'Celtic Orthodox Church'

[Mark Harrison]

Peter Farrington, in the 'Anglican Communion' discussion made reference in a reply to the so-called 'Celtic Orthodox Church.' Before I state any opinions, based on certain specific past experiences, I'd like to ask three questions:

1) What does anybody know about this body? Do I understand correctly that after the BOC went under the Coptic Church this group broke away?

2) Does anybody know this 'Bishop Photius' personally, or have they heard him speak? I found a couple of references on other sites, comments by people who were impressed by him.

3) Does anybody know just how they came about using this 'Stowe Missal'?

If anyone can speak from personal experience, or other factual knowledge, I'd be quite interested.

MAH

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Mark

You are confusing two different bodies.

i. Some years after we had been in union the Copts a disparate group of priests slowly left over various issues and ended up forming the Eparchy of the Celtic Orthodox Church, and one of their number was made a bishop.

ii. In the US a priest I used to know called Father Kristopher Dowling had a serious spell in hospital and taught himself Latin while he was recuperating. He had an interest in historic Celtic Christianity and translated the Stowe Missal. This is a genuine missal of the Irish Church. He was then consecrated a priest by an 'independent' group and remains an 'independent' with several other bishops consecrated from the same sort of sources. His group is called the Celtic Orthodox Christian Church.

Group ii. uses the Stowe Missal, and in my opinion their translation is sound. of course we only have the one complete text, and a few other sources, so it is hard to judge how representative it was. I don't think they are very big at all and I think +Maelruain celebrates the liturgy with his wife at a home altar.

group i - seems to use a variety of rites including our own BOC text of St James, the old Liturgy of St Joseph of Arimathea which was a neo-Gallican rite developed by the predecessor of my bishop when they were 'independent', and as far as I am aware some other Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox texts. They are really a home for a handful of different people with different agendas.

I hope this helps a bit.

Peter

[Michael Astley]

Group i also has a toenail purporting to be that of St Anne, which they lend to all who request it.

As for the Liturgy of group ii, having looked at it in the past, I confirm that it does indeed appear to be a genuine representation of the Lorrha (Stowe) Missal, which was known in the British Isles as the Liturgy of St John the Divine, and was the Orthodox Liturgy of this part of the world for some centuries, in one form or another. As the church in question only exists in America, I find it interesting that this is the Liturgy that they use. Do they have a particular mission to people of British/Celtic ancestry or is the "Celtic" branding just a whim?

[Peter Farrington]

I believe that +Maelruain is wholeheartedly committed to his vision of a Celtic Orthodoxy, but I also think that his community is very, very, very small and almost non-existent.

I would have wished that this man had found a home in a wider Orthodox context where he would have been able to do a lot of interesting work, but Orthodoxy in the US doesn't seem so readily geared up for such reesearch.

I think also of Fr Aidan Keller and all the work he did with the Milan Synod in producing Western Orthodox materials, but he also seems alone now having failed to be recieved by ROCOR with his mission parish which appears to have disbanded.

This is not so much a criticism of any US jurisdiction since I am not sure what any bishop can do when someone turns up committed to a different liturgical tradition, but it is a shame that two men who are well known around the internet at least, and who have spent a lifetime researching Western Orthodoxy, should be out in the cold.

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

Ive noticed that if you do a web search for "Celtic Orthodox" you find page after page of schismatic (or self made) denominations who seem to be trying to profit from the craze for all things Celtic. I was just at one not to long ago and clicked on "our metropolitan" and a picture of a 20 ,or at the most 30 year old, wearing some catholic cardinal uniform popped up. I wonder if these people appoint themselves "metropolitan" or if the other 12 or so (usually less) people in their "church" elect them. If people have tried to work to bring about a "western orthodoxy" (in the Church) and couldn't get anywhere then I certainly empathize with them but if they are so proud they would start their own Church if their plan failed I'm not sure they would be the best people to bring that about.

[Peter Farrington]

If there are more bishops in a church than people it is certainly a bad sign!

I think that to be fair there are a variety of motivations in such groups.

i. Some are trying to be serious, Orthodox and Catholic, but find themselves rather adrift in the sea of Church history. My own British Orthodox Church was probably such and found a home eventually in the Oriental Orthodox communion from which it had first derived in the 1860's.

ii. Some are serious. committed Christians who have a ministry that doesn't seem to fit in with the group they belonged to, or they have a vision of some sort of local ministry, and so they become 'bishops' to head up such a ministry. I know quite a few more or less lone bishops who are just trying to be obedient to the calling they have felt and have become bishops to substantiate and validate what they are doing.

iii. I know others who seem to be serious Christians but also seem to lack wisdom, and in my own contact with them have become priests in one church, bishops in another, and then metropolitans in their own. I think these folk can be good christians in one sense but one would not want to rest much responsibility upon their shoulders. I know one priest in antecedents of the British Orthodox Church who became a bishop in the Celtic Orthodox Church, then a bishop in the Milan Synod, was then received back only as a priest in the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate and then just disappeared!

iv. Others are crooks, plain and simple. And the ease with which they can get a paper ordination or consecration allows them to prey on the gullible and the credulous. One one list I belong to a 'priest' turned up, who had a string on letters after his name. Many of the Orthodox on the list immediately began to rather grovel before him in an exercise of clericalism, while I did a google and discovered he was a major contributor on a variety of 'gnostic' mailing lists and his priesthood and PhD were from the 'university of life' and had cost him just a few hundred dollars.

It requires great discernment and experience on the part of bishops to know which group of people any particular community might belong to. It is a great blessing when a type i. group can come into communion with wider Orthodoxy, but it can cause great harm if a type iv. group is allowed into communion. One such group in the US sought union with the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate and the Coptic Orthodox are generous hearted, but some research showed that the group was not the most honourable, and while we were finding out about them their hierarch was arrested, charged and sentenced to a spell in prison!

On the other hand both the British Orthodox Church and the French Coptic Orthodox Chuch were type i. groups and union with wider Orthodoxy has been tremendously positive.

Best wishes

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

Very many thanks for this elucidation, which is most helpful.

On one website it declares:

"Celtic" is not just a reference to our primary form of worship. Like the original Celtic churchs, we hold the same Orthodox Christian Faith and administer the same Sacraments as the Undivided Church.
"Orthodox" means "Correct Worship". It does not mean "Eastern".
So we support all forms of Christian Worship that follow the original Christian criteria for true Christian Ministry. Saint Irenaeus of Lyons in Gaul, an ancient Celtic country, stated that churches are members of the Body of Christ if they are united to it by Faith and Grace.
This means that a valid Christian church:

Proclaims complete Christian Doctrine without any compromise.
Administers Sacraments by virtue of Apostolic Succession (Sacramental geneology of Bishops back to Jesus Christ, God the Son).
Administers the Eucharist only to those who are Baptized and Chrismated/Confirmed members of similar churches.
Shares the Eucharist only with churches that follow these criteria.

This is not only a Celtic belief but once was a belief of all churches that called themselves Christian.
http://celticchristianity.org/

It would be all too easy for the unwary seeker to read this and to draw the conclusions that are obviously meant to be drawn. So thank you for the enlightenment.

In Christ,

John

[Andrew Duncan Comb]

I find all this talk of Celtic Orthodoxy very interesting. Last Wednesday the 20th of December I finished a course of study at St Andrews Anglican church. We had four weeks of covering various topics relating to Celtic Christianity in the British Isles. Notable was the amount of Evangelistic work going on, notably by St Columba, and how the vaious monasteries related to each other. Also fascinating was the work of various other saints, like Brigit, and Aidan. We heard poetry from the recordings of John O'Donohughe. I hope this doesn't take away from Orthodoxy too much. The original Celtic church in the British Isles was not reltated to the Chair at Rome, but was quite independant. May I wish everyone at Monachos.com a happy and prosperous New Year under the providence of God.

[John Charmley]

I find all this talk of Celtic Orthodoxy very interesting. Last Wednesday the 20th of December I finished a course of study at St Andrews Anglican church. We had four weeks of covering various topics relating to Celtic Christianity in the British Isles. Notable was the amount of Evangelistic work going on, notably by St Columba, and how the vaious monasteries related to each other. Also fascinating was the work of various other saints, like Brigit, and Aidan. We heard poetry from the recordings of John O'Donohughe. I hope this doesn't take away from Orthodoxy too much. The original Celtic church in the British Isles was not reltated to the Chair at Rome, but was quite independant. May I wish everyone at Monachos.com a happy and prosperous New Year under the providence of God.

Dear Andrew,

Thank you, both for this and for your good wishes - which are reciprocated. I don't know whether many here are familiar with the work of John O'Donohue, but, although unOrthodox in some ways, and at times a trifle new age, it has some interesting thoughts in it, and can be very beautiful.

One has, I think, to be a little careful with the tendency to romanticise about Celtic Christianity in the British Isles, and in particular the temptation to distance it from Rome; it can be read that way, but usually by those with a particular agenda, and often rather unhistorically.

Certainly the earliest Christianity in these islands came thanks to the Roman Empire, although it would seem as though it came from the Middle East, especially Egypt, rather than from Rome itself; if that is what you mean, then I would agree with the statement about it not being 'related to the Chair at Rome'. But certainly from St. Augustine's day that was not the case.

Of course the Ven. Bede's agenda was a latinising one, but it is worth recalling what Pope Gregory told St. Augustine in response to his questions:


Thy Fraternity knows the use of the Roman Church, in which thou hast been nurtured. But I approve of thy selecting carefully anything thou hast found that may be more pleasing to Almighty God, whether in the Roman Church or that of Gaul, or in any Church whatever, and introducing in the Church of the Angli, which is as yet new in the faith, by a special institution, what thou hast been able to collect from many Churches. For we ought not to love things for places, but places for things. Wherefore choose from each several Church such things as are pious, religious, and right, and, collecting them as it were into a bundle, plant them in the minds of the Angli for their use.
and it might be more correct to see the Synod of Whitby as a purely local, Northumbrian event, and even then, pronouncing only on the Calendar and Monastic rules; there is not a great deal of evidence of it changing matters even in Northumbria.

We do tend, particularly in such matters, to construct an historical narrative around 'turning points', when the reality of history is usually more one of continuity. What seems to be the case is that the original British Christianity received fresh impetus from St. Agustine's mission, which spread the Word where the Britons could not - among the Anglo-Saxons, and it also received corrections about the calendar and monastic practice; but much of its practices survived and mixed with the Augustinian mission.

Indeed, there are those who take the view that even the Norman Conquest did not lead to the major changes. I'm not sure I can go along with that, if only because after that point the influence of Rome demonstrably becomes paramount.

I don't know how far out of line with your course this seems, but would interested in your views. It is always interesting to remind others that this island was probably the first of the western provinces of the Roman Empire to receive Christianity (although that might be me falling for a myth I want to believe!). England was Orthodox nearly a millennium before Russia - and who knows, may yet be so again should it be the will of God. (Or is that me being Romantic?)

Forgive my digression, but you raise some interesting themes, which will, I hope, attract other comments.


In Christ,

John

[Scott Pierson]

We cant blame the pre-schism Latins for the inovations that their descendents made. Some of the greatest Orthodox theologians came from areas under Latin influence. That being the case I dont see any reason why one would want to distance the early Celtic Church (or the Greek, Syriac, etc for that matter..) from the pre schism Latin Church. I think some of the more new ageish types do so more for non-theological reasons because they consider Rome (both Orthodox and later Schismatic Rome) to be conservative, dogmatic (both of which they consider to be a bad thing ) , a source of "opression" and all that is opposed to the "free spirited " , "liberal" Celts who hugged trees and all that. Of course as John Charmley said this "romanticized" version of the Celtic Church is often contridicted by the facts of history.

I was listening to a great audio book that discusses the Celtic Church, Saint Patrick (who had a really amazing life) and such not to long ago . Its called " How the Irish Saved Civilization" anyone interested in the subject should check it out. Its also in print.

[Peter Farrington]

During the controversy over the date for Pascha in the 7th century the South Irish in Synod approached Rome for advice. This seems to have been the nature of the relationship - perhaps Rome thought it was more.

The Irish were neither anti-Rome nor subject to Papal jurisidiction, but viewed Rome as an elder Sister.

As John suggests, this is entirely natural since the Christianity that reached the British Isles was essentially continental and West Roman, even if it also contained a strong thread of Egyptian monasticism mediated through the writings of St John Cassian, and the Egyptian style monastic foundations associated with him.

And of course we need to be aware that there were multiple 'celtic' churches, with their own histories.

i. The South Irish seemed to have formed a Synod which is mentioned during the Paschal controversy as sending to Rome for advice.

ii. The Northern Irish seemed to have had a different Synod, and which was related to the Columban Church in North-West Scotland

iii. The Pictish Church which was originally separate from the Columban

iv. The Welsh Church, which looked to the Metropolitan of Caerleon and the St David's.

v. The Cornish Church which was rather isolated from the Welsh Church by the Saxon incursion up to the Severn.

vi. One could also include the Northumbrian Church, although that was of course an English kingdom, and this instance points out that Whitby wasn't really anything to do with Celtic churches, but an English one, which was certainly under the influence of Celtic monks and missionaries.

Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

During the controversy over the date for Pascha in the 7th century the South Irish in Synod approached Rome for advice. This seems to have been the nature of the relationship - perhaps Rome thought it was more.

The Irish were neither anti-Rome nor subject to Papal jurisidiction, but viewed Rome as an elder Sister.

As John suggests, this is entirely natural since the Christianity that reached the British Isles was essentially continental and West Roman, even if it also contained a strong thread of Egyptian monasticism mediated through the writings of St John Cassian, and the Egyptian style monastic foundations associated with him.

And of course we need to be aware that there were multiple 'celtic' churches, with their own histories.

i. The South Irish seemed to have formed a Synod which is mentioned during the Paschal controversy as sending to Rome for advice.

ii. The Northern Irish seemed to have had a different Synod, and which was related to the Columban Church in North-West Scotland

iii. The Pictish Church which was originally separate from the Columban

iv. The Welsh Church, which looked to the Metropolitan of Caerleon and the St David's.

v. The Cornish Church which was rather isolated from the Welsh Church by the Saxon incursion up to the Severn.

vi. One could also include the Northumbrian Church, although that was of course an English kingdom, and this instance points out that Whitby wasn't really anything to do with Celtic churches, but an English one, which was certainly under the influence of Celtic monks and missionaries.

Peter


I think in many ways this faithfully describes the shape of the whole Church up until relatively recent times. For example it's interesting and instructive to read how St Gregory the Great Pope of Rome pleads not only with the church in North Africa but even the metropolitans of Italy. There is something in this which strongly suggests that the authority of the Pope was often more honourary than absolute. Even practically speaking this makes sense as direct communication & supervision was often impossible to maintain. Epistles went out from Rome & metropolitans were most often confirmed from there also. But one gets the impression from the written evidence that for the most part local synods were what by far accounted for the authority of the Church. This also explains the number of local practices which Peter's post suggests. I believe if we were to look into this more closely we would find a similar situation no matter where we looked in this early period, whether Britain or Russia.

What radically changes this whole situation is the rise of the modern nation state & its precursor the centralized state which finds its focus in one sovereign ruler who draws together under his authority all power of the state.

It is well known how in virtually every state in Europe this centralized power of the state took on the Church since the Church represented the only remaining source of authority independent of it. Most of these states were not intrinsically anti-religious; but they did clearly recognize how the Church had to be included as an aspect of the state's sovereign authority. This was not just because the state was power hungry, but rather because a truly independent authority contradicts the logic of sovereignty focused on and emanating entirely from the state. Church/statesmen like Richileiu of France knew that the even the Church had to bless this newly found total sovereignty of the state. For without this the state risked not merely its power but its whole theoretical basis. And indeed this state is the one we have all come to know and grown up with. Even our Christianity is largely shaped by this.

This struggle also took place in countries where Orthodoxy was the main religion. Most know about the 'synodal' period in Russia where a secular appointed over prokurator sat in a presiding role at the Holy Synod of Bishops. Many do not know however how countries such as Greece or Romania upon throwing off the Turkish yoke in the 19th century immediately enacted constitutions that were directly prejudicial and against the independence of the Church.

It is largely during these years that the Church became associated with the state & gained the kind of uniform practices that we see in our day. There are far too many pros & cons about this whole legacy to go into here. It could be though that some of our concepts of authority within the Church are still affected by this.

This is so not only about the obvious: ie local authority vs supreme and where the Church finds Her authority. It also means we have largely lost the older concept of 'authorities of last resort' which in the canons clearly provide for an appeal beyond our own immediate local church. This in turn suggests that the catholicity of the Church is indeed found manifested in the local but also balanced by relation to the whole.

Or at least it should be...

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter Farrington]

What radically changes this whole situation is the rise of the modern nation state & its precursor the centralized state which finds its focus in one sovereign ruler who draws together under his authority all power of the state.

This is a very interesting post Father, and this point is especially interesting.

In the context of Europe there seems to be a movement away from centralised nation states, such as the United Kingdom has become, back towards a greater autonomy of cultural and ethnic regions. So in the UK we have a Scottish Parliament, and a Welsh Assembly, and the prospect of a Northern Ireland Assembly when their politicians can get their act together. And I am in touch with Cornish folk who value the integrity of their own region.

I wonder if this will have an impact over time on the development of the Church? I mean, that I know Cornish people who want an Orthodoxy that takes some account of their own heritage, and do not want to become Greek or Russian. But Cornwall is not Scotland, or England. It has its own historic language - Kernewek. And Scotland is not England or Wales.

I guess what I am fumbling for is something of a cultural fluidity in Orthodoxy in the West so that it is increasingly at home in ancient Christian cultures in the West and is not seen as imperially asserting a Russian culture, or a Greek, or a Coptic, or an Armenian.

What could/should/would Orthodoxy look like if it were at home among Native Americans for instance? Or what would it look like among Basques?

I would expect to find that Orthodoxy makes 'first footing' part of its own culture in the UK, as it has embraced countless other cultural features even from pagan times and made them Christian. There is the concept of 'saining' in celtic Christianity, which is making Christian something. So old standing stones were marked with the cross.

Sorry I am wandering a bit...but what I am getting at is that not only has the rise of the nation state tended to deform Orthodoxy away from being based on an ethnicity and language, but it has also tended to remove that connection with local culture which is a feature of authentic Orthodox Christianity.

I am not Coptic Orthodox because I am not Egyptian in any cultural sense. I have my own language and heritage which needs to be made Orthodox both by transformation and by hallowing. Likewise in reverse the Church of England sought to become the Church of the Empire, but what was needed was a local Church not the reproduction of the national Church of England. An Indian was not an Englishman, he needed a Church of India - indeed he already had one but that is a different issue. A man from the Gambia needed a Church of the Gambia, not the Church of England.

And even in the UK, when the Church of Wales was rather forced to be the Church of England in Wales, this was not what people needed, or generally wanted. I am sure many of us know the story of Mary Jones and her Bible. A church sensitive to her local culture and heritage would have provided her with a Bible in Welsh, not resisted such a development.

So more cultural diversity, not less!

Maybe we need to pray for an Orthodox Church of Wales, of Scotland, or Ireland, of England, even of Cornwall. Wherever there is a coherent culture, with its own language and history and a sense of national community held within a group of people, not merely imposed by politics.

I wonder for instance how Russian the people of Chechnya feel? Is a Russian Orthodox mission likely to have any success among them when they would surely be justified in desiring a Chechnyan Orthodox Church in the Chechyna language?

Certainly the UK has had to learn to let go of its heritage of military ad economic invasion and conquest, in the local Churches as well as in politics.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter, Dear Fr. Raphael,

Thank you both for two extremely thought-provoking and interesting posts, which also bear an obvious relevance to the themes we are discussing in the 'American Orthodoxy' thread. You both offer some profound comments upon these matters.

From its earliest stages the Church has had to deal with cultural adaptation - as we know from Acts and from the Pauline epistles. Indeed, it seems to have been this sort of problem with prompted some of Paul's epistles - in Galatians 1:6-7 he writes:


6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,
7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

so this problem of cultural adaptation without perverting the gospel of Christ is one that has always been with us.

Although both of you are clearly correct in seeing the problems as changing (and for the worse) with the advent of the modern nation-state, I would put in a suggestion that the collegiality of the early Church is changed for the worse by what happens after Constantine - as that, surely, is the locus for the Church-State nexus? The ability of the emperors to summon, and influence the direction of Ecumenical Councils introduces an element of imperial uniformity - perhaps not as unlike the process that later happens with the British Empire and the Church of England as we might wish to think?

It certainly marks a point at which Rome begins clamantly to assert a primacy that is not quite the same as it was before the creation of the 'New Rome', and there seem to be grounds for seeing in the growth of Caesaro-Papism an attempt to assert a distinctively 'Church' viewpoint against the Church/State nexus at Constantinople. In turn, as we know, Alexandria also responded defensivly to these developments, under Theophilius and St. Cyril helping (with Rome's assistance) to depose two patriarchs of Constantinople.

What is being suggested here is that whilst the growth of nationalism in the nineteenth century brought the sort of developments you describe so well, this was just another stage in a long series of adaptations in which the activities of the Empire had had a profound effect upon the relationship between the different parts of Orthodoxy.

Being in a post-imperial, indeed almost post-Christian society, may actually offer us a way to recover something of that old balance mentioned here by Fr. Raphael when he says:


This is so not only about the obvious: ie local authority vs supreme and where the Church finds Her authority. It also means we have largely lost the older concept of 'authorities of last resort' which in the canons clearly provide for an appeal beyond our own immediate local church. This in turn suggests that the catholicity of the Church is indeed found manifested in the local but also balanced by relation to the whole.


It seems as though it has so often been the demands of the State (including in that the Eastern Roman and Russian Empires) and the actions of the State which have driven the divisions between Christians deeper than they might otherwise have been.

When I was a young man I used to be a great believer in the idea of an Established Church, and then I could not understand why so great a Churchman as Mr. Gladstone had come to take the opposite view; as I have become older, I have come to see the wisdom in his view. Erastianism has great dangers.

Whilst, of course, we need an authority to continue St. Paul's work of correcting perversions of the gospel, perhaps the early Church did this much better than we have done it for a very long time - but perhaps we now have an opportunity to revert to their better practice?

But perhaps this is a little radical?


In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

This thread resembling in its themes the American Orthodoxy thread.

I'm also very interested in these themes. Basically 'where we're going as a society and how this affects the Church.'

The concept of a more localized community really grew after the collapse of the Soviet system. Clinton had a way of putting it- something about the village is your community- that seemed to reflect what was occurring in the 1990s.

But the rise of militant Islam as a major ongoing preoccupation of the west seems to have shifted the balance back towards more central authority again. With this has come to the fore again the question of valid national values which in a real way I think have never been satisfactorily dealt with beyond- in a come and go fashion- basic values of toleration. As can be easily seen militant Islam as an absolutist vision of reality trumps liberal values at every hand. (ie if our values are based on absolute tolerance aren't we obliged by these values to be tolerant of intolerant Islam?)

I'm not too sure how this directly affects the Church. But we do in general seem to follow the social currents around us. One thing we can see I think is how we also have been affected by the modern concept of niche communities which of course have been greatly affected by the internet and modern technology.

If we are rightly inspired by the ancient spirituality of Egypt or Byzantium or the Slavic world, more and more of this paradoxically is being affected by information coming to us in a very modern way (an interesting question a la Marshall McCuen is how all this info on the ancient world is affected by its modern mode of delivery). Even an older classical habit like book reading is greatly affected by a whole online world. In a way impossible in the past this has led to the situation where for those who wish to pursue this, knowledge is no longer restricted by where one lives.

Beyond reading & books this new form of communication has been particularly adopted by the Orthodox who now form communities of communication rather than of particular places. I get the sense this change basically represents a social revolution for us who are Orthodox. But I'm not too sure of it's entire effects or even shape.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Father

This is another very interesting post.

I wonder if, in our enthusiastically becoming members of the cyber-community, and I am on-line almost 24 hours a day! - and with our access to sooooooo much by way of texts and documents, have we rather lost the benefit of having just a few books at hand, and knowing them very well?

I say that as someone who loves reading and consumes books, as many of us do here, and indeed publishes and republishes important books. But I wonder if we have too much? This is only a wondering not a being definite about anything.

I mean that I took away about 6 or 7 books on the Jesus Prayer over my Summer Holiday, and countless pages of material about the Jesus Prayer from the Internet. But is this sort of surface knowledge which I now have of that much value if it does not become a deeply rooted experiential knowledge?

Going back to the ideas of this thread. I wonder if it is too easy to convince outselves that even a forum as good as Monachos is a substitute for face to face community? I mean that I have really enjoyed John Charmley's posts, but I am so very glad that I have met him, and will meet him again through 2007.

I would like to meet many other members of the forum as God wills. But what I am thinking is that however truly beneficial the contacts we make here are, and they are, nevertheless what we need is face to face community. It may well be that the new world of the internet is allowing the development of really useful cyber-communities, but the reality of Church life in its fulness requires us to worship together. Does it?

I have belonged and do belong to many cyber-communities but so many seem very dysfunctional. I would not wish to spend hours in a pub discussing whether the union between ROCOR and the MP should go ahead, but this is what I am subject to even on lists that have nothing to do with Orthodoxy. Indeed I wonder if it is the case that the cyber format of communication tends to encourage some of the worst behaviour, even while it has the possibility and potential, as is evidenced here, of being very useful and positive.

I sense that the internet is a useful means of advertising, and can be a useful means of education - even while it is also a means of misinformation. I think that for myself I believe that a real physical community is still necessary for Christian formation. It might be that when good video conferencing is ubiquitous then perhaps that will allow a greater sense of real community, but on how many lists are there hundreds of members and only a few who post? This is not normal in a real community, where one would expect that those who were quiet would be drawn into conversation and not left as spectators.

How much do you think the development of Orthodoxy on the internet is a byproduct of relatively low numbers and thin distribution in the West? And also by the use of the internet by activists, often from vagante groups who are able to appear much more important than their real numbers would justify?

If we had an active Orthodox community in every town in England, for instance, and if there was regular teaching and theological education for all in some sort of network of local education, then would I/we have time to participate as much on line as we do now? How much of our participation is due to lack of such contact in reality? I know it is for me...but I also hope to see Orthodoxy grow so that there is Orthodox community throughout the country providing substantive Orthodox education local to where I live.

Forums like Monachos will always have an important place, but there is much else in Orthodox cyber-activity which does not present Orthodoxy well and in fact is rather psychotic. On one forum I belong to, just today, a witness to Orthodox infighting (ROCOR/MP/ROCiE this time) said


[This] is a polemical debating pit between Orthodox people who seem to suffer from some kind of neurosis and inferiority complex that leads to pontifications and condemnations of all others that are not in agreement with whoever is holding "court" at a particular time!

I have been a priest for almost 40 years and because of cancer and other health concerns I am retired. I can tell you that what I have seen on this site is exactly what drives people away from Christ and His Church!

This is the dark side of internet Orthodoxy.

So I think that real community, real face-to-face contact, is what is really required for all of us, and the rest can be a blessing, but is sometimes a distraction. I gained probably an hour a day unsubbing from several lists that took over my life. Monachos is a bit like that, but is still useful to me. In the end I do have a ministry to serve and I need to keep a balance as we all do.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

You and Fr. Raphael are on sparkling form today, since both here and on the 'knowledge' thread you are raising some fundamental issues and making some profound contributions to our discussions here.

I suspect that the answer to your question, Peter

'How much do you think the development of Orthodoxy on the internet is a byproduct of relatively low numbers and thin distribution in the West?'
is 'quite a lot'. It is sad that some of the sites you mention have the atmosphere you describe, but that is a reminder that all technologies have their downsides; the real problem with this one is the false sense of intimacy it can create - and its immediacy.

At University I encourage my colleagues to use their e-mail less and open their doors more - we had reached the stage where people were e-mailing their next-door neighbour instead of popping in for a chat.

E mail also encourages instant and unthought-out responses, and therefore is particularly prone to creating the sort of venom you mention; for me one of the many attractions of this site is that that does not happen - at least not the venomous bit!

It is wonderful to have access to so much information, but I suspect you are right, Peter, to wonder how far we actually digest what we are reading; to what extent are we becoming 'fast food' consumers? One of the reasons I am grateful to you for the commentary on St. John is that Pusey's English is so strange at times that there is no way it can be read at speed. On the other hand, without the internet I do not know that I would have read Clement's epistle to the Corinthians. Indeed, without it, I am not sure that I would have found my way back to Orthodoxy after thirty years.

So, it offers us great opportunities - but we must never mistake this medium for a substitute for a real community, although it can be a useful ancillary towards creating one.

For those, like me, still searching for the way, it can be a boon, and a snare and a delusion. Every vagante group I had ever heard of, and quite a lot I had not, seem to be lurking in cyber-space - how many Celtic Orthodox Churches can there be? Indeed, how many varieties of Anglican Orthodox, Orthodox Anglican, etc. can there be? It is a bit like 'the life of Brian' with the Judean Peoples' Liberation front, and the Peoples' Liberation Front of Judea, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Judea; blasphemous though that film is, it does make some points about 'splintering' that Christians might like to think about.

On the other hand, along with all of this, there is Monachos - for which I thank Matthew and the other moderators - it is a blessing, and we are all, I think, grateful for it. One of the nicest things is knowing that some of those who do not post do participate - I know that from my private messages and comments.

In Christ,

John

[Jeff Johnson]

Peter,

Your message about Orthodox faith embracing various cultures is very thought-provoking for me. Sadly, I think it may take more centuries than are left in the human timeline for there to be an Orthodox church for Cornish people, Native Americans, and the hundreds of other cultures. The fact remains that the Church is barely beginning to make itself known in the West, even in lands that formerly were Orthodox. Right now, for me, all that exist are churches that follow Greek or Antiochian traditions and use the Byzantine liturgies. If I want to experience the Orthodox worship of my ancestors in a Western Rite parish, I have to drive four hours to get there. So for now, I must be content with the expression of Orthodoxy available to me, knowing that without a doubt the faith of this Greek church is the same faith my Dutch and Celtic ancestors would have held over a thousand years ago.

I might also add that I love the Byzantine Church and its holy liturgies and traditions, although it is not the church or tradition of the Orthodox Celts or Hollanders.

In America, where there are immigrants from so many parts of the globe, it would be impossible to found an Orthodox liturgical rite specifically for people of every culture in every community. Also, many today have become so detatched from their heritage and roots--what cultural expression of Orthodoxy best suits them? I am truly enjoying this discussion, and impressed with the knowledge of the posters.

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Jeff

There is lots happening here in the UK. I fully expect to see a Cornish Orthodox Church in my life time, if God spares me, and using Kernewek on some occasions too.

I believe that it is God's will, that He desires all men to be saved, and that if He finds men and women who will throw themselves into His service then all that we imagine and more might come to be, as He wills.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Jeff,

Thank you for some thoughtful comments.

When you write

In America, where there are immigrants from so many parts of the globe, it would be impossible to found an Orthodox liturgical rite specifically for people of every culture in every community. Also, many today have become so detatched from their heritage and roots--what cultural expression of Orthodoxy best suits them? I am truly enjoying this discussion, and impressed with the knowledge of the posters.

you might look in on the 'American Orthodoxy' thread, which is discussing the first part of your concerns here.

As for the second, and complimentary part, I too am impressed with other posters here, not least with the tone of tolerance and compassion - which Heaven does indeed know we need.

But, of course, we all know that knowledge without compassion and without faith is just a 'sounding brass'.

Peter's enthusiasm is not only infectious - but based on a real commitment to mission - a few more of his calibre and who knows what will happen? Why, of course, God knows, and we must seek to discern His will for each of us.


In Christ,


John