Catechesis and entry into the Church

[Owen Jones]

NOTE: The following post, and those immediately following it, have been moved to this new thread from their original location in the Eucharistic Crisis? thread:


I have not followed this thread because I have been too busy sharing my brilliant thoughts on the problem of Darwinism! But in reviewing it, I realize I have missed a lot.

A Baptist convert to Orthodoxy, Clark Carlton, produced a catechism some years ago that is grounded in the Orthodox doctrine of Creation. I think it serves a useful purpose, in that most Christian teaching begins with God, rather than with man, and this is a flaw. We don't start with God to get to God, we start with things in the world that God has created. Beginning with man. Who and what are we? What is the nature of the problem that we all experience? However, the flaw in his method is that it still ends up being informational, and catechism should not be about information, it should be about change, i.e. it should be grounded in asceticism. And there should not be some extended justification for the ascetical doctrine. That is to say, we don't wait around for a theory of something in order to begin putting into practice. The theory of it comes much, much later. I think this is in accord with Christ's teachings and that of the Fathers.

And so there is a need for a catechism that prepares us for Baptism, and can be used post-baptism for anyone who was baptised Orthodox as an infant, that doesn't just tell but shows how we can change in step by step fashion. The problem in Orthodoxy and really this is the world's problem is this -- how do I progress spiritually? Just "being" Orthodox, or being Christian is not good enough. Who is a Christian who is not continuing to make progress? And so the doctrine of progress, having virtually disappeared from Christian thought and practice, is taken up in the political sphere. And the innate desire for change and progress is only talked about in the political sphere, not in our churches.

And so a true catechism is one that contains practical instruction on how to implement the ascetical wisdom of the Church in our own lives so that we can actually experience that internal dynamism if you will that the Church promises, and we are all searching for.

In the modern parlance, once people started using it, it would create quite a "buzz."

[Owen Jones]

Regarding the Parisian School and some of the clergy influenced by it, including some who have been involved in ecumenism, my experirence, without mentioning names, is that there is a stupendous naivete among well-meaning Orthodox who work with American religious leaders and so-called theologians. As I mentioned to one very prominent priest who was defending these people as Trinitarians, I stated very flatly that they lie. They believe theological language is metaphor and a social construct. They use the same words as we use, but they mean totally different things by them. They claim the right to re-define terms because of the need to socially reconstruct the language to meet modern sensibilities. For example, the eucharist is a coming together of the faithful as an expression of our "brokenness" (i.e. alienation), and this coming together on our part empowers us to then go out and change the world and bring about a socialist paradise. As we get closer and closer to paradise the Church will wither away (like the withering away of the state under the Marxist banner), because there will no longer be any need for it. Ecumenism for them means this coming together of alienated elements in a kind of Hegelian synthesis.

All you have to do is actually listen to what they say. They don't hide any of this. But we naively want to attribute good motives and sound reasoning to them, and when these meetings take place, they are very polite and deferential.

My priest friend was speechless when I spelled this out for him, and I think he thought I was a bit of a kook.

[M. Partyka]

...most Christian teaching begins with God, rather than with man, and this is a flaw. We don't start with God to get to God, we start with things in the world that God has created. Beginning with man. Who and what are we? What is the nature of the problem that we all experience?I both agree and disagree with this statement. I agree because an examination of the worldly condition does indeed lead one to look upwards to the divine. I disagree because trying to extrapolate the divine from the worldly is a fruitless endeavor.

In other words, the fallen state of the world implies the reality of divine perfection, but one cannot use the fallen state of the world as a starting point for constructing an image of divine perfection. My own personal conversion moment came when I stopped trying to use myself as the model for God -- take me, clean me up, and that's God -- and instead simply accepted on faith that God is, and that I was a stained image of Him.

In essence, I'm saying that natural revelation only takes a person so far. A person must then make the leap of faith to believe in divine revelation (i.e., Scripture and Tradition).

As for the general topic, one of the things that turned me off about going to church on a weekly basis while I was a Protestant was the fact that we did not celebrate the Lord's Supper each Sunday. The focus was more on the sermon than on the ceremony, and I felt that it was the ceremony that was supposed to be the center of worship. The Eucharist is the whole point of coming together each Sunday. If you can't participate in that, why bother showing up? (Which, incidentally, is the reason I stopped attending Orthodox services, too. Why get up early every Sunday morning just so I can go to Liturgy and feel like an outsider?)

[Owen Jones]

Well, it's not really a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the statement; the Fathers are pretty clear that we ascend to God first through meditating on the things He has made (including people). They teach this for a reason. It has nothing to do with "natural revelation."

"(Which, incidentally, is the reason I stopped attending Orthodox services, too. Why get up early every Sunday morning just so I can go to Liturgy and feel like an outsider?)"

Huh? I think most of us here would find this statement puzzling at best, disturbing at worst. We find as Orthodox that, while we may have a conversion moment, we need to be continually converted and we all have a long way to go, and so we practice a liturgical discipline and other spiritual disciplines, even when we don't feel like it, or especially when we don't feel like it, knowing that the problem is not out there, it's in us. Our problem is self-will. And the purpose of worship is to humbly acknowledge God's majesty, beauty and power, and as a community to beg for forgiveness and mercy. How can that possibly make us feel like outsiders when we are all in the same boat?

As a practical matter, I don't see how one can think of himself as an Orthodox catechumen and not attend services.

[M. Partyka]

We find as Orthodox that, while we may have a conversion moment, we need to be continually converted and we all have a long way to go, and so we practice a liturgical discipline and other spiritual disciplines, even when we don't feel like it, or especially when we don't feel like it, knowing that the problem is not out there, it's in us. Our problem is self-will.I guess I'm just not into obedience for the sake of obedience. And if I don't like the music, or the artwork, or the words of the Liturgy, I don't automatically assume there's a "problem" with me for not liking these things. Tastes vary. I don't expect everybody to like the same music, art, or kinds of words I like.


And the purpose of worship is to humbly acknowledge God's majesty, beauty and power, and as a community to beg for forgiveness and mercy. How can that possibly make us feel like outsiders when we are all in the same boat?Think about the Eucharist and everything it means, and then think about its being deliberately withheld from you, week after week after week. How can one not feel like an outsider under those conditions?

It's like going to a restaurant with a group. Everybody picks up a menu, studies it, and orders their food, and you do the same. But when the waiter brings out the food, there's none for you. Eventually you've gotta wonder: "Why should I bother picking up the menu, studying it, and ordering if I'm not going to get any food? In fact, why am I even here?"


As a practical matter, I don't see how one can think of himself as an Orthodox catechumen and not attend services.Well, the priest said the blessing of the catechumen over me, so that's how I think of myself.

[Olga]

You wrote:


And if I don't like the music, or the artwork, or the words of the Liturgy, I don't automatically assume there's a "problem" with me for not liking these things. Tastes vary. I don't expect everybody to like the same music, art, or kinds of words I like.


M Partyka, allow me to relate something from my own life experience:

You may have noticed that I often post on this forum on matters of iconography and liturgics. I grew up being surrounded, in church and at home, by icons of a naturalistic, realistic artistic style. The few traditional, non-realistic, geometric styles icons were rather forbidding, beyond my comprehension and taste. This is hardly unusual, the vast majority of us of a certain vintage or older would have felt the same. It is normal to easily relate to what is accessible and comfortable. As for liturgical language, which was quite different to the spoken vernacular I was accustomed to ... I would attend church because my mother expected me to, and it was MUCH easier to just go along with her wish rather than rebel against it.

Fast-forward fifteen or twenty years. Much had happened and changed in my life. I begin attending a church of a different "nationality" to the ones I grew up with, not least because of my budding relationship with a man who had been "part of the furniture" at this church since his childhood. Though the liturgical language was complete gibberish to me, there was something more drawing me there than just a silly romantic wish to be with the man I eventually married.

Something soon began to click. I began reading some of his books, including seminal works on iconography. I began learning (with limited resources) a new liturgical language, which included an unfamiliar alphabet. My knowledge and understanding of iconography grew and grew, as I strove to learn as much as I could about it. I began to increasingly regard the naturalistic, "warm and cuddly" icons I had grown up with as falling short of the mark, and the true and mysterious beauty of traditional iconography became ever more apparent.

I began collecting liturgical texts and other Orthodox materials in the languages I was familiar with, and began (hesitantly, at first, with LOTS of mistakes) compiling Vigil services so that I had some chance of understanding what on earth was going on. I figured standing in a darkened church for the better part of two and a half hours without knowing what was being read, chanted and sung didn't seem right to me. My comprehension of the meaning of each feast improved no end, and it also fed into my increasing comprehension of iconography.

Why am I mentioning all this? Please be assured it is not to promote myself as a model Christian, I am just as sinful (if not more so) as anyone here. Nor am I being judgemental. Rather, it is to show that, with honest and sincere effort, one can change one's ways and attitudes, even, yes, our tastes, even if these changes are utterly opposite to what we are familiar and comfortable with. Another point which needs to be made (and others on this thread may have already expressed it) is that we are to try to conform ourselves to what God has laid out and expects of us, and not to conform God into our own tastes and desires.

[Rick H.]

For what it's worth, I would like to share that there is no thing puzzling to me about what M. Partyka writes here and elsewhere about his experience. From what I have read here and elsewhere there is a tracking (step-by-step) of my journey, and I expect I was following in the footsteps of not a few others as well. On a personal note: I don't know what to tell you M. You will see a lot of what you have turned from in Orthodoxy, as well as some of what you have rejected. There is 'ignorance and gluttony' everywhere, Orthodoxy is not exempt from this. In two weeks I will have been 'Orthodox' for three years. Frankly, it will probably get worse before it gets better . . . assuming it gets better.

In Christ,
Rick

[Owen Jones]

My worst day as Orthodox is better than my best day prior to. As far as feeling like an outsider as a catechumen -- i.e. not being able to participate in the feast -- I think this is a necessary preparation for our souls, as virtually ever member here who is a convert will attest to, and which our traditions firmly support. If anything, the requirements for most catechumens in America are much, much too lax. Attending services as a catechumen were a real privilege to me, and I would even leave sometimes when it was announced that the catechumens depart, a tradition which has actually lapsed. As a catechumen, I also participated in a service to renounce my former heresies, conducted by a monk, for which I am grateful. Most parish priests would never have conducted such a service, although very important. In fact, in America, part of catechetical instruction should specifically include heretical notions that we might unwittingly carry into Orthodoxy with us. Let's not hold our breath on that one either!

It's all about wringing out every vestige of self-will. If we reduce things to matters of taste, then we are lost.

I have a frustrating parish experience. I attend the parish we attend because my daughter sings in the choir, and my wife wants to be there to support her. But there are "issues" as the shrinks love to say these days. And so I live with it. This is part of my own ascesis. I am not a great example of following the Church's ascetical rules as a result of some of what I see are some serious lapses in my parish. But this is not the Church's problem and it is not my role to correct it. It is my inner spiritual problem which I must work continually to correct. To try not to proudly exhibit my criticisms. Being a frustrated preacher, it is one of my profound faults. So I have to constantly practice gratitude for having been given the opportunity to be Orthodox, and I just don't see how one can argue that one is a catechumen, without having to go through any struggle by simply staying home. Church shopping is always an option for a convert. But this in itself can be an obstacle to spiritual progress. It can be a sign of self-will. God help us all.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Olga wrote:



Something soon began to click. I began reading some of his books, including seminal works on iconography. I began learning (with limited resources) a new liturgical language, which included an unfamiliar alphabet. My knowledge and understanding of iconography grew and grew, as I strove to learn as much as I could about it. I began to increasingly regard the naturalistic, "warm and cuddly" icons I had grown up with as falling short of the mark, and the true and mysterious beauty of traditional iconography became ever more apparent.

I began collecting liturgical texts and other Orthodox materials in the languages I was familiar with, and began (hesitantly, at first, with LOTS of mistakes) compiling Vigil services so that I had some chance of understanding what on earth was going on. I figured standing in a darkened church for the better part of two and a half hours without knowing what was being read, chanted and sung didn't seem right to me. My comprehension of the meaning of each feast improved no end, and it also fed into my increasing comprehension of iconography.

This is very interesting. This is a good practical description of the way of ascending knowledge which Fathers such as St Maxmius describe and put into its larger context.

In order to understand within the Church each of us must lay aside our former conceptions of reality which we have treasured so much.

Simultaneously, we must read each reality within the Church in a way which takes us to higher & higher levels of meaning.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

My worst day as Orthodox is better than my best day prior to.

"I wish I'd said that, Owen."
"You will, Andreas, you will."

(With apologies to Oscar Wilde.)

[M. Partyka]

...I would even leave sometimes when it was announced that the catechumens depart, a tradition which has actually lapsed.Maybe I should take up this practice. Perhaps it would take the edge off if there were some separation between me and the Eucharist. Is this the point in the liturgy where the deacon says, "The doors! The doors!"?


As a catechumen, I also participated in a service to renounce my former heresies....I think that would be part of my chrismation service.


It's all about wringing out every vestige of self-will. If we reduce things to matters of taste, then we are lost....I see...some serious lapses in my parish. But this is not the Church's problem and it is not my role to correct it. It is my inner spiritual problem which I must work continually to correct....Church shopping is always an option for a convert. But this in itself can be an obstacle to spiritual progress. It can be a sign of self-will.Here's the thing, though. I have a very hard time with the "one size fits all" credo of Orthodoxy. For example, I remember when I learned that the same passages of Scripture are read in every Orthodox church, all over the world. Believe it or not, I was horrified! "How," I asked, "can the priest meet the needs of his parish if he's limited to reading Scripture that may have nothing to do with those needs?" I have similar anguished feelings about the Liturgy. I'm an American, and I think and speak in ways that bear little resemblance to the words of the Liturgy. Why must I worship with words that do not express what I truly feel, or which I would never use even if I did truly feel the meaning behind them?

If God is the ultimate parent, then He must know, just as any parent knows, that different children have different needs, and they respond differently to different forms of discipline and teaching. So why does Orthodoxy insist on doing everything the same way for everybody? Is uniformity so prized that individual expression, individual needs, and even individuality itself carry no weight? Certainly there are some things that ought to be done the same throughout the Church -- baptisms, chrismations, the core of the Eucharistic service, etc. -- but to force uniformity throughout those portions of Church life in which uniformity will only serve to deaden rather than divinize...I just don't see the value in that.

[Andrew]

If God is the ultimate parent, then He must know, just as any parent knows, that different children have different needs, and they respond differently to different forms of discipline and teaching. So why does Orthodoxy insist on doing everything the same way for everybody? Is uniformity so prized that individual expression, individual needs, and even individuality itself carry no weight? Certainly there are some things that ought to be done the same throughout the Church -- baptisms, chrismations, the core of the Eucharistic service, etc. -- but to force uniformity throughout those portions of Church life in which uniformity will only serve to deaden rather than divinize...I just don't see the value in that.

You are anthropomorphizing God... that is a cause for confusion. He is the ultimate Father, but not in the way we think of fathers.

Not everything is the same for everyone. The services are the same because they are the coming together of the faithful from past and present, everywhere, every time and place... it is the functioning of the Body of Christ. We conform ourselves to the Body of Christ, not the other way around. We make the expressions and traditions of the Church our own. This is not a negation of the person, but the means to true fulfilment. If we insist on holding onto our own forms of individuality or what have you, we will not be able to receive the medicine we need. The saints attest to this. They submitted themselves fully to the Church and were saved. We hope the same for ourselves.

Individuality does not matter. True personhood does. What we oftentimes think is our own individuality is actually little things we are holding onto that keep us away from really fully being ourselves.

Forgive me! I hope this helps.

Also, what do you mean by uniformity? I see great diversity in the Church, on all levels.

[Andreas Moran]

The Church has evolved a rhythm of life with a cycle of feasts and fasts and prayers for all seasons, and all days are days of commemoration of saints. We conform ourselves to that rhythm. We are members of a Body and we move and breath as a body. To be in harmony with the Church at all times and in all places, we follow the core devotions which are the Divine Liturgy and the set prayers in our prayer books. The Church also has a treasury of prayers (prayers for various needs, canons and akathists) which we are free to use as we need. We are also free to attach ourselves to certain saints and to have their icons in our homes. We are free to read whatever devotional or theological writings we like. Each person, therefore, has space within which he can construct his own devotions. So, we are one but we are also persons. The Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church and, according to Christ's promise, leads it into all truth. The Church has given us all we need and arranged everything for us. How then can any individual say, 'I know better' or 'I want to do it my way'?

[Olga]

How then can any individual say, 'I know better' or 'I want to do it my way'?

".... nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.” (from Matt 26:39)

[Owen Jones]

I have a problem with weekly confession as a requirement for communion. But I willingly am open to correction on this. My sense is that it is a direct result of the French Catholic influence on Russia in the 18th(?) century. Chrysostom addresses this question and while insisting that confession is important, alms giving and charity and tears are equated with it, and that there is no requirement per se for confession as preparation for communion. Clearly, the real issue is the state of health of one's soul and the spirit in which communion is entered into. Also, we have the pre-communion confession which is said in unison, and then there is the case of ST. John of Krondstadt who apparently had a way with his congregation -- bringing them to a state of contrition as a body before communion, which is something all good preaching should do. Shouldn't really be a dry eye in the house prior to communion, were we really being honest and open in our dealings with God in our worship. How about a thread on the shedding of tears as a requirement for confession? It is probably more important. As an episcopal priest I heard sacramental confessions that were dry and perfunctory, and in another capacity I hear confessions all the time that are by rote with little compunction attached to them, and clearly these have little impact on the soul, without tears. Jesus wept. We should too. If our spiritual life is never accompanied by tears, what does that say about us? Sure, everything is subject to manipulation. An evangelical preacher can get his entire congregation whipped up into a state of incessant, uncontrolled weeping through emotional appeals. So there is a context to everything.

[Andreas Moran]

Tears are benefical if they come unexpectedly. As they are a gift, we cannot expect them though we may pray for them.

[M. Partyka]

I have a problem with weekly confession as a requirement for communion.I wasn't aware this was a requirement per se. I always figured that if you knew you did something really screwed up that week, you went and confessed not only to get it off your chest but also to find out from the priest some ways of preventing it from happening again. If I were to look back on my week and honestly say, "I wasn't sinless last week, of course, but I don't recall doing anything that would require confession" -- and I'm not saying this would be a frequent occurrence -- then I wouldn't expect to be forced to go. At least, at the church I attended, it wasn't mandatory. I saw perhaps two or three persons a week at Vespers who were there mainly for confession afterwards.


How about a thread on the shedding of tears as a requirement for confession?That would just cause us to be better actors. Even my worst sins don't necessarily bring me to tears. Realizing what I've done hurts, but tears would be going overboard for me. And, of course, some people have dry eyes and couldn't tear up if they wanted to. (I can just see people squirting holy water in their eyes to produce tears.)


If our spiritual life is never accompanied by tears, what does that say about us?"Never" shouldn't be pushed into "always", though. If tears come, they come, and if they don't, they don't.

[Herman Blaydoe]

"Never" shouldn't be pushed into "always", though. If tears come, they come, and if they don't, they don't.

Indeed, tears of repentence are a gift from God. We shouldn't demand gifts, otherwise they wouldn't be "gifts" but obligations.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Paul Cowan]

A contrite and humble heart oh God thou will not despise.

I think it was St. Seraphim that told the little girl that cried easily to not hinder the tears. I also don't think it bad for those with leaky eyes to allow the tears to remain on their faces until they dry. I have dry eyes that tear up alot. When I know the tears are there on my cheeks, it brings my back to the monk who was told by his disciples his face was all sooty after cleaning the chimney he should go wash. He told them my tears will wash my face and he left it sooty until they did.

What constitutes a contrite heart? Is it before the tears come or can it be after they come? Regardless, I remember God both ways and ask forgiveness for my sins.

Paul

[Andreas Moran]

If I truly loved God, I would weep an ocean of tears. It's a sign of my sinfulness, neglect and carelessness that there is only sometimes 'a fraction of a teardrop', but according to the prayer before holy communion of St Symeon the New Theologian, even this does not escape the notice of our Redeemer, and so I hope.

[Offieriad-Mynach Mihangel]

The practice of confession before Communion seems to vary from Local Church to Local Church. It seems that Greeks belonging to the EcPatr. may not require confession before every Communion, whereas ROCOR does, I am not sure that all MoscPatr parishes do. I think the Serbs insist upon it, with the result that many Serbs make extremely infrequent Communion.

As to frequency of Communion, some of the Fathers enjoin it, and some such as Saint John of Shanghai practiced daily celebration of the Divine Liturgy.

Fr. Michael

[M.C. Steenberg]

A few points on catechesis:

Firstly, in the ancient Church, catechesis followed an almost exactly inverted practice from that often seen today. Namely, full discussion about the details of the faith -- of Eucharist, of dogma, of spirituality, etc. -- was reserved for after the illumination of baptism, not before it. Catechesis was primarily an experiential practice: being exposed to the Church in worship in gradual phases. First, only the opening moments of the services. Later, a fuller experience of the Liturgy, up until the period of the expulsion of the catechumens prior to the creed (since the creed was not taught to catechumens until quite late in the catechumenate). Through this exposure, accompanied by pastoral guidance and direction, entrance into the Church was first and foremost through encounter with the mystery of her worship. This worship would have baffled most non-Christians of the earlier period, feeling far more 'foreign' than ever it possibly could to people today who convert from other Christian traditions; yet this remained the 'way in'. It is the mystery of worship that converts a heart; over-intellectualisation most often proves a barrier and a hindrance. For this reason, the 'educational' phase of the catechumenate in the ancient Church came extremely late. The experiential practice of being exposed to worship was paramount; and that experience was crafted deliberately. It gradually moved toward, but did not include, experience of the Eucharistic celebration itself, since exposure to this prior to baptismal illumination risked transforming it into an intellectual observer-act.

Secondly, connected to the above, the 'educational' aspect of catechesis was a segment of the process reserved until its final pre-baptismal stages; and then, it was succinct and brief, and did not include great detail about the interior mysteries (i.e. the sacramental doctrines of Eucharist, etc). The only complete example of a full catechetical programme from the early Church that remains is that of St Cyril of Jerusalem (written in the mid-fourth century), and the eighteen orations that comprise it are often misread as consituting a lengthy catechetical programme. In point of fact, these were delivered together, in fairly rapid succession, at the very end of Great Lent: constituting an educational period of catechesis that lasted about a week prior to baptism on Holy Saturday. This would have come after a long period of increasing exposure to the Church through her worship (perhaps a year), and through increasing participation in her ascetical life (fasting, almsgiving, provided rules of prayer and reading, etc.); but the 'proper educational element' was the final stage of preparation for baptism.

This educational segment provided a brief overview of the central doctrines of the faith. There was brief summary of the central theological doctrines of God, man, sin, redemption, the incarnation; and a tremendous lot said about baptism itself, and the cleansing to be received in the Spirit. Extremely little was said of the Eucharist. The creed was provided: and at least officially, this would have been the first time that catechumens would have been given or heard the creed. It was understood not primarily as a dogmatic text, but an ascetical tool that prepares one for the Eucharist -- which is still how it is used liturgically to this day (which is why it comes after the dismissal of the catechumens, leading into the anaphora). It was not understood chiefly as a teaching text, nor even a confessional text, but a mysterious entering into the faith found fully in the chalice. It was forbidden for the catechumens to write it down: it was to be committed to the heart, borne into their very souls as they moved to the waters of baptism, and from those waters to the chalice of Christ.

Thirdly, baptism formed the central point, not the endpoint, of catechesis. It was only after baptism that the central mysteries of the faith -- Eucharist, fuller doctrine, Christology, asceticism, sanctification, deification -- were taught, in post-baptismal lectures that often bore a title celebrating this aspect: Mystagogics. St Cyril's example includes five lengthy post-baptismal mystagogic catechetical orations. It was at this stage, and not earlier, that the deep mysteries of the Church were expounded. The Eucharist, since now it is a thing experienced rather than pondered; and that experience can be elucidated and reflected upon, rather than speculated about in anticipation. Sanctification, since now it is a thing of actual happenstance in the sacraments; and that mode of life can be considered 'from the inside' rather than wondered at.


If too often today we see enquirers after the faith faltering in their approach, it is at least in part because we have lost something of this right approach to catechesis. Efforts today seem regularly to go about things in precisely the opposite manner: to begin almost at the outset by teaching -- or rather, attempting to teach -- the great mysteries of the faith. Catechesis is a dramatically, profoundly, educational experience. How different this is from the practice of our own history. Are we at all surprised that so many find stumbling blocks in speculative 'problems' had with the faith and its practices? How could it be otherwise, given that the life in Christ is taught as if it is an educational field of study.

The divine services, rather than being apportioned out in a manner that gradually draws one in and converts the heart, are laid bare from the outset. Catechumens are forced to witness the most sacred mysteries of the Church, feeding on a sense of 'openness' and 'welcoming' that pervades our modern mindsets, but which is in fact terribly unfair to the catechumen. What is there to do, when confronted suddenly, unpreparedly, with the full wonder and mystery of the Eucharist, except speculate wildly about its nature? What is there to do, when forced unpreparedly into the full expression of the Church's liturgical faith and practice, except to ponder at its strangeness, worry over its foreignness, contemplate its oddities? But consider those in the past who were given the great gift of a gradual exposure: encountering the services piece by piece, so that they might gradually sink into and convert the heart and mind, rather than overwhelm and challenge it.

In the example of St Cyril, those who come to the point of being 'educated' in catechesis, are those who are already being converted of heart. He does not deny that some still findthemselves around his chair for his orations out of impure motives; yet they have come this far because they are already being drawn toward baptism. The doctrines of the faith are provided in expansion of what they are experiencing as a foretaste, and are fully addressed only after the waters of baptism have illumined the heart and the chalice has united man to the Son.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

Fr Dcn Matthew's post is interesting because of a conversation I was having this morning with my brother-in-law. My catechesis was probably not formally constructed, but from the start, Bishop Eirenaios took me into the sanctuary - probably not correct! So I saw everything very closely indeed. Certainly I felt 'overwhelmed' but by the wonder of it all and I wanted to know and understand. Challenged I was not. But maybe it helped that I had no 'baggage'. My brother-in-law, like most faithful I suppose, has never been in a sanctuary and since in Russia the iconostasis conceals the sanctuary and the prayers of invocation are not heard by the people and the royal doors are closed men and women alike have little idea what things are like in the sanctuary. That the people are separated visually and aurally from the most sublime part of the Divine Liturgy is regretted by some. Russians I know who go there appreciate that at the monastery in Essex, the doors are open and the prayers of invocation audible.

[Michael Stickles]

I have a very hard time with the "one size fits all" credo of Orthodoxy. For example, I remember when I learned that the same passages of Scripture are read in every Orthodox church, all over the world. Believe it or not, I was horrified! "How," I asked, "can the priest meet the needs of his parish if he's limited to reading Scripture that may have nothing to do with those needs?"

In my own experience, I have found that God can speak to my needs even if the specific words of the Scriptures or the sermon seem to have no direct bearing on them. A word here brings up an association that connects with a verse there to make an analogy, and suddenly I'm not hearing the sermon anymore, but something completely different is going through my head that answers questions I often didn't realize I had. I know many other people who have had the same kind of experience, so it's not that I'm strange (well, not in that way, anyway :-).




...I would even leave sometimes when it was announced that the catechumens depart, a tradition which has actually lapsed.
Maybe I should take up this practice. Perhaps it would take the edge off if there were some separation between me and the Eucharist. Is this the point in the liturgy where the deacon says, "The doors! The doors!"?

In the liturgy at our parish, the call for the catechumens to depart comes right after the prayers for the catechumens, before the cherubic hymn. "The doors! The doors!" comes a little bit later. I've heard, though, that some parishes don't do the prayers for the catechumens (often because they don't have any catechumens), and some others that do the prayers do not conclude them with the call for the catechumens to depart (since no one expects them to depart anymore).

In Christ,
Mike

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thank you so much Fr Dn Matthew for these insights about catechism.

In our parish we (or more honestly, I) have basically stumbled onto this approach.

Teaching- what we think of nowadays as 'catechism'- in the past seemed such a normal thing to do. I suppose this was because we naturally want to teach those coming to the Church about the Faith. Also the fact that most others follow this approach and so many books have appeared to help in this means that we tend to follow existing models.

However in our parish I notice that over the years that standard catechism has had little effect in the long run to actually prepare the person for the actual trials that the Faith involves. A number of such people have fallen away.

Conversely we have had others (quite a few in fact) that due to circumstances, experience of the services and participation in parish life became their true training ground. Many of these people have remained within the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

Fr. Dcn. Matthew's post is very good/helpful to me and brings great understanding in a short span. I am not sure if there is a book available which makes things so clear as he has done about catechesis and entry into the Church; but, if not I think I know someone who could fill the void.

Also, as I consider some of the Orthodox converts that I know, it seems there is a feeling of being 'misfits' even years after chrismation. And, it occurs to me that once again, after reading Fr. Dcn's. post, as we look back to the History of Christian Thought we see an Orthodoxy in theory as opposed to an Orthodoxy in practice. And, I don't know if there is an idealism in this that is unhelpful, or helpful--as we consider the way it ought to be as opposed to the way it is--as we consider the way it used to be in the beginning as opposed to the way it is today.

My days as a catechumen began on a Wednesday night, page one of The Orthodox Church, by Bishop Ware where in the first line on this page it says, "All Protestants are Crypto-Papists . . ." I remember thinking something like, 'Oh boy, here we go.' And, as I consider some of the candid comments in this thread from M. Partyka which parallel my experience, I am blessed with Fr. Dcn's. post and his candid question/statement. Twice he asks "What is there to do." I would always sit next to the window to help things along. But, it occurs to me that the distinctions made in Fr. Dcn's. post provide both a clear view and a remedy with great speed.

So where to go from here with this other than a restating of the obvious? We cannot look to the catechumens for a correction or to provide a retrieval effort here can we? It is not the catechumen's responsibility to bring about reform. The Doris Day song, "Que Sera, Sera--whatever will be will be . . ." comes to mind now, here as elsewhere, as I consider this as it relates to converts viz. Orthodoxy in theory vs. Orthodoxy in practice.

As Fr. Raphael has shared there are many books available to help teach and promote the existing model in Orthodoxy today for catechism; but I wonder if there is one along the lines of the three points in the above post to serve as a boiler plate.

In Christ,
Rick

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Rick, Fr Raphael and others,

I don't know if there is any key book on catechism in this manner, probably because catechism as book tends to work in the wrong direction. There are quite a number of good catechetical volumes out there, presenting essential teaching in summary form. Problems emerge when these tools for the educational aspect of catechesis start being used as the main body of catechesis. I do indeed think that further works need to be written, on the practice of catechesis in the Church, to encourage a turning away from this modern trend, towards methods reflective of the Church's longstanding practice.

As Fr Raphael mentioned in his post, often this happens at the practical / pastoral level, through experience rather than definition. Catechesis that is largely or primarily 'book learning', or even grounded in discussion of doctrine, often has a short-lived effect. It also tends to produce trends in the newly-illumined towards a certain dichotomy between what is 'known' of the Church, and what is done / not done. The experience of priests often shows this nature to such approaches, and so many naturally turn to a more authentic method. However, the Church today could do much to strengthen her mission in the world, by refusing to engage with catechesis in the method of so many other moulds, and return to the far more experiential nature of its ancient practice.

This is hindered in many contexts by what I believe to be a well-intentioned, yet flawed approach to being welcoming and open with catechumens. There is a strong belief that it's 'rude' to make catechumens leave half way through a service, that it's haughty or judgemental, etc. Yet I have often felt it the greatest insult to a catechumen, to deny them a more pastoral approach to the Divine Liturgy. But of course, a pastoral approach to catechesis is necessary. If the catechumens are simply excused from a parish after their litany, and told to read a few books and attend a few evening classes as the bulk of their entry, then this does force a wedge -- and perhaps if that is the alternative, it is indeed better to keep them in the embrace of the Nave throughout. But genuine catechesis is a direct, personal, committed engagement with the catechumen and the catechist. It must involve continual meeting, continual prayer and discussion, and an increasing entry into ascetical practice. A catechumen should be prepared for that first experience: told of the litanies she will hear, and their meaning. Told why it is important that this experience be taken into the heart, without it being completely overwhelmed and pushed out by a whole host of others -- and thus it is good and joyous that it may be the only portion witnessed for a time. Told what comes next, and invited into it. Told of the mysteries beyond the Gospel, and why it is a great blessing to be brought to them gradually, rather than thrust into them.

This means a tremendous task for the priest. Though priests are not the only ones who catechise.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Owen Jones]

I hate to start out a comment with, "there needs to be...."

However, there needs to be a catechetical school in a retreat type of environment that has very respected people associated with it, like Hierotheos Vlachos, so that priests would send not only the catechumens there, but also the young faithful (we do not have a confirmation rite as the Romans do and I am not advocating one). The purpose would be an intensive one-week workshop in the virtues. There is a text for this already: the Ladder of Divine Ascent. But it needs to be applied, not just read and talked about. Without any of the type of emotional manipulation that occurs with the "come to Jesus" movement, there needs to be some kind of come to Jesus moment for Orthodox, when we suddenly realize that God is doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves.

[Father David Moser]

However, there needs to be a catechetical school in a retreat type of environment that has very respected people associated with it, like Hierotheos Vlachos, so that priests would send not only the catechumens there, but also the young faithful (we do not have a confirmation rite as the Romans do and I am not advocating one). The purpose would be an intensive one-week workshop in the virtues. There is a text for this already: the Ladder of Divine Ascent. But it needs to be applied, not just read and talked about. Without any of the type of emotional manipulation that occurs with the "come to Jesus" movement, there needs to be some kind of come to Jesus moment for Orthodox, when we suddenly realize that God is doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves.

An excellent proposal, however, I would suggest that we already have such a resource: our monasteries. Yes, in North America, they are somewhat few and far between, however, the more we support monastic life, the more that will change. For a catechumen or a young person to go and spend a week in a monastery, following the prayer rule and life of the monastic community, coupled with perhaps a daily organized "talk and discussion" with one of the spiritual fathers at the monastery, there would be the opportunity for this kind of growth to occur.

Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville has long had a tradition of "summer boys" who come and live and work at the monastery for a period of time during the summer. Many of these "summer boys" later went to seminary and are now members of the clergy and leaders in the Church.

The resource is there, we just need to start using it.

Fr David Moser

[Owen Jones]

mmm, yes, and no. Monasteries are simply not organized around that principle, and it takes a very serious self-starter to make a pilgrimage to a monastery for that purpose, and it's hit or miss. Something set up for that express purpose, where everyone understands what it is for, would be superior. And, frankly, a lot of priests are reticent to send people to monasteries, especially catechumens, for a variety of reasons.

Too bad we have no written record of the ancient catechetical schools set up by Origen and others.

The other problem is that we have privatized the process. It becomes a process that is private between a seeker and the priest. The community is pretty much uninvolved. Partly this is due to the fact that many of the faithful do not want to take such responsibility, because it would require a re-examination of our own standards. But how can the community say "axios" without some serious involvement? Likewise, we have privatized the path toward priesthood. Priestly vocation today is an exercise in individual entrepreneurship, like starting a business. You go out and sell yourself and convince a priest, and then a bishop, that your idea (yourself) is worthy of the Church making an investment in. And the educational process is really based on managerial theory, like an MBA program, not real catechesis. Which is why we have a "burnout" problem.

Like this story. Bishop goes to parish and wants to know how many parishioners there are. The priest says, 500. But are they all active members, the Bishop asks. Yes, they are all very active, says the priest. 250 are very actively supporting me, and 250 are very actively opposing me!