Ask an Orthodox Christian

[milovany]

You're the Orthodox Christian, Milovany. You get dibs. :)  I do need the Dormition of the Theotokos, though.

 

Rosie, I'd like you to have it for your curriculum.  It's because I'm EO that I might have more opportunity to find one later.  It's fine -- we do a lot for Pascha already so my kids aren't really missing that one book.  Seriously, it's easy to get anything past them when they're functioning on three hours of sleep Pascha morning ;) .  Talk with Maggie Anne and see if it would work for you, okay? The Holy Weekend set is three books; you may not want them all -- I don't know how much her church is charging. 

 

And I have an extra Dormition one, believe it or not! PM me your address and I'll send it to you.

[Hunter's Moon]

I happened to be stopping by my parish the other day and picked up "The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers" by Stanley Harakas and ""The Early Christian Fathers: A selection from the writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius" if anyone is interested in how these books address different topics/issues. 

[JenniferB]

Following and joining the convo.

[happi duck]

Is there a simple way to find a church and know ahead of time if it has a service in English?

 

I visited a Greek church and I was so confused and felt so out of place I fled!

[milovany]

Is there a simple way to find a church and know ahead of time if it has a service in English?

 

I visited a Greek church and I was so confused and felt so out of place I fled!

 

Happi, here's a link: Orthodoxy in America (assuming you're in America!). You can put in your zip code and it brings up the parishes in the area (well, at least the ones that have registered there, which is quite a lot).  Zoom in and then hover over the different parishes available, if more than one.  When you hover, info. on the parish pops up and then hopefully there's a website linked there, too.  If there's not, you can still Google the name of the church and the city and you should be able of find a website.  At the church's website, see if it says on the home page what language the services are in, or see if there's a visitor's page.  Hopefully it will say somewhere.  You can always PM me the link(s) if you can't tell up front and I can try and get a feel for what language the services might be in based on the wording of their descriptions, etc.  You could also let me know via PM where you're located (if you want) and I can tell you if I know any other Orthodox folks around there.  We have quite a wide variety of locations represented here at WTM. 

 

Hope that helps! 

 

[Juniper]

Patty Joanna and milovany were very good at steering me to the right church. :)

[PrincessMommy]

Is there a simple way to find a church and know ahead of time if it has a service in English?

 

I visited a Greek church and I was so confused and felt so out of place I fled!

 

yes, going to Orthodox in America website is a great start.  However, it is sometimes out of date.  If you think you may live near any of us, you can PM us and we may know of or about a parish.   In the meantime you may enjoy a little chuckle from this Baptist pastor's experience at an EO liturgy during his sabbatical:

 

http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/2012/08/21/a-baptist-preacher-goes-to-church-part-1/

[Teannika]

(aka Eastern Orthodox/EO)

 

It was mentioned on another thread that some might appreciate the opportunity to ask those who are Orthodox Christians questions about their beliefs and practices, since eastern Christianity is pretty different from all the different versions of western Christianity. I'm tentative about doing so because none of us are experts, but there are a few of us here who'd be willing to try and provide information on what we believe, why, and how we practice our faith. Hopefully it goes without saying, but we're not going to be big on trying to defend our faith in a Scripture war. It's just not something we're into, really. We fully believe our faith is scriptural to be sure. We respect the faith of non-Orthodox Christians and the faith of non-Christian religions, and the lack of faith in non-believing persons, etc. etc.

 

As an intro, might I provide a neutral timeline of church history, published by US News? Looking at this timeline, you can see where the Orthodox church is coming from. There was one united church at the beginning, then theological differences caused a split into two halves (Eastern and Western) in 1054 A.D. From there, the western church split more and more into thousands of denominations. Meanwhile, over in the East, things continued on as they always had. The faith saw some rapid development in the beginning, much like an infant develops rapidly in its early years, as it moves toward maturity. It is still the same church with the same faith as a baby is the same person as the adult. Our perspective is this, that the original church still exists, it never ended, it has an unbroken thread throughout history.

 

Hopefully that provides a good starting point for the discussion. (And I'm open to being corrected by my Orthodox kin for anything I may have described poorly.) May God bless the journeys of all.

 

Hello milovany, thankyou for this. I'm still back on this first post... I was just looking at the church timeline link and it made me wonder if you believe in the early local churches that were separate from organised ones such as the Catholic church? And if you accept all Catholic Church history as the true and only church history?

[Teannika]

Forgive me, but I don't understand the question.

 

No worries, that would be my fault, and I hope that I can express it a little better.

 

What I am asking really is if an Orthodox Christian believes that all of the very early local New Testament churches all joined together into one organised church that runs (or one might say in a negative way "dominates") them all. Did every Christian become Catholic in other words?

 

There are 87 references in the bible to the local churches recorded in the New Testament, and they did not go by a denomination name, nor were they structured in the same way with Cardinals, Archbishops, Popes etc. This is why I am confused.

[brehon]

Hello milovany, thankyou for this. I'm still back on this first post... I was just looking at the church timeline link and it made me wonder if you believe in the early local churches that were separate from organised ones such as the Catholic church? And if you accept all Catholic Church history as the true and only church history?

I'm obviously not milovany and I'm not Orthodox; my family is RC. I think what you don't understand is that there was no Catholic or Orthodox in the early Church. There was just the Church and we were one. Those early local churches were the Church. Both RC and EO study and learn about the same ECFs (early Church Fathers). If you're interested, the Didache is a fantastic resource to read (and I think our EO ladies would agree. I do apologize if I speak, erm, write out of turn.) The Didache pre-dates by several centuries the canonization of the NT.

 

Earlier in the thread several ladies wrote out later Church history leading up to the Great Schism (in 1054). EO has it's version of events (which was explained earlier in the thread) and, of course, RCC has it's version of events. Truly, no one post or even a series of posts can do justice to early Church history. And, no, I feel fairly certain that an EO would NOT accept the RC version of history as "true and only version of church history", especially the history leading up to the Great Schism. ;)

 

<slinking back to read mode>

[milovany]

Hello milovany, thankyou for this. I'm still back on this first post... I was just looking at the church timeline link and it made me wonder if you believe in the early local churches that were separate from organised ones such as the Catholic church? And if you accept all Catholic Church history as the true and only church history?

 

What I am asking really is if an Orthodox Christian believes that all of the very early local New Testament churches all joined together into one organised church that runs (or one might say in a negative way "dominates") them all. Did every Christian become Catholic in other words?

 

There are 87 references in the bible to the local churches recorded in the New Testament, and they did not go by a denomination name, nor were they structured in the same way with Cardinals, Archbishops, Popes etc. This is why I am confused.

 

I'm coming at this from the Orthodox point of view, my apologies to my Catholic friends.  I mean no offense. 

 

The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church were one and the same prior to the split in 1054 AD. They weren't called RC or EO originally. Nearing the turn of the millennium, some tensions between east and west came to a head and the RCC split off from the original church, which then became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church.  From the EO perspective, the RCC wanted to do things differently than what had always been done, and the Eastern church wouldn't change to accommodate.  So asking me about the Catholic Church doesn't fit this paradigm because Orthodoxy Catholicism.  That all said, to answer your question, no I don't believe the Catholic version is the true and only church history (while I do believe they were part of the original church).

 

As Patty Joanna said, there were no free-form, separate individual churches. That's a modern understanding that isn't based on fact; it's based on individual interpretation of Scriptures separate from the church that gave those Scriptures to us. The churches were all united as one Body.  Of course they were, no?  Christ had just told them this would be the case right before He died (we ask ourselves, did He really do such a poor job of choosing apostles that they couldn't pass on what he'd taught them for three years? That's not the case, of course, so whatever developed must have been according to what He'd taught them and according to His promise that His Church would be one and hell would not prevail against it). You can read non-biblical writings of the time that verify this, things like the Didache.  These letters talk about how the churches were under the bishops, who were in communion with each other, and how they were all united through the reception of the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ.  

 

Hope that helps a bit. 

[Teannika]

Thankyou both. I have quite a bit of reading and study ahead of me...

[milovany]

The history I'm referring to is basically coming from other stories and documents of the time.  There are LOTS of other letters written at the same time period; there are the lives of the saints to read about; there are the seven ecumenical councils that you can study.  Without a doubt, the early Christians -- the ones dying for the faith, the ones living holy lives, the ones leading and teaching the church, the ones writing the Creed and organizing the Scriptures -- were liturgical in practice as described in my previous post on the other thread. They were baptized for the remission of their sins, they were chrismated with holy oil after baptism, they partook of the Eucharist, they confessed their sins to Christ in the presence of a priest and received absolution through his laying on of hands in prayer, they wrote and venerated icons, they honored the Mother of God (not worshipped her), they wrote prayers and prayed written prayers, etc.

 

By the way, if you're interested in seeing more letters like the Didache, look at the cover of this book and then you can read the letters listed there online at this site.  I can't fully vouch for the content on the second site linked ... I just provide it as a place to read the letters listed on the Sparks book free online.

 

[happi duck]

Happi, here's a link: Orthodoxy in America (assuming you're in America!). You can put in your zip code and it brings up the parishes in the area (well, at least the ones that have registered there, which is quite a lot).  Zoom in and then hover over the different parishes available, if more than one.  When you hover, info. on the parish pops up and then hopefully there's a website linked there, too.  If there's not, you can still Google the name of the church and the city and you should be able of find a website.  At the church's website, see if it says on the home page what language the services are in, or see if there's a visitor's page.  Hopefully it will say somewhere.  You can always PM me the link(s) if you can't tell up front and I can try and get a feel for what language the services might be in based on the wording of their descriptions, etc.  You could also let me know via PM where you're located (if you want) and I can tell you if I know any other Orthodox folks around there.  We have quite a wide variety of locations represented here at WTM. 

 

Hope that helps! 

 

 

 

Yes. If you go to Orthodoxyinamerica.org, you can do a search. I would be happy to do it for you if you pm me a zip code. It is fairly easy to identify churches that are more ... accessible to visitors if you know what to look for. :0)

 

 

yes, going to Orthodox in America website is a great start.  However, it is sometimes out of date.  If you think you may live near any of us, you can PM us and we may know of or about a parish.   In the meantime you may enjoy a little chuckle from this Baptist pastor's experience at an EO liturgy during his sabbatical:

 

http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/2012/08/21/a-baptist-preacher-goes-to-church-part-1/

 

Thanks!!

[milovany]

Thanks for putting up with our repetitively redundant responses.  :0)

 

The bane of using phones to post.  I discovered that yesterday.  It doesn't show the "new reply while you were typing" thing. 

[brehon]

I'm coming at this from the Orthodox point of view, my apologies to my Catholic friends. I mean no offense.

 

The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church were one and the same prior to the split in 1054 AD. They weren't called RC or EO originally. Nearing the turn of the millennium, some tensions between east and west came to a head and the RCC split off from the original church, which then became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church. From the EO perspective, the RCC wanted to do things differently than what had always been done, and the Eastern church wouldn't change to accommodate. So asking me about the Catholic Church doesn't fit this paradigm because Orthodoxy Catholicism. That all said, to answer your question, no I don't believe the Catholic version is the true and only church history (while I do believe they were part of the original church).

 

As Patty Joanna said, there were no free-form, separate individual churches. That's a modern understanding that isn't based on fact; it's based on individual interpretation of Scriptures separate from the church that gave those Scriptures to us. The churches were all united as one Body. Of course they were, no? Christ had just told them this would be the case right before He died (we ask ourselves, did He really do such a poor job of choosing apostles that they couldn't pass on what he'd taught them for three years? That's not the case, of course, so whatever developed must have been according to what He'd taught them and according to His promise that His Church would be one and hell would not prevail against it). You can read non-biblical writings of the time that verify this, things like the Didache. These letters talk about how the churches were under the bishops, who were in communion with each other, and how they were all united through the reception of the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

Hope that helps a bit.

No offense taken. :)

 

To riff a bit off your second paragraph and what Patty Joanna wrote - not only were there no free form, independent churches (in the modern sense of that phrase), there really weren't Bible-believing Christians at that time, either. (Not in any sense that 21st century Christians who describe themselves as only Bible-believing would recognize.)

 

Teannika, when you hear/read people who are part of liturgical churches (RC & EO, certainly, and also Lutheran, Anglican, etc) speak about Tradition (intentional big T) part of what we're referring to are the teachings handed down from Jesus through the Apostles to who we now refer to as the early Fathers. These teachings (letters, exhortations, epistles, etc) are the early Church's records of itself.

[Hunter's Moon]

Something I would like to add on the independent churches issue: 

 

We see these "independent churches" in the New Testament through the letters of St. Paul. He is writing these churches, instructing them in the Faith. They were started by the Apostles, and Paul was a Bishop (he ordained Timothy as a Bishop of Ephesus - "I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee through the laying on of my hands" (2 Timothy 1:6)), instructing those church communities that were in his care, just as our Bishops do today. 

 

ETA: Just to clarify a bit more --- Paul is considered by many to be an Apostle, though obviously not one of the Twelve. Bishops are successors of the Apostles, so we can either see him as an Apostle himself, or a successor of the Apostles, making him a Bishop. 

[Hunter's Moon]

No worries, that would be my fault, and I hope that I can express it a little better.

 

What I am asking really is if an Orthodox Christian believes that all of the very early local New Testament churches all joined together into one organised church that runs (or one might say in a negative way "dominates") them all. Did every Christian become Catholic in other words?

 

There are 87 references in the bible to the local churches recorded in the New Testament, and they did not go by a denomination name, nor were they structured in the same way with Cardinals, Archbishops, Popes etc. This is why I am confused.

 

Another thing I wanted to touch on --- in the Nicene Creed, which the Orthodox recite at least once a week at Divine Liturgy, it mentions the "one holy catholic and apostolic church...." Catholic in this sense means universal. The original Faith of the Early Church Fathers (ECF) was catholic (little c). 

[Teannika]

No offense taken. :)

 

To riff a bit off your second paragraph and what Patty Joanna wrote - not only were there no free form, independent churches (in the modern sense of that phrase), there really weren't Bible-believing Christians at that time, either. (Not in any sense that 21st century Christians who describe themselves as only Bible-believing would recognize.)

 

Teannika, when you hear/read people who are part of liturgical churches (RC & EO, certainly, and also Lutheran, Anglican, etc) speak about Tradition (intentional big T) part of what we're referring to are the teachings handed down from Jesus through the Apostles to who we now refer to as the early Fathers. These teachings (letters, exhortations, epistles, etc) are the early Church's records of itself.

 

I could have expressed bible-believing Christians better as scripture believing Christians. The Jews who penned the NT scriptures for us often referred to scripture and also emphasised its importance. And I'm not saying you deny the importance of scripture at all when I say this! Just pointing out that it did mean very much to them. As regarding traditions, I didn't think they were into many traditions at the time of the apostles except for the Lord's supper and baptism.

 

Example:

 

Paul writes to Timothy:

 

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3)

 

 

And the Bereans in Acts 17 who lived during the very early church - they weren't just relying on men to teach them by word of mouth (oral tradition):

 

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

 

In regards to the local church at this time, in my limited understanding what I am believing is that after the apostles died out that believers continued to pop up in all sorts of locations. I'm picturing believers in homes fellowshipping together (just as in the early days with the apostles). And because of persecution, they wouldn't have had any choice not to meet like this. My view is that it wasn't a hierarchal system, but one where the elders ran it, bishops were still elders etc. So not one head Pastor, Bishop, or Pope being at the very top.

 

So that makes me think of another question: Do you have a hierarchal system and what does it look like? Is there one head priest for every church and the hierarchy stops there? (I've heard it said in this thread that you don't accept the Pope's position.)

[Teannika]

Another thing I wanted to touch on --- in the Nicene Creed, which the Orthodox recite at least once a week at Divine Liturgy, it mentions the "one holy catholic and apostolic church...." Catholic in this sense means universal. The original Faith of the Early Church Fathers (ECF) was catholic (little c).

Thankyou for reminding me about the little "c" in catholic, I will keep that in mind. I do remember learning this when I was talking online to some Catholics, and looking at quotes with the word used this way.

[Teannika]

Thanks Patty!

I'll go quiet again and continue to read as the thread goes along, and let the info about OC keep coming together for me.

[Mrs. A]

I almost never come to the chat board so I did not even see this thread until now. I probably won't have much to add since the other ladies do such a great job, but I'll be quietly following along. :)

[ElaineJ]

In regards to the local church at this time, in my limited understanding what I am believing is that after the apostles died out that believers continued to pop up in all sorts of locations. I'm picturing believers in homes fellowshipping together (just as in the early days with the apostles). And because of persecution, they wouldn't have had any choice not to meet like this. My view is that it wasn't a hierarchal system, but one where the elders ran it, bishops were still elders etc. So not one head Pastor, Bishop, or Pope being at the very top.

 

 

 

Actually, I think as you begin your study of early Church history you'll find that the church fathers often refer to the importance of the bishops. I think that persecution can make solidarity of leadership more important, not less important. This is my impression, anyway.

Elaine

 

[milovany]

".... what I'm believing .... I'm picturing .... "

 

The Orthodox Christian question to this would be, what are these thoughts/opinions based on?  It doesn't seem you can say historical documents because it wouldn't be true (other letters written at the time point to connected liturgical churches led by bishops and priests).  It also seems you can't say Scripture because the men through whom the Holy Spirit gave us Scriptures, and the men through whom the Holy Spirit canonized the Scriptures, were all part of this connected liturgical church.  So, when the NT talks about house churches, those churches are liturgical and organized under the bishops.  They actually have what is called in Scripture "the prayers," for example.  These are the prayers they prayed at specific times of the day (something still in common practice).  These were Jewish men, women and children used to worshiping God in the temple and through their daily lives at home.  They didn't all of a sudden chuck everything they knew and start meeting causally in groups on the grass, singing worship songs with someone playing guitar [said tongue in cheek].  They had set services, they had incense, they had set times of prayer, they had priests, etc. 

 

So where are these ideas and opinions coming from?  I've yet to see any kind of historical documents outside the Bible that support the idea of free-form, loose, independent churches. The idea can only develop through private interpretation of the Scriptures (something we're actually warned not to do), but there are more concrete, factual places to get the needed information. 

 

I've enjoyed sharing a conversation with you, Teannika.  Thanks for not having an argumentive spirit, which can often be the case in places where discussion of faith is taking place. 

[PrincessMommy]

Teannika - one thing is that the historical documents point to both a church structure and liturgy.   The Didache (circa 90AD) talks a little about liturgical structures and Justin Martyr (110–165AD) lays out a simple liturgical structure.

 

 St. Ignatius, who was a disciple of St. John, speaks of the bishop (Martyred circa 100-120AD).  He says to treat the bishop as Christ himself.  "See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop."  Letter to the Smyrnaeans

 

and;  Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest — Letter to the Magnesians

 

Also, there is a great book called "The Shape of the Liturgy" - it's a huge book, but a great resource.  In there the author documents that throughout the Christian world the "shape" of the liturgy was pretty much the same.  Certain prayers said (particularly Eucharistic prayers) might be slightly different depending on where (No. Africa, Asia, etc), but that the theme of even those particular prayers were the same.  I've read a few of them (from another book which I cannot remember), and they are strikingly similar to the prayers our priest prays over the Eucharistic meal today in the liturgy.

 

The other interesting thing about "The Shape of the Liturgy" is that he documents arrest records.  The Roman's were great record keepers, so when they went in an discovered a house church they documented everything they found and whom they arrested.   What they found were vestments, chalices, other instruments for liturgical purposes (usually gold and jewel encrusted).

 

okay, I can't find the list in the book and I'm dealing with a crabby grandson who wants to tear the book up   But, this should give you a brief idea of some of this stuff.

[Juniper]

Thanks Patty!

I'll go quiet again and continue to read as the thread goes along, and let the info about OC keep coming together for me.

 

A number of years ago I was on this board and posted a question along a similar vein. Mine was more about the fact that the eo church needed to change adapt in light of archeological discoveries. The posters response, "What discoveries?"

 

 

Being the good seminary student and minister's wife I was, I took this as a challenge. The more I researched the more it became clear the these so called discoveries did not exist. Timothy Ware's book the Orthodox Church is a good read for understanding this better.

 

:)

[ktgrok]

I completely agree.  I don't want this thread to de-evolve into what is wrong with other traditions.   

 

So far, so good :)

 

I'm RC, and nothing has offended me. Of course, i very nearly went East, so maybe I'm less sensitive, lol. Logically/theologically, I agree with the East on many key issues. It made more sense to me on many things. I kind of wanted to go East. But I was led West...very clearly. Tradition, family ancestry, and several other things combined. Plus, whereas all the EO I've talked to say they feel God in the Divine Liturgy, I feel it more in the Catholic Mass. For whatever reason, God wanted me there. 

 

sorry to hijack...I find it fascinating, and figure our differences are because we don't have God's knowledge or vision, and it will get cleared up in the end. 

 

(says a Catholic with an EO understanding of original sin, who theorectically despises that the Church feels the need to spell out the how/why of mysteries, and yet, can't get enough of that kind of theological wrestling..turns out I love it.)

[brehon]

I could have expressed bible-believing Christians better as scripture believing Christians. The Jews who penned the NT scriptures for us often referred to scripture and also emphasised its importance. And I'm not saying you deny the importance of scripture at all when I say this! Just pointing out that it did mean very much to them. As regarding traditions, I didn't think they were into many traditions at the time of the apostles except for the Lord's supper and baptism.

 

Example:

 

Paul writes to Timothy:

 

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3)

 

 

And the Bereans in Acts 17 who lived during the very early church - they weren't just relying on men to teach them by word of mouth (oral tradition):

 

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

 

In regards to the local church at this time, in my limited understanding what I am believing is that after the apostles died out that believers continued to pop up in all sorts of locations. I'm picturing believers in homes fellowshipping together (just as in the early days with the apostles). And because of persecution, they wouldn't have had any choice not to meet like this. My view is that it wasn't a hierarchal system, but one where the elders ran it, bishops were still elders etc. So not one head Pastor, Bishop, or Pope being at the very top.

 

So that makes me think of another question: Do you have a hierarchal system and what does it look like? Is there one head priest for every church and the hierarchy stops there? (I've heard it said in this thread that you don't accept the Pope's position.)

As Patty Joanna said "scripture" in these verses means what we now call the OT. There simply wasn't an organized NT or really even an unorganized one, not in the first century. What there was included a huge number of letters, epistles, homilies, collections of teachings, etc. these were memorized, copied, and distributed among the various centers of teaching and worshipping.

 

There is a *huge* difference between traditions and Tradition.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

I just wanted to add that the New Testament was not written by Jews. The books that comprise the NT were written by Christians. Some had formerly been Jewish, but they believed Jesus Christ was the Messiah and God in the flesh so they were the first Christians. Luke was a gentile before he became a Christian.

[Alenee]

A number of years ago I was on this board and posted a question along a similar vein. Mine was more about the fact that the eo church needed to change adapt in light of archeological discoveries. The posters response, "What discoveries?"

 

 

Being the good seminary student and minister's wife I was, I took this as a challenge. The more I researched the more it became clear the these so called discoveries did not exist. Timothy Ware's book the Orthodox Church is a good read for understanding this better.

 

:)

 

I was thinking along these same lines, Juniper.  ;)

[Laurie4b]

No worries, that would be my fault, and I hope that I can express it a little better.

 

What I am asking really is if an Orthodox Christian believes that all of the very early local New Testament churches all joined together into one organised church that runs (or one might say in a negative way "dominates") them all. Did every Christian become Catholic in other words?

 

There are 87 references in the bible to the local churches recorded in the New Testament, and they did not go by a denomination name, nor were they structured in the same way with Cardinals, Archbishops, Popes etc. This is why I am confused.

 

I'm not Orthodox, but rather have spent my whole adult life in an independent, evangelical church (not part of a denomination) so I thought maybe if I concur with what these Orthodox friends are saying, it would help attest to the fact that what they are saying are beliefs shared by Christians across the spectrum.

 

Looking at Acts 15: there was a doctrinal dispute and it was taken to a centralized authority in Jerusalem, where a council decided it. The council then sent letters to all the Gentile believers with their decision. It is hard to conclude anything except that there was a central authority to whom the various churches looked to decide doctrine authoritatively. Notice that both Peter and Paul subjugated themselves to that council.  The letters that comprise much of our NT were sent out to various churches as well and circulated among various churches.

 

Where do you see in the NT evidence of house churches acting independently of the apostles?

 

Another evidence of this is in 1 Cor 11:16. Paul, who travels all over the place and has founded or visited many, many churches, says to people who might disagree with him that neither he nor the other churches of God have any other custom--again, indicating the interconnective nature of the church in his time.

 

Are you aware of any historical documents about individual house churches or small congregations that existed apart from a connection to the early church? All of Christian and secular historical documents of which I'm aware attest to the one church for the first 1,000 years, though there were certainly disputes and disagreements.

 

The word catholic means whole church. The one church. That's why the creeds that are also the basis of Protestant belief contain the following phrases: "I believe in the holy catholic church"

( Apostles' Creed) and from the Nicene Creed, "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church."

 

So there was no need for Christians to "become" Catholic. There was just one church of Christians. The only groups who didn't join the one  church were those who were judged by the church to be outside of church doctrine, such as people who believed that Jesus was not eternal, etc. I think you are imagining that there were all these house churches who were somehow not connected to the rest of the church. Some disconnections did occur, either by the group being labeled heretics, or by later conquests, but I'm aware of no evidence that there were just a lot of little house churches doing their own thing, unconnected to the whole. 

[Laurie4b]

 Can you tell me Orthodox beliefs about music? Are instruments forbidden in EO worship? (though I think I've read organs are sometimes used). If so, why? 

 

Are there any new songs written? (words and/or melody)

 

Are there Orthodox songs that you might listen to at home that are not part of the service? Or do you ever listen to music from other denominations?

[Alenee]

 Can you tell me Orthodox beliefs about music? Are instruments forbidden in EO worship? (though I think I've read organs are sometimes used). If so, why? 

 

Are there any new songs written? (words and/or melody)

 

Are there Orthodox songs that you might listen to at home that are not part of the service? Or do you ever listen to music from other denominations?

 

I can only answer what I placed in bold.  At the beginning of my conversion, I was still listening to popular Christian praise songs (what you would hear on KLOVE) but as my conversion continued, I found a lot of the music distasteful to my ears because they are based on what I couldn't agree with anymore.  Even some of my favorite hymns became a problem for me for the same reasons.

[Alenee]

 

Are you aware of any historical documents about individual house churches or small congregations that existed apart from a connection to the early church? All of Christian and secular historical documents of which I'm aware attest to the one church for the first 1,000 years, though there were certainly disputes and disagreements.

. 

 

I think I was of the mindset of the house churches being independent because I wasn't looking to the whole of the Church.  That is to say, before I became Orthodox, I believed that what is said in the NT about house churches to be like what you would find today.  Totally independent of any other entity.  I was reading with my own version of events assumed.  However, when I looked at history from the beginning of the Church, it became quite clear how wrong I was.  I loved the line in a book I read that, "Orthodoxy was all of the verses I never underlined."

 

 

[PrincessMommy]

 Can you tell me Orthodox beliefs about music? Are instruments forbidden in EO worship? (though I think I've read organs are sometimes used). If so, why? 

 

Are there any new songs written? (words and/or melody)

 

Are there Orthodox songs that you might listen to at home that are not part of the service? Or do you ever listen to music from other denominations?

 

Instruments are not forbidden as far as I know.  I've also heard of organ's being used.  Also, EO churches in Africa use drums.   But, yes, I would say that it is probably discouraged.  The reason I've heard is that the voice is created by God for woship, so why not use only that.  Also, there is some concern about the music becoming overly emotional (like a love song).  Our faith should not be emotional.  There's tension between those who have added 4 part western style singing  (aka Peter the Great in Russia) and those who use a more Byzantine style.

 

Yes, there are new settings for hymns being written.   I  have had the pleasure to sing in choir during a liturgy from one of our N. American monasteries.   Some of the settings sounds reminiscent to Aaron Copland's style.   I've also heard some stuff that is overly schmaltzy and...and...ick.  Way too much like a performance rather than a liturgical service.    I know there are some new prayers (Called Akathists) that were recently written.  There are no new additions to liturgical hymns (words) that i am aware of.  Just the settings have changed, not the words.

 

I don't think there are Orthodox songs that aren't part of the service.  Just like I don't think there are Lutheran songs outside of what is sung at a Lutheran service. I used to listen to liturgical songs more than I do now.    Ancient Faith Radio is good for lovely Orthodox church music.  And, I will say that, coming from a Charismatic background and then listening to the liturgy before I ever set foot in a church helped me tremendously to not feel completely and utterly lost.  Occasionally, I'll listen to Classical choral music (usually it's church music).  I don't listen to contemporary Christian music.  Then again, after my teen years I didn't listen to it much outside of church anyway, so it probably doesn't count. 

[Mrs. A]

 Can you tell me Orthodox beliefs about music? Are instruments forbidden in EO worship? (though I think I've read organs are sometimes used). If so, why? 

 

Are there any new songs written? (words and/or melody)

 

Are there Orthodox songs that you might listen to at home that are not part of the service? Or do you ever listen to music from other denominations?

 

 

No instruments beside the voice are used because the voice is the most perfect instrument. :) 

 

Traditionally the entire congregation sings throughout the liturgy since the liturgy is the work of all the people rather than just the work of the priest and the choir. But you will find many churches where the choir sings alone and no one else joins in. There are hymns which are variable from week to week and if the people are not familiar then those hymns are usually done by the choir or a chanter. 

 

From what I understand organs being used is a very recent development and is really not a universal practice. I'm not sure how they even were introduced honestly. Maybe someone else knows more on that. 

 

New hymns can be written but it's not done by just anyone and it's not common at all. If a new saint is canonized, for example, hymns for that saint will be composed, but those same hymns will then be used by all Orthodox who venerate that saint. 

 

As far as arrangement of music there is some flexibility and different people have arranged different music for the same hymns however, the flexibility is limited as to style and mode. I am not at all familiar with the Slavic musical traditions (aside from knowing some of the melodies), but at least within the Byzantine tradition there are 8 tones which are used and any composition or improvisation must fit the tone which had been prescribed for the particular hymn being sung.  The other thing that chanters and arrangers have to consider is that the music is always subject to the text. Words can't be changed or added or subtracted for the sake of a beautiful melody.  One thing I love about Orthodox hymns is that a person can learn all the Church's theology just by attending the services and listening closely to the hymns. They are SO beautiful (and that's a HUGE understatement!). 

[Mrs. A]

Oh, and there are songs that are not for liturgical use, but I have only come across a handful of them. But two of them are two my absolute favorite songs.  

 

[Mrs. A]

Oh, and yes, there is Orthodox Folk Music, both in the US and in all Orthodox Countries.  One of the writers of "music to listen to at home" is the son of Father Peter Gilquist (+ memory eternal) and it is beautiful.  

 

 

Fr. Peter John's music is great! If you happen to have his Live at the Village cd I'm on there singing with him for one of the songs :)

[Laurie4b]

I know that there is an Orthodox Church in America, but it still seems like it's heavily Russian. When do you think  there will be a culturally American Orthodox Church? What do you imagine that would be like? (besides the language used in services)

[Hunter's Moon]

I know that there is an Orthodox Church in America, but it still seems like it's heavily Russian. When do you think  there will be a culturally American Orthodox Church? What do you imagine that would be like? (besides the language used in services)

 

There is a Western Rite Orthodox Church, which is in full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, but they did not adopt the Eastern liturgies (the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom). Western Rite parishes are under the Antiochian Orthodox Church Archdiocese of North America, as well as the Russian Church Outside of America (ROCOR), though I am sure those are much more rare. 

 

I do not know much about the history of Western Rite parishes, or the Antiochian parishes for that matter as I have only attended Russian and Greek parishes. 

[Hunter's Moon]

I attend an Antiochian parish which is almost entirely made up of American converts. The parish is one of many founded by a group of Americans who converted en masse in, I believe, 1987.  We do use the Eastern liturgy and the services are entirely in English.  

 

I should clarify. Not *all* of the Antiochian parishes use a Western liturgy, but the ones that do will usually fall under the Antiochian Archdiocese. 

[Mrs. A]

I know that there is an Orthodox Church in America, but it still seems like it's heavily Russian. When do you think there will be a culturally American Orthodox Church? What do you imagine that would be like? (besides the language used in services)

I think it is slowly evolving. But there is a long way to go yet, IMHO. I think that my own parish feels pretty American, but only when compared to other EO churches that have a larger concentration of parishioners of a particular ethnic heritage. For an American with no cultural identity outside of this country the Arab, Greek, and even Romanian presence in my parish might still feel pretty foreign.

[JenniferB]

And the Bereans in Acts 17 who lived during the very early church - they weren't just relying on men to teach them by word of mouth (oral tradition):

 

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Your post/s are loaded with comments, questions and concerns. I can only participate here a bit. So, I wanted to address the Scripture and Bereans concern.

 

Let's look at the whole passage and think about all that's going on here. Notice that the Bereans are praised for their: readiness of mind, hearing the word orally delivered to them, searching the OT Scriptures, and believing. They are praised as fair minded while those in Thessalonica were not praised because they caused a stir which cut off Paul from teaching. The brothers had to send Paul away because if them. See? They are not praised for *only* searching the Scriptures. They are praised for fair mindedness, hearing the oral word, searching the OT Scriptures, and believing.

 

11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men. 13 But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was preached by Paul at Berea, they came there also and stirred up the crowds. 14 Then immediately the brethren sent Paul away, to go to the sea; but both Silas and Timothy remained there."

 

If we do likewise, it would be a good and fair minded approach: readiness of mind, hearing the word, searching the Scriptures, and believing.

[Hunter's Moon]

I will say, I was pretty turned off by the obvious ethnicity associated with the Orthodox Church. My family is a whole mish-mash of European blood, as well as Canadian and Native American. I felt very strange walking into a Russian parish, and then a Greek because I felt as if I was intruding. But that could not be further from the truth. I was accepted with open arms at both parishes, and even though I am still asked my last name by the Greeks at my parish, I do not take it to mean they will only accept me if I am Greek. They are just curious. 

[Laurie4b]

I just lost my post grrr...we are OCA and it feels very American to us, though the jurisdiction has Russian roots it does not feel Russian, we venerate saints from all over the world East and West, American saints are on  the iconastasis...when our neighboring Russian parish shares days with us we all say " boy they are so Russian " ;) It is fun to have pan orthodox days and happens a lot around here.

 

Our services are all English except at Pascha when Fr. uses the languages of the parishioners...so we do get Russian, Estonian, Welsh, Greek, Arabic, Irish, Spanish, etc...personally we always say we are Irish Orthodox with a grin.

 

Our parish is very ethnically and culturally  diverse and well very American. 

 

oh came back to add..potlucks on sunday are a riot...pupusas and enchiladas next to sauerkraut and borscht and  jambalaya and Mujjadarra. Oh wonderful potluck...I love sundays the one day a week i do not cook!

 

Who are American saints?

 

[milovany]

Who are American saints?

 

Many of the more well-known ones are those that brought the Orthodox faith to America through Alaska (from Russia), or who were Alaskan Christians:  St. Herman of Alaska, St. Innocent, St. Juvenaly, St. Peter of Alaska.  Here is one pretty comprehensive list of American saints, not just those coming through Alaska.

[milovany]

As to the culture question, I have a hope that someday we'll have a national commemoration day either on 4th of July or Thanksgiving Day where all the Orthodox in America celebrate an American feast day, much like the Greek Orthodox Church has a national commemoration on March 25 (which is both Greek Independence Day and the Feast of the Annunciation).  I may be off on the purpose of such a type of day, and maybe it'll never happen.

[Laurie4b]

As to ethnicity, our parish is pretty...American.  Others have noted the roots and all, so I'll leave that alone.  I am pretty...American, myself.  Don't have a single bone in my body of Anglophile or Swedeophile or Norwegianophile or Scottophile or Irishophile or Italophile or Rusophile.  I probably would have had a harder time getting used to Orthodoxy if there had been only strongly ethnic churches.  Ironically, now that I have been Orthodox awhile, I am starting to enjoy ethnicities of all kinds more than I did before.   

 

At the Agape Vespers (the main service after the Paschal Divine Liturgy on Pascha), we read the gospel in as many languages as there are people who speak them in our parish.  This year, we had Japanese, Russian, French, Greek, Romanian, Arabic, Aramaic, and Serbian.  Last year we also had Hebrew and German and Spanish and Slavonic, but those folks have gone off to seminary.  It is the only time the laity reads the Gospel during the year.  The Japanese, Russian, Romanian, Arabic, Serbian, Spanish and Hebrew were native speakers.  The others, learned languages.  

 

That sounds really beautiful, like Pentecost.

 

Is there anything "ethnic" about  OE parishes besides the language spoken? 

 

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Little hijack

 

I read this book a few years back and thought it explained the split very well

 

I also wanted to recommend His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. I think it is a fair and balanced approach to the topic (though I may be a bit bias since my priest is the author).

[Laurie4b]

Some Orthodox parishes are, in fact, nothing more than "culture clubs."  This is a sadness.  But some immigrants do not want to let go of the way of life from the "Old Country" and see the parish as the only place to preserve their ethnicity and to pass it along to their children.  In the process, some parishes forget the "church" part, or subordinate it to the ethnicity.  

 

I'm sure this is not limited to Orthodoxy.  But it is notable in Orthodoxy.  I am under the impression, however, that this situation is becoming increasingly rare.  For one thing, the young people aren't really into "preserving the ethnicity."  Most of them want to, and do, assimilate into American life.  

 

I live within half an hour of about 13 parishes.  I would say that three of these are "ethnically insular" and the rest, while they might have more or less ethnic flavor, are not insular, or about the ethnicity.  They have the ethnic flavor because they were founded by people coming from other countries who brought their Orthodoxy with them...but they are not about being "ethnic" per se.  

 

I would also say that Orthodoxy attracts people who like ethnic flavor, and so even some *completely* American converts seek out a particular parish because they love the ethnicity.  I know for a fact that this is not limited to the Orthodox, however.  My good friend used to run the RCIA for her Roman Catholic parish, and she told me (with some amount of frustration) of the people who wanted to enter the Roman Catholic Church because "they just love being more Irish/Italian/French..."  And I have a friend who attends an African American Pentecostal fellowship because she loves that particular culture...not that she was born into it.  :0)  

 

I guess I'd have to say that ethnicity should not be a barrier to or the purpose of the Orthodox Church.  But there are a lot of things in all parts of our lives that should be one way or another, but are not.  

 

Very interesting information!

 

I didn't word my question well. I've read the various Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc. (I don't know the right word for the 'branches') are the "cultural expression of the Orthodox faith" for that country. That's what I'm trying to understand--what types of things besides language are "Russian" about Russian Orthodox or "Greek" about Greek Orthodox, etc. ( And I do appreciate the info here. I'm always interested in various cultural groups!)