Why Eastern tradition over Catholic tradition? [Archive]

Shawn Lazar

10-07-2006, 07:12 AM

Dear Aaron and Trudy,

Thank you for responding to this post, and to my other post on celibacy. I can't tell you how much I appreciate being able to discuss these things for the first time. I've read quite a bit of Orthodox theology, both ancient and modern, but haven't had the opportunity to discuss the questions I've had.

I think that I understand the place Scripture has within the Orthodox understanding of Tradition, in that Scripture is part of that tradition, and that the interpretation of Scripture, rather than being a private affair, should be guided and framed within the life and witness of the Church. (Whether or not the two agree is a question I'll leave for now. :) )

My concern, of course, is being able to have an objective way to distinguish between authentic and inauthentic Tradition. So, when Orthodox lay people and theologians claim that the West was schismatic, and then the Roman Catholics make the same claim about the east, how can I judge between the two claims?

For example, in her post Trudy mentioned that she was suspicious of Roman Catholicism because they added beliefs to the Tradition which the True Church does not hold to. Of course, that is begging the question. If Tradition is nothing less than the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, then wouldn't you expect there to be a development of dogma? And if someone like the Bishop of Rome was to claim that dogma does develop, and that this notion of development is itself part of the living apostolic Tradition, how do we have any objective way of knowing whether the tradition is wrong or not? Especially when church fathers like Irenaeus (in Against the Heresies) say that the true churches of Christ are the ones who are in agreement with the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome? Do we just blindly obey and hope we're in the right church?

It seems to me that it is not enough for each side to simply assert that the other Tradition is wrong. There must be some other way of deciding between the two.

In Christ,
Shawn

Fr Raphael Vereshack

10-07-2006, 11:30 PM

Shawn wrote

It seems to me that it is not enough for each side to simply assert that the other Tradition is wrong. There must be some other way of deciding between the two.

People come to Orthodoxy in many different ways. But at some point the way they decide is through their personal commitment to Christ's Truth. In other words 'the other way of deciding' you are asking about for us is personal commitment which leads to conversion.

Turn this spiritual equation around to understand it another way. A person reads about Orthodoxy and something in this strikes their heart. But they just continue to read and read... The day soon will come when they no longer sense much of the truth any more. The spark dies out since personal commitment is gone.

For us Truth is a Person Whose Name is Christ. His Church is entirely consistent in life and teaching with Who he is. But to know this at some stage absolutely requires personal commitment to follow Him.

I hope that helps a bit in your search.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Trudy

11-07-2006, 06:01 AM

Dear Aaron and Trudy,

If Tradition is nothing less than the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, then wouldn't you expect there to be a development of dogma?

And if someone like the Bishop of Rome was to claim that dogma does develop, and that this notion of development is itself part of the living apostolic Tradition, how do we have any objective way of knowing whether the tradition is wrong or not?

Shawn,

You make two interesting points. To the first question, I would say yes there would be, could be, might be development of dogma. How's that for a concise statement? :-)

To the second statement I would say the objective way we have of knowing whether the development was part of the living apostolic Tradition is if it was decided in the context of an Ecumenical Council. If I recall correctly, which I probably won't, the things the Patriach of Rome decided were done outside an Ecumenical Council. If the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church to new revealed dogma, the guidance will be revealed to the Whole Church, not just one Patriarch.

Those who are far wiser than I on this list, please correct me. I am sure I've said something incorrectly or not succintly.

In Christ, Athanasia (Trudy)

Herman Blaydoe

11-07-2006, 12:54 PM

To build a little (if I may) on Fr. Raphael's excellent words, Truth is not a doctrine, dogma, philosophy, or Tradition. It is Christ incarnate. Truth/Christ was revealed to the Apostles. The Orthodox Church has been the guardian of this Apostolic Witness. It has neither added to it as did the Catholic Church, nor subtracted from it as did the Protestants. The Ecumenical Councils did not invent or create Truth or Tradition or doctrine. They simply upheld Truth from the untruth that was trying to attach itself to it. The Divinity of Christ and the ever-virginity of the Theotokos were not ideas thought up at Nicea. The Apostles knew that Christ was God and about the Theotokos. But others tried to graft untruth to the Truth like the Gnostics, or replace that Truth with untruth like the Arians. The Ecumenical Councils did not innovate or renovate, they simply separated the Truth from untruth, like refining silver from dross.

How we best express the Truth might change to meet a particular milieu or culture, but the Truth that is expressed does not change. The Pope made additions unilaterally without the conciliarity of his brother Patriarchs, thus no longer preserving the authentic Apostolic Witness. The Protestants, recognizing that something here was wrong, ended up discarding much of the original Witness in their zeal to get rid of the additions, without the benefit of the wisdom of the Orthodox Church, which was pretty much unknown to them at the time.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

11-07-2006, 03:20 PM

Truth is not a doctrine, dogma, philosophy, or Tradition. It is Christ incarnate. Truth/Christ was revealed to the Apostles. The Orthodox Church has been the guardian of this Apostolic Witness. It has neither added to it as did the Catholic Church, nor subtracted from it as did the Protestants. The Ecumenical Councils did not invent or create Truth or Tradition or doctrine. They simply upheld Truth from the untruth that was trying to attach itself to it. The Divinity of Christ and the ever-virginity of the Theotokos were not ideas thought up at Nicea. The Apostles knew that Christ was God and about the Theotokos. But others tried to graft untruth to the Truth like the Gnostics, or replace that Truth with untruth like the Arians. The Ecumenical Councils did not innovate or renovate, they simply separated the Truth from untruth, like refining silver from dross.

How we best express the Truth might change to meet a particular milieu or culture, but the Truth that is expressed does not change. The Pope made additions unilaterally without the conciliarity of his brother Patriarchs, thus no longer preserving the authentic Apostolic Witness. The Protestants, recognizing that something here was wrong, ended up discarding much of the original Witness in their zeal to get rid of the additions, without the benefit of the wisdom of the Orthodox Church, which was pretty much unknown to them at the time.

A good example of all of this since it has to do with the Papacy is when Pope Leo's Tome was read at the 4th Ecumenical Council. After it was read all of the assembled fathers cried out, "this is the faith of the Apostles!" even though in expression there was something 'new' about the Tome. Some even thought it was Nestorian.

So there certainly can be and has been change within the Orthodox Church over the centuries. But this change is consistent with the One Apostolic Faith.

Also within Orthodoxy all from the Patriarch and bishops to the laity have an authority to witness to the Truth but this must be consistent with the Apostolic Faith.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Shawn Lazar

12-07-2006, 08:51 AM

Dear Father Raphael, Athanasia and Herman,

Thank you all for your responses. There is so much I would like to say, because I am so grateful for being able to ask these quesitons for the first time. Forgive me if this post becomes overly-long.

I appreciate it when you write that Orthodoxy means commitment to the Truth as embodied in the Person of Jesus Christ. As an evangelical, I could not agree more. I love Jesus above all others (though not nearly as much I as ought). And, of course, I also love the truth of his written word (though I do not believe it as much as I ought). I think that is the unanimous testimony of all evangelicals - that we have all had a conversion experience, from lives of rebellious sin to being forgiven in Christ; from proud unbelief, to humble faith; from despair to hope in the resurrection; from purposelessness to life in the Spirit. I'm actually very glad to hear you say that it is the same in the Orthodox church.

Unfortunately, however, that has not been my experience. My experience with Orthodox people has come in four varieties: either they were (a) evangelicals who savingly believed in Christ due to the ministry of an evangelical church, but who later joined the Orthodox church; (b) people raised in Orthodox churches but who, from what I could tell, were little more than atheists; or (c) people raised in an Orthodox church who savingly believed in Christ through an evangelical parachurch ministry and later rededicated themselves to their Orthodox tradition; or (d) people raised in the Orthodox church who savingly believed in Christ and who consequently left to join an evangelical church. I only relate that as my own experience having grown up and conversed with people in Montreal, particularly college-age students. But since I've lived in Dallas for the better part of this year my experience has been the same, perhaps even more so: it seems that all the Orthodox people I meet are former Baptists and evangelicals who first grew to love God in Baptist and evangelical churches and who later switched to Orthodoxy because they liked the liturgy, but didn't trust the liberal Anglicans. In other words, most of the Orthodox people I've met have who have come to love Christ and the Truth have done so through evangelical churches, and not through Orthdox churches. Please do not think that I say that as a judgment. Only as an observation to help you know where I'm coming from.

But be that as it may, having grown up in a Roman Catholic city, and having spoken with many Roman Catholics, I can say that all the arguments against Catholics that I have read in these posts have also been used by Catholics against the Orthodox. I've read several books by noted scholars advocating the exact opposite points of view on every topic related to the apostolicity of Catholic and Orthodox beliefs. Catholics, for example, will point to the later developments in Orthodox theology, such as (a) the distinction between God's essence and his energies, and (b) the development of hesychasm, as clear proof that the Orthodox have added their own innovations in theology. Furthermore, they would point to the fact that most, if not all Orthodox countries apostacized either to Islam or to Atheism (Communism), and thereby had their apostolic witness compromised by having their bishops and Patriarchs apointed by Caliphs and the KGB, putting many pretenders in positions of power. And then there are the Copts and Armenians who have their own take on who is truly following the Apostolic Tradition...

Given all these conflicting claims to being the true, apostolic Church, I appreciate the Reformers' insistence upon depending upon God's word alone for deciding matters of faith and practice, because it alone, we can be sure, is inspired and inerrant. But if, as I hear suggested in your posts, that coming to the truth is somehow based on a subjective experience of personal commitment, then I can assure you that all evangelicals would say that has been their experience (it is, after all, the basic hallmark of evangelicalism). Having come to faith in a Pentecostal church I can tell you I've had several remarkable encounters with the Spirit, including events I can only (and hesitantingly) call miracles of healing, etc. So I am left wondering, if experience shouldn't be my guide (otherwise I will definetly stay evangelical) isn't there some other way to know if Orthodoxy is true?

(a) I can't seem to check Orthodox tradition against the Bible because that is a misconstrual of the relationship between the Bible and Tradition; (b) I can't depend upon tradition alone, because there are many competing, and equally ancient claims to the true apostolic tradition (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian, etc); (c) nor can I trust experience alone, because all religious traditions use experience as a "proof" of their faith and my own experiences would incline me away from Orthodoxy. So what am I left with?

Does it just come down to blind, fideistic faith?

Humbly in Christ,
Shawn

Anthony

12-07-2006, 02:15 PM

Dear Shawn,

I have been reading your posts with interest, as somebody who followed a similar road (many years ago now) and faced much the same questions. At the moment I am too busy at work to post more, but will try to do so in the next few days.

Anthony

Herman Blaydoe

12-07-2006, 02:19 PM

it seems that all the Orthodox people I meet are former Baptists and evangelicals who first grew to love God in Baptist and evangelical churches and who later switched to Orthodoxy because they liked the liturgy, but didn't trust the liberal Anglicans. In other words, most of the Orthodox people I've met have who have come to love Christ and the Truth have done so through evangelical churches, and not through Orthdox churches.
Not surprising. Protestantism and Catholicism have established themselves in this country for far longer than Orthodoxy. And there have been many factors that have slowed the growth of the Orthodox Church in the US, but Orthodoxy is growing. Most people were either raised or exposed to Catholicism or Protestantism because that was what was there, it is all they knew. But for many, it was not enough and they moved on and have found Orthodoxy. Some of these found that Orthodoxy was not as perfect as they had hoped, it still involves PEOPLE, after all. Hospitals ought to be nice places if it weren't for all those sick people hanging around. So they keep looking, and may never find what they are looking for.

The fact remains that for us, Orthodoxy has brought us closer to Christ than either Protestantism or Catholicism. All have flaws because all have people. If the flaws you find where you are aren't that bothersome, then perhaps you can stay and establish a meaningful relationship with Christ where you are. As St Theophan the Recluse once wrote: "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins.." For some of us, the holes in Catholic and Protestant theology are filled in Orthodoxy, our experience of Christ is rich and fulfilling. If that is also true for you where you are then I have to wonder why you are here to begin with.

I agree with you that we can only depend on God's Word alone, but I think you missed something. God's Word, the Logos, is Christ Himself, not a book. The compendium of writings that we often call "The Bible", is a book ABOUT The Word of God. It is words, written by men, inspired by God. But to elevate the Bible to the status if Christ Himself is biblioidolatry. Holy Scripture is Holy Tradition written down, Holy Tradition is Holy Scripture in action. Holy Scripture was formed and codified within Holy Tradition and only within Holy Tradition can it be really understood. It is not an either/or situation. We don't simply read the Bible, we live it, we are as active participants in the heilgeschecte of Holy Scripture as was Moses or David or Isaiah or Peter and Paul themselves. We pray the Psalms as did David. We participate in the Passover as did Moses. We are present with Christ at his Crucifixion and Resurrection as was John and His Blessed Mother, and we share in the Pentecost with the Apostles. We worship in the Liturgy in the same way described by the Apostle John in his Revelations as the Angels in Heaven. I don't think we are the ones "misconstruing" Tradition and Scripture, for us they form a very congruent whole. I guess your mileage may vary.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

12-07-2006, 03:12 PM

Shawn wrote:

Dear Father Raphael, Athanasia and Herman,

Thank you all for your responses. There is so much I would like to say, because I am so grateful for being able to ask these quesitons for the first time. Forgive me if this post becomes overly-long.

I appreciate it when you write that Orthodoxy means commitment to the Truth as embodied in the Person of Jesus Christ. As an evangelical, I could not agree more. I love Jesus above all others (though not nearly as much I as ought). And, of course, I also love the truth of his written word (though I do not believe it as much as I ought). I think that is the unanimous testimony of all evangelicals - that we have all had a conversion experience, from lives of rebellious sin to being forgiven in Christ; from proud unbelief, to humble faith; from despair to hope in the resurrection; from purposelessness to life in the Spirit. I'm actually very glad to hear you say that it is the same in the Orthodox church.

Don't mind the length of your post as you have many good questions. I'll try to get to as many of these as I can explaining how the Orthodox see these things. But I may be a bit short on time as today appropriately enough for your questions is the Feast of Sts Peter & Paul for many of us. So preparations for Liturgy have to begin soon! I hope others can also add their input.

In any case- from what you write above and also a similar sentence below I see there is something very important to clarify.

You write:

that we have all had a conversion experience

and further down in a similar way you write

But if, as I hear suggested in your posts, that coming to the truth is somehow based on a subjective experience of personal commitment, then I can assure you that all evangelicals would say that has been their experience (it is, after all, the basic hallmark of evangelicalism).

No- by personal commitment to Christ we don't mean this sort of thing but rather commitment to the Apostolic witness about Christ as this appears within the Church. In other words we're not talking about a 'subjective experience', even though there is something personal about this and there is an experience of this, but rather giving of ourselves in humility and obedience to something (or reather Someone) outside of ourselves.

If you were to ask how this is really any different from the evangelical expereince we would say that precisely even though you as a person are obviously involved (how else could there be commitment?) what you are commited to is something very much beyond subjective experience. Again in a very important way that is why commitment to the Apostolic Witness in Orthodoxy always involves something ascetic & dying to oneself which is revealed in the way we come into the Church either sacramentally or through the catechumenate.

Unfortunately, however, that has not been my experience. My experience with Orthodox people has come in four varieties: either they were (a) evangelicals who savingly believed in Christ due to the ministry of an evangelical church, but who later joined the Orthodox church; (b) people raised in Orthodox churches but who, from what I could tell, were little more than atheists; or (c) people raised in an Orthodox church who savingly believed in Christ through an evangelical parachurch ministry and later rededicated themselves to their Orthodox tradition; or (d) people raised in the Orthodox church who savingly believed in Christ and who consequently left to join an evangelical church. I only relate that as my own experience having grown up and conversed with people in Montreal, particularly college-age students. But since I've lived in Dallas for the better part of this year my experience has been the same, perhaps even more so: it seems that all the Orthodox people I meet are former Baptists and evangelicals who first grew to love God in Baptist and evangelical churches and who later switched to Orthodoxy because they liked the liturgy, but didn't trust the liberal Anglicans. In other words, most of the Orthodox people I've met have who have come to love Christ and the Truth have done so through evangelical churches, and not through Orthdox churches. Please do not think that I say that as a judgment. Only as an observation to help you know where I'm coming from.

Here we get into trying to discern people's experience within the Church which is always very risky. Often the most silent are the ones who have the deepest life hidden in Christ. Spending many years in Orthodoxy also often reveals surprises about where real piety and love of Christ lies. A lot of the love for Christ which people within the Church have is hidden from us due to our own judgementalism.

To take the most important point from what you write above however. Orthodoxy demands a constant conversion since only through continuous self-recognition, repentance & participation in the life-giving sacraments is there a real life within the Church. As we hear many times, it's possible to be standing in the church without being in the Church. So commitment to this is continual and really sets the pattern of ones whole life within the Church as one struggles to put oneself to the plough and at times to return to the mark after falling away from it.

This needs the comments of others but from what I have seen there is a very even mix of born-Orthodox and converts within the Church. It's true that there are many more converts with an evangelical background than 20 years ago. As with everyone else they bring their own colour to the Church. But more importantly everyone has to really convert so that whatever your personal baggage being a member of the One Body overrides this by far. This gets back to the point that there are no exclusive categories within the Church according to ones background. It can be very easy even for us Orthodox to start thinking that those of a certain background are more fervent. But there's a great temptation in thinking this way since the reality is far more complex. In any case to put it most simply without the baba in the church the evangelical convert isn't going to go too far.

But be that as it may, having grown up in a Roman Catholic city, and having spoken with many Roman Catholics, I can say that all the arguments against Catholics that I have read in these posts have also been used by Catholics against the Orthodox. I've read several books by noted scholars advocating the exact opposite points of view on every topic related to the apostolicity of Catholic and Orthodox beliefs. Catholics, for example, will point to the later developments in Orthodox theology, such as (a) the distinction between God's essence and his energies, and (b) the development of hesychasm, as clear proof that the Orthodox have added their own innovations in theology. Furthermore, they would point to the fact that most, if not all Orthodox countries apostacized either to Islam or to Atheism (Communism), and thereby had their apostolic witness compromised by having their bishops and Patriarchs apointed by Caliphs and the KGB, putting many pretenders in positions of power. And then there are the Copts and Armenians who have their own take on who is truly following the Apostolic Tradition...

Given all these conflicting claims to being the true, apostolic Church, I appreciate the Reformers' insistence upon depending upon God's word alone for deciding matters of faith and practice, because it alone, we can be sure, is inspired and inerrant. But if, as I hear suggested in your posts, that coming to the truth is somehow based on a subjective experience of personal commitment, then I can assure you that all evangelicals would say that has been their experience (it is, after all, the basic hallmark of evangelicalism). Having come to faith in a Pentecostal church I can tell you I've had several remarkable encounters with the Spirit, including events I can only (and hesitantingly) call miracles of healing, etc. So I am left wondering, if experience shouldn't be my guide (otherwise I will definetly stay evangelical) isn't there some other way to know if Orthodoxy is true?

To put it simply- NO. For this is asking to know Christ without the conversion, commitment & struggle this takes. This simply put is impossible.

Without this commitment one will indeed end up with thousands of different claims on what truth is.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Father David Moser

12-07-2006, 06:17 PM

My experience with Orthodox people has come in four varieties: either they were (a) evangelicals who savingly believed in Christ due to the ministry of an evangelical church, but who later joined the Orthodox church; (b) people raised in Orthodox churches but who, from what I could tell, were little more than atheists; or (c) people raised in an Orthodox church who savingly believed in Christ through an evangelical parachurch ministry and later rededicated themselves to their Orthodox tradition; or (d) people raised in the Orthodox church who savingly believed in Christ and who consequently left to join an evangelical church.

I realize this is your experience and so far be it from me to say that your experience is wrong. However, I will say that it is incomplete. At my first exposure to Orthodoxy, I was overwhelmingly in the company of either converts from other Christian confessions or formerly lapsed Orthodox who through some parachurch (usually protestant) ministry had had a revival of their faith. (your a and c). But there were some significant exceptions. The bishops with whom I came into contact (Archbishop John of Chicago - OCA and Bishop, now Archbishop, Alypy of Cleveland, now Chicago - ROCOR) were excellent examples of men who grew up in the Orthodox faith and from day one had a real and personal abiding relationship Jesus Christ. When I moved to an area with more "ethnic" parishes, I certainly met some people who fall into your "b" category, but again that was balanced by many of those who were like the two bishops I mentioned (except they were for the most part laymen). After my ordination, I came to have many many friends, initially among the clergy but later laymen as well, who grew up in the Orthodox faith and who experienced an ongoing real vibrant relationship not only with Jesus
Christ but as a result with the whole choir of saints. I'm sorry that your experience has not led you to such people, but let me assure you they are there and there are many many many of them.

the fact that most, if not all Orthodox countries apostacized either to Islam or to Atheism (Communism), and thereby had their apostolic witness compromised by having their bishops and Patriarchs apointed by Caliphs and the KGB, putting many pretenders in positions of power.

This perspective is obviously born of ignorance of the actual people of whom they speak. Yes, the Byzantine Church suffered under captivity to the Moslems as did the Russian Church under the atheists - but far from servingas a mechanism for diluting or compromising the faith, these captivities proved to be a fire which refined, purified and strengthened the faith. Again, I am sorry that there are those who do not see this.

And then there are the Copts and Armenians who have their own take on who is truly following the Apostolic Tradition...

Yes, one's understanding of history certainly does depend on which side of the fence one is on.

So what am I left with?
Does it just come down to blind, fideistic faith?

Well, it does indeed come down to faith - but I don't think that faith is necessarily blind - faith is informed by reason, by experience, by relationship. In the end it is faith, enriched by all of the above and confirmed by a direct, living, vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ, and with the choir of the saints who are the members, along with us, of His Body. Many times when people have asked me about finding or defining the true Church, my best reply can only be "follow the saints".

Fr David Moser

xenia williams

13-07-2006, 07:05 AM

. We don't simply read the Bible, we live it, we are as active participants in the heilgeschecte of Holy Scripture as was Moses or David or Isaiah or Peter and Paul themselves. We pray the Psalms as did David. We participate in the Passover as did Moses. We are present with Christ at his Crucifixion and Resurrection as was John and His Blessed Mother, and we share in the Pentecost with the Apostles. We worship in the Liturgy in the same way described by the Apostle John in his Revelations as the Angels in Heaven. I don't think we are the ones "misconstruing" Tradition and Scripture, for us they form a very congruent whole. I guess your mileage may vary.

I thought this was a very excellent and inspiring reply. I would just like to perhaps clarify the statement "We participate in the Passover as did Moses".
The Passover of Moses seems to be the pre-figurement of the Resurrection of Christ, which in itself is a promise of His return. We celebrate this every Easter/Pascha. (I hope I spelled that correctly). In our lives, it is the resurrection of our personal lives in the person of Christ, who is Truth, who is Life as was stated well many times in this thread. Having said that, I'm not the best Christian in the world, but I have a sister who has very strong pan-protestant beliefs and who believes in pre-destination, and we have similar discussions. So I just felt it necessary to perhaps place the above statement in context with how we understand our participation in Orthodoxy as it relates to the Saints of the Old Testament with the understanding that Orthodoxy means right praise or right worship of the Holy Trinity of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, Undivided and Uncreated.

in Christ,
xenia

Scott Pierson

13-07-2006, 01:55 PM

But be that as it may, having grown up in a Roman Catholic city, and having spoken with many Roman Catholics, I can say that all the arguments against Catholics that I have read in these posts have also been used by Catholics against the Orthodox. I've read several books by noted scholars advocating the exact opposite points of view on every topic related to the apostolicity of Catholic and Orthodox beliefs. Catholics, for example, will point to the later developments in Orthodox theology, such as (a) the distinction between God's essence and his energies, and (b) the development of hesychasm, as clear proof that the Orthodox have added their own innovations in theology. Furthermore, they would point to the fact that most, if not all Orthodox countries apostacized either to Islam or to Atheism (Communism), and thereby had their apostolic witness compromised by having their bishops and Patriarchs apointed by Caliphs and the KGB, putting many pretenders in positions of power. And then there are the Copts and Armenians who have their own take on who is truly following the Apostolic Tradition...

Persecution rarely dilutes or weakens the Church in any real sense. Was the early Church weakened by the Roman persecutions or did they dilute the faith because of it? I'm sure the pagan Romans worked to get a few of their people placed in authority in the Church. The Communists certainly where more insidious in that they allowed worship in state run churches as opposed to outright outlawing all churches... but Russia still had many brave and devout Christians both in the State infiltrated Church and in the various Catacomb Church communities. I think the fact that the Orthodox Church has been (and still is) persecuted so fiercly is actually a sign of it being the Church. Didnt our Lord Christ say the Church would be hated and persecuted. In the West the (post schism) latins did more of the persecuting and were rarely on the receiving end (Inquisition, the crusades ..sacking Orthodox cites, burning scientists at the stake,etc). I would really recommend the book " Father Arsney, Priest Prisoner and Spiritual Father" . In it you can see how the persecutions refined the souls of Orthodox Christians.

The Distinction of Essence and Energy can be found in many of the Fathers . Not all of them explained it as precisely as St Palamas but the idea is found there none the less. I can find you some references to prove that if you would like. I would say the same about Hesychasm as well.

-Seraphim (Scott Pierson)

xenia williams

14-07-2006, 06:46 PM

Does it just come down to blind, fideistic faith?

Humbly in Christ,
Shawn

Dear Mr. Shawn Lazar:

The truth is that we have to choose, and it is what we choose to believe that determines and shapes our life in Christ. Faith in Christ is never blind; It never seems that Christ demands this of his saints whether in the Old or New Testament. I think this is what Fr. Raphael is trying to say. At some point we decide, we make a leap of Faith...this demands our participation in prayer, honest study and honest attempts to do God's will. We ask God to help us to see the Truth as He is, not as how man has made it using their understanding of such concepts as natural law. My personal experience is when we allow ourselves to let go of our faith in our own understanding, and allow God Truth to guide us, then we are able to discern the True Church from the others out there. In this way, we begin to reclaim what we lost at the Fall, the gift of discernment, and the gift of Free Will. But none of this comes to us without Faith in Christ as He expects us to have this Faith. I guess thats the best I can do to help you see how I have been taught about Orthodox perspectives in this matter. I only add one thing more: you can't prove the validity of the Church; It is not subjected to any proofs of man, whether Orthodox, or Catholic. It's only "proof" is our living Faith, in all aspects of our life, whether in times of persecution or in times of growth.

Always Falling, and Getting Up Again,

In Christ,
xenia

Shawn Lazar

15-07-2006, 06:13 AM

Dear Friends,

Thank you all for your replies. I can't express how much I appreciate the time and thought that went into them. I especially appreciate the new perspective on 'conversion' that was commended to me.

Perhaps I can restate my general question, to help me focus on one issue, (rather than run down a hundred bunny trails), while I let everything else you have shared with me sink in.

Q. Is there a book, a scholarly book, written from an Orthodox perpective, that answers the claims of Papal authority?

In Christ,
Shawn

Antonios

15-07-2006, 06:56 AM

Hi Shawn,

These sites have some interesting information...

http://www.oodegr.com/english/papismos/papismos.htm

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_rc.aspx

Mary

15-07-2006, 08:49 AM

So I am left wondering, if experience shouldn't be my guide (otherwise I will definetly stay evangelical) isn't there some other way to know if Orthodoxy is true?

Does it just come down to blind, fideistic faith?

Humbly in Christ,
Shawn

Hi Shawn,

Just thought I'd share a bit of my own journey to try and answer some of your thoughts. About experience... here's my take on it. We are human. We learn through experiences. In fact, experiences tend to define who we are. God created us to experience so many different things through all of our senses. But, even if our experiences were perfect, there's no way a human being can experience all of God - or interpret accurately what we're experiencing. Our reasoning abilities are the same - they serve us well for all the basics, but then, there's a place where logic ends. We can never understand everything about God.

The way I see it - my experiences are limited and so is my knowledge. So I come to a point where I need to let go of my logic and take that step into the unknown. For me, God used all of my experiences and my reasoning abilities to point in the direction of the Orthodox church. But the last step that took me over the threshold, had nothing to do with my experiences or any clever arguements. It wouln't have happened without God's intervention, His mercy and His gift of faith. Based on my knowledge & experiences, I was faced with a choice - orthodoxy or not? - And it simply became a matter of obedience & commitment. A conscious decision, but unlike any other decision that I've ever made. It was so full of experiences that I never imagined possible =).

I'm not sure why you're interested in the Orthodox church. I was only curious about it. Friends of ours had become orthodox 6 and 3 years back. I never really cared back then. I was just happy knowing that the Orthodox also believe what I, as an Evangelical believed. I didn't think it made any difference where and how you worshiped. When I was dialoging with our orthodox friend, I had no intention of joining an orthodox church, so I neither wanted to prove nor disprove any orthodox teaching. I just listened, put my own beliefs on the shelf for a while, and tried to see if all that they taught could really be supported Scripturally.

Soon, I found myself testing my own beliefs, rather than the orthodox beliefs, and was surprised to find how shallow they were. They weren't able to stand the same questions that I tested the orthodox teachings with. That was the extent of my mental exercise. I saw the weaknesses in the my protestant beliefs that weren't there in the orthodox teachings, but I didn't think that meant I had to switch churches. Couldn't I just accept the orthodox teachings and continue attending a protestant church? What difference would it make? I bet there are a lot of orthodox people who dont' know all the things that I know about their faith!

That's when I started to experience strange things =). I was under a lot of stress. Started having my stress headaches. Everytime I went to our old church, I'd start to get depressed. I couldn't sing along with everyone else anymore. I couldnt' pray and I couldn't even listen to the sermons. My last week at the protestant church, I started feeling claustrophobic as we pulled into the parking lot! Well - I needed all that. My husband didn't need it, and he didn't experience such things. God is merciful and he knows our needs and our weaknesses. He does all he can to reach us at the place where we're at. And he reaches out to those of us who can reason, and even to those of us who can't.

I watched in awe as each of our children also came to accept the orthodox church in their own way. Our son is 7 and our daughter is only 4. Our son asked pretty much all the questions that we did and his logic, helped him break away from our former church. The little one was dead set against everything orthodox and we weren't in anyway going to force her to get baptised. The only problem was, she didn't have a choice about attending, because she can't quite drive herself to a different church yet! A week before they were to be baptised, she told me she wasn't afraid anymore. After her baptism, she seems to be really thrilled that she's orthodox. She was still complaining about being bored at the services last week. But two days ago she asked: "Aren't we going to church yet?" I asked her why and she said it's been so long since we were at church. =)

I feel the same way. I was dreading liturgy. Same thing over and over every week?! How long would I last? I was so used to being entertained at church by something new all the time. But here's where words fail, because they cannot explain the experiences I've had. I love Divine Liturgy, and I've haven't heard the same thing twice yet. =) You'll just have to try it out for yourself. God knows you and you know His voice. (Jn 10:27). If I've been able to hear him, anyone can!

BTW - if you'd rather listen than read online - there are archives of radio talks done by two orthodox men answering pretty much all questions that inquirers of the orthodox faith could possibly ask... www.ourlifeinchrist.com (http://www.ourlifeinchrist.com/).

Sorry my little note got so long.

Mary.

Tim Grass

16-07-2006, 11:06 AM

I'm just getting caught up on this thread, and two comments by two different posters stuck together in my head:

So there certainly can be and has been change within the Orthodox Church over the centuries. But this change is consistent with the One Apostolic Faith.

I'm always happy to hear things like this being talked about.... Tradition isn't some dead cat that we just keep passing round the schoolyard..... it's something alive and real.

Which is why it linked up in my head with what Fr. David Moser said later:

Well, it does indeed come down to faith - but I don't think that faith is necessarily blind - faith is informed by reason, by experience, by relationship. In the end it is faith, enriched by all of the above and confirmed by a direct, living, vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ, and with the choir of the saints who are the members, along with us, of His Body. Many times when people have asked me about finding or defining the true Church, my best reply can only be "follow the saints".

Sounds like a good definition of living Tradition to me.

--tim

Fr Aaron Warwick

16-07-2006, 09:27 PM

Dear Shawn,

I would highly recommend the book Two Paths by Michael Whelton. See the link below to this book thru Regina Orthodox Press. I'm sure it is available elsewhere as well. http://www.reginaorthodoxpress.com/twopaths.html

I would also recommend the following website for some great information. The preface tells the story of the author. http://www.odox.net/The%20Papacy%20Guettee%20-%20Kirwan.pdf

Aaron

Olga

17-07-2006, 06:30 AM

You may also like to check out the online audio archive at www.ourlifeinchrist.com (http://www.ourlifeinchrist.com), which has many useful downloadable programs on Orthodoxy, including on the Roman Catholic view on the primacy of Apostle Peter, and the Orthodox response.

Moses Anthony

19-07-2006, 04:12 AM

My concern, of course, is being able to have an objective way to distinguish between authentic and inauthentic Tradition....

Do we just blindly obey and hope we're in the right church?

It seems to me that it is not enough for each side to simply assert that the other Tradition is wrong. There must be some other way of deciding between the two.

My effort here is to be as succinct as is possible, and hopefully not to many nuances will scream to be aired.

WE learn from Holy Tradition that the Church "...is the pillar and support of the truth...." And, we learn from that same source; that, it was the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ who gathered together in a small town named Jamnia, to decide just what it was about the Gospel of the Kingdom, that would be taught to the Church for "faith and practice"

We can sit and theorize and philosophize all day long about the nature of this or that! However, when it comes down to the bottom line of chohosing what tradition, or Tradition fo follow, our choice is clear. "As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord..." That is not just an individual declaration of faith, but it is in very fact what the life of the Church is about.

It is not a matter of whether or not Orthodoxy changes slowly or quickly! THE LIFE of the Church NEVER CHANGES! There are societal changes, changes in missionary methods, etc., etc., etc..... The life of the Church is the means by which we evaluate which "tradition " is the one to follow, understanding that the life of the Church is none other than the Life of the Risen Lord Jesus Christ!!!

a sinful and unworthy servant

Shawn Lazar

21-07-2006, 07:51 AM

Bratislav

21-07-2006, 04:47 PM

Dear Moses Anthony,

Thank you for your post. But, how can I be convinced of what you say if you offer no argument and no proof? Please don't take that as an affront against you - it certainly is not. I can't tell you how much I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my post. But you can understand when I say that any person from any denomination could make the same kind of assertions you are making. What I'm looking for are arguments that would be worthy of the true Church that Jesus founded (and here I would like to thank the people who provided me with weblinks and book titles to help answer my questions).

In my experience, Moses Anthony, Evangelicals and Catholics have at least this in common: they will both make exegetical and historical arguments for the truth of their faith... so I'm dismayed when I can't quite discern any argument in your post. I'm sure you must have your reasons for being Orthodox (aside from subjective experience, which every religion has). I would honestly love to know them.

In Christ,
Shawn

Dear Shawn,

Please allow me a few words. I suggest you take the advice to visit those websites and at least skim through some of the recommended books. Most people here not desirous of flexing their apologetic prowess and are generally wary of getting into debates comparing Holy Orthodoxy to whatever various denomination.

I am not completely discouraging you from inquiring into these things but do not be suprised to get only a handful of responses. A better way might be to go and read some of the internet articles and books about Orthodoxy (that are all more than available these days) and post questions about specific topics as they arise.

As an aside I would like to comment on your request for "exegetical and historical arguments". The truth is that exegesis is a deep and complex study that can seem to support one conclusion one day and a different conclusion the next day when some new thing about ancient Greek is learned by the inquirer; and historical "proofs" can be fabricated and twisted to support a whole lot of foolish ideas. The Orthodox have a very strong awareness that intellectual probing is neither the beginning nor the end and definetly not the essence in finding the Truth, though it is of course important. If a man has a polluted heart no exegtical or historical arguments, however strong, will convince him to join the Body of Christ. Truth speaks on its own authority and is recognized by those who are ready to recognize it.

May God bless your search.

In Christ,
Bratislav

Moses Anthony

24-07-2006, 04:24 AM

Dear Moses Anthony,

Thank you for your post. But, What I'm looking for are arguments that would be worthy of the true Church that Jesus founded....

... so I'm dismayed when I can't quite discern any argument in your post. I'm sure you must have your reasons for being Orthodox.... I would honestly love to know them.

In Christ,
Shawn

There's a philosopher -of sorts-who when the emphasis of his sililoquy has been missed as evident by the question which followed, would tilt his head back, and say "Aarghhh!!!" I of course, am speaking of none other than Charlie Brown. I make this reply because in the past things which I thought were quite plain, "went over" my friends'head, and I was told to, Keep It Simple Stupid!

"My argument"for believing, and living by one Tradition above the other is, the life of the Church. And this after all, when all the arguments have long since ceased, and our names forgotten, is what will matter, and will be all that is left. To me, to me, it is just that simple. Aarghhh!

What essential dogma is there, which Orthodox believe since the days of The Early Church Fathers, that is different today. It is still The Article of Faith, which has not changed. You will find that I sometimes tire of intellectual pursuits quite quickly, for there is, "...no end of them. And therefore, will cut to what I believe is the chase.

Several links have been provided which will give you, at least a beginning in your quest. You may also want to look at www. ccel.org where access is possible to some of the on-line works of the Ante, and Post Nicean Fathers. Read what those who formulated our beliefs, have to say without comment from the Peanut gallery.

As I told one of the assistant priests at St. Elijah's, when asked why we (those who made the trip up from Texas) chose Orthodoxy, I said, "To be intellectually honest." For years I'd said along with others, "we need to get back to the first century Church." Well, when asked to join a "new group" I did my own searching, read the testimonies of reliable people, talked and corresponded with a couple of them, and decided this was the Church I had so ignorantly talked about "...getting back to." This Church was "biblical".

The First Century Church was all about the "..life of Jesus being manifested in you...." That is what they received from the heart, mouth and hand of Jesus. It is what they in turn passed on to their disciples, and through "Apostolic Succession, has been delivered to you and I this very day.

I said nothing about anything else. Forgive me for not being more simple.

John Holder

16-11-2006, 08:37 PM

Q. Is there a book, a scholarly book, written from an Orthodox perpective, that answers the claims of Papal authority?

In Christ,
Shawn

I personally found the book "The Primacy of Peter (http://www.amazon.com/Primacy-Peter-Essays-Ecclesiology-Church/dp/0881411256)", edited by Fr. John Meyendorff (former dean and professor of church history and patristics at St Vladimir's Seminary), to be a good summary of the Orthodox view of the Papacy.

John

Audrey

23-11-2006, 10:51 PM

There is a very good chapter about the hermeneutics of the East as opposed to the West. The chapter is titled "The Witness of the Spirit" and is located in the book "Eastern Orthodox Christianity" by Daniel Clendenin, who is a Protestant. I highly reccomend the chapter.

Shawn Lazar

24-11-2006, 08:07 AM

Thanks for the most recent recommendations, friends.

In my search to distinguish between the truthfulness of the eastern (Orthodox) and western (Catholic) traditions of Christianity I've run into something of a stumbling block, namely the western-rite orthodox churches. I've attended two of them, both from the Antiochian jurisdiction. At first, they were quite a revelation, in that much of the cultural objections/reservations I had while attending Eastern Orthodox churches (particularly of the Russian and Greek variety) no longer applied to these western-rite churches, which seemed very much like a typical Lutheran/Anglican/Catholic service. They were shorter, and more to the point.

I say it is a stumbling block (for me) because the western-rite services really call into question what exactly qualifies as 'Tradition' vs. 'tradition' in the Orthodox churches. In other words, many of the things I understood to be 'Tradition' in Eastern churches cannot be so if western-rite churches are fully orthodoxy. Things like elaborate vestments, candles, the centrality of devotion to icons, a major emphasis on Mary, accapella singing, leavened bread, and various other jesticulations and parts of the liturgy are absent in western-rite churches (at least the two I attended).

I guess that seeing the substantial difference between eastern and westerns orthodox liturgies and manners of worship lend creedence (in my mind) to the many Protestant historians who will claim that much of what transpires in the worship of the Orthodox and Catholic churches have more to do with historical cutlural developments than with apostolic tradition, or the guidance of the Spirit, let alone with Biblical standards of worship. So I wonder now, what exactly is the Tradition that, as a Protestant, I am missing in my life? Basil lists some fairly mundane things in his book On the Holy Spirit (such as crossing ourselves, facing east when we pray, chrismation). But is there a book or something that tells us what this Tradition is? What are the substantial elements of Tradition? The non-negotiables? Other than that doctrine of the ecumenical councils?

Your friend and brother in Christ,
Shawn

Olga

24-11-2006, 08:19 AM

For what my ignorant opinion is worth, it seems irregular, to say the least, for a church which calls itself Orthodox to not follow or omit such practices as leavened bread, unaccompanied singing and icon veneration.

Could you elaborate on the "cultural objections/reservations" you encountered in your attendance at other Orthodox churches?

Andreas Moran

24-11-2006, 11:42 AM

[QUOTE=Shawn Lazar;39010]I
as a Protestant, I am missing in my life? Basil lists some fairly mundane things in his book On the Holy Spirit (such as crossing ourselves, facing east when we pray, chrismation).

Dear Shawn,

The Orthodox here will all have had the same reaction as I when seeing this! There is, it must go without saying, nothing mundane about the sign of the Cross and Chrismation. The Cross has more power than we can imagine, and the Holy Spirit is active in Chrismation. I came to Orthodoxy from nowhere in my forties - I was not part of any church and knew nothing about any religion. I can't say much more than I said in my post of 21 November in 'Comparisons' under the heading, 'The Christian's Relationship with the World'. I started off reading everything I could, but my spiritual guide, Bishop Eirenaios, said, 'you will not find God in your mind. God is love and you will find Him in your heart. You will not say to your wife, "I love you with all my mind!" Open your heart!'
If you open your heart to the grace which is present in the Orthodox Church, you will be in no doubt.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Owen Jones

24-11-2006, 04:23 PM

The idea that there is something called Tradition that is superior to Scripture is a false dichotomy. What Orthodoxy teaches is that there is no Scriptural truth, no Scriptural reality, apart from illumination, which is a divine gift of transformation of our intellect and sense perception, that is the result of receiving proper guidance from the Church and acting on that guidance. This is the reason why, in the early Church, the catechumens departed the liturgy prior to the exposition of the Scripture by the priest. The presumption was that they were not yet properly illumined to receive and understand the interior spiritual meaning. As time went on, this "tradition" was jettisoned because, obviously, there were so many people being born into the Church, and fewer converts relative to that. So once the issue of infant baptism was resolved, the issue of illumination as an adult development became somewhat subordinated. But it is still a fundamental aspect of our theological understanding.

Juxtiposing tradition and scripture really obscures the real issues at stake. Scripture is not something to be figured out, or studied, or parsed or compared to something else. It is something to be lived, and without some transformation it is a stumbling block rather than the answer. There is no chicken or egg resolution. One is illumined by living the Scriptures. One lives the Scriptures by being illumined. Illumination is the negation of the human will as the primary instrument of understanding. Illumination comes through moral development and submission of the will and the intellect to the commandments.

Orthodoxy is, in fact, deeply Scriptural -- far more so than any current "western" expression of Christianity -- and that becomes patently obvious to anyone who attends services regularly, and who doesn't show up just before communion! The Orthros illuminates the true meaning of the Scriptural lessons for the day, week, season. It is repetitive and lengthy, for the purpose of getting the message across. So the eastern liturgical services become our catechesis. It would be wonderful were we to return to the practice of having catechetical schools, but in today's world, monasticism serves that purpose for those called to go beyond the average.

The Western rite is fully Orthodox, in the minds of the bishops who have approved it, but as a practical matter it seems to me, a deeper understanding and immersion in the Orthodox way of life can be gained from participating in the eastern rites to the fullest.

Herman Blaydoe

24-11-2006, 04:40 PM

I think the a fair question for Shawn to ask himself is "in which community do you encounter Christ?" Because we are a worshipping community of believers encountering Christ Himself, not simply an amalgamation of people thinking about Christ.

There have always been a diversity of rites within Orthodoxy. Some of us have our reservations about the so-called "western rites" but are content to withhold judgement. It is not the rite that makes a Christian, but right belief. As long as the rite expresses the right belief/doctrine/worship (ortho-doxa), then it is the right rite. My concern with western rite is the fact that it is so short, it is the sense of "timelessness" of the Byzantine rite I personally find edifying. At least the western-rite Orthodox have access to all the Truth of Orthodoxy in the teachings of the Fathers and the communion of the Faithful. Interesting to note that many Western-rite churches have eventually ended up following the Byzantine rite.

But, again, the whole idea is to encounter Christ, not just think about Him or talk about Him or sing about Him. If you are not encountering Christ where you are, seek Him out. Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened. Find the Kingdom and all the rest will be added....

Owen Jones

25-11-2006, 03:53 PM

I agree that it is unsufficient and unsatisfying to simply say that because Orthodoxy says it is true, therefore it must be true, whereas when a Protestant or Western Catholic says they are right and true, they must be false. None of the Fathers would have been satisfied with that dichotomy.

A couple of points. The measure of truth in Orthodoxy is different. In Orthodoxy, truth is not a body of set doctrines, as important as they are. Those are kind of like the protocols that an emergency room in a hospital uses to diagnose patients and avoid doing harm to patients. In Orthodoxy, truth is a realm, not a body of informed opinion. And I think this is where the primary difference lies. In Western Catholicism, truth is the deposit of the faith. And in Protestantism truth is, well, I'm not really sure because there are so many denominations, each with its own focus.

So the Orthodox view is that in order to enter into this realm of the spirit, so to speak, one must be transformed, or on a path of transformation. And the liturgical rites, the doctrine, the commandments of God, good works, fellowship and community, are all necessary ingredients. In other words, salvation is not something in the past tense but ongoing, and salvation is not about one thing, it's about everything.

But in the West, and particularly as a consequence of the Protestant revolt (really the Western example of the iconoclastic movement), you get a thinning out of the experience under the guise of purifying Christianity of its historical accretions that have nothing to do with the early Church, the New Testament Church and so on. This is a bogus idea, as the following analysis hopefully illuminates:

On Cleansing Christianity of its Accretions: Locke’s Reasonable Method
Let us consider what Locke is actually doing [in Reasonableness of Christianity, 1695, in which Locke proposes to restore the true core of Christianity: the acceptance of Christ as the Messiah, the belief in the one God, and genuine repentance and submission to the law of Christ].
Christian doctrine as it has grown in the tradition of the church is not an arbitrary addition to the Gospel. It is the labor of generations in the attempt to find an adequate expression to the substance of faith in the historically changing economic, political, moral, and intellectual environment of Mediterranean and Western civilization.
The Christological struggles of the early centuries absorbed into this expression the Hellenistic intellectual culture, and the Scholasticism of the high Middle Ages absorbed into it the corpus Aristotelicum. In general, the history of Christian doctrine is the process by which the substance of faith is built into the civilization of man. It is a process that started in the immediate environment of Christ, and it is till going on. The precipitation of the process in the New Testament represents, for all that we know, a phase that has already advanced materially beyond the generation of Jesus’ immediate followers. Locke ignores this problem of the historicity of the Christian spirit. But beyond this statement it is not easy to formulate with precision what he has actually done.
At first sight one might say that, through his return to the New Testament phase of the process, he has deliberately thrown out the intellectual civilization that has been built into the expression of the relation of man to the divine ground in his soul. That is quite true. And the ease with which Locke gets rid at one fell swoop of the whole patristic and scholastic intellectual culture has remained paradigmatic for the wholesale civilizational destruction in which the politically predominant movements of our time engage. Nevertheless, the situation is much too complicated to be covered by the brief formula of throwing out a body of tradition. Above all, this formula ignores the problem of the historical process.
A tradition is not a block that can be thrown out. One can throw out a tradition only by throwing oneself out of it. This feat, however, is not so simple as it looks to the naive minds that who believe they can return to a “primitive” Christianity without returning to the civilizational state of “primitive” Christians. This feat, if realized socially, would imply the complete destruction of contemporary civilization, not only under its intellectual aspects, but also economically and technologically. This is not Locke’s intention.
Locke and those who follow him in his course go on to live and to participate in a civilizational environment that has been formed into the remotest wrinkles of its intellectual language by the very tradition they try to remove. Hence, the attempt to return to the earlier phase will result not in a genuine removal of tradition (which would imply the rebuilding of a civilization on a new basis) but in a far-reaching devastation of the intellectual form of contemporary civilization [termed here primitivization].
. . . . In the light of [comparisons with Warburton, Montesquieu, and Rousseau], Locke’s return to the New Testament looks very much like a beginning of historical romanticism, like an early case of the return to a historical "myth” for the purpose of assuaging the disorder of the age. The common characteristic of such returns is the open or implied critique of civilization, the assumption that the substance has seeped out of its institutional and intellectual forms, the suspicion that perhaps these very forms have killed the substance, and the growing conviction that the meaning of existence can be recovered only by the destruction of the incubus.

CW Vol 24 (HPI-VI)
Chapter 4, The English Quest for the Concrete
§ sec 2 f. Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity, pp 173-174, 179.

Scott Pierson

25-11-2006, 04:43 PM

worship of the Orthodox and Catholic churches have more to do with historical cutlural developments than with apostolic tradition, or the guidance of the Spirit, let alone with Biblical standards of worship..

Are historical and cultural developments and guidance of the Holy Spirit mutually exclusive or is it possible that the Holy Spirit guides and develops the Church culture (that is firmly rooted in the the apostolic tradition and the Bible)? Why should Christianity 2,000 years later be in the same stage of liturgical development as the first Christians who lived under constant persecution and couldn't even meet in public? We have over 2,000 years of the brightest minds and most God illumined souls pondering the subject and the liturgy therefore grew organically over the centuries.

Its possible that one rite may devote more time or put more emphasis on reverencing Icons but they both have the same view of what an Icon is and its beneficial effects for the spiritual journey. One Church might put a greater emphasis on the sermon and another less emphasis , yet the sermon still has the same purpose and significance, etc...

Shawn Lazar

25-11-2006, 06:53 PM

Dear friends,

There are so many things to touch upon.

To Olga: To be more precise, there were some icons on the walls of both churches. Not many. Hardly any Byzantine styled icons - they were largely western renaissance styled stuff. And as far as I could tell, no one paid attention to them. Certainly no one kissed them, lit a candle in front of them (no place for a candle anyway), or anything of that sort. The singing was actually better at these western-rite churches in the sense that, while there was a choir doing some specialized music, many of the songs were congregational so that the liturgy really was the work of the people, rather than the work of the choir.

My cultural 'hesitations' is that I find Byantine churches to be... well, Byzantine. Eastern rite churches seem to... I hesitate to say this, but well, to deny the catholicity of the church insofar as it emphasizes the traditions of a single culture over any other. I don't have a problem with culture per se, as if there was something intrinsicly wrong with being Byzantine for example, but I do have strong reservations against identifying one culture with the work of the Spirit, or with identifying culture with revelation itself (such as in the form of Tradition). Last month I was in an Orthodox cathedral and admiring the art that covered the walls. I think that nearly every inch of the walls were covered with scenes from the Bible and church history. What I found most interesting was the way the artist depicted the clothing of the saints. The patriarchs and the apostles were depicted just as most of us might imagine them: sandals and simple robes. But as I looked at the other images, such as those depicting the later saints and theologians, it was interesting to see how their clothing became more elaborate, more symbolic, a scarf here, a mantel there, until finally you came to these elaborate vestments with enormous hats and crosses, and other symbols. It vividly illustrated the point I've heard many historians make - that Byzantine culture is a reflection of the growth and trappings of imperial power, and not a reflection of New Testmament simplicity. I guess, it was just interesting to see the point illustrated on the very walls of the Cathedral! The same goes for the liturgy. I have stood during 4 hour liturgies (mostly from Russian churches it seems). It seems like those kinds of liturgies go on forever, are endlessly repetitive, etc. I wanted to believe this way of worshipping was inspired by the apostles. But having seen the shorter western orthodox liturgy, as I said before, it just seems to lend creedence to the idea that the liturgy is as much a human invention as the vestments, or the Byzantine styled icons, etc. And despite the length of the Byzantine liturgy I can say without hesitation that I get nothing out of it. I appreciate that the words that are chanted are from the Bible, are Biblical in that sense. But it just drones on... you can hardly understand any of it, even when its in english (as opposed to slavonic, etc). And i wonder, if the Holy Spirit is free to work through culture in that way, couldn't he work through culture in other ways? What if Byzantine culture was good for its time, but needs to be replaced by something that will appeal to people today? For example, I find a good 20-30 minute exegetical sermon and a few congregational hymns feeds me much more spiritually than the longest Orthodox liturgy. And if the current stats are right, and there are upwards of 500 million evangelicals in the world, compared to the alleged number of 250 million orthodox (basically the population of orthodox countries, therefore I doubt its accuracy), could it be that Orthodox Christians need to be open to other ways of worshipping God? Do you understand what I'm trying to say? I'm kinda rushed in writing this.

Well, I should write more, but I've got to go! We're about so sit down for some Thanksgiving turkey. I'll respond to the other posts in the next couple of days!

In Christ,
Shawn

Fr Raphael Vereshack

25-11-2006, 06:55 PM

. . . . In the light of [comparisons with Warburton, Montesquieu, and Rousseau], Locke’s return to the New Testament looks very much like a beginning of historical romanticism, like an early case of the return to a historical "myth” for the purpose of assuaging the disorder of the age. The common characteristic of such returns is the open or implied critique of civilization, the assumption that the substance has seeped out of its institutional and intellectual forms, the suspicion that perhaps these very forms have killed the substance, and the growing conviction that the meaning of existence can be recovered only by the destruction of the incubus.

CW Vol 24 (HPI-VI)
Chapter 4, The English Quest for the Concrete
§ sec 2 f. Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity, pp 173-174, 179.

This post along with the quote is very interesting. I think that Owen has pointed to the real difference between eastern theology and western religious culture.

There is indeed a dynamic in the west which revolves around the effort to recover the 'ancient form'. But this is present in the west already in the way of thinking which arose and led to the Great Schism. For example we see it already in the great reform movements in the west during the 10th- 11th cs where reform implies a return to the original pure form. Reform occurs however only by casting off what is seen as being the result of corrupt additions over the centuries.

Thus there is in western society a fundamental ambivalence- the same social values which lead to renovating society imply also to disowning it in some sense; ie recovery of the pure form of society is achieved only through disowning ones own past.

What's amazing is that this same dynamic is so powerfully at play still in the west after over 1000 years. Indeed it can even be said that it is partly this which has always given the west its incredible dynamism again with remarkable consistency from the Crusades up until our own time.

The fundamental reasons for this are mysterious not least because these values are still often taken as the cultural norm for all mankind and not recognized for how unique they are. In a way however whenever the west is in a period of exalting its own superiority it comes closest to recognizing part of what is going on- if it could just read itself the other way around!

I think the Orthodox being in the unique position they are in regards to the west have come closest to recognizing what drives the west.

First they have come to see that there is something unique to the west in its value system which gives it an incredible energy.

Then they have recognized how the ultimate roots of this lies in what led spiritually, theologically and culturally to the Schism. Basically the divergence in way of understanding or living within the Church which Owen describes is at the root of this.

How this led to a new social value which characterizes the west as a unique society is still an unexplained mystery. Also I don't think I have ever read anyone among us (ie the Orthodox) who has tried to explain the dynamic in the west which incredibly still continues after 1000 years and indeed has become in many ways a value the rest of the world tries to emulate.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Andreas Moran

25-11-2006, 09:51 PM

Dear Shawn,

I fully understand your feelings because I have been tempted by similar thoughts on occasion. It's true Orthodox services are long, though the Divine Liturgy itself cannot last four hours. My wife characterises Anglican services (sorry, Anglicans!) as 'short service then nice cup of tea'. At the monastery in Essex, the Jesus Prayer services last two hours - all you get is the Jesus Prayer: for two hours. I remember some years ago an exasperated and exhausted visitor coming out of church after one of these services and saying to Father Simeon, 'it's too much, Father, too difficult!' Father Simeon gave a Gallic shrug and said, 'it is not supposed to be easy!'.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Scott Pierson

25-11-2006, 10:03 PM

many of the songs were congregational so that the liturgy really was the work of the people, rather than the work of the choir.

My Church , Holy Transfiguration Orthodox Church ( OCA) follows the eastern liturgy and we have always had the people sing along with most of the liturgy. There are certain parts that are supposed to be chanted by one person, the priest or deacon, etc but for the rest its perfectly acceptable to chant/sing along with everything the choir sings. The idea of the people not singing along is a relatively new innovation.

that Byzantine culture is a reflection of the growth and trappings of imperial power, and not a reflection of New Testmament simplicity

I don't think anyone would claim that “byzantine” cultural traditions in general are perfect. The liturgy itself isn't a “cultural tradition” though, however much cultural standards and modes of expression are made use of in the liturgy. Sure people make use of what they have available to show reverence to God and certain things found in the court traditions of the emperors may have been use to show honor and respect to Christ and such... The vast majority of the liturgy though is in fact either direct quotes or paraphrases of the Bible especially the book of Psalms. Many of the prayers and traditions actually go back to the temple , synagoge and home worship of the old testament as well ( the temple worship of the OT was just as intricate, liturgical ,symbolic , etc as that of the Orthodox Church and it also had very regal atmosphere) Many of the prayers also go back to the time of the early Christians..

it just seems to lend creedence to the idea that the liturgy is as much a human invention as the vestments, or the Byzantine styled icons, etc.

I would say it was a divine-human invention. The fact that “people make something up” doesn't prevent it from being divine as well. Man and God work together synergistically to produce the liturgy. God inspires man to make use of human language and actions that are appropriate to the desired ends. The fact that certain actions or customs are also common in outside culture doesn't prevent them from being used by the Church.

And despite the length of the Byzantine liturgy I can say without hesitation that I get nothing out of it.

I can relate to what you are saying. I have that problem at times and I think most people do. I'm certain that is not due to deficiencies in the liturgy but rather in the heart . The liturgy is intended to elevate the mind to heaven and bring about a contemplative atmosphere and certainly also to provide the holy sacraments. In order to experience the true power of the liturgy we need to purify our heart and be open to the presence of God there. Often people want emotional catharsis, passionate experience, entertainment, and good feelings and expect that out of the liturgy and are upset when they don't get that. But the service is about Theosis , divine contemplation, the sacraments, and not emotionalism. One can feel great after a good pentecostal service of jumping up and down, invoking of the passions, barking like a dog and rolling on the floor from “holy laughter” but does it make one divine ?

, could it be that Orthodox Christians need to be open to other ways of worshiping God?

I'm sure there are some people who don't like the way we worship God but I don't think there is any wide spread disapproval among Orthodox of our liturgy. If one believes the Orthodox Church to be the one holy catholic and apostolic Church then they would not reject it because they “didn't like the liturgy because its too long and doesn't “speak” to them” if one does not believe its the true Church then I doubt changing the liturgy would change their mind. I think its very important not to make radical changes to the liturgy. Slow and organic ( as well as theologically correct ) changes over time guided by the Holy Spirit sure but totally revamping it Vatican 2 style is a no no.

Andreas Moran

26-11-2006, 11:21 AM

Thank you, Scott, for that insightful post. In short, the Divine Liturgy is the sounding board for our inner spiritual condition.

Herman Blaydoe

26-11-2006, 02:48 PM

And despite the length of the Byzantine liturgy I can say without hesitation that I get nothing out of it.The Byzantine Liturgy takes its traditions from God-ordained Temple worship and descriptions of Heavenly worship by the Apostle John in his Revelation. If you don't get anything out of God-ordained Heavenly worship, perhaps the problem is not in the tradition? If you "get nothing out of it" it may be that you have put nothing into it? Just a thought.

As one priest put it: "Protestants worship God in the way they want to. The Orthodox worship God in the way He wants us to."

Owen Jones

26-11-2006, 06:43 PM

The idea that we can get back to a time in history in which there existed a pure apostolic Christianity, absent cultural and historical accretions, is a gnostic inversion of history. Holy Scripture is not a pure, a historical/a cultural spiritual document. Revelation is not an event but a process that involves experience, intellect, a cultural and civilational context, reflective distance and meditation. There is, in short, no such thing as a pure, individual, direct experience of God, apart from consciousness of it in the context of language and culture. The Protestant or reformist attempt to create such is a myth, based on its own cultural and historical antecedents --- such as reflected by the Voegelin analysis of Locke as quoted above -- antecedents which have been forgotten.

Tanya Hoadley

26-11-2006, 10:40 PM

Dear Shawn,

Have you attended a Divine Liturgy? Or an evening Vesper?

For me, Worship is where I gain understanding.

In Christ,
Tanya

Mourad Mankarios

26-11-2006, 11:33 PM

I think that we tend to forget that the liturgical rites and so forth that we now have and practise reflect centuries of development. There used to be a time when a bishop could simply compose a liturgy suitable to the needs of his people. And there also used to exist a diversity of liturgy and rites depending on geography.

It should be noted that much of the liturgies that we have now reflect the cultures of 4th and 5th century Christianity and to a large extent they are directed at the Christological controversies of the time.

We are desperately in need of a liturgy that cuts right at the heart of the existential dilemma of 21st century man and one that also reflects the diversity of the beauty of his culture and music, not one that is ossified in time but one that reflects the living tradition of Orthodoxy.

And the Orthodox Church has had just such a Vatican II type liturgical reform in the developments that were implemented in the Western-rite Orthodox Church for example. But I believe much more work needs to be done liturgically.

Andreas Moran

27-11-2006, 01:14 AM

Dear Mourad,

There will be those who can articulate a response to your last post much better than I, but remember that the purpose of the Divine Liturgy is to make actual for us the ever-existing saving sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. The salvific life which the Divine Liturgy provides is the answer to any and all our needs in this world. Just as the sacrifice of our Lord exists outside time and space, so does the Divine Liturgy - why else is it called Divine? The living Tradition of the Holy Orthodox Church is not to be identified with the passing cultural, social and political characteristics of any particular time or place. God save us from the kind of efforts at 'modernisation' which have proved so disastrous for the Anglican church! There can be no sense in which the Divine Liturgy or, indeed, any aspect of the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church as it has been and is practised throughout the world may be said to be lacking in any respect for anyone, anywhere, anytime. Could you be confident that at any newly-composed liturgy, the saints and angels would be present to celebrate with the celebrant as they are in the Divine Liturgy?

In Christ,

Andreas.

Mourad Mankarios

27-11-2006, 01:28 AM

My friend I think you're missing the point as in no way am I suggesting that we should abrogate centuries of Orthodox tradition but at the same time Orthodox liturgia should never become stagnate. There needs to be some kind of middle way that is evident of the Living tradition of Orthodoxy which is a part of the dogma of the Orthodox church, one that is preached often but doesn't seem to be practised often enough.

You ask whether Christ and the angels would be present at such worship. I know that scripture tells me, "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them" (Mt 18:20); and also "There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents" (Lk 15:10). I mean isn't this the main objective...the liturgy, the rites and everything we do shouldn't it cut at the heart of man and lead to repentance and not simply offer some rigid form of worship.

Sometimes I wonder if we are not falling into the same error of the pharisees and fail to recall that God created the sabbath for man and not man for the sabbath.

Scott Pierson

27-11-2006, 01:40 AM

I was under the impression that the western rite Churches make use of an old pre schism western liturgy (with a few small changes). If thats true I don't see how it could be considered a totally new liturgy that the Church invented for the people of the 20th century.

The basic pattern that all the Liturgy's of the Orthodox Church throughout the world ( Liturgy of St Chrysostom, of St James, etc..) are for the most part very similar because they are all patterned on the worship of Israel and the early Church.

I don't think its correct to say that our Liturgical traditions are stuck in the 4th century. We have a multitude of hymns dedicated to the saints who have lived post 4th century that we chant in the liturgy. Certainly the 4th century Orthodox Church didn't have the hymns to St Gregory Palamas, or Saint Herman of Alaska that are part of our liturgical cycle now.

I think its nice having an ancient liturgy that connects us to the saints that lived before us.. praying in the same words the ancient prayers created by God bearing saints. As for having a Vatican 2 style liturgical revolution even the current Pope is basically admitting that a lot of liturgical chaos came out of it and now it needs to be fixed. I think thats why he allowed for a universal indult on the old Latin mass.

Andreas Moran

27-11-2006, 02:25 AM

Dear Mourad,

I'm sorry if I missed your point. But I think (for what my thoughts are worth) that the need of 21st century man is the same as it ever was: salvation. In the Divine Liturgy, we in this world share in the same act as those who celebrated the same Divine Liturgy from its beginnings. We thereby partake in something which is eternal and absolute. To re-fashion the Divine Liturgy to reflect current ideas - and, we have to ask, whose ideas? - of culture and beauty must compromise its supra-temporal nature. We need always to conform ourselves to the Divine Liturgy, not to make that which is eternal conform to the temporal. We must not do anything which brings down to earth that which takes us up to heaven.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Mourad Mankarios

27-11-2006, 02:44 AM

Dear Friend,

the need of 21st century man is the same as it ever was

I think in every age man struggles with different issues. These could be dogmatic, ethical, scientific, philosophical, materialistic, social, etc and these can manifest themselves in a diversity of ways. It is sure that all people need salvation but how to achieve that is different for each person. And the way one saintly father may have prayed or lived may have been vastly different from another but both can lead to salvation. We must not forget that men composed these liturgies and as has already been suggested these represent a divine-human work. And just as God could inspire men of old to compose such works for the people of their times then I'm sure that He can do the same today. We must not forget as well that the liturgy developed over centuries and can be quite different from one place to another. The question then becomes that if there was once a lively spirit of liturgical development within the church why should it come to a close now?

We must not do anything which brings down to earth that which takes us up to heaven.

To take us up to heaven our hearts must first be touched...

Antonios

27-11-2006, 04:11 AM

Thank you Andreas and Mourad for this most interesting direction of the thread. I think you both have stated some good and interesting points. The Litany of Peace comes to mind during this discussion, and the beauty of it is that it is eternal, for any age, any place, any circumstance.

Deacon: In peace let us pray to the Lord.
People: Lord, have mercy.
Deacon: For the peace of God and the salvation of our souls, let us pray to the Lord.
People: Lord, have mercy.
Deacon: For peace of the whole world, for the stability of the holy churches of God, and for the unity of all, let us pray to the Lord.
People: Lord, have mercy.
Deacon: For this holy house and for those who enter it with faith, reverence, and the fear of God, let us pray to the Lord.
People: Lord, have mercy.
Deacon: For our Archbishop (Name), our Bishop (Name), the honorable presbyters, the deacons in the service of Christ, and all the clergy and laity, let us pray to the Lord.
People: Lord, have mercy.
Deacon: For our country, the president, and all those in public service, let us pray to the Lord.
People: Lord, have mercy.
Deacon: For this parish and city, for every city and country, and for the faithful who live in them, let us pray to the Lord.
People: Lord, have mercy.
Deacon: For favorable weather, an abundance of the fruits of the earth, and temperate seasons, let us pray to the Lord.
People: Lord, have mercy.
Deacon: For travelers by land, sea, and air, for the sick, the suffering, the captives, and for their salvation, let us pray to the Lord.
People: Lord, have mercy.
Deacon: For our deliverance from all affliction, wrath, danger, and distress, let us pray to the Lord.
People: Lord, have mercy.
Priest: Help us, save us, have mercy upon us, and protect us, O God, by Your grace.
People: Lord, have mercy.
Deacon: Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God.

Mourad Mankarios

27-11-2006, 04:42 AM

Olga

27-11-2006, 08:18 AM

I think one that addressed our modern times could especially make mention of those who suffer from depression, despair, mental illness, confusion of mind, existential anguish, abuse, violence...And then in beautiful prose and verse show how Christ can be a light to their lives...

You might find it useful to look at the words of the Prayer of Intercession and its litany (it begins with Save, O God, Your people, and bless Your inheritance ...). This prayer is sung either at the Litia of a Vigil service, or, if the service is not a full Vigil, then it is sung at Matins, after the Gospel reading.

I also agree with Andreas that depression, despair, etc, have always plagued mankind, and that these are not new phenomena. The only possible difference is that they might be known by different names in the past (e.g. melancholia=depression), and that these conditions are not as "secret" as they once used to be.

Mourad Mankarios

27-11-2006, 08:46 AM

While certain conditions of the human mind and heart may have existed for centuries yet it seems that different conditions become more pronounced at different times due to the changing challenges that present themselves. Attitudes also change towards the nature of various conditions. For example it was once thought that mental illness was the result of demonic possession. People with conditions struggling with sexual identification were thought to simply be evil. However, I think much has changed now and we need to show that despite of centuries of misunderstanding, confusion, abuse and neglect there is hope and healing in Christ...

Owen Jones

27-11-2006, 04:50 PM

Let's not reject outright the idea that demonic possession is related to mental illness. While there is evidence of some brain diseases as the cause of some extreme cases, the vast majority of mental disturbance is spiritual and moral in nature. And this is where demonic possession comes in. Fear, anger, bitterness and resentment is at the heart of most mental distrubance. There are simply too many concrete examples of people who found freedom from mental disorders through spiritual and moral ascesis to discount, or to make it strictly a bio-chemical phenomenon. Even in the extreme cases, let us not reject spiritual healing....i.e. exorcism of demons.

Andreas Moran

27-11-2006, 05:01 PM

Thanks for that, Owen - I was about to make the same point.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Antonios

27-11-2006, 05:27 PM

Hi Mourad,

The Litany of Peace pretty much sums up all points you have mentioned (depression, despair, mental illness, etc.) when it states:

Deacon: For travelers by land, sea, and air, for the sick, the suffering, the captives, and for their salvation, let us pray to the Lord.
People: Lord, have mercy.
Deacon: For our deliverance from all affliction, wrath, danger, and distress, let us pray to the Lord.
People: Lord, have mercy.

Your points about the specific afflictions which dominate in various places at various times is where the role of the clergy comes in. It is here where the wisdom of the Church in Her Saints and servants in Christ provide the pastoral guidance and support to the flock of the faithful. The Divine Liturgy is itself timeless, for all places, for all times, and is just as relevant today as it was in the 4th century.

Mourad Mankarios

28-11-2006, 01:36 AM

the vast majority of mental disturbance is spiritual and moral in nature.

Are you suggesting that all those within mental asylums are demon possessed. Sounds like you've just jumped out of the middle ages. I think we need to clearly distinguish between mental illness or psychological disorders as outlined in the DSMV-IV, demon possession and the moral and spiritual struggles of physiologically healthy individuals and what gray areas that may exist between these.

The Divine Liturgy is itself timeless

I think that's very debateable since as such you place it on exactly the same level as scripture. I understand that there are certain liturgical structures or outlines laid down by the apostles but saintly fathers have found the liberty to expand, elaborate, add and in general build upon the foundation a liturgical service suited to their own congregation.

I was under the impression that the western rite Churches make use of an old pre schism western liturgy (with a few small changes). If thats
true I don't see how it could be considered a totally new liturgy that
the Church invented for the people of the 20th century.

There is no single type of Western Rite Parish, but four major lineages of rituals and practices, according to the historical backgrounds of their parishioners:

Episcopalian
About 2/3rds of the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate (AWRV) parishes use the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, a modification of the 1892 American Book of Common Prayer.

Roman Catholic Church
About 1/3rd of the AWRV parishes, and one ROCOR monastery use the "Liturgy of St. Gregory", similar to the Tridentine Mass but in English rather than Latin.

Anglican
A few ROCOR parishes, and one ROCOR monastery follow the Sarum Rite (as the English use of the Roman rite is called), a modification of the 1549 English Book of Common Prayer.

Gallican
The churches of the French Orthodox use a reconstructed liturgy based upon Gallican documents.

Plus, as I have already suggested, I think any liturgy would not simply be invented from scratch, cancelling out centuries of development but would build upon a basic structure of Orthodox liturgical practise.

I'm not even suggesting that current rites be completely changed. All I'm suggesting is that there at least be some form of diversity where people can attend those services which best appeal to their own needs. I mean doesn't that make sense why should I have to force someone to worship in only one specific and rigid way, and impose my way of life upon others. Would God not accept my worship if I used some other words, music, etc that of course still lie within an Orthodox framework.

Antonios

28-11-2006, 03:57 AM

I'm not even suggesting that current rites be completely changed. All I'm suggesting is that there at least be some form of diversity where people can attend those services which best appeal to their own needs. I mean doesn't that make sense why should I have to force someone to worship in only one specific and rigid way, and impose my way of life upon others. Would God not accept my worship if I used some other words, music, etc that of course still lie within an Orthodox framework.

Dear Mourad,

No one is suggesting you should worship God in only one way, that God would not accept your prayers if you used some other words, music, etc, (even if not within an Orthodox framework). Praying in your own words is not an issue. In fact, praying without words is considered to be a higher form of prayer!

I do have an objection to your statments regarding the Divine Liturgy. When it comes to the Divine Liturgy you are talking about the sanctification of the Holy Gifts, the Offering into the Body and Blood of Christ. Now, you as a member of the Church have every right to contact your bishop and discuss ways to change this service into one which you believe is more applicable to the modern man. The Church, however, for many centuries, has not changed felt the need to change it. This should tell us something. Now regarding other liturgical prayers or rites, you have some interesting points and I agree with you that there are areas that need to be 'renovated' per se. But changing the Divine Liturgy? I don't see the point... Will it not be the same Body and Blood of Christ?

Owen Jones

28-11-2006, 02:20 PM

Every "catholic" body that has "reformed" its liturgy has destroyed its faith.

Herman Blaydoe

28-11-2006, 02:42 PM

saintly fathers have found the liberty to expand, elaborate, add and in general build upon the foundation a liturgical service suited to their own congregation.So, what expansions, elaborations, or additions do you think are necessary for "our" congregations? Or are we advocating contractions, simplifications, and subtractions? A "simpler" liturgy for "simpler" times? If so, how does this better express our Faith and glorify God?

Just wondering.

Shawn Lazar

05-12-2006, 12:55 AM

Dear Mourad,

Thank you for your comments and insights, I think they were completely sensible.

And to the other commentators,

I would like to respond, in my defense, to a couple of commentators who suggested that my reason for not being edified by the Byzantine Liturgy has to do with my own presumably deplorable spiritual condition. Like everyone, I have a lot of growing to do, and I certainly fall short of reflecting Christ's image in my life, but I don't think that has to do with my inability to identify with the Byzantine liturgy. I would attribute the repetitive, droning, choir-centric, slavonic chanting to that. As I (think) I said before, I enjoyed the Western-rite liturgy I attended. It was short and to the point.

What if Mourad is right? I think most people are aware of the enormous amount of decline in the Orthodox churches worldwide (about -20% in the US). Perhaps holding on to ancient liturgies which were innovative relevant in their own time contradicts the catholicity of the church by denying the modern day cultures, and the original missionary character of the church which sought to translate the truths of Orthodoxy into a language that foreign peoples could understand. I mean, I've read one Orthodox priest who said that Orthodox evangelism involved keeping the icons polished. Perhaps this attitude is actually a betrayal of orthodoxy, which I understood as being characterized by fruitful biblical exegesis, powerfully preaching, and bold missions... not sterile formalism. That doesn't mean the ancient traditions have to be jettisoned in toto and the liturgy reformed along the lines of a rock concert... not at all! By why consider the Byzantine liturgy as inerrant and unchangeable?

To that effect, is anyone familiar with the writings of Fr. Eusebius Stephanou? (www.stsymeon.org) He wrote: "If we are honest with ourselves, we have to admit that, despite the sacraments that are administered in the Orthodox Church, there is no evidence of change in the church. The lives of the people who participate in the sacraments do not seem to be transformed."

In Christ,
Shawn

Herman Blaydoe

05-12-2006, 01:04 AM

To that effect, is anyone familiar with the writings of Fr. Eusebius Stephanou?Not only with his writings, I knew him personally some years back. He has certainly had some very strange ideas. He has a tendency for overstatement and this sounds like a classic case. No evidence? Perhaps not change as he defines it I suppose, but I'm not so sure all his ideas are for the better.

I've seen very powerful preachings, incredibly moving services, and very fruitful Biblical exegesis in EVERY prokemin, tropar and kondak. ANY service can seem sterile. Perhaps it is simply "diff'rent strokes" but I love the Liturgy, even coming from a very western background myself. You get out of it what you put into it.

Father David Moser

05-12-2006, 02:48 AM

To that effect, is anyone familiar with the writings of Fr. Eusebius Stephanou?

Well I'm not familiar with Fr E.'s "writings" but I am familiar with Fr E. personally. He tried to gather a "community" around himself when he was in Ft Wayne IN and a number of my friends (new converts all) were part of the "experiement". At the time I was only what we would call today "an inquirer" but even I knew that this was not Orthodoxy. He is not a real reliable souce for Orthodox teaching. Some 25+ years ago, Fr E got "baptized in the Holy Spirit" pentecostal style and since then has been preaching a very strange mix of Orthodoxy and Pentecostalism. In his view, if you don't "laugh in the spirit" or make animal sounds while rolling on the floor (ala the "Toronto blessing" and its subsequent outbreaks) then you obviously haven't had your life transformed.

Fr David Moser

Andreas Moran

05-12-2006, 03:55 AM

'Sterile formalism'? 'Sterile' means 'unable to produce', 'destitute of results'.
The Divine Liturgy produces the life-giving Body and Blood of Christ, and the result, when we partake, is that our iniquities are taken away, and our sins purged. In all humility, Shawn, please be careful what you say, that you do not grieve the Holy Spirit Who is invoked to produce these results.

And, all the Orthodox relatives and friends I have are most definitely transformed by partaking of the Holy Gifts in the Divine Liturgy. The person you mention is clearly not Orthodox.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Sunny

05-12-2006, 09:52 AM

Dear Father David,
I think your comments about Father Eusibius were beneath you. You mentioned the Toronto Blessing, and made a comment that Father Eusibius believed that you had to make animal sounds and roll around on the ground in order to be spiritual. Before converting to Orthodoxy 2 1/2 years ago, I was an evangelical/charismatic for 30 years. I'm familiar with the Toronto blessing and I personally would not having anything to do with it. To my knowledge NO-ONE who is a mature Christian would believe someone has to roll and jump around, crying and making weird noises in order to be spiritual or part of a move of God. I have personally seen these things and I think alot of Christians learned by their mistaken involvement and from seeing the mistakes of others. To paint Father Eusibius with the same brush is, I think, very insulting to him. And to say he is not Orthodox is also insulting. I think only his authorities and God would know the truth of that.
What I read on the St. Symeon website was that the Father (E.) had a desire for the church to come back to her first love, and to see the passion for God and for the lost restored. I don't see evidence of that in any church we've been involved with. I do not want to lose hope, because God is greater than any difficulties we may encounter and He loves those who love and desire to serve Him with their whole hearts.
Sunny

Andreas Moran

05-12-2006, 11:01 AM

Dear Sunny,

If an Orthodox person, especially a priest, puts it into the minds of people that partaking of the Holy Gifts at the Divine Liturgy, or attending the Divine Liturgy, does not transform the lives of people, then he undermines faith in the saving power of the Liturgy. There is no other way to take it. The Liturgy is the very heart of the Orthodox faith, as Father Sophrony said. It is the Sacrament of sacraments. If it does not transform, it must be questioned if Baptism and Chrismation transform. Such suggestions tend to deny the activity of the Holy Spirit. I do not think it insulting to state the truth of the efficacy of the Divine Liturgy. If what Fr Eusebius is reported to have said does not match the truth of the Orthodox faith, to that extent he is not Orthodox. Of course, much depends on the response of the person - the Eucharist is not magic, and does not transform a person against their will. But if an Orthodox Christian approaches the chalice 'with fear of God, with faith and love', his sins are taken away, and that surely transforms the person.

In Christ,

Andreas.

John Charmley

05-12-2006, 12:59 PM

Every "catholic" body that has "reformed" its liturgy has destroyed its faith.

Mr. Jones has it in one.

Of course, I can only speak from the experience of an Anglican who has watched his Church self-destruct following the 'introduction of an alternative' to the Book of Common Prayer. All the familiar arguments were deployed: it would be more 'relevant' and therefore would help revive the Church by bringing in new people (and we'd have some nice guitar music to help too!); it would not 'replace' the BCP but would be an alternative (yes, one which seminarians would be taught to use in preference to the BCP); it would help us reach out to those put off by the formality of the liturgy.

So, in a society with more literate people than ever before we needed a dumbed down service book because these educated people could not understand what their uneducated grandparents had received as the Divine Word. Well, the Anglicans went for it - and the rest is all too visible.

Maybe that would not happen to Orthodoxy because we have His promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church - but I'd be wary of gambling the house on it, as they say.

That does not mean that where something like the Western Rite, or some other traditional Liturgy (the British Orthodox use the Liturgy of St. James) can really help, we should not use it; but it is a warning against what can happen when we think we, as 'moderns', know best.

As I said at the start, Mr. Jones has it spot on.

In Christ,

John

Herman Blaydoe

05-12-2006, 02:26 PM

I have heard that he has repented, but at one time Fr. Eusebius openly preached heresy, that the sacraments performed by "unworthy" priests were not "valid", something on the order of: "if the Dove sees vultures around the altar, He doesn't come down" or words to that effect. When I read some of the things he continues to say, I wonder if his repentence as genuine. I certainly would NOT look to him as a spiritual father.

Father David Moser

05-12-2006, 05:23 PM

Dear Father David,
I think your comments about Father Eusibius were beneath you. ...
What I read on the St. Symeon website was that the Father (E.) had a desire for the church to come back to her first love, and to see the passion for God and for the lost restored.

You may well be right that my coments were "beneath" me. It was more of an emotional reaction that a reasonable one (from the heart rather than from the mind). However, I saw - still see in some people - the spiritual damage caused by Fr E's teaching. I have looked at his website too and he has not changed his tune. He has learned caution and now hides his more extreme views in nice language - but that lesson of caution came from repeated censures by his hierarchs. He was in fact very nearly defrocked at one point for his pentecostal teaching and practices. He was forbidden (may still be for all I know) from teaching or preaching in Greece because of the turmoil he caused. It is possible that the man has changed his tune (repentance is open to all) - but I don't see it at all. Fr E was the focus of the "Charismatic Orthodox" movement back in the 70's and at the time I was "there" - but baptism, ordination and years in the Church have changed me so that I see the great spiritual danger and non-Orthodox nature of what was happening at that time. Some of the lessons I learned then (such as the connection of the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" with the sacrament of Chrismation and the place of the "gifts of the Spirit" in the Church) I still retain and teach - but with a vastly different emphasis. But the majority of what I experienced and learned from Fr E has been dumped since through my growth in Orthodox has shown me that this is not only not Orthodox, but it is spiritually dangerous.

So if indeed Fr E has changed and repented and if I have therefore misunderstood him - I apologize for my remarks. However, if he continues to teach Pentecostalism in the guise of Orthodoxy as he has in the past - then I stand by my words that his teaching is not Orthodox and spiritually dangerous.

Fr David Moser

Fr Raphael Vereshack

05-12-2006, 06:25 PM

You may well be right that my coments were "beneath" me. It was more of an emotional reaction that a reasonable one (from the heart rather than from the mind). However, I saw - still see in some people - the spiritual damage caused by Fr E's teaching. I have looked at his website too and he has not changed his tune. He has learned caution and now hides his more extreme views in nice language - but that lesson of caution came from repeated censures by his hierarchs. He was in fact very nearly defrocked at one point for his pentecostal teaching and practices. He was forbidden (may still be for all I know) from teaching or preaching in Greece because of the turmoil he caused. It is possible that the man has changed his tune (repentance is open to all) - but I don't see it at all. Fr E was the focus of the "Charismatic Orthodox" movement back in the 70's and at the time I was "there" - but baptism, ordination and years in the Church have changed me so that I see the great spiritual danger and non-Orthodox nature of what was happening at that time. Some of the lessons I learned then (such as the connection of the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" with the sacrament of Chrismation and the place of the "gifts of the Spirit" in the Church) I still retain and teach - but with a vastly different emphasis. But the majority of what I experienced and learned from Fr E has been dumped since through my growth in Orthodox has shown me that this is not only not Orthodox, but it is spiritually dangerous.

So if indeed Fr E has changed and repented and if I have therefore misunderstood him - I apologize for my remarks. However, if he continues to teach Pentecostalism in the guise of Orthodoxy as he has in the past - then I stand by my words that his teaching is not Orthodox and spiritually dangerous.

Fr David Moser

Fr David I'm sure meant nothing unfair to Fr Eusebios but simply was trying to make a crucial point about the dangers within Fr Eusebios' teachings.

I never directly encountered these as did Fr David, but I was Orthodox at the time and in Canada where Fr E had a dramatic effect on certain parishes within this country. I distinctly recall the turmoil this caused.

Basically the problem was that Fr E's teachings were evangelicalism pure and simple. He perceived a problem within the Church but not really from an Orthodox perspective; from this he went on to propose and actually implement activity within the Church to 'enliven' it which again was pure evangelicalism.

I would say the problem here is really a two fold temptation: ie seeing 'problems' within the Church from an external viewpoint & then proposing 'solutions' which do more harm than good.

The starting point for us as Orthodox must be a state of constant repentance in mind & heart. This involves, especially in our day, not trusting the analysis we tend to make of 'problems' around us. When we persist in this, not recognizing where the source of all our problems lies, then we inevitably proceed to the next step which is some sort of plan for solving our 'problems.'

Although this is far more fundamental than evangelicalism there is some sort of spiritual similarity to the frenetic state we fall into if we persist on this path.

Many have fallen and fallen grievously from this. The classic pattern is responding to the emptiness we have inside us, caused by our own sinful emptiness, by trying to force active change on our external conditions. At first if met with approval we get a quite an emotional kick out of this (if not look out! Then everyone else is our enemy). But as time goes on we fall back into our emptiness.

How many have fallen away from the Church due to this too common temptation of the enemy that is especially prevalent at this time! Only by humbling ourselves and being faithful to what is right in front of us can we escape from this trap.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Andreas Moran

05-12-2006, 07:14 PM

Dear Fr Raphael,

Your blessing. I for one am grateful for your measured and illuminating message which does get to the core of the problem.

In Christ,

Andreas.

John Charmley

05-12-2006, 07:38 PM

Dear Fr Raphael,

Your blessing. I for one am grateful for your measured and illuminating message which does get to the core of the problem.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Dear Fr. Raphael/Andreas,

Amen to that.

In Christ,

John

Moses Anthony

05-12-2006, 10:02 PM

Dear Mourad,

Thank you for your comments and insights, I think they were completely sensible.

And to the other commentators,

I have a lot of growing to do, and I certainly fall short of reflecting Christ's image in my life, but I don't think that has to do with my inability to identify with the Byzantine liturgy. I would attribute the repetitive, droning, choir-centric, slavonic chanting to that. As I (think) I said before, I enjoyed the Western-rite liturgy I attended. It was short and to the point.

What if Mourad is right? I think most people are aware of the enormous amount of decline in the Orthodox churches worldwide (about -20% in the US). Perhaps holding on to ancient liturgies which were innovative relevant in their own time contradicts the catholicity of the church by denying the modern day cultures, and the original missionary character of the church which sought to translate the truths of Orthodoxy into a language that foreign peoples could understand. I mean, I've read one Orthodox priest who said that Orthodox evangelism involved keeping the icons polished. Perhaps this attitude is actually a betrayal of orthodoxy, which I understood as being characterized by fruitful biblical exegesis, powerfully preaching, and bold missions... not sterile formalism...."

In Christ,
Shawn

A couple o weeks ago as I sat watching network news, there was a story about an Episcopalian parish which ran a U2-charist. The priest went on about how celebrating the eucharist to the tunes of U2, had increased the number of parishoners attending services. Even my young teen-age daughter was aghast when she saw the story. This is not to dis-similar from an article ( a few months back) in the Dallas Morning News Religion section, about how the Church must change or die.
I would be remiss to think that the form of the Divine Liturgy did not change somewhat when the missionary brothers Ss.Cyril & Methodius, translated the language of the liturgy for the Slavs. America has no precedent for how to form the Divine Liturgy with change, other than what they behold in the parishes of Roman Catholicism. And so we "converts" say the old is better, transforming Tradition into dead traditionalism, for fear of becoming 'like them'.
I myself have often thought: "What is there which is distinctly American, that we can use in Orthodoxy, to change America?" At this time I see nothing, or no one, in music which would convey the awsome truths of Orthodoxy into music Americans could identify with. The same thing I would say of the vestments of the clergy. And for certain, the Epiclesis and actual partaking of the Holy Gifts cannot change.
But back to the matter of the Byzantine, versus the Western form: The Rt.Rev. Fr.Gordon Walker said when we were still investigating Orthodoxy (concerning the Orthodox veneration of the Thetokos, having come from a Protestant background), "There are some things you just have to swallow!"
I was brought into Orthodoxy in a pan-ethnic Byzantine Rite parish (GOA), and when my priest (AOA) was transfered, I went to the only other AOA parish in my town, a Western Rite one. However much I may, or may not prefer one form of worship over the other, one thing is the same: If the Church is the guardian and protector of the truth, it is I who must bend to her will, not the Church to my changing whims!

a sinful and unworthy servant,
Moses

John Charmley

11-12-2006, 11:03 AM

But back to the matter of the Byzantine, versus the Western form: The Rt.Rev. Fr.Gordon Walker said when we were still investigating Orthodoxy (concerning the Orthodox veneration of the Thetokos, having come from a Protestant background), "There are some things you just have to swallow!"
I was brought into Orthodoxy in a pan-ethnic Byzantine Rite parish (GOA), and when my priest (AOA) was transfered, I went to the only other AOA parish in my town, a Western Rite one. However much I may, or may not prefer one form of worship over the other, one thing is the same: If the Church is the guardian and protector of the truth, it is I who must bend to her will, not the Church to my changing whims!

a sinful and unworthy servant,
Moses

Dear Mr. Anthony,

Some interesting thoughts here, and not altogether unrelated to what is going on in the thread on American Orthodoxy; you do raise some knotty problems.

In terms of 'having to swallow' things in Orthodoxy, I do wonder if this is quite the mindset one tries to acquire; veneration of the Theotokos is part of 'right worship' and that is at the centre of the Orthodox Liturgy. Once one appreciates this, then one can joyfully embrace another part of the fulness of the Faith.

Coming, as I do, from a Church which ditched the beautiful and sonorous Book of Common Prayer for a book of services that were so banal that it was a real test of obedience to keep going to them, I can sympathise to the nth degree with the comments about the U2 service; a Church in the south-west of England runs an 'Elvis Evensong' (no, don't ask, you can guess!).

Thirty five years ago I, and those who thought like me, were told that these things were needed to 'update' the Church and to make it more 'relevant', especially to the young; despite being one of the 'young' back then, my comments were ignored, and I, obedient as I try to be, went along and made the best of things.

Thirty five years on the Churches are emptier, Anglicanism has gone down a gnostic worm-hole, and we have priestesses and 'the divine feminine'. By their fruits shall ye know them!

I don't know why Churches that ditch their historic liturgies veer so badly off-course, there is no doubt a complicated connection between the lack of self-confidence that motivates such moves, and a falling away from orthodoxy; all I know is that there is a discernible pattern here. An Anglican friend of mine always says the best cure for what he calls 'Roman fever' (the desire of some Anglicans to go over to Rome) is to attend an RC service; having done so once, I could see what he meant.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The forms in which the Orthodox Church has chosen to worship Him reflect the Divine Liturgy in Heaven; as long as the chosen Liturgy does that, let us be content. Let us not try to change things into our image - are we so happy with that that we would see it reflected back at us? We pray to the Creator, not the created.

In several threads here we have been discussing questions of language, and I suspect we must try not to confuse ethnic practice with Orthodox praxis - it does help people to know the Faith if they understand what is being said. But that is separate from the question of the form of the Liturgy.

The fate of Anglicanism is a grim example of what can happen when an historic liturgy is abandoned, especially when that Liturgy expressed so much of the Faith. If the gates of hades will not prevail against the true Church, I have to be an exiting Anglican, even though the sorrow and pain of leaving my native Church are, at times, severe.

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

11-12-2006, 05:20 PM

The Orthodox Church simply continues to do what everyone used to do. What I find hard to swallow is that everyone else dropped stuff.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Tanya Hoadley

12-12-2006, 07:46 PM

Greetings to all,
Father Raphael Bless!

Thank you Father Raphael for your last post. I appreciate your wisdom on the issue of 'problems'.

Orthodox means "right worship". How I may 'feel' at any particular moment in the liturgy I think is irrelevant.

How do I learn to worship God? In the Church services. How can I begin to know the mystery of the Theotokos? In the Akathist to the Ever Virgin Mary. How are the lives of the saints revealed to me? The troparion and kontakion. How do I learn to pray? In the prayers of the Church.

I have found my feelings to be quite unreliable. When I rely upon them, the result is confusion and despair.

At times I have found myself "feeling" that the service was long and wanting it to end. Recently I have found myself almost in tears that it was over so soon and not wanting to leave.

Choosing obedience rather than relying on feelings has been very fruitful in my life.

I have visited a variety of churches over the years, Roman Catholic, Eastern Rite and Protestant. Only in the Orthodox liturgy do I experience "heaven on earth".

For me, if it aint' broke, don't fix it!

In Christ,
Tanya

John Charmley

13-12-2006, 10:32 AM

The Orthodox Church simply continues to do what everyone used to do. What I find hard to swallow is that everyone else dropped stuff.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Dear Andreas,

Interesting thought. Is it that, or that others added things? After all, the reason the OOs gave for not accepting Chalcedon was that it added to the Faith.

It has seemed to me, as I come to know a little of its richness, that the quality of Orthodoxy is that it does not innovate and add on; that, as the thread of Tradition showed. does not mean that it does not develop our understanding of the Faith, of course - but this is a different matter.

What do you think?

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

13-12-2006, 10:42 PM

John Charmley

14-12-2006, 05:27 PM

Dear John,

Perhaps it's more accurate to say that the Orthodox Church is like wholemeal bread - nowt added, nowt taken away, as we say in Yorkshire. I'm no scholar, but surely the Seven Councils clarifed and verified the faith rather than adding to it. How can we talk of preserving the deposit of the Apostolic faith if we say also that this was added to? The truth of the faith is eternal. It is also very simple: love God and your neighbour 'as I have loved you' - that is, even unto death. The rest is verification, comment and explanation. The faith doesn't change but every age and generation needs its own particular exegesis for itself. Its richness consists in these ever-increasing layers of patristic writing, prayers, the witness of saints by their lives, icons, miracles, new monasteries, and so forth, building up thickness over time like sedimentary rocks. Does this bear up?

In Christ,

Andreas.

Dear Andreas,

Yes, I think it does bear up, and there are interesting thoughts here.

Yes, too, to the comment about the Ecumenical Councils, with due allowance for the problems caused by Chalcedon and later clarifications of what was and was not meant.

Indeed, at the risk of relighting old fires (which I don't want to do) this is where some of the questions asked in the old EO/OO comparisons thread were germane. Looking back through that thread we missed, I suspect, an opportunity, to answer some very basic questions about Orthodoxy - basic, at least to those of us outside it.

I have come across a whole range of references on various threads here (none of which are anything to do with the controversial issue of EO/OO unity) to the seeming lack of difference in the essence of the Faith between the two, which was why I asked what the hard doctrinal differences actually were? This was treated as though it were a dummy question with a hidden agenda, instead of just a dumb question with no agenda at all.

Of course there are great ecclesiological and historical differences, and there are those on both sides who persist in insisting that those historical differences reflect real, hard, doctrinal differences, with some folk on both sides saying that the other has 'added' to the Apostolic Faith. There are also those, on both sides, who take a more eirenic line.

I never have had an answer to my, perhaps naive, question about how the two eastern traditions differ on the essentials of the Faith, and really would rather not spark off another war of words on this theme, especially outside the arena on this site reserved for the topic.

But I raise it in passing here because it is relevant to this discussion. The original question about 'why Eastern over Catholic tradition' has the various answers we have given here; a Copt answering the same question would, I suspect give the same answers. I don't know what to make of that, and in even raising the question I am not trying to reignite a heated debate about 'unity', simply trying to make out, through the fog, what is Orthodox praxis which may be held in common, and what is ethnic practice, which is not, so I crave forgiveness if this takes the thread in an unwelcome direction; but it remains, for those looking in at Orthodoxy, a great puzzle.

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

15-12-2006, 02:32 AM

Dear John,

A hungry man offered bread wouldn't ponder whether he might prefer cake, or discourse on the difference between bread and cake.

In Christ,

Andreas.

John Charmley

15-12-2006, 11:43 AM

Dear John,

A hungry man offered bread wouldn't ponder whether he might prefer cake, or discourse on the difference between bread and cake.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Dear Andreas,

Very true, as long as the bread to hand is the bread of life.

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

15-12-2006, 08:36 PM

Dear John,

For 'bread' read 'Orthodox Church'.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Peter Farrington

15-12-2006, 09:21 PM

Dear Andreas

But one problem is that our presentation of Orthodoxy in the West is not always seen as 'Good News', or the 'Bread of Life'. There are too many people for whom Orthodoxy is seen as wholly negative. Words I have seen used include:

Pharasaical
Arrogant
Prideful
Argumentative
Superstitious
Lacking in love
Eastern
Alien

and many others I am sure.

In my own experience it is normally always necessary to begin our witness by commending that which is good and true in the lives of those we bear witness among. No-one will hear a message which merely begins by dismissing all that they have known and believed. And Orthodoxy often comes over as being dismissive. I have had to change my own heart over the years to find the good in all others who love Christ, not in a theoretical way that means nothing, but truly.

It may well be the case that the East has much to teach the West, but I believe that the West has much to teach those from the East who are now called to serve our Lord and our fellow men in the West. Quite probably not doctrine and not spirituality, but what it means to try and be a Christian in the West. Francis Schaeffer and the Auca Martyrs (both referenced elsewhere today) are examples of Western Christians whose life and witness has something to say to Orthodox without diminishing our Orthodoxy.

But something in our common humanity and our common experience of life in Christ, however compromised it is for some/many, seems to me to be diminished if we deny the good in their true knowledge of Christ.

East - West. Surely a false and meaningless distinction which promotes partisanship. I am of Paul. I am of Apollos. We are all of Christ if we are anything. We need to find a Christian Tradition that works in the West, and of course I don't mean starting from scratch. Something which reflects on both the present condition in the West, the orthodox Christian heritage of the West, the genuinely spiritual aspirations of Christians in the West over centuries, and of course the universal value and substance of the Apostolic and Orthodox Faith.

God forbid that Orthodoxy in the West be just another denomination, which it is always in danger of becoming. I hope that Orthodoxy might rather see herself as the servant of all, helping committed and devout Christians in the West become more committed and devout as they experience the Orthodox Tradition as far as they are able and choose.

I would much rather that we win hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of friends for Orthodoxy, growing in their knowledge and love of Christ and others, than a handful of narrow converts - as I am always myself tempted to become - who secretly despise all that they were and fail to see God's hand and blessing in all their life.

As ever

Peter

John Charmley

16-12-2006, 01:13 AM

Dear John,

For 'bread' read 'Orthodox Church'.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Dear Andreas,

You are right, of course, and I am aware of at least two Churches which, if I said 'which Orthodox Church?' would be offended at my language because they both claim to be [B]the[B] Church.

In 2000 the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church declared:

Nevertheless, while recognising the need to restore our broken Christian unity, the Orthodox Church asserts that genuine unity is possible only in the bosom of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. All other "models" of unity seem to us to be unacceptable.

The other Orthodox Church says:

Historical facts, and the liturgy and doctrines of the Coptic Church, however, prove the Orthodoxy of the Coptic Church, until this day. Furthermore, it is now admitted by those who once accused the Coptic Church of being monophysite that it was a misunderstanding arising from a problem of semantics, the Coptic Church now being referred to as `miaphysite', that is, recognising both natures of our Lord being joined inseparably in the `One Nature of God the Logos Incarnate'

I am sorry if the question I pose upsets anyone, but for me it is a torment.
I have prayed for guidance. I have read everything I can lay my hands on. I have discussed the matter, not least in this forum, asking all the while what the hard doctrinal differences still are, and have received no answer.

I have had, from some of the Oriental Orthodox posters on this site an explanation of what they believe and why they are Orthodox; the same has not been true from those EO posters who have written here - vide the EO/OO thread, where, to my sorrow, my questions were treated as though they were designed to serve a hidden agenda.

Hence my question about which bread? I am an outsider. I have spent my life in one Church which I thought Orthodox, but shows it is not; perhaps that is my failure of obedience, but after fifteen years of trying, there is nothing left. I have no desire to be here again. From the British Orthodox Church I have received nothing but kindness, an eirenic understanding of my position, and an introduction to the richnesses of Orthodoxy which is transforming the waterless desert of my spiritual life. But, I am told by one Orthodox Church that this is not the Orthodox Church - for reasons which it cannot, or will not explain.

The statement from the Coptic Church is one I cannot gainsay. So, for me, it is 'which Eastern tradition?', not why Eastern over Catholic?

Is this how kids of divorced parents feel?

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

16-12-2006, 02:07 AM

Dear Peter - Dear John,

How much unites us! How much do our feelings for one another gather us together us together as brethren of Christ, as children of light! Peter - you are secure in your faith, as I am. John - your church has left you; you have not left it, and you seek the truth. I hate geographical terms. I am not 'Eastern Orthodox' - I am Orthodox. God led me to Bishop Eireniaos who led me to Father Sophrony who determined my entry into the Orthodox Church. In Birmingham, Bishop Eirenaios knew well and loved the Coptic Bishop Missail and his clergy. When Bishop Missail visited the Greek Cathedral, Bishop Eirenaios processed him into the Cathderal and seated him on his own throne. When Pope Shenouda visited Birmingham, we were his guests and I treasure his signed books he gave me. Yet we - Oriental and Greek Orthodox - may not share the same cup. It is a scandal! It may be resolved.

Peter, I agree that we don't need narrow converts. But we do need to tell people that the Orthodox Church is the Ark, as the flood waters of this age rise (as they are doing literally in Essex! I'm thinking of popping down to B&Q for a few cubits of gopher wood!). But I don't see why converts need be narrow.

As to western Christians, I think of Dr David Livingstone. He gave up everything for his neighbours, the Africans he served. You know how he reposed - they found him kneeling in prayer, just as they found St Seraphim of Sarov. No one can tell me that he is not God's friend.

I came to the Church by the Greek route, and I was not a convert, which helped a lot. I had wonderful teachers in Bishop Eirenaios and Father Sophrony. More recently, I have become more intimate with the Russian tradition. I must say I feel very close to the Russian tradition, but both feed into each other. I read the life of St Seraphim and the other Russian saints, and I have experienced such grace in Russia. But then I have also in Greece, Cyprus, and England. I know where the grace of God is. I do not know where it is not.

All I can say is to you, John, is, follow your heart where it leads you after prayer. You have read and prayed. I can only suggest that you 'come and see'. Like the emissaries of St Vladimir, go to the liturgy and listen to what your heart tells you. Consider the saints of each tradition. To which do you feel an attraction? Your mind cannot make the decision for you - only the heart. God is in the heart, not the mind.

It is late, and I may not be expressing myself well. I hope this post helps.

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, Who art everywhere present and fillest all things. Lead us into all truth.

Andreas.

John Charmley

16-12-2006, 04:52 PM

All I can say is to you, John, is, follow your heart where it leads you after prayer. You have read and prayed. I can only suggest that you 'come and see'. Like the emissaries of St Vladimir, go to the liturgy and listen to what your heart tells you. Consider the saints of each tradition. To which do you feel an attraction? Your mind cannot make the decision for you - only the heart. God is in the heart, not the mind.

It is late, and I may not be expressing myself well. I hope this post helps.

Andreas.

Dear Andreas,

Thank you for these words, which do, indeed help.

Your words breathe a spirit more eirenic than some. It may be my Anglican background, but there are times when there seems an almost stifling exclusivity about some of the Eastern Orthodox traditions - some of the comments on the martyrdom thread give an example of what, to my sinful mind, seems very like prideful humans assuming to speak for what only God can know. My heart turns away from such narrowness, or rather the almost imperial spirit that seems to underlie it. I may be missing things, and mistaking an ethnic reflex for Orthodox praxis.

The Copts quite lack this dimension, perhaps because they have been persecuted for so long and have no imperial glory to look back to. Rereading the old EO/OO thread that is now locked, I am struck, again, by this difference.

But, as you say, it is not through the head (alone) but through the heart (also) and in the promptings of the Holy Ghost (always) that the way is to be found.

Can I say, thought, with great thankfulness, that I find your posts, and your forbearance and quiet helpfulness, a source of comfort and of strength in this time of trial - and I am grateful for what you say.

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

16-12-2006, 05:03 PM

John Charmley

17-12-2006, 11:52 PM

Dear John,

Thank you. Perhaps God helps me to help others sometimes as a way of helping me since I cannot help myself. I try to show love, and hope that thereby I might cover some of the multitude of my sins.

I think (on the strength of what a desperate Anglican priest friend of mine shares with me) that the Church of England lost its sense of sin.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Dear Andreas,

Well, all I can say is that you are a great help.

My problem is clearly something that only prayer, time and the Holy Ghost can resolve - the intellect has clearly run into the sands.

So many converts come to the Orthodox Church by the same process as I am being led, but they encounter only one Orthodox Church, usually the Greek or Russian. I, of course, encountered the British Orthodox Church with its non-Chalcedonian affiliation. After fairly strenuous efforts, not least here, to discover the hard doctrinal differences between the two, enlightenment eludes me.

Of course a millenium and a half of separation have created ecclesiological differences to add to the cultural ones, but on the deposit of the one true faith I am still struggling not to see the same Orthodoxy - and yet it is quite clear that there are many, whose views command respect, who see real differences.

However, the attempt to explore this on the EO/OO thread broke down fairly heavily, alas, and it seemed to create a bad atmosphere for a while, even here on Monachos. But re-reading it, especially when the OO posters stated their Orthodox creed, I still cannot see where the hard doctrinal differences are - except one go back and quote views about people which they can show they do not hold. There are obviously some traditions which people hold very close to them for historical reasons, and, especially after the EO/OO discussions, I wouldn't want to go there again, for fear of upsetting people - this is, after all, an EO site, and I hope my posts show a due respect for that, and the fact that I am a guest here.

Fortunately, my patience is pretty vast, and my hope and trust in Him is absolute. As it says in today's reading at Romans 3: 19-26:

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

It is wonderful the way that sometimes one finds exactly what one needs!

In Christ,

John

p.s. in order to quote highlight the text you wish to cite with a left click and press 'quote' at the bottom - that will quote from previous posts - and you can always delete as appropriate. If you want to quote from earlier posts, I highlight and copy text, then, I press the 'quote tags' in the toolbar above before copying the text between the two tags. I'm sure there is a better way, but that's what I do!

INXC

J

Andreas Moran

18-12-2006, 12:11 AM

Dear John,

Thanks for your assistance! When I was learning about the Christian faith (about which, I assure you, I knew absolutely nothing), poor Bishop Eirenaios, as he told me later, was drowning in my questions! 'Well', I said, 'I must be sure - its' too important not to be sure. I don't want to believe it just because I want to believe.' But it was in the Divine Liturgy that I got the assurance I needed. It has to be experiential.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Andrew

18-12-2006, 03:42 AM

Dear John,

But it was in the Divine Liturgy that I got the assurance I needed. It has to be experiential.

In Christ,

Andreas.

I know what you mean. Intellectual assent to written statements about dogma is one thing, but coming as a person to meet Truth present in a brick thrown at your five senses and beyond is something entirely different. After going for the liturgical services of the Church, I knew that this was the spiritual hospital for humanity, and this is where I needed to be.

John Hammond

18-12-2006, 05:27 AM

Andreas Moran

18-12-2006, 11:02 AM

Dear Andrew,

Yes, indeed. There is a sense, I feel, in which dogma is only the (necessary) articulation of authentic experience. When you feel it, you don't need to explain it to yourself. In fact, I find that to try and explain it dogmatically makes the experience recede - it leaves the valley of the heart and goes to the stony slopes of the mind.

In Christ,

Andreas.

John Charmley

18-12-2006, 06:05 PM

Would it not be correct to say that all branches of the Catholic Church East and West have more in common than they differ?

Perhaps we should focus a bit more on what binds us rather than what divides us.

The Lord's teachings bind us. You know there is not very much beyond LOVE that really matters in the end.

Dear John,

There is much in this, and I, for one, am in absolute agreement, but I am also aware of a trend of thought that would see in this attitude the cloven hoof of syncretism.

This is a shame, because we are commanded to be one. But as another poster on this site has written recently, in order to be one, someone has to say sorry; coming from a soggy old Anglican background, I suspect there are more than enough causes for repentance all round - whilst always respecting the Orthodox way as the 'right worship'. My ongoing problem is that I clearly have a form of spiritual myopia since I cannot clearly distinguish between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy when it comes to matters of hard doctrinal content. Of course I see all sorts of cultural and historical differences, but I clearly lack something somewhere as they both seem Orthodox on the deposit of the one true faith once and for all delivered.

So, of course, I welcome your words, and the spirit that prompts them.

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

18-12-2006, 11:07 PM

Dear John (C),

One thought occurs to me which may help. What is described here as the Eastern Orthodox Church is what we had here in Britain until the mid 11th century. I feel a sense of communion with our own saints within the Orthodox Tradition. Indeed, a few of them have made themselves known to us. There is, of course, the connection with the Greek East through St Theodore of Tarsus, and the interesting link with Russia through Princess Gytha. In a very real way, coming to Orthodoxy establishes links with our own past and our saints who are very much of the present.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Robert Hegwood

19-12-2006, 12:01 AM

The Coptic monk Matthew the Poor had a little to say on this in a book of his that was published a few years ago. I forget the title.

From my persepctive as an ostensible Orthodox Christian I can see many significant and profound differences in mindset, theology and practice between Orthodoxy and Rome. I cannot say the same concerning the Copts. The only differences I see that I can make any sense of are different Christologial formulations that seem to be saying pretty much the same thing only with slightly differing points of emphasis. Then there is the administrative seperation that occured back at the schism. Honestly I don't know why we haven't been able to repair this "breach" which seems to exist mostly in name only.

That said, in my own limited opinion I find the Chalecedon statement with latter explianations the fuller expression. But my understanding aside if I recall correctly the issue of the preferred Christological language was settled by a saint. Summaries of both Christologies were placed in the tomb of a saint and when they were next examined the Chalcedon formula was found at the head and the other formula at the feet. It seems to me this should have settled the issue all other discursive theological minutia aside.

Even so, in the centuries that have followed it has been demonstrated that our faiths are virtually indistinguishable on every salient point but that of Christological formulation...and there the difference is (to me) vanishingly small...you could shave a gnat with it. The same cannot be said of our break with Rome...we had and have good reason yet to remain seperated from them. But the Coptic question ought to be much more easily resolved.

Granted everybody has some history and no one can back down as things stand without saying they were wrong (and how can the Orthodox faith be wrong...non sequiter city). So why not do what was done for other coucils...call some sort of supplimentary extender session, work out the differences and develop some joint canons that finish whatever must be done to righteously repair the schism. That way no one has to eat crow...both sides get to clarify their position, Chalcedon can be affirmed within a specfic frame of reference that is acceptable to the Copts (assuming of course we do currently believe and teach the same thing just in different words) , and sign on to the remaining councils they missed. I don't know if such a thing is possible absent a Emperor to call for such an extending council...but it strikes me as worth consideration if not impossible on other grounds. Maybe I'm naive.

John Charmley

19-12-2006, 10:26 AM

Granted everybody has some history and no one can back down as things stand without saying they were wrong (and how can the Orthodox faith be wrong...non sequiter city). So why not do what was done for other coucils...call some sort of supplimentary extender session, work out the differences and develop some joint canons that finish whatever must be done to righteously repair the schism. That way no one has to eat crow...both sides get to clarify their position, Chalcedon can be affirmed within a specfic frame of reference that is acceptable to the Copts (assuming of course we do currently believe and teach the same thing just in different words) , and sign on to the remaining councils they missed. I don't know if such a thing is possible absent a Emperor to call for such an extending council...but it strikes me as worth consideration if not impossible on other grounds. Maybe I'm naive.

Dear Robert,

I agree with you totally, and if you are naive, would that more were so minded. The discussions of the EO/OO thread offer a fairly comprehensive treatment of the arguments, and, as an outsider, I am compelled to say that I failed to find the arguments against unity convincing in spirit. I understand the pull and influence of tradition, and indeed respect that deeply, but the fact that no-one gave an account of the hard doctrinal differences did point in the direction of your gnat and his shave.

But then I am an outsider, and my comments are over influenced by my own position and by a lengthy reading of the documents of the Joint Commission on unity which has met from time to time over the past forty years - there is a good collection of their reports at: http://www.orthodoxunity.org/.

I am also aware that there is a deep hostility to this project, which, in some circles (on both sides) is seen as a kind of selling out; whether that is the work of human pride or of a proper concern for the Faith only God can judge.

Whatever the truth, and I don't want to get into EO/OO unity outside that part of the forum reserved for it, there is more than one Eastern Tradition. Indeed, only yesterday, we had a new member of the forum who hails from the Malankaran Syriac Orthodox Church - which is another ancient Christian tradition with its roots back in the Holy Land; the websites he posted made fascinating and rewarding viewing and reading.

I hope that what I am saying does not come across as a call for syncretism, because if I wanted that, I'd stay an Anglican, it is more a plea that those who profess Orthodoxy continue a dialogue so that we can all come to an understanding of the richness of our sundered heritage. Do the Copts really have nothing to learn from the Russian and Greek experiences? Do the Greeks and Russians really have nothing to learn from the Copts? Does the Syriac Orthodox Church really have nothing that we can all learn from?

I suppose I am being naive in turn, but what pride we men (and it is mostly men) have, and how hard it is to be humble enough to listen to others. I am surrounded by young people who think there is nothing in the Christian tradition and who turn to what they call 'Eastern mysticism' for relief from our materialistic culture - and yet, under their noses is the real 'Eastern mysticism' in the Orthodox Faith. How badly we stumble when we let such souls pass by as we examine our respective histories to justify what was done then. I suspect all sides sinned - it wouldn't be very surprising in mankind.

In Christ,

John

Robert Hegwood

20-12-2006, 12:53 AM

John Charmley

20-12-2006, 11:07 PM

"Do the Copts really have nothing to learn from the Russian and Greek experiences?"

In the publishing blurb to the latest book out from the Coptic monk Matthew the Poor it says that he read some of the Russian saints a few pages or even a few paragraphs at a time weeping for hours in prayer to them asking that they help him understand the wisdom of God that they knew and were trying to communicate through their own writing...or words to that effect.

So given that we Orthodox are reading and being inspired by Matthew the Poor and he is reading and being inspired by Orthodox saints...I would say the answer to the question is probably "yes".

Dear Robert,

Sounds as though we are all learning from each other - which is rather healthy. It is this, rather than some odd Anglicanesque hankering after ecumenism which makes me write about 'Eastern traditions'.

None of this is to minimise differences, but it is to ask us to consider how much of the common deposit of faith the Churches which bear the title Orthodox possess in common. So much of our history has been about stressing the things that divide, but of those many things, is one of them a serious doctrinal difference, or set of differences?

That's a genuine question, as I keep not finding an answer to it - but also, gladly and happily, I keep being amazed at what I find in common - far more than the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox - which isn't to say that's fine then, simply to pose the question about how much those who are Orthodox know about others who are Orthodox. As an outsider I sometimes have the impression (I'm sure wrongly) that some people are so determined to establish the exclusivity of their own Orthodoxy that they have perhaps failed to establish what it is others believe and practice.

Of course there are many levels at which such a statement is naive, but sometimes naive statements have their place as questions.

In Christ,

John

Maria Murray

22-12-2006, 06:21 PM

Dear Shawn Lazar,
I am not qualified to answer any of your questions, but simply wanted to say I relate to your experiences because my husband and I have had many of the same issues in our journey. We dealt with the East vs. West claims and we can especially relate to your comments regarding the liturgy. Even as a Russian, I had struggled a lot with what seemed too 'cultural', too long and I can only begin to imagine how much more difficult it is for my Irish husband, he is much more comfortable with the Roman Catholic mass! He said the same as I used to tell my priest years ago: "I don't get anything out of it". Most of the torment associated with the liturgy was eventually cured by our reseach into the meaning behind everything, but the struggle itself now seems to be a huge blessing. A blessing because this dislike for the liturgy has brought us to a place where we began to learn great humility. My husband said something to the effect of: I learned to say it's not what I can get out of it for myself but what does God want. Having visited many many Christian denominations over the past 2yrs, I can say we've never had this exprience anywhere else (where worship services were 'relevant' or marketed to today's 'needs'.) This may seem hard to believe, but I used to be bothered that the liturgy was waaaay too long and too repetitive, but now I want to cry because it seems too short. But this is just my personal observations, and I have no idea what the official answer is or if anyone else can relate.

John Charmley

22-12-2006, 11:11 PM

My husband said something to the effect of: I learned to say it's not what I can get out of it for myself but what does God want. Having visited many many Christian denominations over the past 2yrs, I can say we've never had this exprience anywhere else (where worship services were 'relevant' or marketed to today's 'needs'.) This may seem hard to believe, but I used to be bothered that the liturgy was waaaay too long and too repetitive, but now I want to cry because it seems too short. But this is just my personal observations, and I have no idea what the official answer is or if anyone else can relate.

Dear Maria,

Very interesting and instructive. Was the Liturgy in English?

Your search sounds as though it has been a long process, and it might help some of us to know how it was that in the end you both came to Orthodoxy as you did.

In Christ,

John

Nicolaj

28-12-2006, 01:45 PM

Dear Mary, John

Mary, your experience is much alike my own. The first time entering a orthodox church I was so far away from Christ and almost sure I wouldn't like it what I found there. But having nothing left to lose I came. Prepared by my wife that the liturgy would be awful long and disturbing. And there in the beauty of the Holy Liturgy it happened, I started to understand the Love of Christ and began to repent. Tears came from the heart and I was and still am so much moved that I really hunger for the next Liturgy.

I cannot really quote the difference that makes the difference but talking with fellow parishioners I can see that often the converts report such experiences. Here in the parish we have people from the whole East and also many native Austrians. The many different orthodox churches aren't that many as we all are praying by Christ for the one apostolic and catholic church. Other themes have to be cleared by the shepherds of the churches.
Come and listen with the heart, the soul and Christ will take you as you are, he already knows you, much better as I know myself. He can tell how many hears are on my head!

In Christ and Love-Nicolaj

Maria Murray

16-01-2007, 09:15 PM

Dear Maria,

Very interesting and instructive. Was the Liturgy in English?

Your search sounds as though it has been a long process, and it might help some of us to know how it was that in the end you both came to Orthodoxy as you did.

Dear John, yes, it was in English and it shows just how little we knew about the Liturgy, it's really embarrasing...
I wasn't able to answer your question regarding why we came to Orthodoxy because I wasn't able to put it in words. After looking through a variety of denominational doctrines, we decided to examine them in their historical perspectives and eventually ruled out all splits after the 11th century. That's where we got stuck for a while because many arguments for the traditional churches were so well made that it was hard to use our own limited brains to decide which was right. I am not sure if my situation would be helpful to your case since you are looking between EO and OO, but we struggled between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I was open to both but we had to make a choice to have our daughter baptized... we had to know which faith. When we got stuck we prayed God would show us a way. I cannot tell you how, but I realized on some level God was there in the Orthodox church. My husband decided out of humility there is no other choice for him to be a spiritual leader to his family except in the Orthodox church, as much as he doesn't like it. His attitude was very inspiring to me. I don't know if that really answers your question.

Paul Michael Phelan

19-01-2007, 06:07 AM

Dear Shawn,

I am a former "evangelical" myself, so I can sympathize with your question and concern. I think the heart of your problem is a misunderstanding that has probably resulted from your exposure to "Tradition" in Roman Catholicism. In other words, you seem to come from the angle that "Tradition" and "Scripture" contradict one another.

From an Orthodox perspective, Scripture is part of the Tradition of the Church. After all, it was the Tradition of the Church that ultimately led to the canonization of certain texts as Scripture. Furthermore, it was the Tradition of the Church that led to the proper interpretation of Scripture.

As Protestants, we were inclined to see Scripture as being over and above everything else rather than seeing it in its proper place, which is within the overall Tradition of the Church. The ironic thing about this is that, today, we see the fruit of this poor theology; namely, thousands of churches that are all "biblical-based."

Regarding the differences between so-called "Eastern" traditions and "Western" traditions, you can easily see that the Western tradition--specifically Roman Catholicism and Protestantims--has not even stayed true to itself within the past 50 years, let alone the past 500 or 2,000.

Aaron

In the Catholic Church, there is dogmatic doctrine which is the Word of God and other matters of faith, just like the Orthodox Church has. What I think is meant by adding other beliefs are non-dogmatic things called "traditions" with a small letter "t". These are practices that aid in spiritual faith and form the growth of the Church, and these are not a matter of faith, rather a Church way of doing something, or an administrative ruling of church practice. The church's main dogmatic theology and core belief is of Christ and has always been scripture based. Nothing has been ruled as "Tradition" or dogma from the Chair of Peter in centuries, it is rarely done. The church has made many mistakes with bad Popes, bad decisions, such as in WWII with the Jews, and has made amends for many errors of the past under Pope John Paul, even relations with the Orthodox Church, which was nice to see. It takes courage to admit mistakes, but the Church is made up of "human beings." Where can you find the "perfect" Church on earth? I am not judging anything said because I am not providing facts, just the general knowledge I have been taught. Both churches are the largest in the world, and have an administrative headache in this day and age. Pray that Christ protect the Body of Christ, the Church. May the gifts of each bring blessings to its members, and a way to Christ. I pray in Jesus' Name. Amen.

John Charmley

19-01-2007, 06:30 PM

I am not sure if my situation would be helpful to your case since you are looking between EO and OO, but we struggled between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I was open to both but we had to make a choice to have our daughter baptized... we had to know which faith. When we got stuck we prayed God would show us a way. I cannot tell you how, but I realized on some level God was there in the Orthodox church. My husband decided out of humility there is no other choice for him to be a spiritual leader to his family except in the Orthodox church, as much as he doesn't like it. His attitude was very inspiring to me. I don't know if that really answers your question.

Dear Maria,

Thank you for being kind enough to spend the time doing this; I am not surprised that you were inspired by the attitude of your husband - it is so inspiring on a number of levels; you must be proud of such a man.

It is wonderful the way your path was guided, and that you should be where you are now.

I sometimes get a little bothered when people seem to denigrate the Catholic tradition, so it is so good to read how you went about things - very prayerful and respectful. There is so much in both traditions, and at times people pronounce without knowing both. At their best, both traditions bear so great a witness to the Christian Faith - but of course, I would be there agreeing that in Orthodoxy the fulness can be found. I suspect that as far as I am concerned it will be through the Oriental Orthodox route.

In Christ,

John

Simon

20-01-2007, 11:18 AM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-01-2007, 03:28 PM

.

As it happens, I'm from a (formerly) Catholic city in Canada, called Montreal. And I've heard many of the same arguments for the priority of Tradition over Scripture, but from the Catholic side. So my question is, how, then, do I decide between different traditions if Scripture is not my highest and final authority? Or, to put it another way, why should I prefer Eastern tradition to Western tradition?

Dear Shawn,
Speaking purely for myself, I found the answer to your question in the Liturgy. Probably due to various Vatican councils, the RC Liturgy in the ultra-RC town, Vicenza, where I live, seems to have incorporated a lot of modifications, with a bit of guitar music there, organ music there, and so on. Our Liturgy in the places I have been to - two Churches here, Mount Athos monasteries, London, St. Serge in Paris, and St. Dimitrios in Thessaloniki, all seem to maintain the same attachment to an almost unchanging tradition. One's reaction to the divine Liturgy is such a spiritual and emotional affair, that if you are really interested in our Faith, I think you should attend it, and see how you feel,
I pray that Christ reward your effort if you do,

Simon

I think these words to yourself already get to the central point. There are many, many points which witness to the truth of Orthodoxy.

But yet when it comes to how we know from this witness that what we are experiencing is the truth it is openness to the experience itself which convinces us. Thus through the centuries it is remarkable how simply being at the Liturgy has converted so many people.

What can we say about this? Of course not everybody converts through the Liturgy in the way you describe. But very soon everybody who converts experiences the Liturgy and it is during this time that one experiences so fully what the Church is really about.

Almost everything else about the process of coming to the Church relies on human wisdom to some extent. We talk to the priest, we get to know the parishioners, we experience the look & feel of the particular parish we are in. Still though there is always something contingent about this, something that requires constant processing from our side.

The Liturgy however radically takes us out of this realm and into the Divine. We are surrounded by the very same people we are approaching to discern the truth of Orthodoxy. But suddenly we assume a radically different relationship to them because right away we are in the Kingdom. Suddenly we see that we approach others about the truth due to the way they convey the truth which we are experiencing now in the Liturgy. This in turn begins a radical conversion about what truth means to us and where and how it is found within the Church.

In a way it is only during the Liturgy that we begin to get the equation right. So it is no wonder so many conversions begin or end during this time.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

John Charmley

20-01-2007, 08:13 PM

Almost everything else about the process of coming to the Church relies on human wisdom to some extent. We talk to the priest, we get to know the parishioners, we experience the look & feel of the particular parish we are in. Still though there is always something contingent about this, something that requires constant processing from our side.

The Liturgy however radically takes us out of this realm and into the Divine. We are surrounded by the very same people we are approaching to discern the truth of Orthodoxy. But suddenly we assume a radically different relationship to them because right away we are in the Kingdom. Suddenly we see that we approach others about the truth due to the way they convey the truth which we are experiencing now in the Liturgy. This in turn begins a radical conversion about what truth means to us and where and how it is found within the Church.

Dear Fr. Raphael,

The two parts of this balance nicely and say something very profound. The second paragraph removes us from the contingent - and the fear that 'we' are making a decision based on 'our feelings' (although we have to be open to the possibility that when our feelings are either not engaged, or we feel bad about something, there is a message in that).

There is a level at which, in the end, the answer to the question posed by this thread is always going to be the simple one - that it is one's preference, or one's own tradition. That is why, at this level, trying to convince an other that there are objective 'proofs' for one's preference is seldom, if ever, going to be worthwhile.

But your post, Father, reminds us of other levels. Speaking for myself, it was the realisation that the Anglican liturgy had become for me a dry formulaic exercise that finally linked up with the doubts I had been harbouring for some time; it was the coming together of the two things that pushed me away from where I was onto the journey towards Orthodoxy.

In Christ,

John

John Hammond

19-02-2007, 02:38 AM

Dear Friends,

I'm an evangelical Christian who is very interested in Orthodoxy. I've recently been re-considering the arguments I've heard made about the priority of Tradition over Scripture, or, the importance interpreting Scripture from within the wider tradition of the church.

As it happens, I'm from a (formerly) Catholic city in Canada, called Montreal. And I've heard many of the same arguments for the priority of Tradition over Scripture, but from the Catholic side. So my question is, how, then, do I decide between different traditions if Scripture is not my highest and final authority? Or, to put it another way, why should I prefer Eastern tradition to Western tradition?

In Christ,
Shawn
Why do we play into the hands of the devil by playing on the diffrences rather than the great common truths of both O and C.

Mourad Mankarios

19-02-2007, 05:47 AM

With the risk of making this sound like simply an intellectual exercise I think it's important to research what the church has believed since the beginning and pronounced through its holy and saintly fathers and then to see which church really has preserved this life with the most integrity.

At the same time it is important to pray to God to lead you to that true church where he is...

John Charmley

19-02-2007, 11:21 AM

Dear Mourad,

... it is important to pray to God to lead you to that true church where he is...

That is so true. Having just come through a very long journey to Orthodoxy (albeit not in the form practised by the majority here) I can only say 'amen'. The intellect has to be engaged, if only because it is part of the way in which one tries to understand the reasons one is not spiritually content where one finds oneself.

The process by which one finds oneself on a journey away from one's own Church is a complex and troubling one, and both the intellect and prayer are involved, and I certainly found it essential to read about Orthodoxy. However, in the course of ten years reading about these things I have to say that this

to research what the church has believed since the beginning and pronounced through its holy and saintly fathers and then to see which church really has preserved this life with the most integrity.

is seldom productive, if only because all the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church all claim to have preserved 'this life' with the most integrity, and there is, frankly, no objective criterion by which to make a judgement; of course this will upset some Orthodox - as it would some Catholics, but that rather drives home the point. Of course, when one has been guided by one's own reading and by prayer (which we hope is not an echo of that), one starts to see that one's favoured Church is the one that has 'really' preserved that 'life' with the most integrity.

Perhaps it is different for each of us, and I admire and envy those for whom the Damascus road experience is provided; still, the longer and thornier road has its rewards too.

In Christ,

John

John Hammond

20-02-2007, 06:52 AM

[QUOTE=Herman;35177].

The fact remains that for us, Orthodoxy has brought us closer to Christ than either Protestantism or Catholicism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure what Herman wrote is a true statement for some, but not all. For example I know of C priests who have been convicted of child abuse here in Dallas. I also know of one O priest who was murdered in the rectory, another is under charge of child abuse, a third who left town because of adultery

I do not think it is up to the O or the C to judge the other. Some are lead to Jesus in different ways. Let us focus on working together as lovers of Jesus to help as many as we can find salvation rather than focus on wrongs done by either.the O or the C.

John Charmley

20-02-2007, 10:06 AM

I do not think it is up to the O or the C to judge the other. Some are lead to Jesus in different ways. Let us focus on working together as lovers of Jesus to help as many as we can find salvation rather than focus on wrongs done by either.the O or the C.

Dear John,

Thank you for this profoundly moving thought.

In societies where non-Christians are in a majority do we really want to behave in a way that prompts the cry 'see how they love each other!' even as we teach the love of God?

Most of those who confess Christ crucified and resurrected, and who try to love God with all their hearts, as they do their fellow man, do not belong to the Orthodox Churches; it does not seem as though missionary activity amongst these people is a primary focus of the mission of the Orthodox, so what is being said here?

We need to be very careful. If most Christians belong to other Churches and we are content to let them be so, what is the implication? I would balk at the notion that it shows what a dreadful failure Christianity is, since so few have kept the faith. Surely, in that case, Mr. Hammond is correct?

Orthodoxy may be the place where you can experience the fullness of the faith - but it isn't the only place you can be a good Christian.

My apologies to those who think this is to advocate syncretism, because that isn't what is being said here.

Again, John, thank you for your eirenic tone.

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

20-02-2007, 10:35 AM

Rick H.

20-02-2007, 11:32 AM

John C said:

Orthodoxy may be the place where you can experience the fullness of the faith - but it isn't the only place you can be a good Christian.

Rather depends, John, what you mean by a good Christian. I have to confess this statement bothers me rather. I'll try to say more later.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Very good, Andreas, I appreciate you point of focus here, yes who is a good Christian? As we consider an historic Orthodox Catholic Tradition--who is the Church?

In Christ,

Rick

Owen Jones

20-02-2007, 12:07 PM

It is not God's mercy that saves us. Mercy is the precondition to salvation. We are saved by His Beauty. We else can we go to find this? By Beauty I do not just mean the externals. These are pointers to the inward Beauty of a soul that is brought to a state of humble contrition and union with God. But the fact that we have the pointers is a timeless reminder. Yes, theology matters.

Andreas Moran

20-02-2007, 01:02 PM

There is sometimes confusion between a good person and a Christian, and between the Orthodox understanding of the Christian life and what is popularly meant, in England at any rate, by a good Christian. There is also confusion, particularly in the western mind, caused by 'good' being equated with 'social action'. St Theophan says something about this, and I want to check some material at home before saying more, but posters will get the drift of the point.

As to Owen's point, I would suggest that a soul can only become contrite if its sin is acknowledged. If sin is acknowledged, then the soul knows it is in need of God's mercy. The soul which knows it needs God's mercy has banished pride and descended in humility to the point, as Father Sophrony says, of self-hatred. The further the soul descends, the higher God will raise it (as Fr Zacharias put it to me once). The soul ascends to God and encounters that beauty of which Owen speaks. Thus the path to beauty is the consummation of two actions: that of God in offering mercy and that of the soul in accepting it. This is the way of Christ - He descended to absolute humility and so was raised to glory by His Father. This must be our way for it is The Way. Such is the nature of the synergy which lies at the centre of Orthodox Christian spiritual life. God cannot force His mercy upon us and so the soul which refuses God's mercy cannot be saved.

John Charmley

20-02-2007, 02:16 PM

Dear Andreas,

I rather thought I might have been at risk of venturing my neck out a little far, especially if what I wrote was read outside the context of this discussion about 'why Eastern over Catholic tradition?'

I shall look forward to your later post, but if I may try to clear up what might be a misunderstanding, first? When you write:

There is sometimes confusion between a good person and a Christian, and between the Orthodox understanding of the Christian life and what is popularly meant, in England at any rate, by a good Christian. There is also confusion, particularly in the western mind, caused by 'good' being equated with 'social action'.
I take that entirely and agree.

I was thinking, as I hope my words implied, of Our Lord's statement to the Pharisee/lawyer in Matthew 22:37-40:

22:37 Jesus said to him, `You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
22:39 And the second is like it: `You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
22:40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.
I am just very wary of saying that it is only possible to do these things at all in the Orthodox Church. This isn't about social action or secular goodness, it is about following this teaching of Our Lord's.

Is there not a danger of spiritual arrogance in assuming that the Holy Spirit resides only with one part of Orthodoxy, despite His assurances to us? Could we really say that all these other Christians are not really Christians? What would follow from that? We cannot, after all, say who He will save and who He will not.

That's where I get uneasy, I fear. Too Anglican, alas!

In Christ,

John

Herman Blaydoe

20-02-2007, 02:29 PM

One can be a "good person" as a Buddhist, Hindu, Moslem, Jew, or Animist. The Apostle Paul tells us that there are pagan Greeks who are "..a law unto themselves..."

But Truth is not legislated, it cannot be forced to the lowest common denominator. It is not something "agreed to". It is something revealed. Compromise may be fine in politics and diplomacy, but Truth compromised is no longer Truth.

Brian B.

20-02-2007, 02:41 PM

The question of who is a Christian (much less a good Christian) is quite different from the question of how to find the true Church. It is the latter question that motivated Shawn to start this thread; and it is the latter question that all inquirers (or at least this inquirer) ask themselves as they seek various proofs and signs that can transcend their own fallen judgment and reason. An inquirer seeks some method or approach by which to discern the Truth, while (hopefully) realizing that his or her powers of discernment can only be relied on once the Truth is found. This is the Paradox of Inquiry, and the question upon which I hope this thread can remain focused.

But just briefly let me suggest that Christ gives us reason to suspect that one cannot simply equate the set of all followers of Christ with the set of all members of the true Church.

Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.
(Mark 9:38-41)

Sincerely in Christ,
Brian

Andreas Moran

20-02-2007, 04:19 PM

We do not say that the Holy Spirit resides only in the Orthodox Church - He goes where He wills. I was told that whilst the Orthodox Church has the fulness of the truth it does not have a monopoly of truth, so that a degree of truth may be found in other Christian confessions (but not, I would have thought in, say, Buddhism). I quite agree, John, that the Lord's commandments can be kept by anyone who believes in Him as Saviour. What I can't work out is this: if it is said that one can be saved in any Christian Church, does it matter which one you're in? What is the relationship between the fulness of the truth, partial truth, and the salvation of any particular individual?

Brian's quotation of Mark 9:38-41 has always (well, last 15 years) intrigued me - is Christ here saying that anyone who shows love of neighbour will not perish but get his reward? Plainly He is. But what is his reward? Is it smaller than is possible for someone within the Orthodox Church? Let us remember that the Orthodox Church is not a denomination but is the continuation of the Church established by Christ and the Holy Spirit and founded by the work of the Apostles: 'One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic'. I can only think that salvation from within the Church must somehow be more complete and the reward greater, otherwise, what's the point?
One thing I'm sure of: grace exists in the Orthodox Church as nowhere else. So, maybe it's the act which God looks at, and such acts as the 'cup of cold water' (hot if you're in Moscow or Winnipeg just now!) are rewarded for themselves quite apart from being in some denomination.

John Charmley

20-02-2007, 06:06 PM

Dear Andreas,

That was such a good post, and expresses more pithily than I can some of the questions with which I have wrestled for so long. You hit the nail upon the head:

What I can't work out is this: if it is said that one can be saved in any Christian Church, does it matter which one you're in? What is the relationship between the fullness of the truth, partial truth, and the salvation of any particular individual?

Brian is, of course, right, and as I tried to emphasise, my words should be read only in the general context, not as an expression of where the fullness of the faith can be found; after all, I would hardly have felt the need to follow the long journey to Orthodoxy if I had felt that it didn't matter which Church I was in!

I suppose the way I approach it reflects what I have done, which may get it quite wrong.

For me there was a growing feeling of sterility of the spirit where I was; not just a want of growth, but a feeling of emptiness. The act of worship was becoming just that 'an act'. I felt a sense of acting out the simulacrum of something, but only that. My Bible readings and their commentaries were not giving me what I felt I needed - although I'd have been hard put to it to say what that was, because it was just a sense that there was something more.

I went back to reading some of the Fathers, especially St. Cyril of Alexandria, in whom I have long had an interest, and that took me into the Internet, and to Orthodox sites, which reawakened an old interest in Orthodoxy. The more I read and prayed, the more I investigated, the more I rediscovered a sense of excitement about my faith. The journey continues, as does the discovery of the depth within Orthodoxy; but it is accompanied by something that had gone totally - and that is the joy of worship.

The Liturgy is in the real sense an awesome experience. I come away feeling elevated, refreshed, and with a sense of joy. Some of my friends think I have flipped, I am sure, but I know the Angels and the Saints are there, and I feel His presence; there has never been anything like it in my experience of Christianity.

That, for me, is what the fullness of the faith means in my life. I am sure others are better Christians than I am, and they are not Orthodox; but I know that the experience I get in the Church is so deep and so refreshing that I would wish they could all have it. I'm not saying that I am 'better' or more likely to be 'saved' (that's God's judgement, and I am so glad it is), but I am saying that as a humble layman, my experience of Church-going and of the spiritual life has been enriched and deepened by Orthodoxy.

It may be so for others with Roman Catholicism, I cannot say. But as a lifelong Anglican, I long for those who are also searching to know what I have come to know; that is an act of true love - I want to share this joy.

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

20-02-2007, 06:47 PM

Dear John,

There was a sense in which my questions were rhetorical, and you have matched those answers in the way I had answered them in my own mind. The key phrase you use, to my mind, is 'fulness of the faith'. In the Orthodox Church, everything - faith, prayer, worship - is present in its fulness. There is the potential and the means for theosis in a way not possible outside the Church. This process of divinisation starts in the here and now, not only in the there and later. Such present divinisation is only possible where the grace of the Holy Spirit acts in its fulness which it does through the sacraments of the Church and through Orthodox praxis. For one thing, that is why the relics of the saints are grace-filled: their divinisation was such that their very bodies partook of it. None of this is to say that other Christians and 'good' people will have no reward for the love they show their neighbour, but it is to say that the full potential for theosis can only be realised in the Orthodox Church. That's the difference. As to the actual state of souls after death, we cannot be sure. How can we think that someone like Dr David Livingstone is not in Paradise? (He was even found to have died kneeling in prayer, like St Seraphim of Sarov.) But God's mercy and judgment (which in a sense are the same thing) are meted out to individuals as individuals, and I repeat Bishop Eirenaios' saying, let us not tell God whom He may have for His friends. But to the Orthodox, much has been given, so much is expected. We have no excuses.

Father David Moser

20-02-2007, 07:18 PM

It is not God's mercy that saves us. Mercy is the precondition to salvation. We are saved by His Beauty. ... Yes, theology matters.

We are not saved by beauty - rather we are saved by grace. If we define beauty as "the image and likeness of God" then we can say that grace produces beauty in us. Thus just as mercy is a precondition to salvation, so also one can say that beauty is the result or at least the "side effect" of salvation. But I think that the theology of the Church (not to mention the scripture) is quite clear that we are saved by grace.

Fr David Moser

Father David Moser

20-02-2007, 07:32 PM

Is there not a danger of spiritual arrogance in assuming that the Holy Spirit resides only with one part of Orthodoxy, despite His assurances to us?

There are no "parts" to Orthodoxy. There is only one Church - the Orthodox Church - and in the whole Church the fullness of the Godhead dwells. One cannot divide the Church into parts. I just have a real problem with this (maybe its my baggage of having come from the denominational morass that is North American protestantism).

The Church is united by our one faith (our common confession of the faith as expressed by the Nicene Creed and the Ecumenical Councils), our one Lord Jesus Christ, our one baptism (that is being born into the one Body of Christ and, according to the fathers, that unity being maintained by all the sacraments) and our one God and Father of us all (and thus we come again to the worship of the Holy Trinity, the paradox of the Godhead Whom we worship but do not, cannot, explain)

Could we really say that all these other Christians are not really Christians? What would follow from that? We cannot, after all, say who He will save and who He will not.

Yes, we can say that those who do not follow Christ are not really Christians. If we follow *our idea of Christ* rather than Jesus Christ Himself, then how can we be true Christians - we are simply self deceived followers of our own fallen ideology, even if that ideology is inspired by Christianity and calls itself "Christianity". How can one follow Christ without following Him?

Now all this is a very different question from "who He will save and who He will not." The question of what God may or may not do is not one that I can answer. Remember the Gospel from just a couple of weeks ago. At the great judgement there will be plenty of those who are good socially conscious members of society who follow some creed of "good works" that they think is saving but who will hear "Depart from me for I never knew you". Better to follow the path that God gives to us than to follow our own path and hope that it leads somewhere useful.

Fr David Moser

Peter Farrington

20-02-2007, 08:09 PM

Dear Father

I am a little confused still about your position.

If you are saying that those who are not members of your Orthodox community are not Christians then surely it follows that since ROCOR bishops have stated that the Old Calendarist Synod in Resistance is not Orthodox, and therefore according to your post not Christian, the Brookwood community is no longer Christian.

I am sorry to be blunt but this seems the inescapable conclusion of your position.

Peter

John Charmley

20-02-2007, 08:16 PM

Dear Fr. David,

Thank you. I do suspect that there is something in your reaction that pertains to what you call
the denominational morass that is North American protestantism, but that is fair enough.

Little profit would ensue from discussing the point you make when you write
There are no "parts" to Orthodoxy. There is only one Church - the Orthodox Church - and in the whole Church the fullness of the Godhead dwells. Those who belong to an Orthodoxy that has a different ecclesiology and a divided history might make the self-same point, but there is no point in going down that unprofitable route. Those who believe that they are in the 'whole Church' do so in all holiness and zeal - whether Eastern, Oriental or whatever, and on this site, because of the enormous respect I have for the Eastern Orthodox, I would not presume to argue on this; as I say, it would be impolite - and frankly without point, as no one is going to convince anyone else on this.

Our definition of Orthodoxy will naturally influence how we define it, and we all leave it to Our Lord to shake His head at what it is we do; I am just grateful for a loving Heavenly Father who is so far beyond our understanding that we sometimes apply our categories of thought to Him. He clearly has a sense of humour - and compassion, and love, and if we can get to any of those places in His name, we can pick our way to the route to Orthodoxy.

You may well be correct that
Yes, we can say that those who do not follow Christ are not really Christians. If we follow *our idea of Christ* rather than Jesus Christ Himself, then how can we be true Christians - we are simply self deceived followers of our own fallen ideology, even if that ideology is inspired by Christianity and calls itself "Christianity". How can one follow Christ without following Him?
but we must remember that millions brought up in a different Church also believe what their priests tell them, so they are not following 'their idea of Christ', but the one given them by their Fathers in the country and faith they were placed by Divine Providence. So the answer to your question at the end is, literally, God knows.

I don't presume to know. He has His reasons.

In Christ,

John