Ask an Orthodox Christian

[Laurie4b]

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.

 

Cool! It would be nice to be able to feast on a cultural feast day, no? :)

[Laurie4b]

Here is another American saints page...http://orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_American_saints

 

Thanks!  What is the process of being recognized as a saint in the Orthodox Church?

[scholarly]

I am so very interested in visiting one of the Orthodox churches in my city, but I am concerned about the expectations for children during the service. Could someone tell me what the general practice is for little ones? Also, how is breastfeeding handled? Thank you!

[PrincessMommy]

One of our famous theologians called children's noise in church "Holy noise" because they are part of the parish just as any of us adults.   But, that said, it does vary from parish to parish.  If you happen to find yourself in a parish that is mostly older folks, then yes, they would have a harder time adjusting to little ones and their noises and such.  Sadly, I've heard stories of very unwelcoming parishes... but I think that may be a problem across Christian traditions.   We have a lot of kiddies in our parish and many of them like to sit/stand/play quietly up front.  One of our priests fondly calls it the "mosh pit"  :)     As with any church that welcomes children, we just ask that if they're really being loud or crying to take them out into the hallway or to the fellowship hall until they quiet down.  That's probably obvious in just about any church.

 

As Milovany said, YMMV.  PM any of us and we may know of a nearby a parish that would welcoming and used ot children.  Don't be afraid to ask..or to call the priest of the local parish and find out if they've got a lot of kiddies in their church.

[Kathryn]

I am so very interested in visiting one of the Orthodox churches in my city, but I am concerned about the expectations for children during the service. Could someone tell me what the general practice is for little ones? Also, how is breastfeeding handled? Thank you!

 

I attend a larger Greek parish (Greek being relevant because we use pews, so people aren't really moving around during the liturgy). All children are welcome in the liturgy. There is a "cry" room that has a television hooked up to a camera in the sanctuary so that parents who don't want to take their little ones in the sanctuary can still participate. Most people with small children bring crayons or small toys to keep them entertained. I've not seen anyone breastfeed in my church, but most of those who have infants sit in the very back, so I don't know if they feed in the sanctuary or if they go into the cry room.

 

I'm sure that if you contacted someone at a church you're interested in visiting, they could tell you about the particular culture of that church. My church also has designated greeters to guide visitors through "church etiquette" each Sunday. They will either say hello and let you be, or sit with you and point out where we are in the liturgy book and explain what is going on throughout the liturgy, depending on how much hand-holding you'd like.

[Mrs. A]

Thanks!  What is the process of being recognized as a saint in the Orthodox Church?

 

A brief explanation from Orthodox wiki:

 

 

 

 

Very soon after Our Lord sent the Holy Spirit to his assembled apostles and disciples, the Church recognized those who had served God as ancestors of Christ and foretold his coming, proclaimed the Gospel, and risked their lives bearing witness to Christ. These people were remembered and honored often through annual celebrations without any formal process that established them as saints. Their remembrance and honor grew from the actions of the faithful until these holy ones were remembered by the whole Church.

This manner of recognizing those who were holy among us continues today within the Orthodox Church, except now the recognition of the glorification of a person has been formalized within the services of the Church, an act often referred to as canonization.

Today, as more clergy and faithful recognize and honor that one amongst them had led a virtuous life of obvious holiness this veneration becomes widely recognized, and the manner of recognition is formalized. This leads to requests, usually through thediocesan bishop, for the Church to recognize that person as a saint. Then, usually an investigative committee is formed to review the life of the person who is being considered for glorification. When the committee is assured that the person has led a virtuous and God centered life, a process that may take an extended period of time, a report is submitted to the Holy Synod of the local Church stating the reasons why the person should or should not be recognized as a saint.

After receiving and considering the report, the Holy Synod decides whether or not to number that person among the saints. If the bishops agree they then have icons painted and liturgical services composed for the glorification of the new saint. If the bishops do not agree, the life of the person may again be considered at a future time after further study.

The formal Rite of Glorification begins with a memorial service for the person about to be glorified, after which Vespers and Matins are chanted with special hymns to the saint, and the icon for the saint is unveiled. The feast date for the commemoration of the new saint is established, and the life of the saint is published. Finally, the glorification of the new saint is made known to the other Orthodox Churches so that they can place the name of the new saint on their calendars

[Juniper]

I have a question for us in general. :) it is my understanding that we primarily use the Septuagint as our "Old Testament." Can someone explain the why of that or provide a link? Also, should we use other versions of the OT? If we do, how do we handle verses that are in those other versions, but are not in the Septuagint?

[Alexigail]

There's a brief overview on Orthodox Wiki:

 

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Septuagint

 

And another history here:

 

http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/index.htm

 

I know there are differences between the Septuagint and other, more modern, OT translations.  The history is a bit murky as well and there are disagreements about the details.

[Kathryn]

I have a question for us in general. :) it is my understanding that we primarily use the Septuagint as our "Old Testament." Can someone explain the why of that or provide a link? Also, should we use other versions of the OT? If we do, how do we handle verses that are in those other versions, but are not in the Septuagint?

My understanding is that we use it because it is the version used at the time of Jesus and the apostles. So, their references and understanding of OT scripture would have been based on the LXX.

[mommaduck]

Children are extremely welcomed in the Church! Noise happens. Children have been known to run up to priests during homily and stand there with them. Correction is generally very gentle. Sometimes, someone will walk around with showing them icons to keep them busy. People have been known to take turns with children not theirs to help mothers out (mostly if they know the parent). If there is ever a stink eye made, then it's a rare, cranky person. Mostly, you will get comforting smiles from others that have been parents and understand what you are going through. My last parish, it was the Matushka's granddaughters that made the most ruckus. We all just ignored it. She tried to occupy them. One would run up to her Papaw (the priest). None of us minded. We would sit in pews along the walls, so occasionally the youngest members would be in the open middle occupying themselves in some quiet play. Where I'm at now, we are crowded in and there are littles. We all make do however we can. In our first parish, a really large parish, there was a nursery and there was children's sunday school after communion (communion and homily were flipped to accomadate this). Even then, there were people occupying children and taking turns. There were times where godparents came and took a child (two of our children had a godfather that is son to a priest...he can be worse than the kids ;) ). I've only been in one unfriendly to children parish for a visit. St. Sophia's Cathedral in D.C. I was actually told that I would be asked to leave if my nursing toddler said another word (she always asked "eat?" right before communion). I spent most of my time in the hallway. No one was helpful in directing me to a nursery. I left in tears after that threat. Granted, it's the fact that it's a "wealthy, political" cathedral and I was comforted by being told that the priest there would probably have been horrified to hear of my experience with an over-zealous usher.

[Alenee]

I'm with Patty Joanna.  The littles are distracting because they're sooooooooo cute!  We've had an explosion of new families with young children and/or babies being born.  For this mama with older kids, it's awesome to see the littles and to watch how they are cared for and taught during services.

[Alenee]

Something I wanted to share about pastoral care within Orthodoxy and my experience.

 

When we belonged to our former churches outside Orthodoxy, pastoral care was fairly lacking.  Pastors seemed to only give sermons, then stay relatively hidden from the people.  I realize that's not the case everywhere but this was my experience.

 

In Orthodoxy, before entering, I spoke with four different priests.  The local ones were amazing right from the start and welcomed me and my questions with much grace and care.  The fourth was one I contacted while on a trip in Wisconsin.  Before the trip, I'd attended a few services locally and couldn't shake it.   I found an Orthodox church just up the road from my hotel in Wisconsin and contacted them about any mid-week services.  The priest there informed me there weren't any going on but that I was welcome to come and just be there as long as I wished, any time I wanted to visit.  I was floored!

 

As we began our entry into the Church, I had tons of questions and emotional baggage from former church experiences and my priest handled all of it with amazing care.  He consistently opened up time for me to just talk.  His calendar is filled to the max because he is giving care to his parishioners.  I still find that mind-boggling. 

 

Most recently, I received the guidelines for participation in a major youth event from our youth director.  Unfortunately, my dd who is eligible doesn't fit the guidelines because of our work schedules.  I started to get worried but decided to e-mail our priest.  Within hours, he replied with complete understanding and grace for dd and our situation and told me not to worry about it.  Dd will be able to participate and he said that the guidelines were just that, a guide, not a hard and fast rule.  I nearly cried at his response because in our former churches this would not have been the case. 

 

I am still amazed to this day, the difference in pastoral care.  Priests take their position seriously, as a true shepherd to their flock...as a father to their children.  I often think about how I would've loved to have my priest as my dad.  :)  At Pascha, I found him before leaving and we hugged.  He held me close and told me he loved me.  WOW!

 

[Teannika]

I have to apologise, I have only just seen and caught up on all the comments made in response to my post. I was wondering how I missed them, but I remember now that when I came to check in on this thread I had to jump off the computer. And I forgot to come back! :-)

 

Thankyou for all of your responses.

[Teannika]

double post.

[Teannika]

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.

The New Testament was penned by Christians, yes. However they were Jews not Gentiles before they got saved. These-days, I personally do not believe that Luke was a Gentile, even though I was taught this growing up.

 

It is a teaching of tradition that says that Luke was a Gentile. I do not believe it can be supported scripturally however. The main reason is because we are told that the oracles of God were entrusted to the Jewish people:

 

'What advantage then hath the Jew? Or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were commited the oracles of God.' (Romans 3:1-2)

 

There are no other Gentiles penning the scriptures.

 

This brief study looks at some of the common arguments from both sides - http://www.maxddl.org/Luke%20-%20Gentile%20or%20a%20Jew.pdf

[milovany]

Tradition may play a part in whether Luke was a Gentile or Jew prior to becoming a Christian.  There were people there who knew for a fact which it was and these people wrote and spoke and therefore the "tradition" (story) of his life was passed down.  I haven't at all looked into this topic, and don't see the need to at this point (meaning for me, personally). It would be similar to the Virgin Mary only having one child:  Jesus.  Some people say she had more children herself, but Holy Tradition says she unequivocally did not.  How can we be so sure?  Because there were people who knew!  They lived at the same time and in the same place; many knew her personally.  They knew and they themselves said that she didn't have other children.  So even if that was never clearly stated in the Scriptures when they were written later, it was still common knowledge and fact for those that lived then.  It got passed on as knowledge, and thus is Holy Tradition.  Tradition isn't bad. 

 

I find it interesting, in another defense of Holy Tradition, that the names of the books of the Gospels are given to us through Holy Tradition yet few question the authorship of these books.  Nowhere in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John does it say that those men wrote their respective books.  The Scriptures alone do not teach us this - Holy Tradition does, and only Holy Tradition does.   

[Moxie]

This question comes from my Catholic brain. Sadly, I know very little about the Great Schism. So, Catholics have the Pope who is the final authority on faith and morals, right?? And Orthodox have several Bishops, is that right? What if there is disagreement? Who has final say?? I'm thinking specifically of medical technology. As it "advances", where do you go for guidance on whether or not XYZ is morally acceptable??

[milovany]

Yes, there's a plurality of bishops, like in the early church.  From what I understand, they basically don't move forward with something unless they all agree. That's the way it's always been and it's served the church well so far (stating that as the Orthodox point of view).  I don't know specifically about medical technologies and "new" topics.  Hopefully someone with more knowledge can jump in to answer that.  I imagine it's the same.  If it was something the church leaders felt should be decided upon, they could convene I suppose. 

[Moxie]

Another question--in the Catholic Church, there is much variety in our Bishops. Some are liberal, some are conservative, some are just nuts. Is there variety in your leaders? I get the impression that they all tend toward conservative but that might be totally wrong.

[Alexigail]

I'm not certain, but the impression that I have is that the EOC is less likely to make explicit statements about things like medical technology, birth control, and political issues than the Catholic Church.  

In Orthodoxy, local bishops and priests can have differing opinions about these things and can instruct their individual flocks or individual parishioners on what is best in their situation.  There are canons that are agreed upon as true for the whole Church, but bishops and priest to some extent have authority to guide people in one way or another if there is no canon for their specific situation.  The bishops will convene if there is a matter concerning doctrine, or a matter that is large enough to affect the Church as a whole.  In these cases, bishops have an equal say in making decisions.  There is not human authority- only Christ.    

On an individual level, we are told to ask for guidance from our priest, who will in turn seek guidance from their bishops and so on if the matter warrants consideration.  

There have been some official statements from Orthodox Churches regarding bioethics and medical technology which you can easily find on the internet. 

 

 

[PrairieSong]

Hopefully someone will correct me if I am wrong, but to my understanding the doctrine of Immaculate Conception sets the Virgin Mother apart from humanity in that she is completely without stain of "original sin," which would make her more "super-human" than simply human.

 

In Orthodoxy, we believe Mary to be human in all aspects, making her Son, fully Man and fully God, at once.

 

ETA: This is both personal belief and an EO thing. :)

 

Catholics also believe Mary is completely human, created by God, and that her Son is fully Man and fully God.

[PrairieSong]

I was reading this article today and thought you might want to read it.http://thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/you-call-my-words-immodest/  

 

Here is an excerpt: In contrast to Roman Catholicism, the Orthodox Faith does not believe that human seed of either sex alone constitutes human life in any way. If such a notion were true, then either of the sexes, or at least the woman, would be able to reproduce completely without need of anything from the other. But God “did not enable woman to bear children without man; if this were the case, she would be self- sufficient.â€34†Orthodoxy rejects the Latin belief system that ascribes being to “pure possibilities,†i.e., to abstract ideas of the potentialities of things. Scholastic theology says it is a sin to prevent a sperm cell and an ovum from forming a life and that the pure potentialities or possibilities of things exist fulfilled in some manner in the eternal mind and essence of God because He enjoys thinking about them.35 Therefore, Papism says, to prevent a conception is to destroy something that has a reality and being in God. This system of thought is not rooted in the Gospel but in the definitions and presuppositions of the Greek philosophers.

 

In response to the highlighted black part above, Catholics do NOT believe that the seed of either sex alone constitutes human life. That is ludicrous...if I am reading it correctly. It makes no sense. It is rather obvious that the author of this does not understand Catholic teaching regarding human sexuality, procreation, etc.  I could point out other things wrong here, but I'll leave it there. I do appreciate what has been shared about Orthodoxy, and I respect you very much. I have a dear friend who converted to Orthodoxy from Protestantism about a year and a half ago. BUT...please do not misrepresent the Catholic Church and her teachings. Thank you. 

 

ETA: Sorry for responding to this several days after the fact, but we have been having internet issues.

[milovany]

Thank you for clarifying with your thoughts, Prairiesong!

[Alexigail]

Catholics also believe Mary is completely human, created by God, and that her Son is fully Man and fully God.

 

 

However, we have very different views about the place of the Theotokos in God's creation, her nature, and her role in the salvation of humanity.  I think that's the larger point that's being made here.  From an Orthodox perspective, the Catholic dogma of Immaculate Conception places Mary in an elevated position that we reserve solely for Christ. I respectfully acknowledge that a Catholic may disagree with that, but in Orthodoxy these dogmas don't exist.  I do not mean to suggest that Catholics equate Mary with Christ or worship Mary or any other insulting thing.  Only that this particular dogma is not compatible with Orthodox teaching.  Only Christ is without sin, only Christ overcame fallen nature and conquered death. 

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Another question--in the Catholic Church, there is much variety in our Bishops. Some are liberal, some are conservative, some are just nuts. Is there variety in your leaders? I get the impression that they all tend toward conservative but that might be totally wrong.

 

I think you will find the same variety exists among Orthodox Bishops as it does among their Catholic counterparts.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Tradition may play a part in whether Luke was a Gentile or Jew prior to becoming a Christian.  There were people there who knew for a fact which it was and these people wrote and spoke and therefore the "tradition" (story) of his life was passed down.  I haven't at all looked into this topic, and don't see the need to at this point (meaning for me, personally). It would be similar to the Virgin Mary only having one child:  Jesus.  Some people say she had more children herself, but Holy Tradition says she unequivocally did not.  How can we be so sure?  Because there were people who knew!  They lived at the same time and in the same place; many knew her personally.  They knew and they themselves said that she didn't have other children.  So even if that was never clearly stated in the Scriptures when they were written later, it was still common knowledge and fact for those that lived then.  It got passed on as knowledge, and thus is Holy Tradition.  Tradition isn't bad. 

 

I find it interesting, in another defense of Holy Tradition, that the names of the books of the Gospels are given to us through Holy Tradition yet few question the authorship of these books.  Nowhere in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John does it say that those men wrote their respective books.  The Scriptures alone do not teach us this - Holy Tradition does, and only Holy Tradition does.   

 

Yes. This. Holy Tradition absolutely gave us the Scriptures.

 

Am I wrong in thinking that the Gospel of John was actually written by John himself? I know that we accept the authority of the other three Gospels through Holy Tradition, but I've always been told that John is the only eye-witness account that is written first-hand.

[JenniferB]

The question I keep coming back to when I am trying to understand another faith is how does it express itself in your life? How do you live it?

Being Orthodox Christian has helped me to live the life I always wanted to but felt powerless and lost to when I was an evangelical Christian. We say morning and evening prayers which were written long ago by those much closer to God and wiser and me. We stand during worship. We sing songs in the worship service that are not led by emotion (though I do get emotional at times.). We hear lots and lots of Scripture in the services, since they are mostly Scripture. We fast and feast according to the Church calendar. We get to participate in a sacramental life: confession and Eucharist for the healing of soul and body. We have Saints to look up to and who give us hope in a godly life beyond ourselves and our abilities. We read books or listen to talks which inspire godly living written by wise men and women. We have the hope of God in us and the peace of God in us to live out the faith as naturally as we can without angst. God's grace is tangible in all these ways of participation. I'm constantly thankful for The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (as we say in the creed) to be part of it. It's truly a joyful and FULL life. There are so many ways to participate. Everyday and moment there is literally some way to live out the faith, even while we sleep.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

How much hubris does it take  to quote oneself?   Sigh.  But I just remembered something else.  My Presbyterian pastor said that Luke wrote Acts with a certain short-hand...that when he said that Peter or Paul proclaimed the Gospel, Luke did NOT record what they proclaimed...but essentially, that was because it was the place where they preached the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of Luke.  Essentially, what he was saying is that Acts is a LOT shorter because it did not include the sermons of Peter and Paul, which were the gospels of Mark and Luke.  

 

Is this even relatively clear?  I feel so opaque tonight.

 

Here is brief description from the OCA website. http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/bible-history/the-new-testament/gospels

[Teannika]

Tradition may play a part in whether Luke was a Gentile or Jew prior to becoming a Christian.  There were people there who knew for a fact which it was and these people wrote and spoke and therefore the "tradition" (story) of his life was passed down.  I haven't at all looked into this topic, and don't see the need to at this point (meaning for me, personally). It would be similar to the Virgin Mary only having one child:  Jesus.  Some people say she had more children herself, but Holy Tradition says she unequivocally did not.  How can we be so sure?  Because there were people who knew!  They lived at the same time and in the same place; many knew her personally.  They knew and they themselves said that she didn't have other children.  So even if that was never clearly stated in the Scriptures when they were written later, it was still common knowledge and fact for those that lived then.  It got passed on as knowledge, and thus is Holy Tradition.  Tradition isn't bad. 

Yes. This. Holy Tradition absolutely gave us the Scriptures.

 

 

For myself, if I see a contradiction in the scriptures to what the tradition teaches, then I go with the scripture on the point. I see it as God having the final say that way. (For this reason I believe that Mary had many children, because my bible says that. And I believe that the scripture holds true to those eye-witness accounts. Ie. A verse in my Bible, (the AV1611), that is in support of Mary having other children is: 'And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.' (Matt 1:25) KJV. I'm happy to agree to disagree, no big deal on that point. I just wanted to share an example of my person perspective, how I too see that the firsthand eye-witness accounts are the final authority also, except that in the end I am relying on scripture, rather than other sources. So we are both saying that we are relying on eye-witness accounts, but still arriving at different conclusions).

 

 

Regarding the tradition of Holy Scripture -

 

I was reading up on the evidence that we have for the New Testament Holy Scriptures being in use by the priesthood of believers (1 Pet 2:5) of the early church, and these writings were quoted and accepted long before the Council at Carthage (AD 387). The priesthood of believers were organised and a part of local churches. The understanding of what was the truth, and what was genuine, would have been subject to the acceptance of the body of Christ as a whole. The epistles (letters) were written by ordinary men, and would have been written on papyrus because it was cheap and available. When they were written, they would naturally have began to be collected and put into book form, as many copies were made and passed on between church to church, individual to individual.

 

To start with, we have the scriptures themselves which tell us of Paul's epistles being accepted by the body of Christ, the church: '...even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles,.. as they do also the other scriptures...' (2 Peter 3:16-17)

 

The 27 books of the New Testament can all be found long before the Council of Cathage (397) had an offical meeting to declare what was officially accepted as 'Holy Scripture'. This is the reason that I hold for believing that the body of Christ had already settled and organised what was genuinely from God. They recognised it, and they knew it. 'The body of Christ' is what I am referring to as the church (not the Catholic Church that was non-existent at that time. No offence intended - just my belief. I don't believe that there was any other name given to it). So in this respect, I agree with Milovany that the tradition was eye-witness accounts that knew who was who! They knew who had written what, and they knew if they really were regarded as true Apostles. (The Bible that I read today, the AV1611, still has the subtitle that Paul wrote 'Hebrews'. Even if the books that were "officially" chosen at Carthage are based on requirements such as if the author was an Apostle, this is proof that even then they had to accept that Paul was the author, to accept the book to be genuine).

 

 

The manuscript evidence for the 27 books already being accepted as scripture include:

 

Polycarp (69 - 155) quotes Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, and ten of Paul's epistles.

The forger of 2 Clements - quotes Matthew, Mark Luke and John. He shows familiarity with Acts, Revelation, and six Pauline epistles.

Irenaeus (125-192) quotes the four gospels, Acts, and thirteen Pauline epistles.

Clement of Alexandria (150-217) quotes four gospels, Acts, the Pauline epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John, Hebrews, Jude, James and Revelation.

Tertullian quotes them as well (150-200)

 

From these accounts alone we find that all 27 books are in use before 200 AD.

 

The Old Latin Version and The Old Syriac versions are quoted about 150-180 AD.

 

The proof exists for us still today that even though the originals may have only lasted about 50 years due to handling and materials, thousands of handwritten copies were made of these writings and accepted as scripture in the early NT churches. The Christians around 100-325 AD had a small book that displayed the Syrian text type found in Asia Minor. (I'm not going to type out the rest of the witnesses now..)

 

 

 

{Please note: I am mainly typing this out for my own learning as I'm currently studying this all out as I go. So please feel free to add anything that I may have missed, or you think that I have misunderstood.}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[milovany]

Thank you for sharing your beliefs, Teannika!  Most of us here used to share them.  ;)  Your love for and desire for God are quite apparent. As an aside to your above post, there's nothing that we see as contradictory between Scripture and Holy Tradition (because Scripture isn't separate from Holy Tradition, but a part of it). Seriously, nothing.  Your example about the Virgin Mary is a good one.  You say she had more children based on your own understanding of the verse that you quoted; the early church knew, though, that she didn't have other children.  That belief/understanding was already part of the mindset of the church because of their personal experience with her life.  So when the Scripture verse was written, it couldn't have meant that she had other children, because they knew she didn't.  Hope that makes sense. Holy Tradition (based on personal experience with Christ and His life)  "trumps" personal interpretation of the words in the Bible. In an aside to the aside, the word "until" in that verse doesn't have to mean she had children later.  Think of the verse, "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.'"  Does this mean Christ will not sit at the Father's right hand once He puts His enemies under his feet?  It doesn't. 

 

I also think of Scriptures that talk about the bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Christ for the Eucharist.  Some traditions think these elements are symbolic, not that there's a Real Presence of Christ in them.  But the men who wrote the Scriptures in question were receiving the Eucharist as the actual body and blood of Christ not as a symbolic representation, so the words HAVE to mean what they were practicing (Holy Tradition), not what someone 2000 years later thinks they mean (personal interpretation).

 

That's the Orthodox approach to the faith.  You're right in that there was no Catholic or Orthodox church in the beginning -- it was just The Church.  All Christians were part of The Church.  It's just that later, when divisions came about, there had to be some differentiating.  So the "Roman Catholic" church is what the church became known as in the west after it broke off, and the "Orthodox Church" was the original that remained in the East ("Orthodox" meaning right-belief or right-praise).  It's similar with Orthodox Judaism, I'm assuming.  (An Orthodox Jew sister can correct me if I'm wrong.).  There was just the Jewish people originally, but because of divisions later, the original then became known as the "Orthodox."

 

Not arguing with you, in my post!  Just providing the Orthodox perspective. 

 

May I make a suggestion?  Perhaps you could read some of the extra-Biblical sources that you used to back up your beliefs in the above post.  It might be interesting to you to find that the church described therein is the same church the Orthodox (and Catholic) describe:  Sacraments, a priesthood that's separate from the laity, bishops, fasting, the prayers of the hours, etc. It's all in there because the early church was a united version of what became the Catholic and Orthodox churches.  That really can't be denied after an honest historical look at the situation. 

[Greta]

 

• I live my life in community.  I have learned to strive to be a person and not an individual.  Our society focuses on being an individual--defining oneself by one's beliefs, preferences, identity groups.  A person is defined by relationships.  And that personal relationship is lived out in community in the Church...  During our servivces the Eucharist--the Body of Christ--is offered to the faithful--the Body of Christ.  The cross represents both, in the vertical bar and the horizontal bar:  the relationship between God and humanity and among the faithful  
•  

 

This.  Your entire post was just beautiful, but this particularly struck me.  I think that American culture is very individualistic, and I was very much a product of my culture.  But Orthodoxy emphasizes personhood, not individuality.  My priest often reminds us that there is no such thing as private sin.  Every thought we entertain, every word we speak, and every action we take ripples through the lives of others like waves on a pond.  Before, I thought that not harming those around me was sufficient to make me a good person.  Now I am more aware that I sin when I fail to actively do, speak, and think that which is good, kind, and selfless.  I fail.  I fail more often than not.  But I try.  And that trying, that attempt, is one of the major differences in my life "before" and "after".

[Mrs. A]

Re: personal interpretation of scripture and using the words of scripture as the final authority - this can be a very tricky thing, especially if one is reading a translation rather than the original (and even more especially if it's 2000 years later!) Doing a quick google search on Matthew 1:25 (since that was the example used in this discussion) can pull up a large number of results discussing what the "until" really meant in the original text.

 

Another thing about scripture and tradition is that scripture (both OT and NT) has always been understood by a body of believers who have had a common understanding. When people did not understand they needed someone to explain (think of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, for example, or even Jesus and his disciples. He had to clarify things for them many times). If scripture is left to private interpretation then one can use it to support any opinion they want, Christian or not. Then you have individuals defining their own beliefs, rather than persons in community who share common beliefs. ;)

 

So that's why Orthodox Christians have always based understanding of scripture on what has been faithfully passed down through the years, rather than on personal understanding. If I read and develop an understanding that differs from the understanding of all the Church fathers throughout the centuries (holy saints who lived out the Christian life in an exemplary way) it's highly unlikely that my interpretation is the right one. ;)

[Laurie4b]

Why isn't your theological unity reflected in an ability to achieve structural unity? ie I "get" the decision to allow the church in a certain country/culture to reflect that culture to some extent while maintaining theological unity. I get that that is the ideal.I "get" that many Orthodox churches in the US were established when immigrants came. However, it seems like there would be able to be an establishment of an Orthodox Church in countries outside Russia, Greece, Syria, etc. that reflect those other countries and their cultures in something of a timely fashion, not taking decades or centuries.  Is the cultural/national more important in reality than it's supposed to be in theory? Organizationally, it doesn't make sense that it would take decades to do that . There must be some kind of debate that is unresolved.  What are the actual issues that hold that up?  Are there a certain number of patriarchs (is that the right designation) because of the number there was back in the Roman world?

[Alexigail]

However, it seems like there would be able to be an establishment of an Orthodox Church in countries outside Russia, Greece, Syria, etc. that reflect those other countries and their cultures in something of a timely fashion, not taking decades or centuries.  

 

 

 

The short answer is that they were too busy running for their lives and trying to preserve Orthodoxy in any form.

The long answer lies in the histories of these places.  Orthodox countries in the 20th century faced brutal persecutions.  Many of the Orthodox people who came here and established churches were keenly aware that their culture and way of life was being wiped out along with their families.  In Orthodox countries, the religion is inextricable from the culture.  People felt strongly that the United States was one of the only places where they could practice their beliefs without threat of persecution or death.  If someone is faced with this personally, it's tough to tell them that they should "Americanize".  

It's actually a very recent thing that there are large numbers of Americans converting to Orthodoxy.  My parents converted in 1979 and at that time it was somewhat of a rarity.  The push for an "American Orthodox Church" is a very new one, not even a few decades old anyway.

There is also a long tradition in Orthodoxy for a newly missionized area to place themselves under the authority of the "mother church" at least for a time until a structure and local traditions are established.  This didn't happen in America because although there were Russian missionaries in the United States in the 19th century, there wasn't time to establish a strong local church before the Russian Church was taken over by the Bolsheviks.  

 

As an American who was raised in the Church without any national or cultural ties to it (my ancestors are mainly Irish), I have trouble understanding why this is such a divisive thing for people. Yes, there are churches in the US that are more rooted in one culture than another, and there can be a language barrier.  But I can go into any Orthodox church in the world, in any language, and understand where they are in the Liturgy.  It's the same for everyone.  The beliefs are the same.  The text is the same.  The beauty of the icons, the scent of the incense, the Eucharist in the chalice - it's all the same.  There is waaaaay more that unites us than that divides us.  

 

EDIT:

I also want to add that "structural unity" as you're viewing it isn't necessarily a goal in Orthodoxy.    The church is unified.  Local customs and variations are embraced in Orthdoxy, not something to be avoided or fixed.    

 

 

 

There must be some kind of debate that is unresolved. 

 

Why?  

 

History takes time to unfold. 

[milovany]

A very practical result that you can look at for this "disorganization" is this (to provide a concrete example for you):  When these different ethnic churches got established in America, they each appointed different bishops in the same areas.  Technically, you are supposed to have one bishop over an area.  But in our unique situation, it developed that we had a Serbian bishop, a Greek bishop, and a Russian bishop in the same city, each overseeing their jurisdiction.  To unify, what do we do with this plurality?  Which two bishops get kicked out of the bishopric (which really also ought not happen) and which one stays?   It's not an easy problem.  We can't just say, "Okay.  All Orthodox churches in America will now be under the Orthodox Church in America banner.  This bishop stays, this one goes, this one stays, this one goes."  A bishop is a bishop.  So the situation is messy, but not something that creates disunity.  While the seeming disorganization isn't ideal, it's hasn't created a unity issue either.  All canonical Orthodox persons can attend and receive the Eucharist in any canonical Orthodox church, whether Russian, Greek, Serbian, American, Antiochian, or whatever. 

 

Another similar issue is old calendar/new calendar.  We're supposed to be unified under one calendar, but some things changed that and now we have two different calendars functioning in Orthodox world.  It'd be nice to have it fixed (and I lean toward old calendar myself), but it's not something that has created a canonical break in Eastern Orthodoxy.  (Some groups have left canonical Orthodoxy over the issue, but the option remains to stay united as it doesn't have to be a divisive issue.)

[Alexigail]

"Oh, it will happen.  Just give it a few hundred years."

 

:0)

 

 

 

:laugh:

 

  If Christians were Tolkein characters, we'd be the Ents!

[ktgrok]

Is it true that someone that is Greek Orthodox wouldn't be able to walk into say, a Russian Orthodox community and receive communion? 

[milovany]

Is it true that someone that is Greek Orthodox wouldn't be able to walk into say, a Russian Orthodox community and receive communion?

 

It's not true. If properly prepared, they would, as described a couple of posts up. These jurisdictions are both canonical Eastern Orthodox churches. It's considered a good idea to contact a priest ahead of time if possible, when visiting, to see what "properly prepared" includes in their parish*, and/or to introduce yourself and let them know that you'll be visiting and that you're Orthodox, because the priest does have the prerogative to withhold communion if they don't know for sure that someone is Orthodox. 

 

* In some monasteries, especially, and for example, being properly prepared means having confessed to a priest within the previous 24 hours, whereas at our parish, confessing every 4-6 weeks is the norm. Parish to parish, it's more common I think that the person just needs to be prepared according to their own practice at their home parish. Hope that makes sense. 

[TianXiaXueXiao]

For myself, if I see a contradiction in the scriptures to what the tradition teaches, then I go with the scripture on the point. I see it as God having the final say that way. (For this reason I believe that Mary had many children, because my bible says that. And I believe that the scripture holds true to those eye-witness accounts. Ie. A verse in my Bible, (the AV1611), that is in support of Mary having other children is: 'And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.' (Matt 1:25) KJV. I'm happy to agree to disagree, no big deal on that point. I just wanted to share an example of my person perspective, how I too see that the firsthand eye-witness accounts are the final authority also, except that in the end I am relying on scripture, rather than other sources. So we are both saying that we are relying on eye-witness accounts, but still arriving at different conclusions).

 

 

Regarding the tradition of Holy Scripture -

 

I was reading up on the evidence that we have for the New Testament Holy Scriptures being in use by the priesthood of believers (1 Pet 2:5) of the early church, and these writings were quoted and accepted long before the Council at Carthage (AD 387). The priesthood of believers were organised and a part of local churches. The understanding of what was the truth, and what was genuine, would have been subject to the acceptance of the body of Christ as a whole. The epistles (letters) were written by ordinary men, and would have been written on papyrus because it was cheap and available. When they were written, they would naturally have began to be collected and put into book form, as many copies were made and passed on between church to church, individual to individual.

 

To start with, we have the scriptures themselves which tell us of Paul's epistles being accepted by the body of Christ, the church: '...even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles,.. as they do also the other scriptures...' (2 Peter 3:16-17)

 

The 27 books of the New Testament can all be found long before the Council of Cathage (397) had an offical meeting to declare what was officially accepted as 'Holy Scripture'. This is the reason that I hold for believing that the body of Christ had already settled and organised what was genuinely from God. They recognised it, and they knew it. 'The body of Christ' is what I am referring to as the church (not the Catholic Church that was non-existent at that time. No offence intended - just my belief. I don't believe that there was any other name given to it). So in this respect, I agree with Milovany that the tradition was eye-witness accounts that knew who was who! They knew who had written what, and they knew if they really were regarded as true Apostles. (The Bible that I read today, the AV1611, still has the subtitle that Paul wrote 'Hebrews'. Even if the books that were "officially" chosen at Carthage are based on requirements such as if the author was an Apostle, this is proof that even then they had to accept that Paul was the author, to accept the book to be genuine).

 

 

The manuscript evidence for the 27 books already being accepted as scripture include:

 

Polycarp (69 - 155) quotes Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, and ten of Paul's epistles.

The forger of 2 Clements - quotes Matthew, Mark Luke and John. He shows familiarity with Acts, Revelation, and six Pauline epistles.

Irenaeus (125-192) quotes the four gospels, Acts, and thirteen Pauline epistles.

Clement of Alexandria (150-217) quotes four gospels, Acts, the Pauline epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John, Hebrews, Jude, James and Revelation.

Tertullian quotes them as well (150-200)

 

From these accounts alone we find that all 27 books are in use before 200 AD.

 

The Old Latin Version and The Old Syriac versions are quoted about 150-180 AD.

 

The proof exists for us still today that even though the originals may have only lasted about 50 years due to handling and materials, thousands of handwritten copies were made of these writings and accepted as scripture in the early NT churches. The Christians around 100-325 AD had a small book that displayed the Syrian text type found in Asia Minor. (I'm not going to type out the rest of the witnesses now..)

 

 

{Please note: I am mainly typing this out for my own learning as I'm currently studying this all out as I go. So please feel free to add anything that I may have missed, or you think that I have misunderstood.}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think you will find an Orthodox Christian who will disagree that writings of the New Testament were widely cited by the Early Church Fathers. The 27 books of the New Testament were the generally agreed upon books through Holy Tradition that were considered most sacred and important for use in liturgical services. However, there were many other books that were also widely cited and some of these are still considered spiritually edifying, but they were not accepted as canonical. It is not as if, the books of the NT were chosen by anyone in particular or even at the Council at Carthage, but through Apostolic Tradition. We can even see this description in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon: 

 

 

The process of the canonization of the New Testament was complex and lengthy and in the initial centuries of Early Christianity there was yet no single New Testament canon that was universally recognized.^[86]The process was characterized by a compilation of books that apostolic tradition considered authoritative in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Old Testament.^[87] Writings attributed to the apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities and the Pauline epistles were circulating, perhaps in collected forms, by the end of the 1st century AD.^[88]

One of the earliest attempts at solidifying a canon was made by Marcion, circa 140 AD, who accepted only a modified version of Luke (the Gospel of Marcion) and ten of Paul's letters, while rejecting the Old Testament entirely. His canon was increasingly rejected by other groups of Christians, notably the proto-orthodox Christians, as was his theology, Marcionism. Adolf Harnack in Origin of the New Testament (1914) observed that the church gradually formulated its New Testament canon in response to the challenge posed by Marcion.^[89]

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian held the letters of Paul to be on par with the Hebrew Scriptures as being divinely inspired, yet others rejected him. Other books were held in high esteem but were gradually relegated to the status of New Testament apocrypha. Justin Martyr, in the mid 2nd century, mentions "memoirs of the apostles" as being read on Sunday alongside the "writings of the prophets".^[90]

The Muratorian fragment, dated at between 170 and as late as the end of the 4th century (according to the Anchor Bible Dictionary), may be the earliest known New Testament canon attributed to mainstream Christianity. It is similar, but not identical, to the modern New Testament canon.

The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written circa 180 AD. A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, who refers to it directly^[91][92] in his polemic Against the Heresies, "It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground†of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."^[93] The books considered to be authoritative by Irenaeus included the four gospels and many of the letters of Paul, although, based on the arguments Irenaeus made in support of only four authentic gospels, some interpreters deduce that the fourfold Gospel must have still been a novelty in Irenaeus's time.^[94]

 

 

[Caitilin]

Katie, when we go to visit my MIL in Omaha, we attend one of the Orthodox churches down there. In the western rite parish to which we usually go, we make no special efforts in advance to make our arrival known, because it's a VERY small parish, and I have a big family--they remember us! :) if we go to the much larger Serbian Church, it is incumbent upon me to email or call in advance, tell the priest who we are, where we go to church, and that we are members in good standing with permission to receive the sacraments. It's not that we couldn't just go to church and receive--it is just courteous. :)

[TianXiaXueXiao]

PJ, I love that we crossposted similar replies to the same post! How very reassuring! :)

[Guest]

PJ, I love that we crossposted similar replies to the same post! How very reassuring! :)

 

It's pretty funny, isn't it?  And that's part of the beauty of HolyTradition--we don't roll our own, but pass down what has been passed down to us.  It saves a whole lot of arguing with and judging of one another.  That was an enormous relief to me in becoming Orthodox.

[ktgrok]

It's not true. If properly prepared, they would, as described a couple of posts up. These jurisdictions are both canonical Eastern Orthodox churches. It's considered a good idea to contact a priest ahead of time if possible, when visiting, to see what "properly prepared" includes in their parish*, and/or to introduce yourself and let them know that you'll be visiting and that you're Orthodox, because the priest does have the prerogative to withhold communion if they don't know for sure that someone is Orthodox. 

 

* In some monasteries, especially, and for example, being properly prepared means having confessed to a priest within the previous 24 hours, whereas at our parish, confessing every 4-6 weeks is the norm. Parish to parish, it's more common I think that the person just needs to be prepared according to their own practice at their home parish. Hope that makes sense. 

 

Good to know. Somehow I had it in my head that there was not cross communion between various Orthodox churches.

[Laurie4b]

I apologize for the wording of my question or perhaps the thoughts behind my question about organizational unity not keeping up with theological unity because it sounds like it offended people.

 

I'll work on articulating the underlying assumptions, questions, but it's complicated and very hard to ask so as not to inadvertantly offend.

 

[milovany]

.... it sounds like it offended people.

Knowing these folks, I doubt it! :) Ask away ....

[Laurie4b]

Milovany and others answered this pretty well but wanted to add a few thoughts...this idea of "timely fashion" and unity...

 

Partly it is not really seen as a pressing issue... the main focus of our Church is this..are we praying... are we receiving the sacraments...are we focusing on our own sins not on anothers... that is a lot of work on its own and frankly cultural differences that have little  day to day effect on the spiritual life of the people really are just back burner issues...there are more important things to focus on...it could happen tomorrow or next century...it is not that big a problem to most people.

 

Coming from my RC parish to my EO one that was a big mental readjustment for me...but it is part of that West/East view point I mentioned back the beginning of the thread.

 

Really the idea of timely change even in the West is not so clear cut... 5 years ago my RC parish was still debating proper implementation of Vatican II "changes" so even in the West things take decades and as far as unity there is still no cultural  or organizational unity  between my old parish's Hispanic parishioners and the Anglo ones except for the fact they share a building...everything is separate. I know the rivalry between my Grandmothers Irish Catholic parish and the Polish Catholic parish is epic...I think my poor Irish granny never did recover from the fact both her dc married Polish spouses ;) and let me tell you culture aside as a little kid during Lent over cooked cabbage is still over cooked cabbage  :ack2:

 

I do not think anyone can point specifically and say that there is a failing or unresolved issue in the EO Church based on the fact there are still cultural differences and "organizational disunity" and say that is somehow highlighting a failing of our "theological unity" . If anything it is a reflection only of humanness present in all churches and perhaps the ongoing American generational struggle for identity in a still fairly new culture. And I am not sure why the EO church would be expected to be any less human than the rest of the world...

 

We have unity..in belief , in liturgy...in faith. Why would anything else take precedence? 

 

And we do have frequent inter-jurisdictional meetings on a priest level and Bishop and hierarchic level...they pray,they talk, they work, they plan...the day to day physical organization issues will work out in the long run.

 

I am sorry that I worded my question in such a way that you read it as implying the bolded. It did not.

 

I will take a while to be able to articulate the reasons for my questions.

[Guest]

I apologize for the wording of my question or perhaps the thoughts behind my question about organizational unity not keeping up with theological unity because it sounds like it offended people.

 

I'll work on articulating the underlying assumptions, questions, but it's complicated and very hard to ask so as not to inadvertantly offend.

 

Laurie, seriously NO  offense taken.  It is a question we ask ourselves!  :0)  But we also know it will take time to sort itself out.  But your question was not offensive.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

I don't want to speak for others, particularly since I have not personally responded to your question about perceived disunity, but I don't think your question was offensive in any way, Laurie. I think the responses you have received simply reflect the emphasis we Orthodox place on unity of faith over and above details pertaining to culture and organizational structure. I personally did not view these details as any type of obstacle when I chose to convert to Christianity.

[Guest]

Good to know. Somehow I had it in my head that there was not cross communion between various Orthodox churches.

 

There's communion among us all, and at least in my neck of the woods, we go to priests outside our own jurisdiction for confession, if that is what works for us.  Our area is remarkable for the interworking of all the parishes among all the jurisdictions...its not 100% great but it is 88% great.  :0)  And that's great.  :)

[Alexigail]

I apologize for the wording of my question or perhaps the thoughts behind my question about organizational unity not keeping up with theological unity because it sounds like it offended people.

 

 

No apologies necessary.  Questions are good and yours probably express the confusion that a lot of people feel when approaching the Orthodox Church.  Thanks for taking the time to ask.