can give it the explanation it deserves, but I will try.

In brief, St Maximos insists that Christ does have two wills, a human and a divine, because will belongs to nature, of which He has two. The monothelites confused this issue and believed that will belonged to person &#40;not nature&#41; and that Christ, therefore, had only one will, the human will being fused with the divine in the incarnation &#40;the influence of monophysitism is apparent here&#41;. They did this because they wanted to avoid any notion that Christ ever faltered or had to deliberate or discern the true path from the false, this being a sign, not of human nature, but of the fall. They furthermore assumed that if there were two wills in Christ they would necessarily be in conflict.

It is important to see where St Maximos disagrees with the monothelites and where he does not. As I said above, he held that will belongs to nature and, upholding the theological tradition of Chalcedon, that Christ must have two wills which He maintains in a united but unconfused way. What is not assumed is not healed, and it is our will which, above all, needs healed, as it was the place where we lost the battle in the first place. So Christ had a human will which always submitted to the divine will. The two could co-exist in Christ without necessarily being in conflict, for Christ was perfect man, “natural man,” Maximos might say, and what is natural cannot be opposed to God who created natures to be in harmony with divine life.

The reality of two wills in Christ does not mean, however, that Christ ever deliberated or struggled or was unsure about which “way to go” in a situation. Nor, in His temptations, was there ever a chance that He would succumb to the tempter. The temptation was real in that the tempter sought to lure Him into sin. But there was never a possibility that Christ would accept the bait, so to speak.

This sounds to most of our modern ears like a sham, like Docetism. That is because, I think, we believe that it is part and parcel of human nature to struggle and to exercise free will in this context in which it requires choice and the choosing between alternatives. For St Maximos, however, real freedom does not have to do with the question of choice at all, but rather with the ability of the creature to walk in harmony with God’s will. In other words, while free will is part of human nature, the situation of having to choose is not. It is a result of the fall. And freedom and choice are not synonyms or corollaries. If Adam had staid his will in God’s and not turned his mind/nous away from God to consider the tempter’s claim, there would have been no real choice but only the continuing, free subjection of his will to God’s. Since he did not, this condition of having to choose the good out of a confusing swirl of alternatives is our lot. This is what St Maximos calls gnome, or the gnomic will.

Now it is necessary to see, in our present discussion, that the gnomic will is NOT part of our nature, but as I said, a condition of the fall; i.e. part of the fragmentation that occurs with it. It is, in other words, part of our fallen mode of existence, not part of our natural mode of existence. It relates then, not to our nature and our natural mode of life, but to the sub-natural, fallen, mode we live as humans after the fall. Christ, therefore, was free of it, because, while He condescended to experience those effects of the fall which are not blameworthy &#40;such as hungering, thirsting, even dying&#41;, never at any time was He “fallen.” He allowed Himself, that is, to experience some of the effects of the fall &#40;those that would not make Him sinful but which were a result of Adam’s sin&#41; without ever participating in the fall. Otherwise He would not have been our divine Savior but only a sympathizer.

To my thinking, this whole question has huge implications for how we understand the spiritual life, the modern world, etc. If we assume, as modern democratic thought does, that freedom means the ability to choose, then we make choice part of our natural, God-given state. It is hard to avoid the conclusion, then, &#40;if I can be afforded the luxury of leaping ahead two dozen or more steps…&#41; that man is a creature who chooses and that at every step of the way he must choose between right and wrong, between degrees of the good, etc. And if it is part of our nature, then we will have it with us in the Kingdom. So even Heaven will be a sort of celestial supermarket? Forgive the hyperbole, but you get my point.

Choice is a mere phantom of our true freedom, which involves no deliberation, but is fixed on God without ever being forced by God. And thus man is the creature whose end is to be the lover of God and &#34;seer&#34; of God, not the eternal shopper.

Peace,
John

[Owen Jones]

Thanks for the exposition on Maximos, John. I can certainly grasp the princple that freedom of the will should not be reduced to choice. And I understand the fundamental Orthodox principle that freedom is a consequence of or a condition of our restored nature -- a state or condition rather than a series of decisions. My Episcopalian pastoral theology teacher always used to denounce voluntarism as one of the modern philosophical &#40;and protestant&#41; sins. And, of course, all we have to do is look around us to see the deleterious social impact of reducing freedom to choice. But perhaps I have fallen into that trap myself. If so, I beg the tolerance of the rest of you.

But I&#39;m still having difficulty with the idea that choice or decision-making or any agony over doing the right thing is dispensed with entirely, in the case of Abraham, Moses, Mary, and, yes, Our Lord.

[Moses Anthony]

Owen,
&#34;....they that go forth sowing in tears shall return bearing their sheaths in joy.&#34;
Jesus&#39; sweating in Gethsemane, Abraham bargaining with the angel of God about the destruction of Sodom, etc, etc, etc.
It seems that we go overboard either in one direction or the other in what&#39;s believed, suffering the agony of having to face the death of erroneous views, in coming to the truth. With Abraham it was considering that God was able to raise Isaac from the dead; with Mary even when the sword pierced her heart, she submitted to what was according to the will of God; Moses, well he failed at one important juncture &#40;striking the rock instead of speaking to it&#41;, but facing the horror of the entire nation being wiped out delivered an ultimatium to God and has inherited the witness of speaking with God as a man would with his friend; and Jesus, who for the joy set before Him, endured the cross, despising the shame....
My best friend and I once sat out to define freedom, as being mentioned in the biblical passage, &#34;..it was for freedom that Christ set you free, therefore.....&#34; The best I&#39;ve heard or read since that time has been Berdeyev &#40;but this is an aside&#41;
I would suppose that the reason for the immense joy we&#39;ve inheirited, is because of the agony we&#39;ve overcome/did an end around the flesh, through union/commitment to/with the will of God. No doubt that&#39;s the reason we have Saints!