Who speaks for Orthodoxy? Can we articulate our position?

[Rick H.]

Dear Discussion Community,

I was just reading a post by Herman in another thread which brought to mind a nagging question. I think I have tried to ask this in different ways in the past; however, simply put, 'Who speaks for Orthodoxy?'

Herman has written:




Of course bishops are sometimes "wrong", but we do not require our bishops or even our saints to be infallible.



What I mean is as we use the term Protestants here, they ultimately appeal to an infallible bible and the personal guidance of the Holy Spirit, Roman Catholics ultimately appeal to the Pope. It is very clear and easy to understand the answer to this question as it relates to these two particular Christian groups.

But, as for Eastern Orthodoxy, if someone would ask me who speaks for the E.O. Church, I honestly would not know what to tell them. I have read that we are not a true hierarchy because there is a check and balance system of a kind whereby what may be (as we have seen in the past in the history of the Church) approved by hierarchs can potentially be rejected by the people and abandoned.

Usually when I ask this question, I receive what seem to be meaningless cliches, or language that speaks of things like a zealousless zealousness whereby at the end of the day it seems we cannot articulate an answer.

Honestly, with no malcontent, I would like to ask, is part of the answer to this question that there can be no articulation of an answer? In the past, there usually is a series of well honed responses followed by an appeal to a special understanding as it relates to this question.

I agree with what I think Herman is saying about the mistakes of the Protestants, and I too 'fear' this type of influence on Orthodoxy. But, I can't help but wonder if the reason why we speak as we do as it relates to this question is because if we start to define and measure what we have in common with the Protestants as it relates to our practical theology we might see more in common than we would like.

But, simply put, can we articulate our position as it relates to the question, 'Who speaks for Orthodoxy?'

In Christ,
Rick

[Herman Blaydoe]

You might as well ask: Who speaks for God? Is it the Father? Or the Son? Or is it the Holy Spirit? The Trinity is more than a concept, more than a theology. It is the bedrock of everything we do and are.

I certainly hope no one here thinks I speak FOR the Church, but I will certainly continue to speak OF the Church. I am happy to share my understanding of what I have learned, but I think I have been clear about accepting correction by others, particularly by the clergy. But I have no mandate, no blessing, no kerygma as they specifically do.

Who speaks for Orthodoxy for me is MY BISHOP. He was ordained with the laying on of hands, specifically called out and selected to preserve the Apostolic Witness and appointed to preach the kerygma to his flock (me). He has been given a divine charge and he will answer in a very specific way to Christ Himself as to the manner of his keeping of it. He answers to his brother bishops, just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit "answer" to each other. This is how harmony and order are maintained.

Some people want to see a visible conductor of the symphony. Our visible conductors are our bishops, who answer to the invisible Conductor who is the Holy Spirit, Who acts in total harmony with the Son and the Father.

How well does this work? Well there have been some cacophanous times in various places, but eventually harmony is restored and maintained. It ain't perfect, the instruments certainly are not perfected by and large, but it has stood the test of time for two millenia now.

If we are looking for a visible, single magical PERSON to be THE FINAL WORD on all things, we are looking to be disappointed. Put not your (ultimate) hope in princes, in sons of men... but remember we are "men" too. Therefore, it makes sense to this bear of little brain that it is good to be in harmony with the sheperd appointed over me, to obey those who rule over me, and be submissive, for they watch out for my soul, as those who must give account. I want them to do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for me (Hebrews 13:17). I will recognize those who labor among us, and are over us in the Lord and admonish us, and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13). If I disagree with what they are saying, I try and remember to do all things without complaining and disputing, that I may become blameless and harmless, a child of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation (Philippians 2:14), because there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves (Romans 13:1-3).

Or so it seems to this simple mind.

Herman the Pooh

[Herman Blaydoe]

One last, perhaps worthless thought...

Who speaks for Orthodoxy? We all do in as much as we are in harmony with each other. Nothing I say should differ markedly from what another Orthodox Christian would say, and certainly not from what my Bishop might say. Otherwise I should reconsider what I say.

Which is not to say that differences cannot or should not exist...dissonance is NOT the same as disharmony, sometimes dissonance is PART of the harmony as the dissonant chord resolves or the key changes. Therefore there have been and will continue to be differences of opinions on some subjects, perhaps even differences in how things are taught, depending on the teacher, the circumstance, and the reception of those being taught.

And whatever I do, as long as I identify myself as an Orthodox Christian, like it or not, I AM the Church to those outside the Church whom I encounter, at least in their eyes. May God allow me and help me be to be a good witness of HIS Truth without inserting to much of my "own". Let them see His undistorted image and not my own.

FWIW. I'm done now.

Herman

[Owen Jones]

Every theological question leads to another theological question, because they are all intertwined. There is no theological concept that stands alone. And so with the question, who speaks for the Church. Yes, the bishop, but then the question arises, what is a bishop? Who is a bishop? And in Orthodoxy, it is more than just a formal office, it is a prophetic sign and a symbol and an iconic figure of the life to come. And so when a bishop is a mere functionary, he is no longer a bishop in the theological sense.

One of the problems that Roman Catholics have with Orthodoxy is that no one seems to be in charge, which speaks volumes about one of the fundamental flaws in Roman Catholic doctrine.

And one of the problems that protestants have with Orthodoxy is that it appears to be relativistic on the surface of it, because of a lack of infallibility doctrine as regards Scripture. Which speaks volumes about the weakness of protestant theological doctrine.

Faith implies a lack of certitude. If we were provided with certitude, we would not be faith. One of the striking characteristics of the volumes of ascetical writings now available in vernacular translations is that no matter how long the ascetic has practiced his path, he still is alarmed at his sinfulness and the temptations toward pride inherent in his path. He has no smug assurance as to the state of his soul. As St. Maximos wrote, it is possible to relapse into a state of nonexistence. That idea is terrifying to a protestant or an RC who seeks some kind of religious certitude.

[Rick H.]

Dear Brother Pooh,

Thank you. There is a Beauty and a simplicity, and a sincerity in your above two posts that, from where I sit, is most pleasing and well received. Over the course of the past year, I have read as you have consistently spoke of your Bishop, and Orthodoxy as a symphony. To add to your above bible verses on authority and obedience, we are also told in the Holy Writ that we are to love those who are undershepherds of the Chief Shepherd. And, I suspect, if I were to ask you how all of this is working for you? . . . you would probably say pretty well.

Interestingly enough, your opening statement which included the question, "Who speaks for God?" is a question/rhetorical device that has been used by some in the past, while preaching from the pulpit, to which the answer is given "God speaks for God!"

And, I especially appreciate your statement, "The Trinity is more than a concept, more than a theology. It is the bedrock of everything we do and are." This Oneness, which speaks to the likemindedness that we are commanded to have, in the Church, is what IT is all about, from my point of view. And, possibly herein lies an avenue in terms of continuing. Who can articulate the Trinity without becoming a babbler? I know that when I attempt to speak of awakening to the truth of what Paul writes of when writes of the reality of being "In Christ," I am much less than articulate. Or, for example, as there has been some discussion here by a few of a Common Ground (okay, mostly me :) . . . it is hard to not speak in such a way as using terms like zealousless zeal, or the unmovable mover, or to find oneself using a language that is incoherent to some. So there is again an irony of cosmic proportions at work here I think. Especially as it relates to an understanding which is more of an intuitive way of knowing based on individual experience/encounter, as well as possibly past events and circumstances that have shaped us on our individual paths/journeys.

For you Herman, it seems before we slip into metaphors such as a harmonious symphony (which you put up on the screen very well), your Bishop speaks for Orthodoxy. This is for you. And, I respect that.

So hopefully, we can have more of this kind of response in this thread--at least for a bit. It occurs to me that everything you have said about chords and keys and harmony could be said about a Common Ground as well. Possibly, we are developing both at the same time here?

But, back to the point, and to hopefully avoid a case where there are babbling voices in discord, I wonder who else may care to share "Who speaks for Orthodoxy?" for you.

And, in the meantime (and at the risk of mixing my metaphors), thanks again, and especially after seeing the photo of Ronald McDonald in the other thread, I bow to you as the "Grand Poohba/Puba."

In Christ,
Rick

[Nicolaj]

Dear Brethren!

Long time ago, before I ran into Orthodoxy, my RC priest explained me that in the orthodox churches the Holy Spirit is that what is in the RC Church the pope of Rome. No need to say why I turned my back on RC! It is better to have the Holy Spirit than the pope of Rome....

As a member(sheep) of the Orthodox flock I can only hear that all say the same and when one sheep says something else as baaa, it is time the sheep goes and eats a little or more from the grass of knowledge from the Scriptures and the Fathers and makes baaa again.

No this is not meant to be funny, but I know as an orthodox Christian we are not on earth to do nothing with the time given to us. We are called upon to learn about our Faith, to find the answers to all possible questions in the Church because all is already said and cleared. And it is not at all necessary to have one like the RC pope to speak for all!

We have ONE who speaks through all, the Spirit of Truth! Amen!

CHRISTOS VOSKRESE!! Nicolaj

[James Blackstock]

Honestly, with no malcontent, I would like to ask, is part of the answer to this question that there can be no articulation of an answer? In the past, there usually is a series of well honed responses followed by an appeal to a special understanding as it relates to this question.
But, simply put, can we articulate our position as it relates to the question, 'Who speaks for Orthodoxy?'

In Christ,
Rick

Dear Rick:

I am really not sure anyone can give you the answer you seem to be looking for. Orthodoxy is not a religion, in the true spiritual sense of the word, it is a Kingdom! and no one speaks for Christ The King, unless He gives him the Grace to do so. Grace is dependant on a number of things. Without going into the details of the various stages of spiritual growth; Catharsis, Fotisis, Theosis, suffice to say that most of us, with the possible exception of some monastics, are struggling to overcome our passions. If I am not mistaken, there are a few bishops falling off the "Ladder of Divine Ascent" as well.
As a matter of fact The Patriarch of Alexandria, in 1989 I believe, made an official statement to the fact that we are spiritual brothers to the Buddists and the Moslems. Many in Greece were appalled with this statement, but to my knowledge not one of the other Patriarchs made any official protest to his very ecumenical remarks. I very much agree with the principals set down by Herman, his attitude is exemplary and admirable, but none of what he has said exempts us from following our conscience. We don't always know what's right (if our conscience is seared) let alone who's right. It is imperative that we all practice our Faith (fear and trembling). In this practice of our faith we neeed to fast according to the Liturgical Calendar, say our rule of prayer, grow in spiritual wisdom, with the help of a spiritual father and according the the Word of God, "be blameless! and it all has to be absoultely real! God does not like a mixture! I remind all of us of the episode in scripture of the strange fire that was offered before the Lord. (It didn't work out so well!) There are many voices in the church today and a plethora of opinion on any issue from the extreme left to the far right. Personally, I have had enough from the left and am completely opposed to the idea of ecumenism. I do know for a fact the the church still produces saints and most of them come from monastic centers. I have a tendency to trust what they say more so that lets say Fr Eusebius A Stephanou(Orthodox Priest/Author) who preaches Holy Spirit Baptism like a Charasmatic. He believes that the church needs to come into the "fullness" of the Spirit. Herman is right, we all speak for Orthodoxy! I pray we all hold to the Traditions of The Fathers and practice our faith in Truth. The last thing I want to say is that 100 years ago if you were Greek, you were Orthodox. If you were Russian, you were Orthodox. It seems that that generation was much more serious and committed to Orthodoxy than the church, generally, is today. Why? is it perhaps that we are more "secular" more "ecumenical". I believe these are the greatest threats to our faith.

I hope you get the answer to your question!

InXC,
James

[Kosta]

Each bishop speaks for his flock. The bishop aside from celebrating the sacraments, must preserve and teach the Apostolic Tradition unadultered without addition or deletions as he recieved it. This aspect is a significant part of apostolic succession its not merely the laying on of hands.

Now a modern problem may arise whether contraception, capital punishment, medical ethics and so on. In such a case the bishop (who should be relying on the church Fathers, Church Tradition, and the canons if applicable) will decide usually on a case by case situation. Once again bishops have (or should have) a certain amount of autonomy in their diocese since there all equal. Thus its ok if they may differ in descisions. Its the intent that matters and the entire system pre-supposes a holy and wise bishop.

In matters of theology, if someone wants to know what the Orthodox believe, one must know what we worship. During the times of persecution under the muslim and communist yoke the Liturgies of the entire liturgical calendar was the vehicle which preserved Orthodoxy whole.

In these liturgical texts and worship is preserved unadultered the totality of the Faith (along with canonical iconography.) If one understand the terminology of the worship in its context, during the time it was written, will understand all the dogmas of the faith.

[Rick H.]

Dear Nicolaj,

Yes, one who speaks through all, the Spirit of Truth.

Dear Kosta,

I appreciate your comments pointing to context and the presupposition of a holy and wise bishop.

Dear James,

Thank you.

As a tree is known by its fruit, your post above is heavy laden with choice fruit. It is not lost on me how you are involved in prison ministry and you provide a liberation, in agape, through your courteous and forthright manner.

I think between your response and Herman's, and other reading and talking with folks, I have my answer to this question here now for the last time. This is what I suspected to be the case, although to be honest, hoped it wasn't. Possibly, not many here are any more familiar with the Independent Baptist groups which are represented by the tags "Sword of the Lord," "Trail of Blood," or "Baptist Brider" than are with the thinking of Linus, as he preaches the kerygma of the Great Pumpkin; however, as it relates to this question, I am familiar with this way of knowing, and this way of offering definition.




. . . we all speak for Orthodoxy!

[ . . . ] There are many voices in the church (http://monachos.net/library/Orthodox_Dictionary#Church) today and a plethora of opinion on any issue from the extreme left to the far right.



I very much appreciate your inclusion of spiritual growth and a genuine spiritual practice within your response to this question. When you speak of our faith and say "it absolutely has to be real," I couldn't agree more as it relates to this question, as it has developed, otherwise all is moot, we might as well all just eat, drink, and be merry as to consider anything like this. And, as you say:




I very much agree with the principals set down by Herman, his attitude is exemplary and admirable, but none of what he has said exempts us from following our conscience.



I say Amen. Your comments taken as a whole do well speak of IT, and as well Who speaks for IT. What you have said is perfectly parallel to what the Holy Writ proclaims as being Kingdom living, as Christendom. What I see here is a Oneness and way of knowing and being that Christ has prayed for in John 17--a genuine Orthodoxy, a true Catholicity. If we could only just leave it at that. But, we can't because we are human, we are prideful and political. We need to add on adjectives to the above, and in the end what was meant to unite us divides us.

As far as your comments on ecumenicalism are concerned here, this is truly a moot point. Barring Divine intervention there will be no coming together from the top down anyway. It should be clear to all by now that this will never happen. So now that we know who speaks for Orthodoxy, humanly speaking (viz. no one and everyone), how do we view the plethora of opinions/different schools of thought to be found within Orthodoxy? . . . the broken communions to be found within and without Orthodoxy?

For example, today we have some who would imply the Ecumenical Patriachate of Constantinople is suspect (to say the least). We have others who would say he is clearly a tool in the hand of God. Here as Nicolaj says above, which is Baa? My conscience says he is clearly a wise and holy man, a tool in the hand of God precisely at this time point and time in history. I wonder who can hear his call for a transcending of all divisions in Christ?

So, in the end, I am grateful for the help in coming to this understanding that it is what it is. There is a certain peace and freedom that comes from a sweet resignation at times. Although, this way of knowing is not unique to Orthdodoxy, it does serve well for separatists of any group to support their position, just as it does those who would see the church in the world and a wider view to support their position. So, ultimately, it seems that it is the hearing as much as the speaking that answers our question. Baa can be a beautiful and liberating, and very articulate speech to some, but to others it is just Baa. The Priestly Prayer, in John 17, can be a very articulate and clear call to transcend all divisions in Christ, based on the bedrock of the Trinity to some, but to others it is heard as a distinct call for separatism.

Possibly, in light of learning that it is no one and everyone who speaks for Orthodoxy and there are a plethora of schools of thought to be found within Orthodoxy it is not so much the speaking; but, the hearing. As it relates to our conclusions here, and our example of hearing the call of the Shepherd. I wonder who would argue with the statement that we are to transcend all divisions in Christ?

By our above conclusions and examples, it seems that since I am Orthodox and I would not lobby for a separatist position, that I speak for Orthodoxy. And, as possibly you James may lobby for more of a separatist position, and you are Orthodox too, that you speak for Orthodoxy. Is it possible that the Shepherd calls us to different pastures? I would like to think so. Otherwise, we have "sides." Then some may quote other sources to support their "side," and some may quote others to beef up their "side," and then we are off to the races, but in the end we have only polarized positions. And, this is why I said above I hoped this wasn't the case, as I suspected it was. But, it is what it is, and really this is nothing new is it?

But, as it relates to speaking and hearing, for example I wonder who can distinguish the call to transcend traditionally held polar positions? Regardless of what this Patriarch says or what that Bishop says, etc., I wonder if hearing a call of the Spirit of Truth is not what we should be considering at this point? There is no shortage of speech, but possibly of discernment. But, before I take off on the Royal Path, let me just say thank you for helping to increase my understanding in this area, and mention that you seem to speak in a way that can be heard.

In Christ,
Rick

[Nicolaj]

Dear Brethren!

As you write in your post Rick, the Patriarch of Constantinople is sure a wise and holy man. And yes he is somewhat pressing forward in a direction where there is still very many to be cleared! And we can only hope that the walls of division between the churches don't reach up to heaven! (who can say so?)

But as I already thought, your real intention was on opening this thread to loot out, if there is anybody here who sees something like the pope of Rome for this place in orthodoxy.

There wasn't such a position in Orthodoxy and there is no need for this position.
This position isn't to be looked up as vacant as the Patriarch of Constantinople likes to do, because this position was clear defined as not to be a position of just one person, how holy and wise he might be!
No, this position was in all times of Orthodoxy the position of the Councils. Here the brethren gather and filled with anger to find the will of God the Holy Spirit comes and directs the Council to right decisions.

In the world outside there is this need to define one person who speaks for the case, Orthodoxy is not the world outside! Orthodoxy is the world above, insight and in the heart. And there we should listen, because there speaks the Holy Spirit words of eternity.

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Rick H.]

Dear Nicolaj,

I appreciate you sharing the following:





As you write in your post Rick, the Patriarch of Constantinople is sure a wise and holy man. And yes he is somewhat pressing forward in a direction where there is still very many to be cleared! And we can only hope that the walls of division between the churches don't reach up to heaven! (who can say so?)



I agree with what you say wholeheartedly, and hear you when you ask your concluding parenthetical question.

I'm not sure what 'loot out' means; but, you are way off base here my friend. My question was sincere, and as I said, I think it has been answered very well in the above posts. If anything, I will confess that I seem to be consumed with the question you ask above; but I have no interest, personally, in the subject that you bring up here (and elsewhere) with some frequency.

As far as I'm concerned, unless someone else comes along with additional insight, this thread has come to a most successful conclusion. There is a significant liberation of sorts that has taken place here on my end of the wires. In short, from now on, if any ask me who speaks for Orthodoxy? I will say the Spirit of Life speaks for Orthodoxy through whom He wills.

In Christ,
Rick

[Father David Moser]

Dear discussion members,

The topic of this particular thread is to discuss the "voice" of the Orthodox Church, whether there is "one voice" and if so who or what that might be or whether it is possible for the various national self-governing Churches to speak with one voice, and if so, how that is accomplished. All of the recent posts regarding Esphigmenou Monastery have been transferred to their own thread under the title "Mt Athos and Esphigmenou Monastery" (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4286) in the "World News and Events" topic in the "Casual and Personal Conversations" section. Please continue that discussion there and limit your responses here to to the topic of "Who speaks for Orthodoxy"

Many thanks,

Fr David Moser

[Andreas Moran]

the Spirit of Life speaks for Orthodoxy through whom He wills.

Though we need to be able to discern through whom He really is speaking.

[Marie-Duquette]

Dear Nicolaj,

I appreciate you sharing the following:




I agree with what you say wholeheartedly, and hear you when you ask your concluding parenthetical question.

I'm not sure what 'loot out' means; but, you are way off base here my friend. My question was sincere, and as I said, I think it has been answered very well in the above posts. If anything, I will confess that I seem to be consumed with the question you ask above; but I have no interest, personally, in the subject that you bring up here (and elsewhere) with some frequency.

As far as I'm concerned, unless someone else comes along with additional insight, this thread has come to a most successful conclusion. There is a significant liberation of sorts that has taken place here on my end of the wires. In short, from now on, if any ask me who speaks for Orthodoxy? I will say the Spirit of Life speaks for Orthodoxy through whom He wills.

In Christ,
Rick

Dear Rick and All,

Today I received an e-mail from Orthodoxy Today.org which presents a conference paper given by Fr. Alexander Schememann on September 26-27, 1966 at the first Conference of Orthodox Theologians in America. The paper is quoted verbatum. It is entitlled: The Task of Orthodox Theologians in America Today -- which was in 1966!

Today, 41 years later I ask who is truly listening to the words of this eminent theologian who had a deep insight into the problem of speaking for Orthodoxy in America today?

Has anyone read this article? I don't know how to place a link to the article. I am simply alerting those of you who are interested in the question posed on this thread:

"Who speaks for Orthodoxy Today?" in the Light of the Holy Spirit?

marie-duquette

p.s. hope someone else can access the material and post it here on Monachos. Thank you.

[Rick H.]

Though we need to be able to discern through whom He really is speaking.

I think that is the whole point Andreas, one that John Cassian speaks well toward in his writings of the primacy of the gift of discretion in which he points to a middle way, a Royal Path--a path that avoids extremes.

In Christ,
Rick

[Rick H.]

Dear Marie,

Thanks for sharing this. Unfortunately, I could not seem to locate this paper; however, possibly some of us <<< MIKE! >>> :) with the 'gift of google' can help us out here? I really would like to read this.

In Christ,
Rick

[Marie-Duquette]

Dear Marie,

Thanks for sharing this. Unfortunately, I could not seem to locate this paper; however, possibly some of us <<< MIKE! >>> :) with the 'gift of google' can help us out here? I really would like to read this.

In Christ,
Rick

Dear Rick,

Hope you can find the article by Schmemann.

Article link:

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles7/SchmemannTheology.php

It can also be found at:

St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, 1966, Vol 10, No. 4, pp.180-188

In Christ Jesus our Lord,

marie_duquette

[Gary McGinnis]

If one is looking for an external infallible standard that is the "last word" on anything and everything, I don't think Orthodoxy is wired that way. In Orthodoxy, not only the answers, but the very questions are different.

It's been pointed out that Orthodoxy is not a religion, as that word is commonly understood. I agree. I remember reading from Fr. Hierotheos Vlachos to this effect (forgive the paraphrase): Christianity is not a philosophy, in the sense of man's construction of a worldview as though divine revelation did not exist. Nor is Christianity a religion, in the sense of man's appeasing or cajoling deities or a deity on the basis of ritual and ceremony (with or without sacrifices) offered from man's side and for man's reasons. When it comes right down to it, Christianity is therapy for what ails man, and the Orthodox Church is the hospital that alone has the correct diagnosis and therefore the proper medicines and cures. Therefore, Christianity is fundamentally the Church, taken in its holistic and cosmic sense as Christ the Head, the Theotokos our blessed assurance of theosis, those who are in heaven, those who are on earth, those who are healed, those who are healers, and those who are being healed. So I suppose one could say that it is the Church who speaks for Orthodoxy, although of course that's saying quite a mouthful.

However, that's why not even the conciliar decisions were considered true and binding in and of themselves, apart from the Church ratifying them over time. Unlike the Roman Catholic Magisterium, Orthodoxy does not have a mechanism whereby truth is imposed on the Church "from above," from experts whose decisions must be obeyed on pain of discipline. The Church comes to recognize, sooner or later, certain teachings as accurately depicting her own inner life, and thus we have a body of dogma.

It's also often said that Tradition is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. I like this view of things, but it's a bit non-specific as to what is and is not an authentic part of Tradition. For example, some will defend the toll-house teaching regarding the afterlife, while others criticize it as a very minor strand at best. Perhaps we can more easily say what Tradition is not than what it is: Tradition is NOT what every prominent Orthodox personage has ever said about anything. For example, one can find some pretty disquieting indications of Gnostic dualism here and there in St. Maximos the Confessor. Well, he's still a saint, and a very great one, not because of these momentary lapses, but in spite of them.

I also like how Jaroslav Pelikan described the difference between Tradition (the living faith of the dead) and traditionalism (the dead faith of the living). He also pointed out to the anti-traditionalist that the right view of tradition is like a running broad jump, where we pass through the past in order to launch into the future. It is not a standing broad jump, where we start with/from ourselves and jump ahead as though the past did not exist.

[Rick H.]

I also like how Jaroslav Pelikan described the difference between Tradition (the living faith of the dead) and traditionalism (the dead faith of the living). He also pointed out to the anti-traditionalist that the right view of tradition is like a running broad jump, where we pass through the past in order to launch into the future. It is not a standing broad jump, where we start with/from ourselves and jump ahead as though the past did not exist.




Dear Mr. McGinnis,

I would like to read more about this. Could you provide a title and page number please?

Thank you.

In Christ,
Rick

[Gary McGinnis]

The reference is to his The Vindication of Tradition. The book was compiled from his 1983 Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities, delivered at perhaps the University of Virginia. Sorry, I don't have page references; I'm away from library right now. However, it's only about 85 pages long, so you shouldn't have too much trouble scanning for the quote in question. All the more interesting since Pelikan delivered these lectures before he was chrismated Orthodox. You can see, though, that he's headed in that direction already.

[M. Partyka]

Faith implies a lack of certitude. If we were provided with certitude, we would not be faith. One of the striking characteristics of the volumes of ascetical writings now available in vernacular translations is that no matter how long the ascetic has practiced his path, he still is alarmed at his sinfulness and the temptations toward pride inherent in his path. He has no smug assurance as to the state of his soul. As St. Maximos wrote, it is possible to relapse into a state of nonexistence. That idea is terrifying to a protestant or an RC who seeks some kind of religious certitude.While no one in Orthodoxy or Catholicism can claim absolute assurance with regard to the state of his/her soul, I would suggest that the Sacrament of Confession serves as a periodic form of assurance or comfort -- as if to say, "I'll stay on the lookout, of course, but as far as I and the priest know, I'm doing okay." To be able to partake of the Eucharist with a clear conscience is another form of assurance. These are both ways of "knowing" that you're "in" and not "out".