Posted on 03/22/2002 4:04:11 PM PST by Wordsmith
Orthodoxy and Parallel Monologues
I dont know how many of our subscribers are Orthodox Christians. But from those who are, we get frequent complaints that insufficient attention is paid that very large part of the Christian world. So here goes. The occasion is a remarkable address by Professor John H. Erickson of St. Vladimir Orthodox Seminary in Crestwood, New York, delivered at the National Workshop on Christian Unity, which met last year in San Diego, California. Erickson reports that in 1990 he opined, The Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and with it, communism. With it also fell ecumenism as we have known it.
The last decade, he believes, has only reinforced that judgment. The Orthodox churches of Georgia and Bulgaria have withdrawn from the World Council of Churches (WCC), and other churches are under pressure to withdraw. In 1997 at Georgetown University, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew spoke of Orthodoxy as being ontologically different from other churches. This is sometimes referred to as the friends, brothers, heretics speech. Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow remains adamantly opposed to the Popes visiting Russia, and his other visits have met with a very mixed reception. At St. Catherines Monastery on Mount Sinai joint prayer was carefully avoided; in Jerusalem Patriarch Diodorus made a point of noting that he had not prayed with the Pope. (But note that, as of this writing, there are signals that the Russian Church may be weakening in its opposition to a papal visit.)
Is it the case, as Samuel (Clash of Civilizations) Huntington has said, that ecumenism was a Cold War phenomenon that has given way to the stark division between the West and the Orthodox civilization of Russia and the Balkans? Erickson writes: Some alarming questions arise. If the Orthodox mental world is so radically different from that of the West, what implications does this have for ecumenical relations, whether globally or here in North America? What implications does this have for people like me, who call themselves Orthodox Christians and belong to Orthodox churches, but who certainly are not only in the West but also in many respects of the West? From personal experience, I can tell you that the authenticity of our Orthodoxy increasingly is being questioned, both from abroad and here as well. And another, more farreaching question also arises: Is ecumenismlike liberal democracy and for that matter communismin fact simply a product of the West, one of its many ideologies, whose universal claims and aspirations will inevitably fail in the emerging world order, now that Western hegemony can no longer be taken for granted, now that the legitimating myths of the Enlightenment have lost their persuasive power?
Already in the nineteenth century, some Orthodox reached out ecumenically, mainly to Anglicans and Old Catholics. Orthodox theologians were significantly involved in Faith and Order during the interwar period. When the WCC was formed in 1948, the Soviet regime required Orthodox leaders to condemn it as part of a Western plot, but that changed dramatically in 1961. At the New Delhi assembly of the WCC in 1961, the Orthodox churches of Eastern Europe joined the WCC en masse. Their membership was advantageous for all concerned. In various ways Orthodox membership made the WCC itself more ecumenical, more global, more sympathetic to the diversity of situations in which Christians struggle in their witness to the gospel. At the same time, membership gave the Orthodox churches in question an opportunity to be seen in the West and gain contacts in the West, thus also raising their status back home. And the price seemed negligible. The WCC itself from the 1960s onward was becoming ever more concerned about issues like racism, liberation, and economic justice; it was especially sensitive to the strivings of churches and peoples of what was then the third world. The Orthodox churches of Eastern Europe could express concern about such issues with little risk of running afoul of the Communist authorities back homeand indeed they might benefit by contributing in this way to building up a good image for the Socialist states, and possibly even a cadre of fellow travelers.
Dialogue of Love
At Vatican Council II, the Catholic Church became ecumenically assertive; soon mutual anathemas between East and West were consigned to the memory hole and a dialogue of love was proclaimed. With both Catholics and the WCC, the Orthodox produced promising ecumenical statements. But on the Orthodox side at least, says Erickson, this ecumenism remained at the level of professional theologians and high Church dignitaries. For the faithful in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, ecumenism brought little more than the occasional photo of the Pope greeting a prominent hierarch, or of a long row of Orthodox bishops, all with their black klobuks and jeweled panaghias and crosses, seated prominently in a WCC assembly.
Moreover, the dialogue of love had to cope with what the Orthodox call uniatism. Uniate or Eastern Catholic refers, of course, to those Christians in the East who retained their liturgy and other practices while entering into full communion with Rome, beginning with the Union of Brest in 1596. Uniate is a term that is eschewed in polite ecumenical discourse today, but the Orthodox have a long history of resentment against what they view as Catholic poachers on their ecclesiastical turf. Erickson: Given this troubled history, it is understandable why the Orthodox churches have viewed uniatism as a sign of Catholic hostility towards them, as an attempt to subvert them by dividing brother from brother, and as implicit denial of their own ecclesial status. And of course it is also understandable why Eastern Catholics have resented the Orthodox for their complacent acquiescence in the suppression of the Eastern Catholic churches following World War II. He continues: The term uniate itself, once used with pride in the Roman communion, had long since come to be considered as pejorative. Eastern Rite Catholic also was no longer in vogue because it might suggest that the Catholics in question differed from Latins only in the externals of worship. The council affirmed rather that Eastern Catholics constituted churches, whose vocation was to provide a bridge to the separated churches of the East. But if, as subsequent dialogue was emphasizing, the Orthodox churches themselves are truly sister churches, already nearly at the point of full communion with the Roman Church, what rationaleapart from purely pastoral concern for Christians who might otherwise feel alienated and possibly betrayedcan there be for the continued existence of such bridge churches?
Animus is exacerbated by the demand of Eastern Catholics that their property, expropriated by Stalin and given to the Orthodox, be returned. The demand that all property be returned (restitutio in integrum) is, says Erickson, unreasonable, at least in some cases, because of demographic and other changes over the years. Then there is the matter of proselytism. Not only Catholics but armies of Protestant evangelizers, mainly backed by the religious groups in the U.S., are, claim the Orthodox, failing to recognize that there is an indigenous Christianity in Russia and Eastern Europe. In what Erickson calls ecumenism as we knew it, the Orthodox acknowledged that, while Orthodoxy actualizes the one true Church, there was a possibility of dialogue with other churches aiming at greater unity and fuller communion. Erickson writes: But not all Orthodox would agree with these assumptions. Some would take Orthodox claims to be the one true Church in an exclusive rather than an inclusive sense, so that outside the canonical limits of the Orthodox Church as we currently perceive them there is simply undifferentiated darkness, in which the Pope is no better than a witch doctor. How are we to evaluate these conflicting views? The exclusive view today claims to represent true Orthodoxy, traditional Orthodoxy. In factas I could argue at greater lengththis traditionalist view is a relatively recent phenomenon, basically an eighteenthcentury reaction to the equally exclusive claims advanced by the Roman Catholic Church in that period. Nevertheless this view has gained wide currency over the last decade.
Capitulation Charged
So who is pushing this very untraditional traditionalism? What is important to note is that those most committed to the traditionalism they preach are not pious old ethnics and émigrés but more often zealous converts to Orthodoxy. Like Western converts to Buddhism and other more or less exotic religions (New Age, Native American . . . ), these converts are attracted by their new faiths spirituality, which seems so unlike what the West today has to offer. They also are especially quick to adopt those elements which they deem most distinctive, most antiWestern, about their new faithnot just prayer ropes and headcoverings but also an exclusive, sectarian view of the Church that in fact is quite at odds with historic Orthodoxy. Superficially their message, proclaimed on numerous websites, may seem to be at one with that of the established, canonical Orthodox churchesat one with some of the statements of Patriarch Bartholomew or the Russian Orthodox Church, which, as we have seen, have been critical of the WCC and the Vatican. But in fact their message is different, even radically different. Their message, in my opinion, is more a product of the latemodern or postmodern West than an expression of historic Eastern Christianity. According to them, any participation in or involvement with the WCC or similar bodies represents a capitulation to the panheresy of ecumenism; Orthodoxys claim to be the one true Church is relativized, a branch theory of the Church is tacitly accepted, and church canons against prayer with heretics are repeatedly violated in practice and in principle.
Breakthroughand Alarm
During centuries of polemics, Rome tended to present itself as the Universal Church, and the only thing for others to do was to come home to Rome. In an earlier time, East and West recognized one another as sister churches, and that understanding, especially on the part of Rome, is making a comeback, most notably with the pontificate of John Paul II. Erickson writes: Significantly, the expression sister church did not cease to be used for the Western Church even after full eucharistic communion ended. For example, in 1948 Patriarch Alexei I of Moscowcertainly no great friend of the Roman Catholic Churchnevertheless could refer to it as a sister church. What is remarkable about the use of the expression since 1963, when Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI reintroduced it into modern OrthodoxRoman Catholic dialogue, is not that the Orthodox should use it with reference to the Roman Church but that Rome should use it with reference to the Orthodox churches. While the precise significance and practical implications of the expression have not been fully exploredit is not, after all, a technical term in canon lawit must be acknowledged that its use by modern popes represents a remarkable breakthrough in OrthodoxCatholic relations.
It is precisely that breakthrough that alarms the untraditional traditionalists in Orthodoxy. Many of them, Erickson notes, are drawing their polemical ammunition from apocalyptic Protestant Bible prophecy sources on the Internet and elsewhere. Traditionalist Orthodox employ these sources to depict everything from the New World Order and the use of contraceptives and implanted microchips to the papal Antichrist as signs of the final catastrophe from which their version of Orthodoxy is the only refuge. This accent on the Orthodox difference, Erickson says, has undermined ecumenism as we knew it. The modern selfconfidence which gave rise to the ecumenical movement in the first placeconfidence in the possibility of reaching agreement and achieving unity through dialogue, common reflection, and common actionhas given way to postmodern selfdoubt. We are in the midst of a radical decentering in which many new voices are clamoring for recognitionand on the religious scene this means not only traditionalists and fundamentalists but also contextual theologies of many sorts. In principle this decentering should help us appreciate diversity and facilitate dialogue. But this does not seem to be happening. Instead we seem to be entering the age of the parallel monologue. What counts are my own people, my own tradition, my own group, my own orientation. Those formed by other contexts may be tolerated or even honored with faint words of praise, but they are, as it were, ontologically different (to quote Patriarch Bartholomews Georgetown speech once again). They are, for me, spiritually empty. No solid basis exists for dialogue, communication, and communion.
What has happened to Orthodoxy and ecumenism is, of course, taking place within a cultural milieu in which all differences are fundamental, and fundamental differences are assumed to be insurmountable. Erickson reports, Recently I was speaking to a Serbian Orthodox student from Bosnia Herzegovina. He kept insisting, You here in the West just do not understand our situation. He really was saying, You cannot understand our situationso uniquely painful is it. Youin your very different situationare incapable of understanding our situation. These days many people are saying much the same thing: women, gays, people of color, the poor, those marginalized in various ways, and even white males of the West whose position in the world now seems threatened. We are all tempted to say, I am situated within a unique interpretive community. I have no need for dialogue with you or anyone else. Indeed, no basis exists for dialogue with you.
Waiting a Thousand Years
Ericksons conclusion offers nought for our comfort: We may still be convinced of the desirability of Christian unity. We may even be convinced of the need for Christian unity. But how convinced are we of the possibility of Christian unity? How many of us really believe that in Christ, crucified and risen, it is possible for us to overcome division, to understand each others situation, to make each others pain and joy our own? These are the some of the questions that face each of us involved in the ecumenical movement today.
Ericksons essay is remarkably candid and more than bracing. It goes a long way to explain the nonresponse, indeed hostility, of the Russian Church and others to the unprecedented initiatives of John Paul II. In the 1995 encyclical Ut Unum Sint (That They May be One), the Pope invited others to join in rethinking the function of the papal office itself, suggesting that reconciliation is more important than questions of jurisdiction. As one Orthodox theologian told me, Weve been waiting a thousand years for a pope to say what he is saying. Now this Pope has said it, and we act as though nothing has happened.
It is safe to say that the dearest hope of this Pope for his pontificate has been ecclesial reconciliation with the Orthodox, so that, as he has often put it, the Church may again breathe with both lungs, East and West. It is also safe to say that such reconciliation will not happen on his watch. That is very sad. We must hope, however, that the initiatives taken since the Second Vatican Council (and there have also been constructive initiatives from the Orthodox side), combined with a revival of an authentically traditional ecclesiology among the Orthodox, will in the years to come move us beyond ecumenism as we have known it, and beyond parallel monologues, to the fulfillment of Our Lords prayer, Ut unum sint. For all the reasons that Prof. Erickson discusses, that seems at present to be a wan hope. But then, we Christians were long ago given our instructions, and warned that we would have to walk by faith and not by sight.
Long before the schism, in about 500 A.D. comes the seminal work Cloud of Unknowing along with it's companion, Privy Counsel. These, I'm sure are quite recognizable by today's Orthodox and still form, IMO, the foundation for contemplative Christian practice today.
The basic contemplative practice of Benedictine and Cistercian monks is Lectio Divina - prayer stages moving from discursive to contemplative. This practice can follow the Rule of St Benedict (5th Century.) These practices however, some say, became rigid (isn't that the way with all systemitized practice?)
Much of the West's contemplative schools were centered in monasteries, and I've learned recently the differences in monasticism viewed from the East, thanks to the Reader David.
An interesting, though quite new, prayer practice that aims to build upon the foundation of Lectio Divina and rejuevenate the contemplative in the West is called Centering Prayer. You can browse more of both here.
And, lastly, one of my favorites is Brother Lawrence's The Practice of the Presence of God, though it's from a couple of centuries after the schism.
Something that has stayed with me the last few years, and I believe applies to the topic, was a bit of advice from the RCIA director here. She told me that some are created to be contemplative; some (likely most) are not. Yet each has something to give the other, each is of value in the completion of our true self, part of the body of Christ. And she told me that what I gained in silence should be shared in community, and vice-versa for those whose knowledge and aptitude was of a different nature.
Realizing this has made a great deal of difference in how I view my brothers and sisters. I think I'll be forgiven if I apply it as an analogy to the West and East.
I do realize that underneath it all is the un-namable indescribable, and I value this level of non-theological theology most highly; we listen to God by using our heart not head. But theology has it value for others, I cannot, and should not judge those whose contemplation may be different or transparent to me.
I will be gone 'til late Sunday, will visit again then; and I wish you and all here peace
It's as if they imagine that preConstantine Christians wore three-piece suits and crewcuts.
The Orthodox clergy, with their beards and robes, probably most resemble in dress the clergy of the preConstantine Church.
I would wager that the dispersed leadership model of the Orthodox is one of the things that's allowed them to persevere. The activity of the Patriarch of Constantinople was severely curtailed when the Ottomans captured the Empire. Likewise the Patriarch of Moscow when the Bolsheviks took power.
I don't think that many in the West can fathom what would have happened to, say, the Catholic Church if Rome fell to the Muslims before modern communications and the Pope was forced to live under the equivalent of house arrest. That's pretty much what happened to most of the Orthodox.
LOL! I've just discovered as much recently on the Neverending Story thread. What's odd is that I am unfortunately very familiar with true paganism. My wife went through a long period as a practitioner of "neopaganism" before we came to the Church. To anyone who understands what paganism actually is, it is impossible to confuse it with Christianity - no matter how many smells and how many bells.
And then on another level, all worship has its common characteristics. So if you try hard enough, you can associate not only Sacramental faith, but any faith, with paganism.
An Evangelical was posting at length about the paganism of devotion to Mary. I tried to show him how it's just as easy to find pagan parallels to worship of Christ. But I doubt the message got through.
Thanks, didn't realize this came so early. I'll have to peek at it again. Have a blessed weekend!
If youll take a minute to read Clark Carltons essay From First Baptist to the First Century you might be impressed by his observation that (consistent with Peter 1:20: no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation) we are called not to interpret scripture, but to be intepreted by it.
Heres a brief selection from his essay, which I recommend highly:
"I did not realize at the time that the Bible I held had become in fact an idol, an idol that I myself controlled. An infallible book is only useful if you have an infallible interpreter, which is where the Baptist doctrine of soul-competency came in. As an individual, I was that interpreter, the sole arbiter of what the Bible did and did not mean. The Reformation did not do away with the medieval Papacy and all of its pretensions, it merely democratized it and made everyone Pope! So there I was, an eighteen-year-old, pontificating on the correct interpretation of Scripture..."
"I also made a passing shot at the historical Church when I decried the tyranny of dogmatic formulae: Our heritage upholds the concept that each believer is free to explore for himself the mysteries contained in Gods Word, and not to be bound by meaningless creeds and denominational directives."
"I did not know anything about church history, about why the creeds were drafted, or even about what they affirmed. All I knew was that the very idea of a creed was un-Baptist, and therefore wrong. Of course, the slogan No creed but Christ is a creed, but that did not occur to me at the time..."
"Without question, however, the single most important book involved in my conversion to Holy Orthodoxy was John Zizioulas Being as Communion. This is also probably the most difficult book I have ever read... "
"What I learned from Zizioulas is that my own being as well as the being of the Church is inextricably tied up with the being of God Himself-but not simply with the fact that God exists and that I derive my existence from Him. Rather it is tied up with the way God exists, His mode of existence. For the first time I read that God is not an individual. If God exists, it is not because He is Necessary Being, but because He eternally begets His Son and breathes forth His Spirit in an unbroken communion of absolute love and self-giving. To say that God is love (1 John 4:16) is not to describe an attribute of God but to define His very being; it is to affirm that He is the Father Who exists by the total gift of Himself to His Son and His Spirit. In this manner the ancient world heard for the first time that it is communion that makes things be: nothing exists without it, not even God."
"The necessary conclusion from such an understanding of God is that the individual, that ultimate concern of Protestantism, ontologically cannot exist. Individualism is the denial of being, the content of which is love. ...In true Freudian fashion, I had taken my own fragmented, individualistic nature, endowed it with a host of superlative attributes, and called it God...."
"All my life I had been told that sin had left a crimson stain and that nothing but the blood could make me clean again because there is power in the blood. There was nothing I could add because Jesus paid it all, and if I would only trust Him one glad morning I would fly away. I knew all this and believed all this, yet there were questions just under the surface irritating my tidy, little faith. When I got right down to it, the sin of Adam really did not seem to merit the punishment of eternal perdition and the bliss of heaven did not seem worth the price that had to be paid. In other words, hell sounded unreasonable and heaven sounded boring. The problem was that in my evangelical Protestant theology, sin, righteousness, heaven, and hell were all essentially unrelated to my own being. Sin was a stain on my record that the blood of Jesus washed away (if I claimed it!); righteousness was a credit that God placed in my account because of my faith; heaven was a place of bliss where the saved would spend eternity; and hell was a place of torment where those who had rejected Christ would roast forever. All of these things impended on my life, of course, but only tangentially; they really had nothing to do with who I am."
"I could not help but wonder why Adams sin should have such eternal consequences. Could it be that God is so proud and egotistical that His honor could really be offended by the sins of mortal men? What is sin, anyway? Is it the breaking of a law, the transgression of a code of ethics? I was not satisfied with the satisfaction theory of the atonement, and, not being a Lutheran, I was not particularly keen on blaming everything on the insatiable wrath of God...."
"I discovered, however, that sin is not the mere breaking of a rule, but is nothing less than the denial of love and, therefore, of life itself. When I discovered the Trinity, I also discovered the true nature of man, for man was created in the image of this God of Triune love. Man was created precisely as a personal being, one who is truly human only when he loves and is loved. Sin-missing the mark-is not a moral shortcoming or a failure to live up to some external code of behavior, but rather the failure to realize life as love and communion. As Christos Yannaras puts it, The fall arises out of mans free decision to reject personal communion with God and restrict himself to the autonomy and self-sufficiency of his own nature. In other words, sin is the free choice of individual autonomy. Irony of ironies: that which I had been touting all of these years as the basis of true religion-the absolute autonomy of the individual-turned out to be the Original Sin!"
"An individual is not a person, but rather the antithesis of personhood and the denial of life. From this perspective, sin is repulsive to God not because it offends His honor, but because it is the denial of life itself, which is His gift to man. It is, in the final analysis, the denial of Gods image in man and of God Himself. What makes sin so tragic is that it is self-destructive. God hates sin not because of what it does to Him, but because of what it does to man. Sin is not a blotch on my record, but in the words of Fr. Thomas Hopko, an act of metaphysical suicide."
"Human beings can be individuals if they choose, with all kinds of relationships. But if they do so chose, to use the language of the Bible, they choose death, and not life; the curse and not the blessing (Deuteronomy 30:19). They destroy themselves in the act of metaphysical suicide in their self-contained and self-interested isolation which is the very image of hell."
Thank you for this post. This is so lovely and inspiring.
Check my profile for an excerpt from "Facing East" which I cherish.
Highly recommended. Thanks very much for this thread. I am vitally interested in questions of dialogue with the east. Though we have significant differences, I am filled with admiration for your doctrine of theosis and freedom grounded in the resurrection. I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to some of the Orthodox complaints about Roman overreaching, though at the same time I do believe the Orthodox are missing much in not embracing the Apostolic See as a much-needed sign of visible unity and reliable source of doctrinal authority. I'm convinced that unity will not be achieved by returning to 1054, but by going forward, guided by the Holy Spirit.
Now, do you want to hear a funny thing? Though I discovered the Eastern Church as an offshoot of my interest in Late Antiquity and Church history, much of my recent guidance in Orthodoxy has come from an Episcopalian priest who'll probably never swim the Bosporus, but probably would secretly like to do so.
I hope this thread prospers, and look forward to visiting often.
I agree completely. To be honest, as a convert I don't share the visceral distrust of Roman Catholicism that I have encountered in some Orthodox. But at the same time, I treasure the faith more than life itself - well, it is life itself - and thus am at times on guard because of the "Borg-like" reputation that often proceeds Rome. "You will be assimilated." :)
There is likely much that we can and should learn from each other. And thank God in America we can come together to discuss and to work for common causes without being threatened by the State.
Another reason that I think the environment of America is crucial to our coming to understand each other better is because of the unique American attitude of looking to the future. As Americans, we have a natural inclination to consider new answers. And the questions the Catholics and Orthodox face in America are so similar.
How to balance concepts of obedience and freedom?
How to maintain the strength of our faith without isolating ourselves from the common culture? How to draw on the lessons of monasticism to inspire a post-sexual revolution world?
How to reach out to seekers who are comfortable with mysticism because of various New Age and Oriental spiritual influences in a language they can understand, without compromising the unique Truth of the Gospel?
And on and on.
Let us not be weary in welldoing; for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. - Gal. 6:9
I'm afraid that I may have introduced my own bugbear into this discussion. When I mentioned problems between the Serbs, Bulgars, and Romanians, I was referring to political differences, not divisions in their Orthodoxy.
Wouldn't it be much easier to have a "point man"? I know you have the Patriarch that is "First Among Equals" (Alexii?) but that doesn't seem to help much.
You are thinking of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholemew. Actually, some of the actions by the Patriarchate of Constantinople during recent (80+) years remind us that placing too much authority into the hands of a single man creates a whole new set of problems in and of itself.
To understand the Orthodox way a little more, consider that it is only those things upon which we all agree that is considered correct.
Our biggest challenge today is in America where some who try to call themselves Orthodox embrace the worst that the Western Church has to offer, i.e. theology by democratic vote, disdain for tradition, "tolerance" of sins such as homosexuality. They are Orthodox in name only.
Don't get all over me, I'm not debating, just asking questions.
Isn't it sad that you have to ask people to be polite on a Christian thread? Of course you're just asking questions! That's how we all acquire knowledge. I'm not offended by the question, especially when the person asking knows how to be civil.
On the other hand, I guess the Orthodox deal much more with nationality differences?
That's where the "division" of the national churches comes in, particularly in the Balkans. Having the national Churches insures that the individual Church will not be seen as being controlled from afar or as serving the purposes of another earthly state.
Beautiful, thank you!
We're also homeschoolers of our 3 boys, and former Nubian keepers as well. Lord willing, we'll be buying land later this year. Horsekeeping is my wife's newfound calling. St. Mamas! Great reminder, hadn't thought of him in a long time, since reading "Animals and Man."
O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our little brothers to whom thou hast given this earth as their home in common with us. May we realize that they live not for us alone, but for themselves and for thee, and that they love the sweetness of life even as we, and serve thee better in their place than we in ours. St. Basil the Great
Would you say that the actions of Ecumenical Patriarch over recent years have been the main cause of the continuing jurisdictional divisions in America? I'm not an expert on SCOBA or the Church politics of the matter, but it seems that a lack of willingness on the part of Constantinople to relinquish power to a independent American Orthodox Church has played a big part in keeping us fractured.
Generally, you'll find that most of the Orthodox 'distrust of Roman Catholicism' is focused on the Church hierarchy. That's certainly true for me but I distrust hierarchies and bureaucracies in general seeing how they often come around to doing that which insures their own power and growth first and foremost.
Of course, there are some Orthodox who define their Orthodoxy by their anti-Roman statements, a very short-sighted approach.
Gee, I hope this remains a polite discussion and no one jumps in trying to set all of the rest of us straight!
I would say that some of those actions are the single largest contributor to the continuing divisions.
I'm a member of a Serbian parish that is now under the OCA. I've come to recognize that the OCA is the heir, if you will, to the claim as being the original Orthodox Church established here in America. Since they have been given autonomy by their mother Church in Moscow, it certainly appears that they have met all the requirements to be recognized as THE Orthodox Church in America.
An incredible passage, thanks for posting it. I'm adding ANOTHER book to my reading list. I'm still trying to fathom OSAS, and the above seems to sum it up nicely.
From this perspective, sin is repulsive to God not because it offends His honor, but because it is the denial of life itself, which is His gift to man. It is, in the final analysis, the denial of Gods image in man and of God Himself. What makes sin so tragic is that it is self-destructive. God hates sin not because of what it does to Him, but because of what it does to man.
A wiser person than I (on FR) summed this up as "sin is choosing or listening to "me" rather than choosing and listening to God.
Thanks for this thread, I like it here! Though some might disagree, I think the East and the West have much to offer and learn from one another. Maybe we can fix the schism ourselves. ;-)
I'm inclined to agree, although I've never been a member of an OCA parish. I will if my relocation works out. Certainly, it was the Russians who got the ball rolling in Alaska. We have icons of St. Innocent, St. Herman, and St. Yakov on our icon corner. I would wager that many, if not most, Antiochians would go along, especially since we both do our services entirely in English. Now about those Greeks... :)
Given the understanding and knowledge of Orthodoxy by non Orthodox, it'd be hard to straighten out what is not understood! A good thing, at least on this thread. I'm looking forward to learning and discussing and not defending (to the degree of argument). It's tough to grow in faith when fighting over words. I love that we all love the Blessed Virgin Mary here and therefore, she is not a point of contention among us.
Off to basketball for the kids, have a wonderful day, all!
Here's a couple of passages from Orthodox teacher Stanley Harakas as a starting point:
The Church grants "ecclesiastical divorces" on the basis of the exception given by Christ to his general prohibition of the practice. The Church has frequently deplored the rise of divorce and generally sees divorce as a tragic failure. Yet, the Orthodox Church also recognizes that sometimes the spiritual well-being of Christians caught in a broken and essentially nonexistent marriage justifies a divorce, with the right of one or both of the partners to remarry. Each parish priest is required to do all he can to help couples resolve their differences. If they cannot, and they obtain a civil divorce, they may apply for an ecclesiastical divorce in some jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church. In others, the judgment is left to the parish priest when and if a civilly divorced person seeks to remarry. Those Orthodox jurisdictions which issue ecclesiastical divorces require a thorough evaluation of the situation, and the appearance of the civilly divorced couple before a local ecclesiastical court, where another investigation is made. Only after an ecclesiastical divorce is issued by the presiding bishop can they apply for an ecclesiastical license to remarry. ...
The Orthodox Church remains faithful to the biblical and traditional norms regarding premarital sexual relations between men and women. The only appropriate and morally fitting place for the exercise of sexual relations, according to the teachings of the Church, is marriage. The moral teaching of the Church on this matter has been unchanging since its foundation. In sum, the sanctity of marriage is the cornerstone of sexual morality. The whole range of sexual activity outside marriage - fornication, adultery and homosexuality - are thus seen as not fitting and appropriate to the Christian way of life. Like the teaching on fornication, the teachings of the Church on these and similar issues have remained constant. Expressed in Scripture, the continuing Tradition of the Church, the writings of the Church Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils and the canons, these views have been restated by theologians, hierarchs and local Orthodox churches in our own day.
The possible exception to the above affirmation of continuity of teaching is the view of the Orthodox Church on the issue of contraception. Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.