Thread: Purgatory: Orthodoxy - a total ignoramus asks ; Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001040
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
as I've mentioned before, I've never met anyone from the Orthodox church to talk to before - so could I prod and poke the brains and experiences of those on here who are?

maybe others might like to ask things too...

anyway, things I would like to know about Orthodoxy

















as an aside, my suggestion on We rall go-ing ona , su-mmer ho-li-day or calling Christian21 to Hell stands if any of you want to take me up on it! [Big Grin]

[maybe some nice host could nicely put in links to those threads for me, can't make it work, am very dim... [Roll Eyes] ]

[ 15. August 2004, 13:09: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 
Posted by Alt Wally . (# 3245) on :
 
I'll do my best for starters luvanddaisies

quote:
is Greek Orthodox the same as Russian Orthodox? If so, how come? Are there other breeds?
There are 15 Autocephalous (self-governing) and 4 Autonomous (self-ruling) churches that make up the Orthodox Church. The Ecumenical Patriarch is recognized as having the primacy of honor among the them, but only has real control over his jurisdiction the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In the west there is often confusion because of the names Russian, Greek, etc. This means that the churches have administrative links back to the churches from which they were founded. They all share the same faith, but do often have differences in language and custom.

quote:
why do the orthodox church have some of the apocryphal (to reformed-types) books in their Bible?
The Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint (LXX), the Alexandrian Greek translation of the Hebrew manuscripts, as its Old Testament. These were the scriptures in wide use in the Jewish world at the time of Christ and most NT quotes from the OT are from the LXX. The deuterocanonical books have always been a part of the LXX. Here is an article about The Old Testament in the Orthodox Church.

quote:
* is there 'high' and 'low' church within Orthodoxy?
Not in the way people think about it in the west. The Orthodox Church is a liturgical church and many of the elements of temple worship that were familiar to early Christians have been carried over. There are differences in custom and practice though that differentiate some of the churches.

quote:
* what are the main differnences between Orthodoxy & (for example) anglicanism?
* what are the main differences between Orthodoxy & catholicism?
These are difficult questions to give quick answers to because there is so much behind this. To speak generally, the Orthodox Church sees itself as the church founded by the apostles existing in a chain of unbroken succession of faith back to them. Simply stated, it sees itself as the church Christ founded at the time of Pentecost. When the linguistic divide began to open between the east and west, there was unfortunately a vital loss of contact between the two theological centres of the church. The schism that occurred roughly around the 11th century represented a parting of the ways of the Greek and Latin speaking churches that had been brewing since the divide began to form. The differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches now represent that shift, and are highlighted more in the churches that in turn left the Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation.

The Orthodox Church typically has beliefs on key topics such as salvation, free will and sin that differ greatly from the churches of the west.

You can find some Q & A's on the OCA and GOA pages.

quote:
* are Orthodoxy & evangelicalism mutually exclusive?
Yes and no (assuming you mean modern evangelical Protestantism). Many of the converts to Orthodoxy here in the states have been drawn from the evangelical ranks.

quote:
* do Orthodox churches believe the RC's transubstantiation theory?
The Orthodox Church definitely believes the consecrated elements are indeed the body and blood of Christ. I think in general the Orthodox view leaves more to the realm of mystery in explaining how this happens than does transubstantiation. Transubstantiation was not defined as we know it until after the western and eastern churches had split.

quote:
* what made you, personally, choose Orthodoxy? were you brought up in he Orthodox church,or did you join it later on?
That would fill several pages. I've come to Orthodoxy as an adult.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
Hi, luvanddaisies!

Lots of good questions -- most of them really deserve more than a soundbite. I'll try to give quick answers to them; the answers are necessarily simplified, and not the full story, since one post isn't enough to do justice to your questions. If you'd like, I can recommend some books that will do a more thorough job of answering your questions than anyone can do on an Internet forum. Or, better yet would be a visit to an Orthodox Church!

quote:


Yes, Greek Orthodox is the same as Russian Orthodox. And there are plenty of other Orthodox -- there's the Orthodox Church of Japan, the Antiochian Orthodox Church, etc., etc., etc.

Historically, the Orthodox Church was organized into various jurisdictions -- patriarchates, diocese, and the like. The jurisdictions were entirely based on geography. If you were an Orthodox Christian in Antioch, you were a member of the Antiochian Orthodox Church. If you were an Orthodox Christian in Japan, you were a member of the Japanese Orthodox Church. If you were a member of the Orthodox Church in Greece, you were a member of the Greek Orthodox Church.

For various historical reasons, mostly having to do with the Russian Revolution, that system has been messed up for the last century or so. But that's why you have different "breeds" or "flavors" of Orthodoxy, but we are all one single Church.

quote:



The Old Testament that we use is called the Septuagint. It was the Jewish OT translated into Greek -- and was what our Lord and the Apostles and the earliest Christians generally used for their Bible. Somewhat later, the Jews made a formal canon, or list, of their Scriptures, leaving out some books (and portions of books) that had earlier been accepted and included in the Septuagint.

At some point, some Christians decided that the OT that the Jews had decided on after the time of Christ was to be used, rather than the OT of the Septuagint. So they left the "deuterocanonical books" out.

quote:


No. What you will find in the US (and maybe in the UK, although I'm not sure) is that some Orthodox churches are more or less Westernized in some of their practices -- for example, you might find an Orthodox church with pews and an organ, which I guess would be our version of "low church," while a more "proper" or traditional Orthodox church would have only a capella music, and just a few chairs or benches around the side for folks who really need to sit (everyone usually stands for an Orthodox service).

quote:


I'm not sure I can even begin to answer this question. I'll PM Father Gregory, who is a convert from Anglicanism, and see if he can answer this one for you.

quote:


From one POV, the main difference is that we do not accept the authority of the Pope over all the other bishops of the Church. We believe that the bishops all exercise the same authority jointly; our model of church governance is conciliar, not heirarchical.

We could list doctrines and dogmas where we differ -- we don't accept the filioque, for example, or the doctrine of inherited guilt, or the Immaculate Conception of our Lady.

But, for me, the differences in doctrine or governance aren't the most significant differences. But the most significant differences are the hardest to articulate. It's how we approach matters of faith and life.

quote:


I suppose that depends on what you mean by evangelicalism. Could you explain, so I can be sure I'm answering the right question?

quote:


We believe that the bread and wine which we receive in the Eucharist are the true Body and Blood of our Lord. We do not explain how that is so -- we simply state that it is, and leave it as a mystery. So we do not accept the doctrine of transubstantiation, which explains more about the Holy Mystery than we think can or should be exlained.

quote:


I was not brought up Orthodox. I was reared in a not particularly pious Presbyterian home, joined the Assemblies of God when I was in college, fled the AoG for the Lutheran Church when my first child was an infant, and discovered what I had been looking for all along just a few years after that.

It was my then-husband who was really interested in Orthodoxy. I visited an Orthodox church with him, and was willing to go to the Inquirer's Class to learn more. During the first couple of classes, we went over the Commonitory of St. Vincent of Lerins, which spells out how the Orthodox way of doing theology.

Briefly, St. Vincent explained that, in his day, there seemed to be as many ways of understanding the Holy Scriptures as there were people reading or hearing it, and he wanted a way of knowing for sure what was true. So he asked the wisest, most learned, and holiest people he could find what they thought, how they chose between one teaching and another. THey all told him roughly the same thing, which he wrote down so that he could always remember it.

What he said was that, if you have to choose between an old teaching and something new, you should prefer the old teaching. The reason for this is that God's revelation was complete and entire in the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ, nothing was lacking, so there is nothing new to be revealed.

If you have to choose between what just a few people teach and believe, and what nearly all Christians of all places and times have taught and believed, you should prefer what has been universally taught and believed. The reason for this is that the Holy Spirit was given to all Christians, not to just a few, and he promised to reveal the truth to all of us. So if one little group claims to have secret or hidden truths, or to know things that God didn't reveal to everyone else, well, God just doesn't work that way.

If those two rules don't get you an answer, then you should try to find out whether those people who are genuinely holy, who clearly have loved and served God their entire lives, have mostly believed the same thing on the issue at hand. If so, you should prefer the consensus of those who manifestly know God well over the opinions of those who are less godly.

If you cannot find an answer using these three rules, then you're free to believe whatever you like.

Well, luvanddaisies, those three rules made so much sense to me that I was ready to become Orthodox on the spot. However, Orthodoxy doesn't work that way -- it was still some time before I was chrismated. But St. Vincent is really the reason I became Orthodox. Everything after that was just details.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear [Axe murder] anddaisies

Josephine has invited me to say a little about the differences between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism.

As Alt.Wally has made clear, Anglicanism is an offspring of Roman Catholicism. The makeover involved in this shift in the 16th century had to do with papal authority (an issue for us as well, so some similarity there) but the rest is a variance within the western family of Christian traditions and little to do with us at all.

The issue of transubstantiation, for example, has never touched Orthodoxy. Rome supports it ... Anglicanism (for the most part) refutes it. Interestingly though, Anglicanism's eucharistic position in the catholic tradition moved much closer to ours by rejecting that particular way of affirming Christ's Presence in the Eucharist, (transubstantiation) but by still affirming the Presence as a testimony of faith rather than an Aristotelian philosophical speculation FROM faith.

I like to characterise the relationship between Anglicanism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy as a Venn diagram of 3 overlapping circles with a common centre. Outside that common centre, Orthodoxy and Catholicism have things in common NOT generally shared by MAINSTREAM Anglicanism, (eg., icons .... albeit until recently fallen into disuse by Rome, the Assumption / Dormition of our Lady, the perpetual virginity of our Lady, confession as a gold standard of repentance ... generally practised, etc). Outside of that common centre Orthodoxy and Anglicanism have things in common NOT shared by Rome, (eg., the ultimate authority of a bishop ... there being no superior authority over him other than the Tradition of the Church under God, a married priesthood as a canonical norm for non-monastics).

When it comes to the differences between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism you need 2 lists.

(1) Those things that Orthodoxy and Catholicism ONLY share (see above).
(2) Those things that NEITHER Catholicism NOR Anglicanism has ... this frankly is the much more important list from our point of view.

Things That Only Orthodoxy Has ...

Health Warning ... you will always find individuals and groups WITHIN Catholicism and Anglicanism that espouse the following but they do not characterise the principal witnesses of either tradition.

Examples:-

(1) Theosis or deification ... the belief that union with God means a real particpation of our humanity in (the energies) of God.

(2) Linked to (1) is the belief articulated by St. Gregory Palamas (in conformity from our point of view with the historic witness of the Church from Pentecost and by way of anticipation in the transfiguration of Moses on Sinai) that the transforming energies of God ARE God and not creatures of God or grace. The Light of the Transfiguration IS the Presence of God and we can participate in it / Him insofar as we are purified by repentance.

(3) The necessity of the veneration of icons in the Christian life ... not simply their appropriateness or occasional usefulness.

(4) The overwhelming importance of Pascha (Easter) and belief in the resurrection in contradistinction to the western popular culture of Christmas, (barely registers culturally in Greece for example). This is reflected in the Orthodox understanding of salvation which has serious issues with the following western non-Orthodox interpretations:-
(a) Substitutionary Atonement
(b) The Filioque clause added to the Nicene Creed
(c) Forensic or Merit based understandings of divine human interaction.
(d) The cultus of the cross disjoined from the resurrection, (more an emphasis than an exclusion).

(5) The Cappadocian emphasis on the Trinity which makes us very suspicious of St. Augustine's psychological analogy of the Trinity ... particularly in the light of the filioque (ante). Orthodox prayers are much more roundly trinitarian than non-Orthodox ones. We always address God as Trinity.

More examples of these differences may be found here ...

Valentine Collection of Essays

In the end I think I must say that whereas there are certain surface similarities between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism in respect of Church structure and organisation the rest is much more problematic. In some ways there is a greater contemporary resonance between post-evangelicalism that has had some sane exposure to charismatic renewal than Anglicanism as it is now. A certain "breed" of Anglo-Catholicism has always been much closer to Orthodoxy but from the time of the Non-Jurors or earlier has been unnecessarily concerned about differences in ethos between "east" and "west." With greater understanding now of how the Church IN England was in the First Millennium (when she was Orthodox) some of these concerns should have evapourated by now not least in the light of the fact that us Western Orthodox are now redeeming our own common tradition in the west.
 
Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
This is reflected in the Orthodox understanding of salvation which has serious issues with the following western non-Orthodox interpretations:-
(a) Substitutionary Atonement
(b)
(trying not to go off on a tangent on Substitutionary Atonement) can you please explain how the Orthodox view on this subject differs from non-Orthodox interpretations?

[ 05. June 2004, 23:08: Message edited by: The Undiscovered Country ]
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
[Cool] phew - am going to have to read this earlier in the day when am more awake methinks.

thanks for some brilliantly informative answers though.

FG, I'm not understnding...
quote:
(1) Theosis or deification ... the belief that union with God means a real particpation of our humanity in (the energies) of God.
...very well - is that like the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? as in, He is in us, He is in God, we are in God through Jesus actions in His power?

am also wondering if you would expand (remembering I am a viola-player and therefore very dim [Biased] ) a little on
quote:
(4) The overwhelming importance of Pascha (Easter) and belief in the resurrection in contradistinction to the western popular culture of Christmas, (barely registers culturally in Greece for example). This is reflected in the Orthodox understanding of salvation which has serious issues with the following western non-Orthodox interpretations:-
(a) Substitutionary Atonement
(b) The Filioque clause added to the Nicene Creed
(c) Forensic or Merit based understandings of divine human interaction.
(d) The cultus of the cross disjoined from the resurrection, (more an emphasis than an exclusion).
Josephine
- in answer to your question, I'm using 'evangelical' in the narrow way of shorthand which means someone with a faith pretty much like mine! for some idea, fundamentalist, inerrantist, 'sola-scripture'-ist, creationist, etc...
- and now another question for you. What do you mean when you say "Chrismated"?

Seth - thanx for the pms - again, will follow up on links when am more awake!

Alt Wally - could you expand on what you said here please?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* are Orthodoxy & evangelicalism mutually exclusive?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes and no (assuming you mean modern evangelical Protestantism). Many of the converts to Orthodoxy here in the states have been drawn from the evangelical ranks.
I'm interested.


also seconding Undiscovered Country's ? (are you a trekkie UC?

thanks again - the posts here have obviously been written thoughtfully & insightfully, I hope they didn't take up too much of your time when you should have been doing other things IRL!!!

[ 05. June 2004, 23:34: Message edited by: luvanddaisies ]
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
Hostly Mobcap ON

Since it seems this thread is heading toward theology (what we believe) rather than liturgy (what we do in worship services), off it goes to Purgatory.

Hostly Mobcap OFF
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Welcome to purgatory, little thread. I think the questions have been answered already, so I'll just look at the "why did you become Orthodox?" one.

short answer: Because I came to believe it was the church founded by Jesus Christ and his Apostles.

long answer (click)
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Josephine
- in answer to your question, I'm using 'evangelical' in the narrow way of shorthand which means someone with a faith pretty much like mine! for some idea, fundamentalist, inerrantist, 'sola-scripture'-ist, creationist, etc...
Then, if your question was, "can an evangelical become Orthodox," the answer is most definitely Yes! If it was, "can someone be evangelical and Orthodox at the same time," as you have defined it, the answer is no. When you become Orthodox, you accept the Church's beliefs. That doesn't include a fundamentalist, sola-scriptura approach to faith.

quote:
- and now another question for you. What do you mean when you say "Chrismated"?
People are received into the Church through baptism (getting dunked in water) and chrismation (being anointed with oil). I was baptized as an infant, so when I joined the Orthodox Church, I was received through the Sacrament of Chrismation. "When I was chrismated" is shorthand for "when I officially became Orthodox."
 
Posted by Alt Wally . (# 3245) on :
 
TUC

quote:
(trying not to go off on a tangent on Substitutionary Atonement) can you please explain how the Orthodox view on this subject differs from non-Orthodox interpretations?
Not to answer for Fr. Gregory, but two articles cover this pretty well.

Heaven & Hell in the Afterlife, According to the Bible
The River of Fire

I will just warn you that the second article is heavy on the anti-western polemic.

luvanddaisies

quote:
Alt Wally - could you expand on what you said here please?
josephine covered this already to some extent. Generally speaking the evangelical and Orthodox approaches to Christianity are just very different. Doctrines like sola fidei, sola scriptura, eternal security and imputed righteousness which are cornerstones of evangelical belief are not present at all in Orthodoxy. I would think Orthodoxy would also view evangelicalism as having a suspicion of church history and tradition that often borders on complete ignorance of it. There is also a heavy strain of anti-intellectualism in American evangelicalism.

The odd thing is, many of the converts to Orthodoxy (and some prominent ones to Catholicism as well) in this country are former evangelicals. Most of the converts in my parish are including the priest. Clark Carlton, a former Southern Baptist, wrote an article I like and have posted before called From First Baptist to the First Century. Fr. Peter Gillquist is another who wrote a book called Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith. He was a former leader of the Campus Crusade for Christ in this country.

Two books I would most definitely recommend for general background on the Orthodox Church are The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way. Both are by Bishop Kallistos Ware.
 
Posted by Zeck (# 6855) on :
 
Thank you luvanddaisies for asking questions that I've wanted to...but couldn't. (fear of ignorance, silly here I'm beginning to see) My gratitude for Alt Wally, josephine, Father Gregory and Mousethief for taking the time to outline a huge subject in terms I can begin to understand.
 
Posted by Zeck (# 6855) on :
 
I have to add another post here while my head is still poked up out of Hell and I'm feeling brave.

I spent several years after my military experience in a severe depression with absolutely no value system to ground me. During those years I spent all of my spare time reading every book I could acquire on spiritual matters. I was searching for a common thread behind all the historical religions and always with a critical, objective eye because of a fear of traditional organizations. This search took me through ancient Christian, Buddhist, Egyptian, Hebrew, Hindu religions among many others.

I found more common ground behind the various symbols and rituals than differences and this was probably caused by my desire to see those connections. To make this short: One of the teachings that rang a chord with me was the Kabbalah. The attempt to grasp the texts in itself was an exercise that seemed to raise my awareness of the similarities I was seeking. My question: What is the traditional view of the Orthodox Church towards the many Kabbalist treatises? If any?

I know this should probably be it's own thread but would rather not start one.

Thank you in advance.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
Mousethief - your testimony had me ho0ked from beginning to end, thanks for the link to it. I found your little summary of the Orthodox position on substitutionary atonement helpfully clear
...but I've got another couple of questions about it
- how does the non-bloody view of atonement relate to the curse of death as a conseuence of sin in Genesis 2, and also to Israel's instructions about the sacrificial system, especially the Passover lamb and the annual Yom-Kippur atonement offering?
- what role does Jesus's crucifixion (and as an extension of that, the bread&wine of Communion) have outside being a propitiatory substitutionary sacrifice?

Fr Gregory, a question related to your brilliant expositary post too...
- why does the Orthodox church view icons as essential, and what do you do with them?

and a one that could be open for anyone of a non-innerantist, non-sola-scriptura-ist persuasion...
- how is it discerned which bits are binding & literal and which aren't? how also is it decided which things are useful to take alongside Scripture?


thanks again for the really conidered & helpful answers posted here.

* IMPORTANT NOTE : the questions here are being asked because I am interested to know the answers to them. I'm not intending them in any way to be patronising, insulting, accusing or otherwise negative, and if they are, I can't begin to apologise enough *
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear luvanddaisies

.... and all those other folks asking about Salvation, Substitutionary Atonement etc.,

Rather than reinvent the / (my own) wheel, could I refer you please to the series of articles on my website about this? If there is anything unclear after this then I'll pick it up again.

Salvation in the Orthodox Church

As to icons, I would say that the kind of spirituality engendered by the veneration of icons is fundamental to sanctification ...

(1) Embodied worship
(2) A love of the saints ... their deeds, examples of Christian holiness, fellowship and prayers. The icon focusses all of this in a tangible way. Even a blind person benefits from the veneration of icons. The main action is going on with the mind in the heart after all. If I had a blind person in church I would put braille notation on the corner of each icon.
 
Posted by Dunstan. (# 5095) on :
 
Regarding Fr Gregory's comment on icons for the blind, instead of only using braille, he could install icons written by this fellow.

Mousethief noticed it when I posted it in heaven a while back. I think it shows the visual aesthetics of an icon don't necessarily have to be so important, though the picture in the article makes it look pretty intriguing visually, actually.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Thanks for that Dunstan. That's pretty wonderful!
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
- how does the non-bloody view of atonement relate to the curse of death as a conseuence of sin in Genesis 2, and also to Israel's instructions about the sacrificial system, especially the Passover lamb and the annual Yom-Kippur atonement offering?
- what role does Jesus's crucifixion (and as an extension of that, the bread&wine of Communion) have outside being a propitiatory substitutionary sacrifice?
I don't know if I'd call the Orthodox understanding of the atonement "non-bloody" -- rather, it is non-substitutionary.

Jesus needed to become a man in order to unite the human and divine natures, and also in order to die (since God, as God, can't die). And he needed to die in order to destroy sin and death (the two are inextricably linked, in the Orthodox understanding).

The thing we deny is that he died IN OUR PLACE. If you look at the Old Testament sacrificial system, the various offerings weren't substitutionary. The only direct substitution that they had was the scapegoat, which wasn't killed; it was set to wander in the desert. The other direct substitution was the price paid for the firstborn male but that had nothing to do with sin.

What I deny is that God needed/wanted/whatever to kill US (because of our sins), but killed Jesus INSTEAD OF US. I do not deny that Jesus died FOR us, nor that his death and resurrection conquered sin and death. Indeed at Pascha (aka Easter) we sing, "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life."

Hope this helps. If I left something out I apologize and go ahead and ask again.
 
Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
I also reject the idea that God had to pnish Jesus instead of us.

I'd like to propose a theory and ask the Orthodox if it fits with Tradition.

1. When we forgive, the forgiveness is free to the offender, but it costs us. If we are insulted, we decide to bear the insult, etc. Rather, that is than retaliate, or to go home and kick the cat. (Which is what I believe SA is teaching - taking it out on someone else)

2. God cannot bear or 'absorb' our sin as God.

3. As well as to unite God with Man, the Word became flesh to bear or absorb the sin of the world. Jesus wasn't punished, He bore our sin as we bear an insult or an injury, as a Man. This was terrible for Him.

4. Reconciliation is now on offer through the gospel, which can be accepted or rejected.

Christina
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
ChristinaMarie: regarding #2 -- Why not?
 
Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Hi Mousethief,

Because God cannot suffer. We absorb the suffering of whatever offence has been done to us when we choose to forgive.

So, God became one of us in order to suffer the offence of the sin of the world, in His human body, mind, and poss soul/spirit.

This is how He destroyed sin, by absorbing it and taking it into Death.

His blood signifies His perfect life poured out, so it can be transfuse into us by the Holy Spirit, and in the Eucharist.

Gone a bit further than your question.

Christina
 
Posted by The Prophetess (# 1439) on :
 
Haven't you heard, MT? God moves in the very best circles these days. No really fashionable Person would even consider taking part in an incarnational event. So unattractive, and one never has the right shoes.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Thanks that makes more sense now, CM.

Not sure how accepting/rejecting the gospel fits in however.
 
Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Hi Mousethief,

If someone offended you and you forgave them, you could offer to be friends again. That person then has the choice to either accept or reject you and your forgiveness. Say someone robbed your house coz of a drugs problem.

I don't believe that reconciliation is impossible after death.

If I could be certain, I would be a Christian Universalist. Thing is, to be absolutely certain on a matter like that, I would need all the relevant facts. I cannot be certain that there is some consideration I am missing.

Christina
 
Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
PS. This subject came to mind when I read your testimony on your website. I've wrestled with it too, as a former Evangelical. This is my attempt at a solution.

I enjoyed reading your testimony, I like happy endings and am very glad you and Josephine met up. [Smile]

Christina
 
Posted by Alt Wally . (# 3245) on :
 
Zeck
quote:
What is the traditional view of the Orthodox Church towards the many Kabbalist treatises?
I'll admit I'm not really sure what all is behind the Kabbala. I'm under the impression it was a mystical tradition that arose in Judaism.

Mysticism itself is an intrinsic part of Orthodox doctrine and praxis, probably really at its core. It is not a free form type of practice that exists out of mainstream belief. St. Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth century wrote two very mystical works, the Life of Moses and his commentary on the Song of Songs. I think both of these had a deep and lasting impact on Orthodox thought. The Hesychasm championed by St. Gregory Palamas is probably one of the better known aspects of Orthodox mysticism. You could also take a look at this page, The Watchful Gate which has several articles. Including one on the Jewish roots of Orthodox mysticism.

luvandaisies,

I know you asked Fr. Gregory about icons, I just wanted to point out there was actually a thread on them last week, it's here.

quote:
- how is it discerned which bits are binding & literal and which aren't? how also is it decided which things are useful to take alongside Scripture?
Well, to take a step back a bit. The Orthodox church does not distinguish between scripture and tradition regarding authority. Scripture is all tradition, handed down orally and in written form and then compiled and proclaimed authoritative by one of the ecumenical councils of the church. Scripture is neither above the church as it is in Protestantism, or on a seperate plane of authority as it is with the three legged stool of the Anglicans. It is a part of the single, unified and consistent tradition of the church.

The Bible itself is 100% authoritative when handled through the collective consensus, wisdom and guidance of the church. St. Athanasius (who gave us the first document listing the canonical NT as we have it) used the idea of skopos as the regula fidei of scripture. Namely in the context of the faith community of the church the underlying ideas and intended meaning of the scriptures could be found and understood. This is what makes sense of the surface level appearance of contrasting ideas for instance. It is also what keeps individuals from setting off and forming new doctrine or churches based on an individual interpretation of the Bible.

The only things technically "binding" on Orthodox Christians are the seven ecumenical councils.

Regarding the atonement, I think the general Orthodox view would be that Christ was not sacrificed to satisfy the wrath of an angry God to pay the the debt of sin. Christ acted in self-sacrifice to release us from its power of sin once and for all.
 
Posted by Ian H (# 944) on :
 
Non-theological and non-important question, but I am curious. (I forgot to ask Father yesterday as I was too busy stuffing down a wondrous cake someone had cooked for lunch! [Hot and Hormonal] )

During Lent, Pascha, post-Pascha and up to and including Pentecost, the sermon followed the Gospel reading. Yesterday, the sermon followed the Ambo Prayer. I seem to recal pre-Lent it may have been there too (but I cannot be sure).

Does the sermon move about generally during the year? Or is it simply up to the discrection of the priest? Many thanks!

Also, I was told yesterday (when I was discussing differences in liturgical practice between Anglicanism, Lutheranism -- in my experience -- and Orthodoxy -- yes, there are a range of topics covered in Coffee Hour! [Smile] ) that Orthodox do not kneel on Sundays at all as it is the Resurrection Day. Is this correct? And what about prostration? Is that considered different? Many thanks again.

Ian, who like Christina enjoyed and gained much from Mousethief's "How I Got Where I Am" article.
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
The Orthodox views posted on these boards on the meaning of the Atonement and on the concept of Hell are the most sensible and satisfying I have had presented to me in all the Christian traditions. If there weren't other things in the Orthodox tradition on which I differ, I would probably be lining up for oil.
 
Posted by Alt Wally . (# 3245) on :
 
Ian

quote:
that Orthodox do not kneel on Sundays at all as it is the Resurrection Day. Is this correct? And what about prostration? Is that considered different?
I believe this might be correct. Although after Pentecost at our mission the kneeling vespers were moved up to a couple hours after the liturgy instead of occuring the next day (i.e. after sundown). Technically speaking not the way it's supposed to happen I'm guessing.

I think prostrations and/or metanoias are different.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Very interesting thread. I have echo Zeke's post before me and say that I have had thoughts of lining up for oil too but have trouble reconciling a few things.

I am attracting to the traditional aspect but have trouble understanding what happens to you after death and some other things.

Good reading.

[edited since another post fell in between Zeke's and mine. [Biased] ]

[ 07. June 2004, 01:59: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
The placement of the sermon is not fixed. In most OCA churches it occurs after the gospel. As I understand, in 19th century Russia (Was it post-gospel sermon in 19th century Russia?!) it generally occurred at the end of the service.

If we're having a really long service for some reason, Father will often skip the sermon altogether (which is great if you don't like sermons, although it does give you a chance to sit down in the middle of the service!).

Short answer: there is no fixed place.
 
Posted by Ian H (# 944) on :
 
Thanks Wally & Mousethief!

Ian.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
I am attracting to the traditional aspect but have trouble understanding what happens to you after death and some other things.
No one else understands what happens to you after death, either, because it's a mystery. Which is a polite way of saying that, even if God told us exactly what was going to happen, we wouldn't understand it, or, worse, we'd think it was icky, because we're simply not capable of understanding it yet. So he hasn't bothered telling us too much about it yet.

Think of six-year-olds and the mysteries of love and sex. If you tell them about it, they don't think it sounds particularly appealing. They really, truly don't understand it. It's a mystery, not because we're keeping secrets from them, or don't want them to know, but simply because they haven't developed to a point where it can possibly make any sense.

That, I think, is why what-comes-next is such a mystery. We haven't learned how to live this life properly yet. How could we possibly be ready to understand anything about the next one?
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Can I pick a couple of your points apart, Fr Gregory?

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
(4) The overwhelming importance of Pascha (Easter) and belief in the resurrection in contradistinction to the western popular culture of Christmas, (barely registers culturally in Greece for example).
I find this strange given the emphasis that the Christus Victor view of Atonement puts on the Incarnation.

quote:

(c) Forensic or Merit based understandings of divine human interaction.
(d) The cultus of the cross disjoined from the resurrection, (more an emphasis than an exclusion).
If I understand him correctly, Aulen reads Irenaeus as saying that merit is an important factor in God's destruction of death, in the sense that although God defeats the dark powers through his own omnipotence, the manner in which he does it is implicitly just, since Christ wasn't subject to sin/death and was therefore at liberty to break its power when he came under it, whereas some other exercise of divine power could be unfair because we are responsible for our sins.

Mousethief, I've noticed from time to time the Orthodox Shipmates pop up with an objection to the language of "in our place". I understand that you're objecting to the PSA extension of this, but surely it's perfectly possible to read the phrase as saying that Christ took on the dark powers "in our place" because we couldn't win, being trapped by them and culpable - so God took them on for us.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
That strikes me as "on our behalf" rather than "in our place."

And Orthodox atonementology is not exactly the same thing as "Christus Victor."
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Maybe you're right, Mousethief.

Would you care to elaborate on the differences between Orthodoxy and CV then?
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
If I understand him correctly, Aulen reads Irenaeus as saying that merit is an important factor in God's destruction of death, in the sense that although God defeats the dark powers through his own omnipotence, the manner in which he does it is implicitly just, since Christ wasn't subject to sin/death and was therefore at liberty to break its power when he came under it, whereas some other exercise of divine power could be unfair because we are responsible for our sins.
Justice and fairness are not important concepts in Orthodox theology. The only time I can remember any of the Orthodox fathers or theologians commenting on justice wrt God, they talked about how God's treatment of us is NOT just, and that his unfairness, his injustice, is something in which we ought to greatly rejoice.

God requires us to treat each other justly, not because justice is the highest good, but because it is the bare minimum, it is the lowest acceptable standard. The real standard, as our Lord made clear, is not justice, but love.

In his mercy, because we are not able to meet God's standard, because we are so often not able to love as he loves, he gives us justice, so that we meet at least that standard. And by acting justly, we may be able to begin to learn to love.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
I don't disagree with any of that, Josephine. I should apologise for hijacking the thread [Hot and Hormonal] - sorry, luvanddaisies - but it's not entirely off-topic I hope.

What I think I'm trying to say is, what Aulen calls the Classical view (and in fact the New Testament) is strong on the language of dark powers* holding us captive, and that in some sense the powers actually have rights over us through our conscious participation in sin. God's solution to the problem isn't then to simply wave a magic wand and remove the powers, but rather to take them on and be able to break their power, both legitimately if you like because Christ is sinless so they have no rights over him anyway, and inevitably because Christ is God and subject to nothing.

It's not difficult to see how the Western line of thinking leading to Substitutionary Atonement can come from this but it looks to me that in order to get there, it's necessary to reassign the rights the dark powers have over humanity in the classical view, to the infringed rights (civil or penal) of God.

*Dark powers? Read that as mythologically, metaphorically or personally as you like.

I'm a beginner at theology.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
MT & Jospehine, be prepared for me & you both to maybe have FAQ in person. [Biased]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Picking up a few loose ends.

Kneeling should definitely not take place from Saturday 6pm to Sunday 6pm. On Anastasis (Resurrection Day) we stand. This even applies during Great Lent when Sundays are still Resurrection Days. I think that it is more proper to bow profoundly than to prostrate on Sunday where necessary although I know that views differ on this.

Concerning Kneeling Vespers on the Days of Pentecost Alt. Wally .... these, of course are the Vespers for Monday. Current practice often places them early on the Sunday afternoon or even straight after the Liturgy, (as with the Paschal Vespers of Love). It's not really correct though. It's a concession to weakness (the realism of folks not coming back for it) rather than justifiable liturgical principle here.

Dear Zeke

quote:
If there weren't other things in the Orthodox tradition on which I differ, I would probably be lining up for oil.
With further exploration you will discover the following ...

(1) These issues rarely if ever mean to us what they mean to non-Orthodox Christians.
(2) These issues are holistically part and parcel with those things you can accept.

For example ... the following sequence applies.

(1) We believe in the purity of Mary.
(2) We do not accept St. Augustine's take on original sin.
(3) Mary, therefore, does not have to be "immaculately conceived" ... original sin having nothing to do with generational transmission.
(4) Mary's purity is not ontological, (ie., she is a sinner like all humans save Christ). Her purity is a work of grace in her heart.
(5) Because she is both pure yet also ontologically a sinner, she really did die - without choice in the matter - , whilst yet, by virtue of her grace-full purity, ascending to the Kingdom of Her Son directly, (the Dormition / Assumption).
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Sorry for the double post .... I forgot to answer your questions GreyFace.

The Incarnation is an extrapolation from the whole dispensation of salvation .... not just the passion and resurrection although pre-eminently those. St. Irenaeus' doctrine of recapitulation .... the gathering together of all that is human in the upward sweep of salvation is what we are talking about here. What we resist is the idea of Christmas as only and simply "the birthday of the baby Jesus."

"Happy Birthday dear Jesus, Happy Birthday to you. Happy Birthday dear Jesus. Happy Birthday to you!" [Help]

I remember an Anglican priest friend of mine who sadly left the ministry altogether after the events of '92. He once told me that as a youngster he never could handle the religious significance of Christmas. Why should people make such a fuss over the birthday of baby Jesus. Wasn't his birthday just as important?

The real answer to your question about the Orthodox celebration of the Incarnation is that we celebrate this AT EASTER! [Eek!] [Confused] [Ultra confused]

The gospel appointed for Pascha morning is John 1:1-14!

quote:
What I think I'm trying to say is, what Aulen calls the Classical view (and in fact the New Testament) is strong on the language of dark powers* holding us captive, and that in some sense the powers actually have rights over us through our conscious participation in sin. God's solution to the problem isn't then to simply wave a magic wand and remove the powers, but rather to take them on and be able to break their power, both legitimately if you like because Christ is sinless so they have no rights over him anyway, and inevitably because Christ is God and subject to nothing.
OK so far!

quote:
It's not difficult to see how the Western line of thinking leading to Substitutionary Atonement can come from this but it looks to me that in order to get there, it's necessary to reassign the rights the dark powers have over humanity in the classical view, to the infringed rights (civil or penal) of God.
You're too charitable to Anselm here! The reassignment to which you refer is the whole problem. It makes of God an offended petty Despot who needs to punish either his serfs or their substituted Yoeman, (bearing in mind the hierarchical feudalism of the substitutionary matrix). Later, of course, Jesus throws a strop as well and his Mum comes along to put in a good word! [Projectile]

Thw whole problem with the post-Orthodox western view of atonement is that it is "rewards and punishments" based. This is far, far removed from the classical patristic and New Testament basis, (see Josephine's comment about justice being our initial response rather than God's Final Demand). ALL IS LOVE.

[ 07. June 2004, 18:48: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Alt Wally . (# 3245) on :
 
Fr. Gregory

quote:
It's a concession to weakness (the realism of folks not coming back for it) rather than justifiable liturgical principle here.
It's quite likely that may be the case. One problem we have though is that as a mission we're in a rented space and have to build and tear down the entire worship space for every service. There are times when we can't utilize the building and I think Sunday night might be one of them. This was a problem during Lent because it limited the number of services that could be held.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Alt. Wally

Quite so. It is necessary to work with what one has. The trouble is later when folks can get stuck in a pattern which is anomalous outside of its original context.

The only reason, for example, for the sermon being sometimes stuck at the end is the unhappy tendency of some Orthodox not to be in church early enough to hear it after the gospel. This, incidentally explains the tendency in some Orthodox churches for the offering to be taken later as well! [Help] [Eek!]

When I talk at the end it is always an address rather than a sermon. I always do the sermon after the gospel. That is its proper liturgical place.
 
Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally .:
TUC

quote:
(trying not to go off on a tangent on Substitutionary Atonement) can you please explain how the Orthodox view on this subject differs from non-Orthodox interpretations?
Not to answer for Fr. Gregory, but two articles cover this pretty well.

Heaven & Hell in the Afterlife, According to the Bible
The River of Fire

I will just warn you that the second article is heavy on the anti-western polemic.

luvanddaisies
Interesting articles. The thing I'm not clear about from them is what Orthodox consider the afterlife (or whatever term Orthodox would give it) to actually be like in terms of whether they see it as a new, perfect Heaven and Earth (as in the new heaven and earth or Revelation) in which people essentially still carry out some form of recognisable day to day life (although in a pefect sinless world) or whether they see it as something of being more generally (though that feels the wrong word) eternally existing in the presence of God.

The notion of people experiencing the presence of God as either blessing or pain would seem to suggest some version of the latter. However the whole concept of a new heaven and earth and of God restoring what was meant to be in the beginning suggests the former to me.

[ 07. June 2004, 19:36: Message edited by: The Undiscovered Country ]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear TUC

The answer? Yes.

I am not being unhelpful. There are necessary limits to speculation as mentioned already here.
 
Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The whole problem with the post-Orthodox western view of atonement is that it is "rewards and punishments" based. This is far, far removed from the classical patristic and New Testament basis, (see Josephine's comment about justice being our initial response rather than God's Final Demand). ALL IS LOVE.
This is largely the reason I "came home to Orthodoxy"...I came to learn of, meet, and experience this God - I came for the LOVE.

(I'm a convert of two years, escaping from a long line of legalistic [and evangelical] Protestant demoninations.) [Smile]
 
Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The only reason, for example, for the sermon being sometimes stuck at the end is the unhappy tendency of some Orthodox not to be in church early enough to hear it after the gospel. This, incidentally explains the tendency in some Orthodox churches for the offering to be taken later as well! [Help] [Eek!]
In our parish, if you haven't arrived in time for the reading of the Gospel, you are forbidden to approach the chalice. Even so, some still arrive later. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Bessie

Tell me about it! [Help] [Disappointed] [brick wall]
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Thanks, Fr. G, for the explication. I am a little puzzled, though, as to why you thought what was troubling me was Marian doctrine.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I didn't Zeke ... I merely offered it as an example of how for us ...

(1) Everything hangs together
(2) Our take on stuff is often different
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Okay. [Smile]
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
ok, starting to get a less murky picture - working on it!!!


Fr Gregory, I meant to ask earlier...

quote:
the Assumption / Dormition of our Lady, the perpetual virginity of our Lady
-where's the Scriptural basis for assumption, it's always puzzled me? Am I right in thinking it means Mary's seen as ascending, like Enoch, Eliajh or a bit like Jesus did? Is Dormition the same thing (dorm... does that relate to sleep or something?)

-how does the perpetual virginity thing work when Mary had other children & anyway, was married?

thanks again for the answers so far - you're doing a good job of educating me!
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
Hi, luvanddaisies,

I know you asked Fr. Gregory -- I hope you'll forgive me if I take a stab at answering these!

quote:
quote:
the Assumption / Dormition of our Lady, the perpetual virginity of our Lady
-where's the Scriptural basis for assumption, it's always puzzled me? Am I right in thinking it means Mary's seen as ascending, like Enoch, Eliajh or a bit like Jesus did? Is Dormition the same thing (dorm... does that relate to sleep or something?)
Yes, dormition means falling-asleep, as in "falling asleep in the Lord," as in dying. Assumption means being assumed, or taken up, into heaven -- not under her own power (as our Lord did when he ascended), but by the power of God. We believe that, when Mary died, her Son didn't allow her to stay dead, but raised her up and took her with him to heaven.

There's no scriptural basis for the dormition or assumption of Mary -- we're not sola scripturists; there are things we believe that were not recorded in the Bible but were handed down to us through other means. This is one of them.

quote:
-how does the perpetual virginity thing work when Mary had other children & anyway, was married?
We believe that Joseph was an elderly widower when he married Mary, and that her other children, such as James, the brother of our Lord, were her stepchildren, the children of Joseph and his first wife.

Some of our beliefs regarding Mary are recorded in The Protoevangelium of James, which, while not Holy Scripture, we view as an important source of information about Mary.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
oh, right - that's nice and clear & simple - thanx Josephine!!!

is that the same as what the Roman Catholic church believe about assumption/dormition then?

(does anyone want to flatten me yet, I feel I look like a kid playing that game of seeing how many times you can ask "why" before your parents loose their temper - not trying to do that, honest, even though it's starting to sound like it [Hot and Hormonal] I just want to know, that's all)
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Is that the same as what the Roman Catholic church believe about assumption/dormition then?
Pretty close. Some RC's believe Mary never died but was assumed while still alive, but that is not the official teaching of the RCC. The biggest difference from my point of view is that for us this is a matter of pious belief but non-binding; for the RCC (as I understand it; I am open to correction on this) it is a dogma, i.e. something that must be believed to be a good RC in good standing with the church.

I would think that either way it's a fairly inoffensive belief --- presumably Moses and Enoch and definitely Elijah were assumed into heaven.
 
Posted by Sir George Grey. (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:

(does anyone want to flatten me yet, I feel I look like a kid playing that game of seeing how many times you can ask "why" before your parents loose their temper - not trying to do that, honest, even though it's starting to sound like it [Hot and Hormonal] I just want to know, that's all)
(Thanks for asking all the questions on my behalf!)
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
apologies for yet another one...

ages ago in this thread Father Gregory posted
quote:
The overwhelming importance of Pascha (Easter) and belief in the resurrection in contradistinction to the western popular culture of Christmas, (barely registers culturally in Greece for example). This is reflected in the Orthodox understanding of salvation which has serious issues with the following western non-Orthodox interpretations:-
(a) Substitutionary Atonement
(b) The Filioque clause added to the Nicene Creed
(c) Forensic or Merit based understandings of divine human interaction.
(d) The cultus of the cross disjoined from the resurrection, (more an emphasis than an exclusion).
a) people have explained the Orthodox position on that - think I gettit, although it does continue to puzzle me somewhat.
b) I googled for "Filioque Clause" and it seems to be the Spirit proceeding from the Father & from the Son bit... why is this a problem? particularly in light of :
quote:

(John 15:26 RSV):
But when the Counsellor comes,
whom I shall send to you from the Father,
even the Spirit of truth,
who proceeds from the Father,
he will bear witness to me. :

(John 20:212f RSV):
Jesus said to them again, "Peace be unto you.
As the Father has sent me, even so send I you."
And when he had said this, he breathed on them
and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit."
c) [Help] don't think I've got what this bit's about. Is the forensic/merit based bit like Paul's passage in Romans 9 where he's showing that predestination's "not who but how" and illustrsting Israel as being by faith & not by either genetics or actions? or am I at the wrong tree and barking fruitlessly?!
d) what do you mean - looking at Jesus's death without looking at the Resurrection? Surely to look at the crucifixion alone's only half the story, the crucifixion's for the forgiveness of sin, the Resurrection's the breaking of death's hold & the giving of a new life, through Christ, of wich He is the first of many other children of God, co-heirs with Him (like in Romans 5-8) do anglicans often seperate them or something?
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
ok, am (again) double-posting, but I came across a descendant of the thread we're on now and wanted to ask about
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
1) The use of leavened bread in the Eucharist is an important issue.
2) The propriety of a married priesthood is an important issue.
[numbering mine in above quote]

1) I thought you could use any kind of bread. past Communions I've been to hae included sliced white bread, garlic foccacia, fruit & nut loaf, bread roll, french baguette, funny wafer things. Is that unusual?

2) Do the Orthodox church have married priests? Why don't RC priests marry?

thanx again for the patient & interesting answers so far - it's great to find stuff out from you all.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear [Axe murder] anddaisies

It is Orthodox to say that Jesus interceded with the Father that He (the Father) might SEND the Holy Spirit. Moreover it is Orthodox to assert that this agency of Christ extended to being the active route of the Spirit from the Father to the Church. However, the Johannine material does not allow us to go beyond this to suggest that the Father AND the Son are alternately or together the proceeding timeless Source of the Spirit. Only the Father is that. There have been huge long threads here before on the Filioque. I won't carry on into well worn territory!

The forensic bit of atonement is the legal discharge side of the substitutionary model. Orthodox insist that justification is organic and not merely legal in character. It refers to hunger and thirst for righteousness and the food and drink that God provides for this in Christ.

I omitted to mention in this list that we have a VERY different take on original sin as well. This has had huge threads and treatments here as well. Go here for more on that ...

Salvation in the Orthodox Church

These are all issues that hang together.

The separation of the cross and the resurrection to which I allude is present in SOME western traditions that only factor the cross into salvation. The resurrection then merely becomes a vindication of what the cross (or rather death of Christ) has achieved. In Orthodoxy, salvation does not exist without the resurrection. I don't think that you can say that with the same force in the west.

Finally ....

quote:
1) I thought you could use any kind of bread. past Communions I've been to have included sliced white bread, garlic foccacia, fruit & nut loaf, bread roll, french baguette, funny wafer things. Is that unusual?

2) Do the Orthodox church have married priests? Why don't RC priests marry?
Re 1: Yes it is unusual. Orthodox have varied historically between those who have rejected unleavened bread as a western innovation and those who have admitted it ... albeit reluctantly. In the west the synoptic gospel chronology of Last Supper = Pasover tends to be followed. In the east we tend to follow the Johannine chronology where this is not at all clear ... indeed it seems unsupportable, (see Joachim Jeremias: "The Eucharistic Words of Jesus.")

There is also the issue of the Eucharist not simply being a repetition of the Last Supper, (no women, no resurrection etc). Indeed the justification for the eastern practice of leavened bread is all down to the resurrection rather than the Passover ... it has to be "risen" .... which is also why we admix some hot water into the chalice .... living Blood.

Re (2): Yes, our parish priests are invariably married ... we do have a celibate clergy but by choice and vocation ... not mandate. Bishops have to be celibate or widowers though. It goes with the nature of the job.

You will have to ask a Roman Catholic witness why the Latin rite (for want of a better word) doesn't have a married clergy. I could not possibly explain it / justify it. [Biased]

[ 09. June 2004, 17:04: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
There is also the issue of the Eucharist not simply being a repetition of the Last Supper, (no women, no resurrection etc). Indeed the justification for the eastern practice of leavened bread is all down to the resurrection rather than the Passover ... it has to be "risen" .... which is also why we admix some hot water into the chalice .... living Blood.
Thank you, Father Gregory, I've learned something here...this is as good as catechumen classes!
 
Posted by Alt Wally . (# 3245) on :
 
luvanddaisies, all you ever wanted to know and more about Prosphora (the bread marked with a seal used in communion) is here.
 
Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Hi, luvanddaisies,

I know you asked Fr. Gregory -- I hope you'll forgive me if I take a stab at answering these!

quote:
quote:
the Assumption / Dormition of our Lady, the perpetual virginity of our Lady
-where's the Scriptural basis for assumption, it's always puzzled me? Am I right in thinking it means Mary's seen as ascending, like Enoch, Eliajh or a bit like Jesus did? Is Dormition the same thing (dorm... does that relate to sleep or something?)
Yes, dormition means falling-asleep, as in "falling asleep in the Lord," as in dying. Assumption means being assumed, or taken up, into heaven -- not under her own power (as our Lord did when he ascended), but by the power of God. We believe that, when Mary died, her Son didn't allow her to stay dead, but raised her up and took her with him to heaven.

There's no scriptural basis for the dormition or assumption of Mary -- we're not sola scripturists; there are things we believe that were not recorded in the Bible but were handed down to us through other means. This is one of them.

quote:
-how does the perpetual virginity thing work when Mary had other children & anyway, was married?
We believe that Joseph was an elderly widower when he married Mary, and that her other children, such as James, the brother of our Lord, were her stepchildren, the children of Joseph and his first wife.

Some of our beliefs regarding Mary are recorded in The Protoevangelium of James, which, while not Holy Scripture, we view as an important source of information about Mary.
I have to be honest and say that its issues such as this which cause me real puzzlement about Orthdoxy. The Orthodox Church is clearly one which cares deeply about maintaining what they consider to be correct theology and in trying to understand the original teaching of the church on key issues.

Yet on the issue of the perpetual virginity of Mary, they acknowledge that scripture does not prima facie support their position and so, having acquired the belief thorugh Tradition, then go back and reinterpret scripture through that lens to say something which, as far I can see, it doesn't say.

I'm not trying to get diverted into a sola scriptura argument. That isn't really the issue. Its more that such an approach seems inconsistent with Orthodoxy's overall concern for establshing original church theology on issues.

This isn't an attempt to have a go at Orthodoxy. Its genuine puzzlement at what seems to me to be an inconsistent position.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
To explain that TUC it would ony require an explanation as to why John Calvin subscribed to the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos as well. I am sure that he was well aware of its provenance as an extra-biblical tradition.

Yet another example of how the "Reformed" is not necessarily the same as the "Reformers."

For further study on this ...

The Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God
 
Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on :
 
I had a look at the article. To be honest, I'm a little disturbed the way it talks about 'the heretics and simple blasphemers (who) refuse to acknowledge the Ever-virginity of the Mother of God' and 'the seedless birth of Christ can and could be denied only by those who deny the Gospel'. Is that really how Orthodoxy views those of us who, in genuinely seeking to honour God have reached a different conclusion?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
No. That web site is populated by people of extreme views ... but not typical of Orthodoxy. I should have got a health warning in first. Sorry!" Most of us Orthodox are warm and cuddly. [Axe murder]
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
original sin

thanks for the link again Fr Gregory... guess what, I've got more questions for you [Roll Eyes] ! - bet that's a HUGE surprise for all & sundry then [Biased] !

I'll start this query off by outlining my belief (and probably that of most Christians in my fleshie social circle) about the events in the Garden of Eden & its impact.
I have a horrible feeling this post could end up being a bit lo-o-0-0-O-O-0-0-o-ong though. Sorry [Hot and Hormonal]








another camera-angle of the sad events in Eden is in Romans 5 (I'm not trying to teach my granny to suck eggs here, honest, I just want to make it utterly clear what I'm asking & where I'm coming from & I thought this was the easiest way to illustrate it).






my main question is probably best phrased as which bits of the above (bit babbled & wibbly due to nice migrane that's only beginning to lift! [Frown] )glance over original sin aren't ones you would also subscribe to?


quote:
Adam and Eve, in their mortality are now subject to the corruption of death. Corruption here does not merely mean physical decay, it describes the fallout from the Fall as death spawns yet new evils. As St. Paul taught in the context of the resurrection as the remedy for sin and death, ("O death where is thy sting …?"), "the sting of death is sin." [1 Corinthians 15:55-56]
by that, is the same thing meant as Paul's statement in Romans 1:24-32, that God's given people over to sin because that is their inclination anyway?

quote:
" … the commingling of the sexes which, after the sin of our first parent, cannot take place without lust, transmits original sin to the offspring." [Aquinas: Comp. Theol., 224]
is he saying that sex, even within marriage is inherantly sinful? How's that possible. given that sex (used properly) is a gift from God? Are there really protestant churches that have that view?!

quote:
the Mother of God the New Eve.
how so? she's not sinless. only Jesus can be that, otherwise God could just have sent Mary to be crucified and she could have been the 'once for all' perfect, unblemished sacrifice. ANyway, we know that "noone is righteous, not even one" and "all have sinned"-rom 3:23 again. Also, she's not Jesus's spouse, as Eve was Adam's spouse. Don't get the 'new Eve' thing. Could you clarify that please? Do the RC church believe that too?


btw, can you tell I really like the letter to the Romans! [Smile]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear [Axe murder] and daisies

God, through the Word (Jesus), and with the power of the Spirit, creates the world, in 7 days, the 7th of which He rested on. At that point, everything was "very good"

FrG: OK ... but recognise that many Christians (Orthodox included) do not take Genesis as straight history with a 6 day creation period.

The people in Eden were Adam & Eve (or, as she's called in Hebrew, Havah [life])

FrG: OK

Satan appealed to Eve's pride through distortions of what God had told them about the Tree-of-Life, turning it into lies. Partucularly of note is satan's telling her in Genesis 3:5b that she'd "be like God, knowing good & evil"

FrG: OK

Eve gave in to pride & committed the first sin, in which she set herself up as God & in charge instead of doing as God had told her and leaving God in charge.

FrG: But the apparent simplicity of "do this, don't do that" summarises something about us being as God intended ... a "work in progress" rather than simply not infringing rules.

Eve gave some to Adam, who seems to have thought that was a good idea, and so set himself up as being above God too.

FrG OK but a bit simplistic as to Adam's motivation.

God speaks to them about it - angry, but still amazingly gracious in His promise of Jesus for their salvation in Gen 3:15. His punishment for sin (which means, as all sin ultimately is, setting oneself up above God) is death, Gen 3:19.

FrG I am not saying you can't read "anger" out of the text or that "punishment" is ruled out but it was a blessing in a sense that death intervened. If it had not then our falleness would have become entrenched for all eternity. This is how the fathers interpreted the angel guarding Eden with the flaming sword. If we had returned and eaten from the Tree of Life then it would have been truly disastrous.

creation itself also has to experience death - shown by God even as He again acts with Fatherly care towards His sinful people and clothes them in animal skin in Gen3:21

FrG OK

another camera-angle of the sad events in Eden is in Romans 5 (I'm not trying to teach my granny to suck eggs here, honest, I just want to make it utterly clear what I'm asking & where I'm coming from & I thought this was the easiest way to illustrate it).


sin entered the world through one individual


sin before the Torah wasn't counted as such, but "death still ruled from Adam until Moses, even for those whose sinning wasn't like Adam's violation of a direct command" Rom 5:14. In his first-ness, Adam prefigured the One who was to come, a new humanity for a new creation

FrG OK


"But the free gift is not like the offence. For if, because of one man's offence, many died, then how much more has God's grace, that is, the gracious gift of one Man, Yeshua the Messiah, overflowed to many!" Rom 5:15. Paul goes on to say that although one sin brought death to all, One Redemption was a free gift coming after many offences and brought acquittal - not just being made not guilty (the death) but being made righteous & made Jesus's siblings (the Resurrection).

FrG OK ... but be careful with that word "acquittal." There's more to salvation than being "let off the hook" as you indeed say yourself in relation to righteousness / resurrection. We see that as salvation as well ... not simply response to salvation.


we know that everyone has sinned, except for Jesus "since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom 3:23 & that "The wages of sin is death" - for anyone, whatever their situation as "all who have sinned outside the framework of Torah will die outside the framework of Torah; and all who have sinned within the framework of Torah will be judged by Torah" Rom 2:12

FrG OK


people are judged for their own sin (Ezekiel 33:10-20), although they all come from long unbroken families of sinners, and until they come to trust Jesus, are enslaved by their sinful natures " By God's grace, you, who once were slaves to sin, obeyed from your heart the pattern of teaching to which you were exposed; and after you had been set free from sin, you became enslaved to righteousness" Rom 6:17-18

FrG OK (of course I wouldn't disagree with quopted Scripture! It's how we put it together though).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam and Eve, in their mortality are now subject to the corruption of death. Corruption here does not merely mean physical decay, it describes the fallout from the Fall as death spawns yet new evils. As St. Paul taught in the context of the resurrection as the remedy for sin and death, ("O death where is thy sting …?"), "the sting of death is sin." [1 Corinthians 15:55-56]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by that, is the same thing meant as Paul's statement in Romans 1:24-32, that God's given people over to sin because that is their inclination anyway?

FrG: Yes, but, additionaly death itself exacerbates sin (vicious circle). This is notwithstanding the fact that there is a mercy in death as well as a curse, (ante).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" … the commingling of the sexes which, after the sin of our first parent, cannot take place without lust, transmits original sin to the offspring." [Aquinas: Comp. Theol., 224]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is he saying that sex, even within marriage is inherantly sinful? How's that possible. given that sex (used properly) is a gift from God? Are there really protestant churches that have that view?!

FrG: I doubt it ... but it does represent an issue western Christianity as a whole has with sex.... at least until fairly recently.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Mother of God the New Eve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

how so? she's not sinless. only Jesus can be that, otherwise God could just have sent Mary to be crucified and she could have been the 'once for all' perfect, unblemished sacrifice. ANyway, we know that "noone is righteous, not even one" and "all have sinned"-rom 3:23 again. Also, she's not Jesus's spouse, as Eve was Adam's spouse. Don't get the 'new Eve' thing. Could you clarify that please? Do the RC church believe that too?

FrG: "New Eve" does not mean "sinless" anymore than "New Adam" means "sinless" although in Christ's case it does and He was. St. Irenaeus of Lyons started using "New Eve" for Mary because he simply wanted to contrast Eve's disobedience with Mary's obedience at the Annunciation. Historically the Church has interpreted Genesis 3:15 as referring to Mary in this context. We have the same belief as Rome in this regard.

I hope this clarifies.

[ 09. June 2004, 19:05: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Alt Wally . (# 3245) on :
 
TUC, just to back up what Fr. Gregory said, I don’t think that site represents general Orthodox opinion at all and unfortunately often uses very inflammatory language directed at non-Orthodox and Orthodox alike. They have however compiled a pretty good site which has a number of useful articles so it’s easy to use it as a reference.

Regarding the perpetual virginity, I think it actually really passed the consensus of patristic opinion nearly universally and there are a number of quotes about it that can be attributed to fathers such as Athanasius, Jerome, Ambrose of Milan and Cyril of Alexandria. The doctrine itself was formally declared by the fifth ecumenical council and so should be upheld by any church that declares itself to be aligned in belief with the councils. There’s a good article here as well.
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally .:
TUC, just to back up what Fr. Gregory said, I don’t think that site represents general Orthodox opinion at all and unfortunately often uses very inflammatory language directed at non-Orthodox and Orthodox alike. They have however compiled a pretty good site which has a number of useful articles so it’s easy to use it as a reference.

Regarding the perpetual virginity, I think it actually really passed the consensus of patristic opinion nearly universally and there are a number of quotes about it that can be attributed to fathers such as Athanasius, Jerome, Ambrose of Milan and Cyril of Alexandria. The doctrine itself was formally declared by the fifth ecumenical council and so should be upheld by any church that declares itself to be aligned in belief with the councils. There’s a good article here as well.
The article to which you linked is the source of the quotes of 'the heretics and simple blasphemers (who) refuse to acknowledge the Ever-virginity of the Mother of God' and 'the seedless birth of Christ can and could be denied only by those who deny the Gospel' in the article from the OrthodoxInfo website.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Yes, we know that. That's why I responded as I did.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Is the forensic/merit based bit like Paul's passage in Romans 9 where he's showing that predestination's "not who but how" and illustrsting Israel as being by faith & not by either genetics or actions?
I don't think you got an answer to this one. Disclaimer: I'm not a member of OrthodoxPlot™ Ltd but I'm not a million miles from their camp in my atonementological position (thanks for the new word, Mousethief).

Anselm's theory of the Atonement (12th century) is based on the analogy of the system of honour/satisfaction in the Middle Ages, whereby an insult or trangression against a lord would have to be paid for, or satisfaction given. An atoning action could be sufficiently valued as to cover the transgressions of other people.

So, the theory goes, Christ's death on the cross is viewed as having abundant merit, under this system to not only achieve satisfaction for his own transgressions had there been any (obviously not!) but for all the other sins of the world. That covers the "merit" part, I hope.

As for the "forensic" - I think Fr G is referring to a modification of Anselm's satisfaction theory to apply the principles to a legal system of punishment rather than satisfaction, thus, penal substitionary atonement.

The OrthodoxPosition™ is that these atonement theories are incorrect, for various reasons that a proper theologian can go into, shortly after ripping this post to shreds, I expect.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Actually, "forensic justification" isn't just a variation on Anselm (although Anselm and subsequent scholasticism does inform quite a lot of Reformation method). Luther et al aren't just modifying Anselm, they're actually responding directly to the "courtroom language" of Scripture, most notably the Psalms.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
"court room language of Scripture."

Perhaps "court room language of SOME of the Scriptures."

Having said that we are talking of course from completely different juridical / social / cultural contexts.

The key question is:- "Is this the governing principle of sacrifice / redemption in the Scriptures?"

[ 10. June 2004, 12:34: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:

Having said that we are talking of course from completely different juridical / social / cultural contexts.
All scriptural language is subject to this.

Including the terms "sacrifice" and "redemption".

[Razz]

And by the way, the judicial theme in the Psalms - the lex orandi of the people of Israel - is as strong as the themes of Exodus, Torah and Wisdom. It cannot be dismissed as some mere western protestant aberration.

[ 10. June 2004, 12:53: Message edited by: dyfrig ]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I am not dismissing it and notwithstanding the different contexts of most if not all biblical ideas I still assert that the law court inadequately describes the resurrection. That's why it cannot be the governing principle of sacrifice. I do not for one minute deny the significance of the law court as a subordinate model. The reason? Love, not law.
 
Posted by IanB (# 38) on :
 
Indeed, Dyfrig. Can we even understand the concept of a messiah in a non-juridical context? (Though the big surprise was that God's judgement turned out to be on sin and death itself, and not the wicked Romans).

Ian
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IanB:
Indeed, Dyfrig. Can we even understand the concept of a messiah in a non-juridical context? (Though the big surprise was that God's judgement turned out to be on sin and death itself, and not the wicked Romans).
Or the wicked humans.
 
Posted by IanB (# 38) on :
 
Agreed, Mousethief - I was just trying to think it through from a 1st-century Jewish angle.

Normal service will resume as soon as possible...

Ian
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Love, not law.
Most assuredly. But embedded deep in the Tradition kept by the Church in her Scriptures is the notion that God's love is demonstrating his justice. "We believe he shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead." God's salvation includes a concept expressed beautifully by a good old Anglo-Saxon word - no, not that Anglo-Saxon word! - rightwising.

Subordinate model most definitely, but on the ballkpark and deserving of a little more credit. As you know by now, I ain't no PSA-ist, but to act as if this category is not there is just plain silly.

Is "sacrifice" more adequate as a category in terms of the resurrection? Is anything - or anyone - adequate in the face fo resurrection?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Dyfrig

Yes, love demonstrates the justice, not justice the love.

I have not acted or spoken as if the "category" is "not there." I have said it cannot be the controlling centre.

I don't understand the last sentence.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
thanks - so, Fr Gregory, we pretty much agree on most of the original sin stuff - cool [Big Grin] [Cool]

shifting tack slightly...
sorry to those of you who're Orthodox, are you beginning to feel like I'm trying to peer, poke and prod everything you do yet? .. sorry [Hot and Hormonal] but it's been really interesting to get from people how a totally unknown church works/believes, etc

?what do you do in your services?
==========================











*my flatmate's deep, spiritual reverie after the cup had been passed to her was once broken by her baptist friend who'd come along to All Souls with her digging her in the ribs and hissing "great wine, eh?" - they used cordial or Ribena in her church, so the wine made rather an impression, evidently!
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear [Axe murder] anddaisies

does the OC have an equivilent to the anglican BCP?

FrG: Yes but there are many collections / versions. Ours (Patriarchate of Antioch) contains all the regular services of ordinary Sundays and weekdays with the pastoral offices, (funerals, etc). Others contain a smaller range but more feast day and variable material.

what do you do about the sacraments?
>Baptism - kids &/or adults?

FrG: We practice baptism at any age.

dunking or sprinkle?

FrG: Dunking. (The Serbs ... only ... pour rather than dunk).

>Communion - ordained or lay?

FrG: Priest or bishop only may serve. Deacon assists.

every service or some?

FrG: Not all Orthodox will receive at every Liturgy. Everyone should be properly prepared by fasting and prayer. Some may choose not to receive (temporarily) because of unresolved issues).

I've got the leavened/risen bread thing (nice touch! ) and I've got the adding hot water to the wine thing, for living blood (must be a surprise to those taking Communion in the OC for the first time* if they're not expecting it !). Can non-OC-members take Communion at an OC service?

FrG: No because partaking of communion for us is an organic unity thing.

>Marriage - what's the bare bones of a 'typical' OC ceremony?

FrG:
Part 1: Betrothal ... psalms, prayers, exchange of rings
Part 2: Crowning, procession, common cup

Funerals - as above!

FrG:
Psalms, readings, prayers, final kiss, usually in context of prayers at home, reception into Church and then afterwards burial (always ... we do not practice cremation).

do you use much music? would you agree with the bishop quoted here . How do Tavener's compositions, heavily influenced by his Orthodox beliefs, tie in with that sentiment, if at all?

FrG: All singing is 'a cappella." There is a HUGE amount of music but all the singing is unaccompanied to emphasise the word and the human voice. Orthodox influenced non-liturgical music also exists of course but it wouldn't be used in services.

What makes an icon an icon & not a picture, a scupture or a visual aid?

FrG: There are canons or rules of compodsition that make the icon a conveyor of spiritual realities / theological references. The icon writer (we see it as a "word") must also fast and pray during composition. It takes a long time to learn the skill for an existing talented artist.

how would a typical service run in any (or all?!) of your churches, those of you who're of the Orthodox brand here?

FrG: Could you please be a little more specific? We have a truly enormous variety of services!
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
My apologies for the obfuscationalist qualities of the final grammatical construction of my now penultimate utternace on this thread, Father G. [Biased]

You had stated, quite rightly, that the "legal" model (and note well all you PSA-ists., it is a civil model demanding righting of social relationships, not a criminal model demanding the punishing of the offender) was inadequate as an approach to the Resurrection.

My incomprehensibility was aimed at querying whether the categories of "sacrifice" and "redemption" or anything else or, indeed, anyone of us's ability to say anything, are not equally inadequate in the face of the resurrection,

I say this with particular reference to "sacrifice" as it is not entirely clear what the OT writers and the liturgy of Israel think sacrifice does. Yes, Leviticus 1-7 gives details of the how, but it is unclear as to what change this transaction brings upon the world.

There is one notion of the blood of the sacrifice acting as some sort of detergent in the holy place (though whether to keep the people or God clean is equally unclear). On the other hand maybe God was somehow appeased by the smell of burning meat.

As we don't really know what sacrifice really did or meant, it is as inadequate as the law court model.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Dyfrig

I understand. Thanks. I think that every model, image, metaphor, figuration, symbol, cypher, word thingy-ma-jig-whats-it is inadequate when it comes to representing the death and resurrection of Christ. This is why the Church has never dogmatised about it. The gospel's appeal is on two very basic and straightforward "gut" perceptions ...

(1) The God-Man loves me and everyone so much that he died for me and for all.
(2) Everyone, me included, can have an indwelling life that conquers death.

The rest is necessary but incomplete and sometimes ill-fitted fine tuning.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
once again, a really clear & helpful answer!
[Overused] Fr Gregory!

could you clarify for me...

quote:
Everyone should be properly prepared by fasting and prayer. Some may choose not to receive (temporarily) because of unresolved issues).
what constitutes proper preperation? what kind of fasting etc. How is this said to the congregation (are they reminded before the actualy serviing/liturgy begins what they are expected to have done to prepare themselves for receiving COmmunion? etc..)

quote:
FrG:
Psalms, readings, prayers, final kiss, usually in context of prayers at home, reception into Church and then afterwards burial (always ... we do not practice cremation).
What do you mean by ""final kiss"? - surely not bestowing kiss upon the corpse?! [Eek!]
Why not cremation? Is that for theological or traditional reasons?


Is your music based on patterns / modes like Gregorian Chant? Is it a priest/congregation call & response? Do you have choirs lead or sing choral items, or is it always corporate? WHere can I find links to OC music, notated?

I suppose by asking about services, I was thinking of an ordinary sunday service - the usual week-by-week formula for no particular or specific occasion...
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
What do you mean by ""final kiss"? - surely not bestowing kiss upon the corpse?! [Eek!]
On the contrary. We do kiss the corpse (on the hand or forehead). It is, after all, the body of our loved one. Kinda freaky cold though.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
I suppose by asking about services, I was thinking of an ordinary sunday service - the usual week-by-week formula for no particular or specific occasion...
The usual Sunday service is the divine liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. You can find links to the text here: click me.

Sometimes in a parish this will be preceded with the service of Matins or Morning Prayer; but in many traditions, Sunday Matins is done the evening before along with the Vespers of Saturday Evening, in which case the combined service is called an "all-night vigil" although the "all-night" is a bit of an exaggeration.

The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom alternates between sung choral pieces (in many greek churches these are chanted by a cantor, but in the Russian tradition they are sung by the choir (and the congregation, although this varies and (sadly) I have been shushed for singing along with the choir at an Orthodox church before!)), and litanies which are led by the deacon if there is one, or the priest if there's no deacon. Even if there is a deacon the closing prayer of each litany is done by the priest.

The litanies have the response (sung by the choir and/or choir plus congregation) "Lord have mercy" and/or "Grant it, O Lord."

Being in the choir, the service goes by very fast. You're either paying attention to what you're singing presently, or looking forward to what comes next. In our parish, we have a variety of musical pieces to choose from for each sung bit of the service, and our choir director (who is also our Matushka, i.e. priest's wife) decides as the service progresses which variation to use for each bit of the service. So for example if there is a small choir or we're really out of tune on a particular morning, she will likely use the Byzantine variants, which are a simple melody over a one- or two-note drone (sung by the men and called an "ison"); if we're in good voice, she'll choose the more difficult pieces. And if we're very very good she'll let us sing the Trisagion Prayers according to the music written by Tchaikovsky, which is our favourite. [Big Grin] If there are a lot of altos on a given morning, we'll sing the Angelic Hymn using the music of the Georgian Wedding Hymn, in which the melody is carried by the altos, and which is feverishly pretty.

Of course the focal point of the Liturgy is the prayers of consecration said by the priest alone (NOT the deacon) -- much the same as in a RC or Anglican service, although of course the wording is going to be different.

That's all i can think of right now. Good questions!

[ 11. June 2004, 14:46: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear [Axe murder] anddaisies

As Mousethief says ... yes, we do kiss our reposed love ones at the end of the funeral rite. I was moved by how Nancy Reagan instinctively reached out to touch her husband's coffin. The instinct was right ... too bad the lid was screwed down. The kiss is a final physical gesture of love ... final in the obvious sense but indicating that love truly is stronger than death. Indeed Love raises the dead!

Just to fill in on what MT has not answered ...

quote:
what constitutes proper preperation? what kind of fasting etc. How is this said to the congregation (are they reminded before the actualy serviing/liturgy begins what they are expected to have done to prepare themselves for receiving Communion? etc..)
We fast for 12 hours beforehand ... practically this means midnight. Fasting is modified or suspended for the infirm, the elderly or preganat / nursing women. A person's spiritual father or mother is the guide on this. We do not legalistically follow "the book." If you're Orthodox this is simply something you know.

quote:
Is your music based on patterns / modes like Gregorian Chant?
Yes. There are 8 tones. There is also a Gregorian setting to the Liturgy which some use. We tend to use Byzantine Chant for the Liturgy, Obikhod Russian for Vespers and Matins. Occasionally we might get a bit ambitious and try Kievan or Znammeny chants ... rarely Arabic though ... it doesn't fit too well in the west unless the congregation is predominantly Arab by extraction.

We don't cremate because of honouring the body ... we refrain from actively destroying it ... see "The Final Kiss." Orthodox have a very high valuation of the material realm.

[ 11. June 2004, 14:55: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Some of the most moving times I have ever experienced have been at Orthodox funerals. Especially poignant was the one for "Scotty", an elderly gentleman and husband to the oldest baba in our church (he was not "cradle" Orthodox; she was). A dearly beloved man by all the congo.

He was buried in a very simple wooden casket which our deacon had made. After the Last Kiss, the lid was nailed on by the subdeacon, while the widow wailed. It was very moving. I'm getting a little misty just typing about it.

At the graveside it is traditional (at least in our parish) for each visitor to toss onto the casket (which has been lowered into the grave) a flower and a handful of dirt. I don't know if this is traditional or not, but at Scotty's graveside all the men in his family wore dark glasses (they don't normally do so).

Being in the choir, I get to go to all the weddings and funerals. (I realized that sounds wrong -- everybody who wants to "gets" to go -- but I am needed for singing, being the only full-time tenor in the choir at the moment.)

[ 11. June 2004, 15:07: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Thank you Mousethief. [Angel] At this point some readers might want to check out the thread on feelings.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
What do you mean by ""final kiss"? - surely not bestowing kiss upon the corpse?! [Eek!]
On the contrary. We do kiss the corpse (on the hand or forehead). It is, after all, the body of our loved one. Kinda freaky cold though.
being an alien practise to me, I find that a bit creepy to think about! I find myself a bit weirded out by people processing past a coffin (as in Regan's recent 'lying in state') since the pseron's dead - it's just a corpse, inert flesh & bones. The person doesn't know they're having posthumous visitors! I believe some RCs have the body in their house for a period... would that be something some OC people might do?

Some (very high [and/or fairly odd!]) anglican churches, and, I believe, RC churches pray for the dead. Do the OC do that? If so, why? [any RC shipmates, would be interested to know why from an RC perspective too!] Does that mean that the OC believes in purgatory (not this board btw [Roll Eyes] ). If the OC doesn't want to damage the body, does that preclude OC members from organ donation? I thought not from this link (scroll down the alphabetical list to 'Greek Orthadox') What makes this different to cremation?

Does the OC have "confession" like the RC church do? Do they therefore have a similar ceremony to "the last rites"?
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
bottom, double-posting again.
Does this make me the rudest person on the ship [Frown] [Hot and Hormonal]

I just wanted to say to Mousethief...
quote:
The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom alternates between sung choral pieces (in many greek churches these are chanted by a cantor, but in the Russian tradition they are sung by the choir (and the congregation, although this varies and (sadly) I have been shushed for singing along with the choir at an Orthodox church before!)), and litanies which are led by the deacon if there is one, or the priest if there's no deacon. Even if there is a deacon the closing prayer of each litany is done by the priest.

The litanies have the response (sung by the choir and/or choir plus congregation) "Lord have mercy" and/or "Grant it, O Lord."

Being in the choir, the service goes by very fast. You're either paying attention to what you're singing presently, or looking forward to what comes next. In our parish, we have a variety of musical pieces to choose from for each sung bit of the service, and our choir director (who is also our Matushka, i.e. priest's wife) decides as the service progresses which variation to use for each bit of the service. So for example if there is a small choir or we're really out of tune on a particular morning, she will likely use the Byzantine variants, which are a simple melody over a one- or two-note drone (sung by the men and called an "ison"); if we're in good voice, she'll choose the more difficult pieces. And if we're very very good she'll let us sing the Trisagion Prayers according to the music written by Tchaikovsky, which is our favourite. If there are a lot of altos on a given morning, we'll sing the Angelic Hymn using the music of the Georgian Wedding Hymn, in which the melody is carried by the altos, and which is feverishly pretty.
this has me salivating a bit - do you know of any really good recordings of any or all of these and others?
Would Tavener's music be a good guideline for the general Orthodox sound & vibe?
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Would Tavener's music be a good guideline for the general Orthodox sound & vibe?
No. He's a little more -um- experimental than most of our liturgical music.

Our church choir has a CD from which I've been meaning to post teasers on my website -- I should get busy and do that.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear [Axe murder] anddaisies

quote:
being an alien practise to me, I find that a bit creepy to think about! I find myself a bit weirded out by people processing past a coffin (as in Regan's recent 'lying in state') since the person's dead - it's just a corpse, inert flesh & bones. The person doesn't know they're having posthumous visitors! I believe some RCs have the body in their house for a period... would that be something some OC people might do?
Yes, indeed we do that as well.

"It's just a corpse, inert flesh and bones."

This depends on how you evaluate the material realm. Even the corruptible body for us has a dignity. This was the body that God fashioned through genetics in the womb. It is his handiwork through natural processes. It is a holy thing as all created things are holy things. Of course, death has wrought its curse over humankind but we stare death in the face confident in the power of the Risen Christ and say "these bones shall live!" (Ezekiel). By this we do NOT mean that at the resurrection the dissolved body will reconstitute. We do, however, honour this earthly vehicle as the paschal template of something better. We do not go down the route of saying: "this is only an empty shell."

quote:

Some (very high [and/or fairly odd!]) anglican churches, and, I believe, RC churches pray for the dead. Do the OC do that? If so, why? [any RC shipmates, would be interested to know why from an RC perspective too!] Does that mean that the OC believes in purgatory (not this board btw).
We do pray for the dead and although Orthodox do believe in an intermediate state before the general resurrection; we do not hold to the "Latin" doctrine of purgatory. We indicate our love for the reposed by praying for them and seeking their prayers for us. Prayer is the language of love. Death does not destroy that link. How can it if Christ is risen and his friends live in him?

quote:
If the OC doesn't want to damage the body, does that preclude OC members from organ donation? I thought not from this link (scroll down the alphabetical list to 'Greek Orthodox') What makes this different to cremation?
We allow organ donation because this is the gift of the donor for another life. Cremation is active destruction. Posthumous organ donation does not register as that.

quote:
Does the OC have "confession" like the RC church do? Do they therefore have a similar ceremony to "the last rites"?
Yes and Yes.

[ 11. June 2004, 15:39: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
oo - your church choir's cd... where could I get hold of it?.. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
I find myself a bit weirded out by people processing past a coffin (as in Regan's recent 'lying in state') since the pseron's dead - it's just a corpse, inert flesh & bones. The person doesn't know they're having posthumous visitors! I believe some RCs have the body in their house for a period... would that be something some OC people might do?
To answer your last question first, usually the lying in state is done in the church, the night before the funeral. People will sit with the body and read from the Psalter through the night. It may be different in the old country(ies), but I don't know about that.

To us the corpse isn't just flesh and bones because it is the body of our loved one. And although their spirit has gone on, and they will get a new body at the resurrection, this is still the body that was them for all those years.

We are not merely a ghost in a machine -- the body is not merely a recepticle for the soul. We are a unit, a unity. This is why death is so wrong: it divides what should not be divided. I am not at all sure how to put it in to words. It's not just a body. It is the physical remains of N., whom we dearly loved. And inasmuch as N. has been made holy by God over the course of their life, then that body has also been made holy (being part and parcel of who N. was), and even after the spirit departs it is a holy thing and should be treated with reverence.

I fear I've made it more opaque by my clumsy words.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear [Axe murder] anddaisies
If you are interested in Orthodox Music may I suggest you contact the distribution Company of which I am Secretary ... 01782 576933 (International +44 1782 576933). Here is the web site. There is an online catalogue (but not ordering facility as yet). Contact Nicholas or Nina Chapman by phone and quote me!

Orthodox Christian Books Ltd.

We import from America as well. Mousethief ... it might be worth you contacting us as well.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
luvanddaisies,

Just a quick response -- I've got to run to take littlest one to school and get to work -- but about the body of someone who has died ...

I had always thought I'd find kissing the corpse to be icky. But when an elderly friend of mine died, and I went to her funeral, her nieces spent some time before the service fussing over her body, adjusting her hair, making sure her clothes were arranged just right. They were able to do those last gentle, personal acts of love for her, and kiss her goodbye. It was beautiful.

When my mother died, I gave her a quick kiss goodbye as the mortuary workers took her body from the house. But then she was cremated. I felt cheated that she wasn't there, at her funeral, for me to fuss over. I needed her to be there.
 
Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Our church choir has a CD from which I've been meaning to post teasers on my website -- I should get busy and do that.
I would be interested in this, too. Is it true that the music in the Russian churches is more melodic than that in our Antiochian ones? I was intrigued when you mentioned using the music of Tchaikovsky for the Trisagion Prayers. I don't believe my church uses any Western music.

In our church, we all merrily sing with everythingthe choir sings. To me, the entire Divine Liturgy is one long glorious musical piece. It's amazing that in two years I have memorized an hour and a half of a religious musical. (luvanddaises, we don't have sing-along song sheets or overheads...)
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
oo - your church choir's cd... where could I get hold of it?.. [Big Grin]
Send me your address and $20 and I'll pop it in the mail to you.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bessie rosebride:
Is it true that the music in the Russian churches is more melodic than that in our Antiochian ones?
In my experience, yes.

quote:
I was intrigued when you mentioned using the music of Tchaikovsky for the Trisagion Prayers. I don't believe my church uses any Western music.
Western? Tchaikovsky? IS OUTRAGE! [Big Grin]

quote:
In our church, we all merrily sing with everythingthe choir sings.
That's exactly as it should be!
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
cross-posting, double-posting, oh it's all going pear-shaped here in kirsten-land today [Razz] [Ultra confused] [Yipee] [Roll Eyes]

Fr Gregory - that answers my questions (yet again). Are you a font of all knowledge? you certainly seem to be!!!

quote:
although Orthodox do believe in an intermediate state before the general resurrection; we do not hold to the "Latin" doctrine of purgatory
what is the nature of the intermediate state?
is it a mystery like our own resurrection?
what parts of the afterlife mystery aren't a mystery (hmm, can't find a better way of saying that!) - how would you summarise the OC's beliefs about what's next?

quote:
paschal template
baba
I think I know what both of these mean... could you define them briefly so I know I do!

quote:

-------------------------------------------------
Does the OC have "confession" like the RC church do? Do they therefore have a similar ceremony to "the last rites"?
-------------------------------------------------

Yes and Yes.
what happens at these? are they mandatory?

how does the OC see suicide? is is an unforgivable thing, as it is seen by the RCs, or is it just a sad tragedy with no particular bearing on salvation in and of itself, as in the anglican & all other protestant churches?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Bessie

The Antiochian churches vary a lot between those using more classical Arabic chants (Byzantine derivative) and those (like us) who have adopted more western styles both Greek and Russian.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Baba is short for "babushka" which means -- i'm not sure what it means. But in practical terms it means "little old lady" and is an affectionate term for the matriarchs of any church. (In greek churches they are called yayas.)
 
Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I was intrigued when you mentioned using the music of Tchaikovsky for the Trisagion Prayers. I don't believe my church uses any Western music.
Western? Tchaikovsky? IS OUTRAGE! [Big Grin]

[Roll Eyes] My bad! [Biased]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear [Axe murder] anddaisies

quote:
what is the nature of the intermediate state?
is it a mystery like our own resurrection?
what parts of the afterlife mystery aren't a mystery (hmm, can't find a better way of saying that!) - how would you summarise the OC's beliefs about what's next?
We don't know.
Yes.
What's next is like comparing cardboard with haute cuisine. No more data available ... please call later ... beep, beep [Smile]

Paschal Template

This body informs what our resurrection body will be like. So, the materialising / dematerialising body of the Risen Christ had wounds. He was (and is) RECOGNISABLY the same person as the Crucified One.

quote:
what happens at these? are they mandatory?
Orthodox (usually) want to confess. Compulsion doesn't come into it.

quote:
how does the OC see suicide? is is an unforgivable thing, as it is seen by the RCs, or is it just a sad tragedy with no particular bearing on salvation in and of itself, as in the anglican & all other protestant churches?
Concerning suicide there are differing views as will be plain from here ...

Orthodox Church and Suicide

[ 11. June 2004, 16:16: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Some (very high [and/or fairly odd!]) anglican churches, and, I believe, RC churches pray for the dead.
I think you'll find you're a bit out on Anglican practice there. The (probably vast) majority of Anglican churches pray for the dead.
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Baba is short for "babushka" which means -- i'm not sure what it means. But in practical terms it means "little old lady" and is an affectionate term for the matriarchs of any church. (In greek churches they are called yayas.)
My Baba was my grandmother. I believe babushka means grandmother in both Russian and Ukranian.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Dictionary.com agrees with Ley Druid.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Some (very high [and/or fairly odd!]) anglican churches, and, I believe, RC churches pray for the dead.
I think you'll find you're a bit out on Anglican practice there. The (probably vast) majority of Anglican churches pray for the dead.
you have got to be joking!!!
most anglicans I know pound their heads off of walls when they hear another anglican church praying for the dead (others sigh and go off to get their lighter-fuel!). I would suggest it's only a minority of the very very highest churches that do that
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
all depends what you mean by "praying for the dead".

IME, if a church says prayers for the family of someone who has died and thanks God for the life of the recently deceased (which everyone does), that gets reported as "praying for the dead" (which I agree that few anglicans do in the sense that l&d understands it).

I'm what some might class as a hard core evangelical and I have been known to pray "Lord, have mercy on them" when I hear of people I don't know dying. Thinking about it, I guess that counts, even though from me it's actually a prayer that they put their trust in Jesus before they died.

Custard

[ 11. June 2004, 18:55: Message edited by: Custard123 ]
 
Posted by Alt Wally . (# 3245) on :
 
Our parish which is Antiochian has vespers on Saturday evenings and othros (matins) and the divine liturgy on Sunday mornings. You can buy small service booklets for the liturgy but I rarely if ever see anybody with one and there are no service sheets or paperwork handed out before the liturgy. Everybody is really expected to know what's going on, which can be confusing for people new to Orthodoxy.

We do unfortunately have folding chairs in the main worship space, but the only time people sit in our parish is during the sermon. There is no child care or outside activity during the liturgy, it's expected that all ages participate. People do frequently go in and out as needed which isn't disruptive because everyone is standing.

Our choir uses Byzantine chants which I think are basically Greek influenced for the most part, though I prefer the Slavonic melodies myself. It's all in English though except for a few of the responses. Occasionally some Arabic is incorporated in a few places because there are some Palestinian and Lebanese families in the parish. The choir is absolutely central to the service and I would say the choir director is really second only to the priest in importance in the liturgy. People participate in the singing in various levels in the congregation.

If you want a quick glimpse at Orthodox liturgical music take a look at this site. I think you can listen to the songs online, I just paid the few bucks they ask for and downloaded the MP3's. Some of my favorite non-liturgical influenced Orthodox music is by the Estonian composer Arvo Pärt.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Some (very high [and/or fairly odd!]) anglican churches, and, I believe, RC churches pray for the dead.
I think you'll find you're a bit out on Anglican practice there. The (probably vast) majority of Anglican churches pray for the dead.
you have got to be joking!!!
most anglicans I know pound their heads off of walls when they hear another anglican church praying for the dead (others sigh and go off to get their lighter-fuel!). I would suggest it's only a minority of the very very highest churches that do that
Luv&d, you clearly need to get out more!

I don't know about the vast majority of Anglicans, but you would almost certainly find that all "catholic" Anglicans (including "liberal" ones) include the faithful departed in their public prayers - so that must make it at least a third for starters.

Indeed, many Anglican official liturgical materials include prayers for the faithful departed and have done for yonks - here's just one example

CB
 
Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Baba is short for "babushka" which means -- i'm not sure what it means. But in practical terms it means "little old lady" and is an affectionate term for the matriarchs of any church. (In greek churches they are called yayas.)
So The Rolling Stones album 'Get Your Yayas Out' was a secret call to Greek Orthodox grandmothers!
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Some (very high [and/or fairly odd!]) anglican churches, and, I believe, RC churches pray for the dead.
I think you'll find you're a bit out on Anglican practice there. The (probably vast) majority of Anglican churches pray for the dead.
you have got to be joking!!!
most anglicans I know pound their heads off of walls when they hear another anglican church praying for the dead (others sigh and go off to get their lighter-fuel!). I would suggest it's only a minority of the very very highest churches that do that
Luv&d, you clearly need to get out more!

I don't know about the vast majority of Anglicans, but you would almost certainly find that all "catholic" Anglicans (including "liberal" ones) include the faithful departed in their public prayers - so that must make it at least a third for starters.

Indeed, many Anglican official liturgical materials include prayers for the faithful departed and have done for yonks - here's just one example

CB
aaarrggh. I'm gonna send the anglican-church-police round (as soon as I find any!)

praying for the family & thanking God for the life etc of a person fits with the anglican (and IMHO, Biblical) faith.

praying for a dead person's soul doesn't fit with the anglican faith. Anglo-catholic, maybe, but they're a small minority, I thought they were anyway!
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
So The Rolling Stones album 'Get Your Yayas Out' was a secret call to Greek Orthodox grandmothers!
That was a call for all good Greeks to take their grandmothers to the park. It went mostly unheeded and misunderstood at the time, unfortunately.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
aaarrggh. I'm gonna send the anglican-church-police round (as soon as I find any!)

praying for the family & thanking God for the life etc of a person fits with the anglican (and IMHO, Biblical) faith.

praying for a dead person's soul doesn't fit with the anglican faith. Anglo-catholic, maybe, but they're a small minority, I thought they were anyway!
You really do need to get out and about a bit more, luv&d - perhaps I'll invite you to the next big Requiem Mass at my home parish!

Your analysis of what is and isn't the "anglican faith" is about 150 years out of date. Here are two more very mainstream examples of sanctioned prayer for the dead - from Common Worship!
quote:
You promised eternal life to those who believe.
Remember for good this your servant N
as we also remember him/her.
Bring all who rest in Christ
into the fullness of your kingdom
where sins have been forgiven
and death is no more.

Remember, O Lord,
this your servant,
who has gone before us with the sign of faith
and now rests in the sleep of peace.
According to your promises,
grant to him/her and to all who rest in Christ,
refreshment, light and peace;
through the same Christ our Lord.
My emphasis, natch.

Believe me, this sort of prayer isn't really the exclusive province of AC-dom any more. You don't get more "mainstream" than CW, after all!

Open your eyes, l&d - there's a whole wide diverse Communion out there! [Smile]

CB

PS Good luck with finding an obliging Anglican Police Constable - I've been searching for one for years to stop all this "lay celebration" that's been going on all over the place. [Biased]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I do fear that I must second the shipmates who write that luvvandaisies must get out more (perhaps they will provide him him/her with a cheering stirrup cup!).

Almost everywhere in Canada, prayers analogous to those found in CW2 are said, especially when there have been recent bereavements in the parish. The snakesbelly Irish-origin congregations in the Ottawa Valley quite happily offer up prayers for the departed. It seems to be quite standard here these days although one of my immigrant clerical acquaintances would suggest that this is owing to a lack of theological introspection which he believes is characteristic of Canadians.

It would appear that its origin here is in popular sentiment after the relatively harrowing losses in World War I (as in Britain and France, every small settlement has its granite monument with lists of local names).

But if luvvandaisies passes through town, we can surely offer him/her a glass of our local ale for comfort or, if desired, some of the silken home-made vodkas or araks produced by neighbouring Orthodox.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
But if luvvandaisies passes through town, we can surely offer him/her a glass of our local ale for comfort or, if desired, some of the silken home-made vodkas or araks produced by neighbouring Orthodox.
Go for it, luv&d! That certainly beats the offer of introduction to Anglo-Catholicism I got: "Mark, would you be interested in learning how to serve the Mass properly?", I think it was ... (Never looked back though!).

CB
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:

praying for a dead person's soul doesn't fit with the anglican faith. Anglo-catholic, maybe, but they're a small minority, I thought they were anyway!
I don't know what the 'Anglican faith' is. I've always considered myself an Anglican who professes the Christian faith. Would you care to explain why the, very ancient practice of prayer for the dead, doesn't fit with the faith?

C-B makes a good point about liturgy.

Luvndaisies, go out and meet some Anglo-catholics. We don't generally bite. We're a minority in England, although a significant one, but well represented worldwide. And, by all accounts, both Archbishops in England are A-Cs. So we're hardly marginal.

[ 13. June 2004, 23:25: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw-Dwarf ]
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
You promised eternal life to those who believe.
Remember for good this your servant N
as we also remember him/her.
Bring all who rest in Christ
into the fullness of your kingdom
where sins have been forgiven
and death is no more.

Remember, O Lord,
this your servant,
who has gone before us with the sign of faith
and now rests in the sleep of peace.
According to your promises,
grant to him/her and to all who rest in Christ,
refreshment, light and peace;
through the same Christ our Lord.
I've never heard anyone take "rest in Christ" to mean dead guys! - the common understanding, even amongst the ex-catholics I canvassed this evening at church, is that those who rest in Christ are those [alive] who trust Him & therefore have peace & rest in Him.

I never said there were no anglicans who prayed for the dead - just that they were in the minority, and am assured by the theological anglican bunch at church that they are, in the UK at least - I understand the USA/Canada anglicans tend to be what much of the UK anglican lot would consider pretty high.


anyway, back to pumping the Orthodox shipmates for information... [Big Grin]

more wonderings I'm afraid... do you want to thump me for being over-interested yet? [Biased]

- The OC doesn't ordain women (see, see, learned something!!! dim violist shows ability to retain information!) - do women have any teaching / pastoral role in the OC?

- Does the OC tend to have an equivilent to sunday schools &/or youth clubs? Someone said on this thread that they have everyone in church for services, is that general practise.

- The prevailing stereotype of an OC congregation is a bunch of men in black robe/dress/thingies with long beards. On a scale of 1-10, how fact-related is that?
( 10 = true, 1 = ?@~#%*&! ). If the latter, where & how did that picture rise?

- Would the OC consider itself to be particularly rooted in Jewish history & custom, given its eastern heritage, or would it, with its arabic conections, feel itself to be rather distinct from that - especially given Israel/Palestine's tragic state?

- Is the OC particularly zionist in its views, or does that vary from person to person?

- As an OC individual, what was the single bigest clincher for you that convinced you that the OC was the true church for you, indeed, tht the OC is the true Church?

- How would you, as a member of the OC which traditionally isn't exactly ecumenical or a eading light in its local "churches together" groups (!), see other Christians? I know some OC members would take umbridge at the use of the term "other Christians" at all.

- If you've got children, how do they understand & what are their impressions of the OC faith? Is there an adult baptism or confirmation in the OC [chrismation? is that parallelish?] when they become old enough to embrace their own faith rather than coasting along with their parents?

thanks again for the really interesting & patient answers to my questions. [Smile]
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
I can assure you that the phrase 'those who rest in Christ' refers to the departed. I suggest that the 'theological [sic] Anglican bunch' at your church may be a little biased as regards the relative sizes of traditions in the CE. Much as you and I, for different reasons, might regret it, huge swathes of the CE are committed to middle-of-the-road nothing-muchness. But they probably pray for the dead.

[ 13. June 2004, 23:34: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw-Dwarf ]
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
[Eek!] [Disappointed] [Frown]

oh well... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
What D-OD said.

Also, how can "grant to him/her and to all who rest in Christ, refreshment, light and peace" (from the second pryaer) be interpreted as anything other than a prayer for the departed?

Believe me on this one, l&d - this practice is boringly mainstream Anglican.

Learning more about Orthodoxy is good, and I'm learning stuff here too - but learning more about your own faith background from fellow Anglicans will help you see Orthodoxy more for what it is too!

[Bad cross-post, but what the hell ...]

CB

[ 13. June 2004, 23:40: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I am certain that our Orthodox shipmates are well capable of speaking for themselves but perhaps I might be permitted to make some observations on 2 of L&D's questions.

Women seem to take an active role in OCA & Antiochian church life here, sitting on committees of all sorts and making themselves heard, sometimes to the discomfiture of the clergy (but always to their benefit). Vague memories of perusing the Antiochian papers suggest that their influence is strong, but I may simply be extrapolating from the vigour of expression of my Arab women friends. As well, there are three women lecturers at Saint Vladimir's in NY state, one of the largest and best-known Orthodox seminaries in North America.

SOYO (Syrian, viz., Antiochian, Orthodox Youth Organization) is fairly strong in Ontario, and they seem to be holding a perpetual cacaphony of camps, group trips, volleyball tournaments, charity walks and bible quizzes. I suppose that the situation with youth groups varies greatly from place to place, and church to church.

In any case, there's enough women's and youth activity here to bring them to the notice of the heterodox.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
In my experience the OC is not zionist and almost anti-zionist. So many of palestinian christians are Orthodox (the vast majority, i believe) that the zionist principles of a jewish-dominated state don't really appeal to orthodox sensibilities. It's an unfortunate tightrope to have to walk. There is a great deal of suffering and goodwill on both sides. But all of the people from that part of the world I know are Palestinians whose homes have been stolen by the Israelis.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
- The OC doesn't ordain women (see, see, learned something!!! dim violist shows ability to retain information!) - do women have any teaching / pastoral role in the OC?


Women don't serve as deacons, priests, or bishops, but they can (and do) do most anything else. I've served on the parish council, I started the church school at our parish (which is currently run by a woman), I teach the teen class.

St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Basil the Great were taught the Christian faith by their teacher and sister, St. Macrina.

quote:
- Does the OC tend to have an equivilent to sunday schools &/or youth clubs? Someone said on this thread that they have everyone in church for services, is that general practise.


Orthodox churches in America have Sunday school and youth clubs. I'm not sure about anywhere else. And yes, it's the general practice that everyone be in church for the services. Sunday school is held either before or after the Divine Liturgy, not during. (Except, of course, in some Greek churches -- the same ones that have pews and organs. But we won't talk about them.)

quote:
- The prevailing stereotype of an OC congregation is a bunch of men in black robe/dress/thingies with long beards. On a scale of 1-10, how fact-related is that?
( 10 = true, 1 = ?@~#%*&! ). If the latter, where & how did that picture rise?
Only clergy (reader, subdeacon, deacon, priest, or bishop) or monastics (monks or nuns) wear black robes. In a typical parish, the only clergy they have is the priest, so there aren't any men there in black robes during the service.

Our parish has one priest, two deacons, one subdeacon, and two readers, which is a LOT of clergy for one parish, so there may be as many as six men there in black robes after the service, but only two during the service, and they're both in the choir. We have 100+ folks there on a typical Sunday morning, so the men in black robes are hardly the majority.

I suppose the stereotype must come from pictures from monasteries. If you were in a men's monastery, you'd see nothing but men in black robes with long beards. In a women's monastery, you'd see nothing but women in black robes -- no beards.

quote:
- Would the OC consider itself to be particularly rooted in Jewish history & custom, given its eastern heritage, or would it, with its arabic conections, feel itself to be rather distinct from that - especially given Israel/Palestine's tragic state?


Yes, the OC is rooted in Jewish history and custom.

quote:
- Is the OC particularly zionist in its views, or does that vary from person to person?


The Orthodox Church is not zionist at all. Most Orthodox are very sympathetic to the Palestinians.

quote:
- As an OC individual, what was the single bigest clincher for you that convinced you that the OC was the true church for you, indeed, tht the OC is the true Church?


The Commonitory of St. Vincent of Lerins.

quote:
- How would you, as a member of the OC which traditionally isn't exactly ecumenical or a eading light in its local "churches together" groups (!), see other Christians? I know some OC members would take umbridge at the use of the term "other Christians" at all.
For myself, I see other Christians as being in a position somewhat analogous to catechumens. They belong to Christ, but are not yet visibly part of the Church.

quote:
- If you've got children, how do they understand & what are their impressions of the OC faith? Is there an adult baptism or confirmation in the OC [chrismation? is that parallelish?] when they become old enough to embrace their own faith rather than coasting along with their parents?


Children are baptized and chrismated in infancy, if their parents are Orthodox. There is no "spiritual coming of age" ceremony, unless you count their first confession (usually around the age of seven or eight).

My eldest son (age 20) currently counts himself an atheist, and considers all religion foolish and unenlightened. My daughter is considering a monastic vocation. My two younger sons are pious after their own fashion, and currently wouldn't consider being anything other than Orthodox.
 
Posted by Alt Wally . (# 3245) on :
 
I'll take a crack at a few of these

quote:
- The OC doesn't ordain women (see, see, learned something!!! dim violist shows ability to retain information!) - do women have any teaching / pastoral role in the OC?
In our church, which I think represents the majority of Orthodoxy, women can serve in any role aside from that of bishop/priest/deacon. That includes being the choir director, teaching, reading during the liturgy (we don't have a dedicated reader, somebody from the choir does it) and so forth. The women in our parish serve on and/or lead all of the major ministries.

quote:
- Does the OC tend to have an equivilent to sunday schools &/or youth clubs? Someone said on this thread that they have everyone in church for services, is that general practise.
I believe that was me and from talking to other people I believe it's the norm, at least in the west, that everyone participates in the liturgy. There's no school, nursery or anything else going during the liturgy. The kids tend to make the rounds in our parish during the liturgy with different adults looking after them at different times. After liturgy everyone that sticks around eats a lunch that somebody from the parish has brought in and people are usually hungry from fasting before communion. After eating the different age groups all have their different classes. There are some youth activities that happen outside of the normal Sunday routine and their is a teen group that does stuff on its own as well.

The Antiochian archdiocese runs a bunch of youth oriented activities. There's summer camps, a college ministry and a youth ministry that I've seen information in the bulletin about.

quote:
- The prevailing stereotype of an OC congregation is a bunch of men in black robe/dress/thingies with long beards. On a scale of 1-10, how fact-related is that?
( 10 = true, 1 = ?@~#%*&! ). If the latter, where & how did that picture rise?
I'm sure it's true in some places, especially among the more traditionalist of the Orthodox. The parishes I've been to in the West generally don't fit with this stereotype.

quote:
- Would the OC consider itself to be particularly rooted in Jewish history & custom, given its eastern heritage, or would it, with its arabic conections, feel itself to be rather distinct from that - especially given Israel/Palestine's tragic state?
I was really surpised to find how much of the Jewish heritage of the church has lived on in Orthodoxy. One of the best books I've read so far deals specifically with the continuity of temple and synagogue worship in the Orthodox liturgy. This link has a short description of it. It's not uncommon to see icons of figures drawn from the Old Testament in Orthodox churches for instance, including figures such as David and Elijah. A good deal of the mysticism in the church also has Jewish antecedents.

quote:
- Is the OC particularly zionist in its views, or does that vary from person to person?
I think you would find very few, if any zionists in Orthodoxy. Orthodox Christians native to the Holy Land have been among the people most directly feeling the effects of what's happened in the post-war Middle East. I think Orthodox people would look at the Christian zionist stuff like the Left Behind series as pure Chiliasm.

quote:
- As an OC individual, what was the single bigest clincher for you that convinced you that the OC was the true church for you, indeed, tht the OC is the true Church?
It's hard to say what the biggest single clincher was. It was a lot of reading church history, a look at what happened in the churches of the west over time and direct participation in the liturgy possibly all in equal measure.

quote:
- How would you, as a member of the OC which traditionally isn't exactly ecumenical or a eading light in its local "churches together" groups (!), see other Christians? I know some OC members would take umbridge at the use of the term "other Christians" at all.
I'll take a pass, because I don't have a membership card yet. I will say there's no universal opinion though on the matter.

quote:
- If you've got children, how do they understand & what are their impressions of the OC faith? Is there an adult baptism or confirmation in the OC [chrismation? is that parallelish?] when they become old enough to embrace their own faith rather than coasting along with their parents?
My kids are young, two and four, so they don't really have much of a frame of reference beyond it. My daughter seems to really like the prayers and icons.

There are in every Orthodox parish I've ever seen inquirers and/or catechumens classes open to everyone. In the class we just finished a lady who is cradle Orthodox came because she wanted to get a better understanding of the church. Usually adults would become a catechumen for a variable amount of time before being received in the church. Some by baptism and chrismation, others by chrismation only depending on the church they came from and which jurisdiction they're going into.

Children, as soon as they are baptized and chrismated beging taking communion which has always been Orthodox practice. There is no wait until a later age to be confirmed for this to start.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who coast in their faith in Orthodoxy and otherwise. Orthodoxy though is not about coasting. It's really a real life change especially. The cycle of services, the fasting and everything else make it something you don't just approach lightly. Praying, talking about faith and making God part of the home are greatly stressed at all times, but come in to special focus during Lent.
 
Posted by Alt Wally . (# 3245) on :
 
Oh drat, missed my edit window. In the last paragraph I meant " It's really a real life change especially" for converts. josephine already gave several good answers while I was composing this.

The only other thing I would add is Orthodoxy doesn't foster coasting, or shouldn't, because it's about a process of becoming. It's not about instantaneous conversion or eternal security. It should be un upward and never ending movement of participation in the energies of God's holiness, portrayed I think nicely in the ladder of St. John Climacus.
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Just to weigh in on the prayers for the dead question, our BCP has at least one reference that I know of (didn't go digging through it) in one of the forms for Prayers of the People that says "We pray for those who have died, that they may have a place in your eternal kingdom." I would be mildly surprised if there are no more. We also add in our congregational prayers the sentence (for recent deaths)"we pray for the repose of the soul of ______" as part of our intercession prayers. So that's pretty explicit, and in our main prayer book.
 
Posted by Cusanus (# 692) on :
 
quote:
How would you, as a member of the OC which traditionally isn't exactly ecumenical or a eading light in its local "churches together" groups (!), see other Christians? I know some OC members would take umbridge at the use of the term "other Christians" at all.
Actually here in Oz the Orthodox churches have been very active in the ecumenical movement.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Having been a Protestant and an Evangelical and an Episcopalian, I can't take umbridge at the term "other christians" -- I recognize and acknowledge and am eternally grateful for the Christian growth and nurturing I got in those places.
 
Posted by Ian H (# 944) on :
 
Coming in late as usual...

On the topic of singing, one of the things I love about the (English-speaking Antiochian) parish I am at is that while we have a wondrous, yet small, choir, the entire congregation belts out the responses and chants the Communion Hymns with gusto. 'Tis a wonderful thing. [Tear]


Thanks for the questions and the answers. I have learnt a great deal here and have much more to ponder and investigate.

Ian.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
sorry to make this thread resurface again - rereading & consideraton has left me with a few more questions...

* What version of the Bible is the usual one used in the OC?

* St Vincent's three rules (summarised by Josephine near the beginning of this thread) - am I right in understanding that they are...
1) old teaching takes precedence over new
2) the belief of the Christian majority take precedence over the minority
3) the opinions of those appearing to really know God take precedence over those of "those who are less godly"

if so, how does the OC come to the conclusion that propitiatory, substitutionary atonement is not an accurate description of why Jesus had to go to the Cross, then rise again?


* could someone expand on what is meant by theosis / deification & how it is distinct to the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit


* Fr G said (adain, back on page 1 of this thread!) that another distinction of the OC is St Gregory Palamas's belief... quote from Fr G here ..."that the transforming energies of God ARE God and not creatures of God or grace. The Light of the Transfiguration IS the presence of God and we can participate in it / Him insofar as we are purified by repentance".
How is this different to the sanctifying work of the indwelling Holy Spirit?
Is the Light of Transfiguration the same light that caused the blinding radiance from Moses's face?


* How would the OC define grace (in the Christian / Biblical sense) to a non-Christian enquirer? Would this be different from how an evangelical or an RC person might answer the same question?


* when OC people here talk about their prayers & attitude being very trinitarian, how does that trinitatian-ness differ from evangelical trinitatian-ness (if at all?)


* how would the OC react to & back up its reaction to the following...
sola scriptura (think this has mostly been covered though!)
sola fidelis
eternal security
imputed righteousness


* for those who are OC members, is there anything about the OC that you wish was different or that you would like to change, or that makes you feel a little uncomfortable etc?


* how does the veneration of icons contribute to sanctification? (ref to one of Fr G's early posts, still page 1 of this thread)


* where does the OC's tradition of Jpseph being an elderly widower come from?


* what is the "protoevangelium of James" & who wrote it? [James?]


* if the OC use the jewish Old Testament, do they keep the books of the OT in their original order too?


* how do the OC see Jesus's pre-incarnate appearences in the OT? - Abraham's lunch, speaking to Mr & Mrs Manoah, anywhere the Angel of the Lord pops up really!


* what is the OC's official position on some of the contemporary issues such as stem cell research, abortion, contraception & genetical engineering?


* how does the OC see darwinism - thumbs up or thumbs down? what about physics's quest for one unifying theory? [apart from God!]


* Mousethief & Fr G - I am interested in OC music, but haven't followed up any of your contacts or links yet due to being disorganised - sorry!!!


* sounds like the choir director is very significant in the OC. How are they trained?


think that's it for now... watch this space though!!!
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Mousethief & Fr G - I am interested in OC music, but haven't followed up any of your contacts or links yet due to being disorganised - sorry!!!
Don't be too hard on yourself, l&d. There's only so much time in the day, and all that praying for the souls of the faithful departed you'll have been doing since you found out it's authentically Anglican is very time-consuming.
[Biased]
CB
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
oops, sorry, forgot a couple & ran out of edit time...

* what does the OC teach about angels / seraphim / cherubim / living dreatures etc

* what is the OC position on homosexuality?

* what is the OC's view of Charismata? - thinking especially of 'toungues' and 'prophesy'

* how do you see the charismatic practise of raising hands during sung worship? Are there any equivalents?

* does the idea of Christian pop-music (etc) make the members of the OC want to run screaming into the hills?!

...sorry [Hot and Hormonal] still interested!!!
 
Posted by Ddraig (# 7572) on :
 
Hi Luvanddaisies - please keep asking questions! I've found this thread fascinating, its answered some of my questions too!

I've only just emerged from lurking, and I don't want to tread on any toes (FrG, Mousethief et al.) but a good book that answers some of your questions is Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Church". I'm almost at the end of it, and I've found it relatively easy to understand.

Don't know if it might help out here (if you can find a copy - Amazon has them).

Just a thought

Liz
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
BUMP

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear [Axe murder] anddaisies

sorry to make this thread resurface again - rereading & consideraton has left me with a few more questions...

* What version of the Bible is the usual one used in the OC?

The Septuagint for the OT and the best Greek translation for the NT ...a few possibilities exist for the Orthodox right now in English. The OT Septuagint will soon be ready in English.

* St Vincent's three rules (summarised by Josephine near the beginning of this thread) - am I right in understanding that they are...
1) old teaching takes precedence over new
2) the belief of the Christian majority take precedence over the minority
3) the opinions of those appearing to really know God take precedence over those of "those who are less godly"

The Vincentian canon is useful but cannot be stretched too far. The classic definitions of truth in the Church actually go on to specify how Tradition works ... and these questions raised by yourself are not pertinent to that. I'm sorry but they are too vague.

if so, how does the OC come to the conclusion that propitiatory, substitutionary atonement is not an accurate description of why Jesus had to go to the Cross, then rise again?

We simply say that picks out one element and inflates it beyond its proper place in the scheme of things.

* could someone expand on what is meant by theosis / deification & how it is distinct to the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit

Theiosis and the Indwelling of the Spirit compare as do arriving at your destination and the form of transport available.

* Fr G said (adain, back on page 1 of this thread!) that another distinction of the OC is St Gregory Palamas's belief... quote from Fr G here ..."that the transforming energies of God ARE God and not creatures of God or grace. The Light of the Transfiguration IS the presence of God and we can participate in it / Him insofar as we are purified by repentance".
How is this different to the sanctifying work of the indwelling Holy Spirit?

It's not but the end result is different ... you do find similar ideas in western Christian mystics but they have often held a rather suspect position in the western tradition. They actually consist of a call back to Orthodoxy in my opinion ... except the individualistic ones.

Is the Light of Transfiguration the same light that caused the blinding radiance from Moses's face?

No because with Moses it was a reflected afterglow .... with Christ and his friends it is all on the inside.


* How would the OC define grace (in the Christian / Biblical sense) to a non-Christian enquirer? Would this be different from how an evangelical or an RC person might answer the same question?

Not much different ... but we do not classify grace ... prevenient, infused etc.

* when OC people here talk about their prayers & attitude being very trinitarian, how does that trinitatian-ness differ from evangelical trinitatian-ness (if at all?)

We are much less squeamish about giving glory TO the Father, TO the Son and TO the Holy Spirit. We also pray less inhibitedly to all 3 hypostases, singly and together as One.

* how would the OC react to & back up its reaction to the following...
sola scriptura (think this has mostly been covered though!) See All Those Deceased Equines! Scripture is the controlling Core of Tradition.

sola fidelis
eternal security
imputed righteousness

Faith is complemented by Hope and fulfilled in Love. Eternal security is to presume. Imputed righteousness is too dryly transactional, forensic, (as indeed is SubAt.)

* for those who are OC members, is there anything about the OC that you wish was different or that you would like to change, or that makes you feel a little uncomfortable etc?

The things I don't like in Orthodoxy aren't actually Orthodox and that's NOT just my position. Jurisdictional disunity is a good example.

* how does the veneration of icons contribute to sanctification? (ref to one of Fr G's early posts, still page 1 of this thread)

Because it puts us in closer touch with Christ and his friends. If we leave the body and our senses out of worship we miss out big time.

* where does the OC's tradition of Jpseph being an elderly widower come from?

Tradition! [Killing me]

* what is the "protoevangelium of James" & who wrote it? [James?]

Secure place in Tradition. Reliable but not canonical since no clear apostolic origin. Much like the Shepherd of Hermas and other such works.


* if the OC use the Jewish Old Testament, do they keep the books of the OT in their original order too?

We use the Septuagint ... as does the NT usually when it quotes the OT. This is not the same as the Masoretic text both in detail here and there and composition.

* how do the OC see Jesus's pre-incarnate appearences in the OT? - Abraham's lunch, speaking to Mr & Mrs Manoah, anywhere the Angel of the Lord pops up really!

Mileage varies but we are usually quite positive about that. The Logos has never been inactive.

* what is the OC's official position on some of the contemporary issues such as stem cell research, abortion, contraception & genetical engineering?

Contraception OK provided that it is not used to deny ANY possibility of new life ...eg., used by couples to prevent the birth of any children. No other techniques that involve the destruction of existing life OK ... this includes abortion and IVF of course. Stem cell research is OK provided that it does not use tissue "harvested" from aborted babies.


* how does the OC see darwinism - thumbs up or thumbs down? what about physics's quest for one unifying theory? [apart from God!]

The Orthodox Church does not rule out any scientific theory that capably describes creation or creation processes.

* Mousethief & Fr G - I am interested in OC music, but haven't followed up any of your contacts or links yet due to being disorganised - sorry!!!

* sounds like the choir director is very significant in the OC. How are they trained?

Usually "on the job" although attendance on courses and at practical sessions is encouraged.
 
Posted by RamblinPeck (# 7601) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Baba is short for "babushka" which means -- i'm not sure what it means. But in practical terms it means "little old lady" and is an affectionate term for the matriarchs of any church. (In greek churches they are called yayas.)
Wow, the small amount of Russian I know actually comes in handy... that is if I'm remembering this correctly. "babushka" literally means something along the lines of "kerchiefs" or "head scarf", it just happens that all the little old ladies wore them, so the two became very closely associated and the idiom was created.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
Luvanddaisies, I'll tackle a few of these. I'm sure others will answer the ones I miss. If not, ask again!

quote:
* What version of the Bible is the usual one used in the OC?
Do you mean which English translation? It varies -- lots of folks use the RSV, because there's a nice edition that includes the deuterocanonical books. Others like the KJV for the beauty of the language. Most folks avoid the NIV and the various paraphrases.

quote:

* St Vincent's three rules (summarised by Josephine near the beginning of this thread) - am I right in understanding that they are...
1) old teaching takes precedence over new
2) the belief of the Christian majority take precedence over the minority
3) the opinions of those appearing to really know God take precedence over those of "those who are less godly"
Yes. Of course, these are guiding principles, not iron-clad rules. And they don't work to answer every single possible question. But they're a good place to start.

quote:
if so, how does the OC come to the conclusion that propitiatory, substitutionary atonement is not an accurate description of why Jesus had to go to the Cross, then rise again?"
Because when we look for propitiatory, substitutionary atonement in the teachings of the ancient church, in the universal teachings of the church, and in the consensus of the saints, it simply isn't there. Not that there's absolutely nothing there at all to even suggest anything along those lines -- that would be an overstatement. But when you look at things through an Orthodox lens, as it were, it's not the picture that you see.

quote:

* could someone expand on what is meant by theosis / deification & how it is distinct to the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit


Theosis is becoming by grace what God is by nature. Imagine a fire -- that's God. Imagine an iron bar -- that's you. Now put the bar in the fire. It becomes hot, it even gives off light. It has become, as far as its nature allows, what the fire is.

Likewise, when we dwell in God and God dwells in us, we become, as far as our nature allows, what God is.

quote:
* How would the OC define grace (in the Christian / Biblical sense) to a non-Christian enquirer? Would this be different from how an evangelical or an RC person might answer the same question?
Grace is God's love made manifest. It is the presence of God in our lives. (I can't tell you how an evangelical or RC person might answer the question -- you'll have to ask them.)

quote:
* when OC people here talk about their prayers & attitude being very trinitarian, how does that trinitatian-ness differ from evangelical trinitatian-ness (if at all?)
The biggest difference, in my experience, is the way we regard the Holy Spirit. When I was an evangelical, people occasionally referred to the Holy Spirit as "it" -- they seemed to regard him as something like The Force from Star Wars. He emanated from God, and did the work God sent him out to do, but people didn't appear to think of him as a person.

In the OC, the personhood of the Holy Spirit is clear and evident. We know him as a person, just as we know the Father and the Son as persons. The Spirit isn't "the bond of love between the Father and the Son," he isn't The Force, he isn't an apparition that one can see hovering over the crowd at a healing service. He is the Third Person of the Godhead, consubstantial, co-eternal with the Father and the Son.

quote:
* for those who are OC members, is there anything about the OC that you wish was different or that you would like to change, or that makes you feel a little uncomfortable etc?
When we don't do a very good job of living out what we are, it makes me uncomfortable. So when a bunch of monks get into a fight over precedence at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, that sort of thing makes me uncomfortable. They of all people should know better!

quote:

* how does the veneration of icons contribute to sanctification? (ref to one of Fr G's early posts, still page 1 of this thread)
The icons communicate to us who we are, and what we should be becoming.

quote:
* where does the OC's tradition of Jpseph being an elderly widower come from?
I think from the Protoevangelium of James.

quote:

* what is the "protoevangelium of James" & who wrote it? [James?]
I don't know who wrote it. Probably not James. It is an early writing that the early Christians felt was important and authoritative, but not Scripture.

quote:

* if the OC use the jewish Old Testament, do they keep the books of the OT in their original order too?
Ideally, I suppose the books would be in the order they're in in the Septuagint. But mostly, you just get whatever edition of Scripture you can, and deal with whatever order the editors put the books in.

quote:
* what is the OC's official position on some of the contemporary issues such as stem cell research, abortion, contraception & genetical engineering?


Abortion isn't really a contemporary issue. It's been around far longer than the OC, and from the beginning of the Church, it has been prohibited, except to save the life of the mother. And even there, it is accepted with sorrow and fear.

For truly contemporary issues, you will usually find no single Orthodox position. The Metropolitan of Japan and the Bishop of Berkeley might have different opinions on genetic engineering; the Patriarch of Moscow and the Patriarch of Antioch might have different opinions on stem cell research.

We'll get to a consensus eventually. But we don't have a form of governance that allows for immediate top-down declarations on such things.

quote:
* how does the OC see darwinism - thumbs up or thumbs down? what about physics's quest for one unifying theory? [apart from God!]


Scientific research is generally viewed positively. After all, you can't praise God for his wonders that you don't know about!
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
* what does the OC teach about angels / seraphim / cherubim / living dreatures etc
They are noncorporeal beings created by God. What else do you want to know about them?

quote:
* what is the OC position on homosexuality?
Sexual relations are permitted only between a husband and wife.

Homosexual acts outside of marriage are not viewed as different from, or worse than, heterosexual acts outside of marriage.

quote:
* what is the OC's view of Charismata? - thinking especially of 'toungues' and 'prophesy'
The "spiritual gifts" as practiced among so-called charismatic Christians are a novelty, and we don't do novelty.

However, within Orthodoxy, there is a deep and long-standing tradition of holy men and women who exercise spiritual gifts -- if you want to understand what it's about, and how it works, I'd suggest you read this life of Father Arseny, or the life of St. John of San Francisco.

quote:

* how do you see the charismatic practise of raising hands during sung worship? Are there any equivalents?


That position, of the hands raised, is traditionally a position for prayer. As used by charismatics, it's foreign to our tradition. But at many Orthodox churches, you'll see the people raise their hands when saying the Lord's Prayer, and you will always see the priest pray in that position at points during a liturgy.
 
Posted by LydaRose (# 4544) on :
 
josephine said:
quote:
Sexual relations are permitted only between a husband and wife.

Homosexual acts outside of marriage are not viewed as different from, or worse than, heterosexual acts outside of marriage.
So if homosexual marriage gets legalized, gay couples are in the clear? [Biased]

Everyone insert the obvious answer according to Tradition™ et al

No, I thought not. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LydaRose:
So if homosexual marriage gets legalized, gay couples are in the clear? [Biased]

Everyone insert the obvious answer according to Tradition™ et al

No, I thought not. [Disappointed]
Ah, the Great American Litmus Test.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Whilst endorsing the rest of Josephine's excellent post it is going a little too far to write off "ilasterion" - propitiation along with "substitution." The latter has no place in the Tradition of the Church ... the former does. However, "ilasterion" understood in the post-Anselmian sense of the sacrifice of Christ appeasing and satisfying an outraged God is not a truthful or legitimate interpretation. Christ is both priest AND victim (Hebrews). God's action is unitary ... he acts out of love dealing with the sin itself .... not his supposed tantrums in relation to it. This does not erode his holiness, justice or sovereignty. Love perfects that and delivers all ... to himself.

[ 29. June 2004, 07:45: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by HangerQueen (# 6914) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Whilst endorsing the rest of Josephine's excellent post it is going a little too far to write off "ilasterion" - propitiation along with "substitution." The latter has no place in the Tradition of the Church ... the former does. However, "ilasterion" understood in the post-Anselmian sense of the sacrifice of Christ appeasing and satisfying an outraged God is not a truthful or legitimate interpretation. Christ is both priest AND victim (Hebrews). God's action is unitary ... he acts out of love dealing with the sin itself .... not his supposed tantrums in relation to it. This does not erode his holiness, justice or sovereignty. Love perfects that and delivers all ... to himself.
What's "ilasterion"?

Oh, and "Theosis" sounds very similar to "Sanctification". Is that correct?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
A Greek word used in Romans 3:25 signifying "propitiation." In modern exegetics the preferred translation has been expiation. If Christ is both Priest and Victim (which He is) both senses apply.
 
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
A Greek word used in Romans 3:25 signifying "propitiation." In modern exegetics the preferred translation has been expiation. If Christ is both Priest and Victim (which He is) both senses apply.
The English Standard Version of 2001 translates hilasterion consistently as "propitiation". Note that this translation aims to be linguistically and theologically conservative whilst retaining some KJV and old RSV flavour.

As far as I understand it, Eastern "theosis" is similar to, but not identical with, Western "sanctification". I'll leave it to Fr. Gregory to explain the full distinction. [Smile]

Neil
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
How far does sanctification go in the west? I'm not always sure. Sometimes it seems to be simply the process whereby someone's character and life becomes much more Christ-like. Sometimes it's this AND a belief that we can and should really be united (not just reconciled) to God and all that entails ..... which is theiosis.
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
However, "ilasterion" understood in the post-Anselmian sense of the sacrifice of Christ appeasing and satisfying an outraged God is not a truthful or legitimate interpretation.
I presume by "post-Anselmian" you do not mean to include Anselm himself in your description, since he nowhere in his Cur Deus Homo? depicts God as "outraged." Satisfactio has much more to do with setting the order of things right than with placating an angry God. Indeed, Aquinas is even further from this view. The sacrifice of Christ is the offering of his love to the Father. It does not of necessity require the destruction of Christ as the victim, though Aquinas says that Christ's death on the cross is the most "fitting" way of him offering his life and love to the Father.

FCB
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Yes, indeed FCB ... this is why I used "post-" Nonetheless it is true that Anselm emphasised an interpretation which rapidly took off in popular piety down the line of placatory sacrifice. I don't think that Anselm can be completely exonerated. In the same manner, although it took a Gustav Aulen to remind Lutherans what Luther was really like, Luther himself set the tone of what was to come after him..
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I don't think that Anselm can be completely exonerated.
Perhaps, but only in the sense that Paul cannot be completely exonerated for speaking in a way that later people could construe as meaning that God used Jesus to pay off the Devil.

But believe me, I'm no more a fan of penal substitution than you are.

FCB
 
Posted by Augustinos (# 7716) on :
 
Oh dear, my first post and I'm afraid it's going to be a controversial one!

The twentieth century has been witness (in the Orthodox world) to a phenomenon typically called the "Patristic revival." There was a sense (and to a degree, justifiably) that in recent centuries the fullness of the Orthodox tradition was obfuscated, in particular by the borrowing of western polemics coming out of the Reformation/Counter-Reformation to deal with the dual problems of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism from an Orthodox perspective.

However, there's been a downside to this movement; that being the typical throwing out of the baby with the bathwater. Thus, in the name of purging Orthopraxis and Orthodox academic theology of perceived "westernizations", what has happened in some cases is the rejection of ideas which are actually quite Orthodox.

IMHO, the greatest example of this has been in relation to the dogma of redemption. This "re-envisioning" began earlier in the twentieth century, with the famous/infamous essay of Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky entitled "The Dogma of Redemption." The essential thrust of this document, was to remove from the Orthodox teaching on redemption any "judicial" or "satisfactory" ideas from the feat of salvation accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ. This work, and those who think along it's lines even if not directly citing it (and there are many such people) essentially claims that anything smacking of "atonement" is a Latin/Anslemian importation into Orthodoxy, even indirectly claiming that such an idea of the redemption is basically heretical.

Unfortunatly, for all of the claims of being a "return to the Fathers", those who promote this particular view are all but ignoring them. The language of the Holy Scriptures clearly has a strong judicial thread in them - the redemption and purification of mankind from it's sins (justification) preceeds and then continually accompanies his sanctification; yet the revisionistic teaching on this subject (coined by many as "stavroclasm") denies this, and reduces the economy of salvation almost exclusively to sanctification/divinization.

It is true that God is love. Yet His love extends not only to His creatures (and particularly sinners), but also to justice and righteousness. God is merciful, but He is also just - and all at the same time, as the traditional affirmation of God's unfathomable simplicity. There is no greater embodiment of this truth, than the Holy Cross itself - for in It we see both in the extreme, accomplished in a single redemptive feat.

No one would accuse St.Gregory Palamas of being "latinized" - he was in fact one of the chief opponents of attempts to import the scholastic categories of Roman Catholic theology into the Orthodox world. Yet read what he has to say on the doctrine of the Redemption...

quote:
"A sacrifice was needed to reconcile the Father on high with us and to sanctify us, since we had been soiled by fellowship with the evil one. There had to be a sacrifice which both cleansed and was clean, and a purified, sinless priest…. God overturned the devil through suffering and His Flesh which He offered as a sacrifice to God the Father, as a pure and altogether holy victim – how great is His gift! – and reconciled God to the human race…

"Since He gave His Blood, which was sinless and therefore guiltless, as a ransom for us who were liable to punishment because of our sins, He redeemed us from our guilt. He forgave us our sins, tore up the record of them on the Cross and delivered us from the devil’s tyranny. The devil was caught by the bait. It was as if he opened his mouth and hastened to pour out for himself our ransom, the Master’s Blood, which was not only guiltless but full of divine power. Then instead of being enriched by it he was strongly bound and made an example in the Cross of Christ. So we were rescued from his slavery and transformed into the kingdom of the Son of God. Before we had been vessels of wrath, but we were made vessels of mercy by Him Who bound the one who was strong compared to us, and seized his goods."

(St. Gregory Palamas, Homily 16, 21, 24, 31; in Christopher Veniamin (ed.), The Homilies of Saint Gregory Palamas, South Canaan, PA: Saint Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 2002, pp. 193, 195, 201.)
Now, if I listened to some people, I'd have to understand this to be "scholastic" or "Anslemian". Of course it is neither, so perhaps a critical gaze has to be directed not at the symbolic books of recent centuries, great catechisms (which are often accused of being "westernized"), but upon those who in the name of a "patristic revival" are actually trafficking in theological modernism.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Augustinos

I have no problem with your post at all. When I have posted on this topic here (on many threads!) I have always made it clear that juridical sacrificial language is in the New Testament, (see post on ilasterion), is in the Fathers, is in Tradition. It's just that Anselm identified this motif as the key soteriological idea.

As may be seen from your quotation of St. Gregory Palamas, this element is embedded in the classic exposition of the victory of Christ. However, Anselm did change the direction of western atonement thought toward this element and thereby eclipsed the so called "classic theory." The worst he can be accused of is selectivity (set in the context of feudalism this was understandable). However, his successors, particularly in the Reformed tradition moved this emphasis on from selectivity to outright error. There is nothing in Scripture or Tradition to uphold the further distortion of substitutionary atonement. By the time we get to this stage God really is constrained by some anterior principle of justice ... which is not Orthodox at all. I am only saying that you overstate your case for those of us who have (mild) issues with Anselm.
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
Still not completely clear on the whole substitutionary atonement thing.

Let me try and express what I think you're saying FG:

quote:
Substitutionary atonement as taught in (e.g.) con evo circles is wrong because it portrays God as vindictive (in the bad sense) and as limited by human logic
I don't think that God's vindictive in the bad sense either. Neither do I think he is limited by human logic.

My issue with this is that I agree with pretty much everything you've said on the atonement, except that you say you disagree with "substitutionary atonement", and I say I agree with both it and you. I can't see how my position on this is inconsistent either.

This makes me think we mean slightly different things by the phrase and that actually you are disagreeing with a position that few hold.

For reference, AFAIK, I'm pretty much classic evangelical theologically on this.

I would, of course, be interested to know more...

[ 29. June 2004, 19:41: Message edited by: Custard123 ]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Custard123

Let's start with the positive angle which I believe to be scripturally supported.

(1) I cannot save myself.
(2) I stand guilty.
(3) Christ is not guilty.
(4) He takes the penalty for my sin inducing death and transforms a curse into a blessing through the resurrection.

Having said all that it may seem incredible that I resist SubAt. So what do I believe SubAt to be?

Well, it may not be what many conservative evangelicals believe but this is what I refute:-

SubAt seems to say that instead of me being punished, Christ is punished to secure my forgiveness / reconciliation to the Father.

This "punished in my stead" is not required by the "absorbs the penalty of my sin" IF (and it's a big and crucial IF) death is not a punishment but a self inflicted consequence of my sin induced alienation from the Source of Life Himself, God.

The crucial difference here is the resistance to the idea that God is an active punisher us for our sin. It's the "rewards and punishments" idea of the Law. I am not saying that it is absent from the Bible. I am saying that the New Testament sense of Christ's sacrifice does not require it and is, indeed, better served by God's willing embrace of our alienation on the Cross, healing it by the resurrection ... an act of Love not Justice.

[ 29. June 2004, 19:54: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:

quote:
* where does the OC's tradition of Jpseph being an elderly widower come from?
I think from the Protoevangelium of James.

quote:

* what is the "protoevangelium of James" & who wrote it? [James?]
I don't know who wrote it. Probably not James. It is an early writing that the early Christians felt was important and authoritative, but not Scripture.
A question of my own about the Protoevangelium of James. . . .

I searched for "Protoevangelium of James" on www.oca.org and www.goarch.org and didn't find much. What I found on www.oca.org was:

quote:

In it [the Protoevangelium of James] we read about Jesus' grandparents, the pious Joachim and Anna whom are remembered at the dismissal of every worship service in the Orthodox Church. Also in the Protoevangelium is an account of the Presentation of the Theotokos. It is significant to remember that although the Protoevangelium of James was not accepted as a canonical text, it contains enough truth and dogma for the Orthodox Church to accept and embrace what it offers in regards to all Theotokion Feasts.
It is hard to tell whether the Protoevangelium of James is
  1. accepted as non-canonical but basically true,
  2. as an "apocryphal" book (in the common not the technical sense of "apocryphal") that nonetheless manages to have enough truth to be useful, or
  3. neither of the above

Which is it?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
B

James' translation
 
Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Substitutionary atonement as stated by Father Gregory, seems to me rather like a guy who gets insulted bu his boss, so he goes home and kicks his cat / wife / or plays a game of squash pretending the ball is his boss's head. It is displacement of anger, not forgiveness.

Transforming our sin by conquering death (what Fr G believes) is like us absorbing or bearing the pain of whatever offence has been caused. The guy bears the insult, forgives his boss and doesn't take it out on anyone or anything else.

Forgiveness is free to the forgiven, but it costs the forgiver. If you forgive someone for robbing you of £100, for example, it costs you £100.

Substitutionary atonement (displacement) paints a horrible picture of a God who has to take His wrath out on someone.

Christina
 
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Substitutionary atonement (displacement) paints a horrible picture of a God who has to take His wrath out on someone.

Christina
I think that a substitutionary atonement model can only generate some horrible pictures if one neglects to give due weight to the incarnation and the trinity. John Stott himself picks up this point in his book "The Cross of Christ". He avoids the trap by presenting a theology of substitutionary atonement solidly grounded in incarnational and trinitarian theology.

For a competent presentation of evangelical thinking on the atonement, covering both Anselm and Aulen on the way, his book is highly recommended

Neil
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
... an act of Love not Justice.
This interpretation does leave you with some significant problem passages though. Not least "he did it to demonsrate his justice...". Which seems pretty unequivocal to me.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
But there is nothing in the passage that Augustinos quotes that says Jesus died "INSTEAD OF ME" -- which is key and essential to the subsitutionary model.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Leprechaun

Of course God acts justly but it's the relationship between love and justice which is the issue here. God's justice is not fair in human terms. "The last shall be first and the first shall be last." This is not a capricious acting out of sovereign will or a formalistic exchange but rather wholly an act of Love for the sake of all, (and the Cosmos).

You have to reckon with the fact that when it comes down to ontological descriptions it's the Johannine "God is love" that holds the key. His justice is revealed in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

He didn't say, "I really MUST punish someone SO THAT I can love and accept them." He said: "I will submit myself to their evil and only return good; that will save them."

[ 30. June 2004, 15:34: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
It seems to me, dear Father G, that while you say that I have to jump through ontological hoops to maintain the truth God is love on my interpretation of the Bible, you have to do the same with "demonstrating his justice", which, on your reckoning looks nothing like justice in the commonly held use of the word.
Perhpas we would do better to let God himself define what it means for him to be loving and just rather than playing them off against each other because his actions fit into our human conception of neither.

This "I have to punish before I can love" is also a caricature I hope you are aware, as it is in himself that God takes the punishment, and thus that itself is an act of love and acceptance.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Leprechaun

God's justice is indeed nothing like our concept of justice because he doesn't HAVE TO punish sinners, (or require that Someone Else take the rap). He simply wants to reform them.

This next comment is not aimed at you ...

There seems to me to be a certain corollary between the rewards and punishments view of atonement (of which SubAt is a subset) and the view that penal policy should have a strong retributive rather than therapeutic element.
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
It is hard to tell whether the Protoevangelium of James is
  1. accepted as non-canonical but basically true,
  2. as an "apocryphal" book (in the common not the technical sense of "apocryphal") that nonetheless manages to have enough truth to be useful, or
  3. neither of the above

Which is it?
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
B

James' translation
Thanks. [Smile]

Is it me, or do the Orthodox have various apocryphal stories (again, in the common not the technical sense of "apocryphal") in the Tradition that they themselves take with a grain of salt?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Yes. Mileage varies as to how much salt. Some take no salt at all. It's not that important really. We like a good story ... some true, some suspect ... but still useful at a different level.
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Yes. Mileage varies as to how much salt. Some take no salt at all. It's not that important really. We like a good story ... some true, some suspect ... but still useful at a different level.
How can one tell how much "salt" the Orthodox apply to a particular story?
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
How can one tell how much "salt" the Orthodox apply to a particular story?
Listen to the hymns during Matins and Vespers. You'll hear the unsalted parts of the story there. If we don't sing the story in our worship, then we may love it, and tell it, and generally believe it, but it's probably well salted.
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
I may have missed this question before(long thread and my eyes are starting to glaze over), but what exactly is "Byzantine Catholic?" I used to know somebody who said he was one. Are they entirely independent of both Constantinople and Rome? Or what? Don't know if this is an appropriate place to ask.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Byzantine Rite Catholics are under the Pope of Rome but follow the Orthodox Church in most liturgical and pietical (if that's a word) practices.
 
Posted by The Dumb Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Uhhhh, try pious. English is such a bitch.
 
Posted by Sir George Grey. (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

This "I have to punish before I can love" is also a caricature I hope you are aware, as it is in himself that God takes the punishment, and thus that itself is an act of love and acceptance.
I appreciate that this may be a tangent, but I don't think it's a caricature.

In saying that Jesus had to die to pay the price for our sins, is the above not admitted also?

Otherwise Jesus didn't have to die.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Dumb Acolyte:
Uhhhh, try pious. English is such a bitch.
But "pious practices" isn't what I mean -- I mean practical piety, more like. Things like fasting and the form of personal prayers and such.
 
Posted by The Dumb Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Right. And it's rather close to pious opinion, which you don't mean. Lemme paw around a bit in the one decent dictionary at hand, Websters New International, 2nd ed.

Well the 17th century German Pietists seem to have commandeered all the likely words (pietist, pietistical, pietistically); sort of like the evangelicals--oops! Wrong thread. And you probably want something people will actually understand, so pietose (=pietical, rare) is out. No useful entries near pious, either--not even in the teeny boxed entries at the bottom of the page.

Ummm. The Orthodox priest I listen to frequently calls the entire effort (fasting, repentence, the prayers, service, the whole lot) the Ascetical Life. Does ascetical practices work?
 
Posted by Alt Wally . (# 3245) on :
 
quote:
Does ascetical practices work?
Only if they're pietistiffic TDA.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
DO ascetical practices work? [Razz] Sorry, it's the grammatical pedant in me.

No, they don't work at all. [Eek!] They are tools. You might as well ask whether or not a hammer works. It only works if it is used correctly.
 
Posted by The Dumb Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Don't get huffy with me, dear. I'm just trying to help you out of your pietistiffic dictional corner.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0