Posted on 09/30/2004 4:42:17 PM PDT by Destro
Orthodox Church drawing converts from other branches of the faith
Saturday, September 25, 2004
By CHARITA M. GOSHAY Repository staff writer
AN ENDURING FAITH. The Very Rev. John Peck, pastor at Holy Assumption Orthodox Church in Canton, ministers to many converts of Orthodox Christianity like himself. Peck said Orthodoxy attracts people who are tired of congregational splits and denominational infighting.
CANTON -- The Very Rev. John Peck calls his faith “a religion off the radar.” The pastor of Holy Assumption Orthodox Church at 2027 18th St. NE for three years, Peck is overseeing a growing congregation that includes a sizable number of Christians who grew up in non-Orthodox denominations.
Peck said Christians are growing tired of churches that constantly change their doctrine or are splitting as a result of bitter divisions.
In contrast, Peck said, the essence of Orthodoxy has remained unchanged since it was born in the first century.
The Christian Church was a single entity until 1054, when it split into two parts, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Protestantism was created as a result of a split from Catholicism in 1517.
“I wasn’t looking for Orthodoxy,” said Kim Krajci, a member at Holy Assumption for nine years. “It was the people that drew me in. My husband was Catholic and I was with the Friends. We weren’t worshipping together. I told him, ‘Wherever you go, I’ll go.’ A nun with whom he worked and a friend of his from college told him about this church. The people here are very loving. They manifest Christ. I find that irresistible.”
Unlike many Orthodox parishes that have strong ethnic identities, Holy Assumption does not. Peck, whose first parish was in Fairbanks, Alaska, conducts the liturgy in English.
“I don’t know Latin. Apart from (Eskimo), English is the only language I know,” he said with a smile.
A smiling Diane Wilkinson said that when she told her father she was converting to Orthodoxy, he asked her if she were becoming Greek.
Raised Catholic, Wilkinson said she joined the Charismatic movement, which led her to several Protestant churches in search of the truth.
“It irked my husband that there were so many denominations,” she said. “He was looking for the one true church, if it existed. I was looking for a real worship experience. People are really struggling with what is worship. They’re not looking for a make-it-up-as-you-go-along church. Everything you could want for your life is in Orthodoxy. You just have to take advantage of it.”
Peck said that like himself, about 60 percent of his members are converts. Most recently, the church has produced the Very Rev. Stephen Frase of Tuslaw, a Protestant convert and Malone College graduate who recently became a priest.
Peck himself grew up a Lutheran, then joined the Episcopal Church with his wife. They left Protestantism 12 years ago. Peck has been a priest for seven years.
Though Orthodoxy remains somewhat of a mystery, Peck said there’s less ignorance about the church these days.
“In Orthodoxy, there’s no arguing about basic Christian things that have been taught,” he said. “The tether of slicked-up Christianity has been turned loose in terms of theology and worship. We just don’t go for that.”
Peck said Orthodoxy requires commitment of its members. For example, the Orthodox are required to fast much more often than other Christians.
“It’s off the radar,” Peck said of his faith. “It takes a long time to complete the conversion process. That’s not popular.”
“This is a practice of faith that asks you to live a certain way, to act in a certain way,” Krajci said. “When I became a Christian, I was looking to live the Christian lifestyle. I even looked at several Christian communities. I didn’t understand until I came to Orthodoxy that I’d found it.
“There are a lot of people who think the guys in black do it all. ‘Liturgy’ means ‘work of the people.’ You work to worship. It’s not entertainment,” she said.
After attending one of Akron’s largest nondenominational churches for years, Kalle Obeng said she lost faith when the church changed its doctrine.
“When a church changes its doctrine, there’s a rift in that church,” she said. “People become disillusioned.”
Obeng said the experience sent her on a quest to study early church history.
“I visited different denominations and finally asked myself, ‘What am I supposed to be looking for?’ ” she said.
Obeng said a friend invited her to Holy Assumption, and that during the second time she attended, she had a revelation of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God and of the church.
That was eight years ago.
“It hasn’t been an easy thing, but it’s been a great thing,” she said.
Obeng, who is biracial, said she feels comfortable with Orthodoxy, which has deep roots in Africa.
Peck said Orthodoxy is appealing because it cuts across cultural boundaries though its doctrine remains unchanged.
“To the Orthodox, Catholicism is the Protestant Church,” he said. “It’s Orthodox-lite. I don’t mean that in a bad way. The framework of Catholic services is Orthodox. The Roman Church doesn’t do anything the way they did 100 years ago, let alone 500 or 1,000 years ago.”
“Continuity is a tremendous aspect most Protestants don’t understand,” Krajci said. “Repeating the same things week after week is an anathema in a culture that wants change.”
“There’s freedom in accountability,” Peck said. “Our newest liturgy is 1,300 years old.”
I did not write that so I can't answer.
From EWTN:
It then addresses the question of Catholics receiving the sacraments from non-Catholics. It sets the following strict conditions:a. necessity or genuine spiritual advantage
b. when the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided
c. it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister
d. a church which has valid sacramentsThis last condition is the key one, since it eliminates ALL the Reformation churches (Anglican, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist etc.), none of whom have valid sacred orders, and therefore, a valid Eucharist. The possibility of a Catholic receiving from the minister of another church, when the first three conditions are fulfilled, is limited to the Orthodox Churches, other Oriental Churches, Old Catholics, Polish National and others whose sacraments are recognized by the Holy See.
I may be wrong but I do know that Orthodox can receive the sacraments from Catholics if no Orthodox clergy are present as a last resort - say like on a battlefield. If for example I was a soldier of the Orthodox faith and a Catholic clergy was the only alternative available on the battlefield I could accept the sacraments - participate in confession - the Holy Eucharist and the last rites, etc. Catholics and no others like Anglicans.
I don't know if what I stated above also allows the Orthodox to partake in the sacraments from Coptic - Jacobite - Assyrian Churches.
I have been taught that I can receive from an RC clergyman in those situations you mention and if I am effectively prevented by distance (real distance I might add) from attending an Orthodox Church. I have been told the same goes for non-Chalcedonian priests.
I think this is a valid issue that needs to be clarified not just for the Orthodox but for the Catholics.
We need a reliable source that clerifies the limits.
" We need a reliable source that clerifies the limits."
Since when is "yiayia-ology" not a reliable source? (Yiayia means grandmother). :)
First, let me start with the Catholic arguments. The RCC does no longer teach that marital sex should be for procreation purposes only. The act (or the "deed" as they call it) must be "life-giving" and therefore "natural."
Thus, if the act is itself is not natural, but involves mechanical or chemical barriers that prevent or terminate conception, the "deed" is not condoned. However, the "deed" is condoned even if the couple is no longer capable of producing life, as long as the "deed" is "life-giving."action is generative of its kind even though a baby cannot be born from it because of other conditions, as when the woman is sterile or already pregnant.
This is very interesting, because it does not address the man. If his "life-giving" function is impaired, and no life-giving "deed" can be accomplished (i.e. no seed), it would seem that such marriage could not continue in the "deed." So no seed, no deed [regardless of the need?]
The definition of the "deed" also begs the question of the "motive," that is -- under what circumstances is such a deed permissible, i.e. "should husband and wife seriously intend to have a child whenever they have intercourse and should they try to restrict intercourse to those times when the conception of a child is possible?" The position of the RCC seems is clear:
The answer is negative. There are other valid reasons for intercourse besides procreation. These are the healthy expression of passion, the fostering of mutual love, the strengthening of the sacramental bond of marriage. These are worthy motives, implying the human love and devotion of marriage, including more than the mere appetite for pleasure, which is not a sufficient motive for any action. The intention of trying to have a child is not necessary as a [sic] regular motive.
What is the Orthodox position"? The Orthodox Church is less legalistic, and therefore, as the primitive Church, has different theologians whose opinions are somewhat different from others and on which the Church had no universal teaching (i.e. has not been addressed by an Ecumenical Council). Thus we find that the EOC has some general agreements on this issue:
1. since at least one of the purposes of marriage is the birth of children, a couple acts immorally when it consistently uses contraceptive methods to avoid the birth of any children, if there are not extenuating circumstances;
2. contraception is also immoral when used to encourage the practice of fornication and adultery.
There are those, with whom conservative Catholics would find agreement
Then there are
Surprisingly, if not ironically, both of these have their roots in Church history and teachings of select fathers.
However, most authors
Personally I always wanted to ask our Catholic brethren on what grounds is the use of medications and or artificial devices allowed in the prevention and suppression of "natural" diseases, or extending life beyond the "natural" death, whereas the same are not in the "natural deed" of sexual intercourse, and how is man's inability to produce a "life-giving" act reconciled with Church's view that only "life-giving" act is acceptable when such act is impossible (i.e. damage to the sperm-generating structures if man's reproductive organs)?
Historical perspective of interest. St John Chrysostom taught that
Unfortunately, the Greek orthodox Church in America interprets this to mean that he considered the purpose of marriage "primarily the satisfaction of the sexual drive." [?] If anything, he was advocating chastity through marriage, and then procreation, not satisfaction of the sexual drive.
The EOC considers any conception outside the marriage or within marriage that is not agreed upon by both partners as unacceptable
In medieval Russia, the OC treated sex as necessary evil literally speaking.
The number of times a woman attended church on Sundays in a given month were noted, and coming four Sundays in a row was proof of transgression, and brought with it heavy penance. Such penance could be up to 3 years denial of the sacraments, especially if it were proved that she had taken communion. Contemporary accounts, surely trumped up to scare women into line, had God turning one poor woman into a horse for taking communion during her cycle, and another stuck by lightening for inadvertently walking over the grave of a saint while thus "unclean." Though nothing further is known of the horse, the latter woman later repented and was cured of her period.
Orthodox writings decried the physical union of man with woman as base and squalid, even in marriage. Sex was for the sole purpose of procreation, and that only because of Eve's folly. St John Chrysotom, one of the most famous philosophers of Orthodoxy, explained that it was actually the Word of God that provided the divine magic of procreation, and that had Eve not led to mankind's ejection from Eden, some other, less base, way of procreating would have been bestowed upon them by God. Thus, though procreation was a duty, the very act that allowed it was a defilement rooted in original sin. The Church urged a celibate life for the married, with the exception of procreation.
St. Augustine said
Augustine and others at that time considered sex a subject of grave danger "in part because they believed that sexual feelings and urges, particularly the reactions of the genital organs, were not fully under the control of the human will," and given that many saw sex as something that resulted as a consequence of man's Fall from God, as a power intrinsically evil.
In general, Gnostics, including Origen who castrated himself, believed that Adam and Eve had no sexual temptations in Paradise and that sex therefore resulted from the "original sin" and that, as such, its essence was sinful. This was not alien even to mainline "orthodox" teachers.
As the time progressed, the Church was becoming stricter with regard to sex and the definition of familia. The Roman family was nothing like ours. The man in the familia was not part of it; familia was his possession, and it included his wife, children, servants, slaves and live stock.
Generally intercourse was forbidden
The Catholic Church (and very possibly the Orthodox as well) also taught and still teaches that married partners have an obligation to "submit" to each other whenever one of them desires sex. This was put into a law by Pope Alexander III. Under this teaching, this obligation remains in force even if one of the partners acquires a contagious disease, such as leprosy [p. 335]
It is also interesting to note that "Fornication between unmarried persons was declared [sic] heresy in 1287.
How can an act be heresy is beyond me. It may be a heretical act, but not heresy.
In conclusion, it is obvious that the Church did not teach uniformly on the issue of sex, marriage and its purpose in the past as it doesn't today. The EOC has no special councils that address the issue as doctrinal. It is therefore invalid to demand or condemn the Church by leaving the decisions as to what is permitted to a bishop. Any reconciliation of the East and the West will have to recognize that, in absence of a formal conciliar decision, such prerogative of bishops will have to be honored at least in the East.
It is obvious that both the Church of the East and West altered significantly their attitudes toward sex, and its purpose in marriage throughout history and under different social circumstances, and therefore cannot claim it as Tradition. Both remain committed to condemning sex outside of marriage, which both consider a Sacrament.
It is important to remember that our Savior did not address these issues in any detail, and was not in His salvific message.
ping #128
My dear brother Kosta, you have said the most important thing in the end.
If the bulk of us spent more time loving each other, feeding the hungry, and biting our tongues when we would like to speak in anger or hostility, and especially in prayer, think what we could become.
The Orthodox church is not legalistic. She wisely refrains from human manufacture of doctrine whenever possible.
I am reminded of an inappropriate comparison from a movie we watched. A group of gangsters had kidnapped a young girl and were thought to have killed her. Her former bodyguard, an assassin by trade, who had loved the child, decides to go out and kill them all, one by one.
As the assassin is standing in an apartment window preparing to shoot and kill some guilty men driving by, the elderly man in the apartment says "God says we should forgive those who harm us".
And the assassin replies, "Forgiveness is between God and them. My job is to arrange the meeting."
The "job" of the Orthodox church is to hold the meeting.
A fascinating post. I wonder if we'll be able to go a week on this forum without someone shrieking that that "Orthodox caved on contraception" regardless of the facts?
Nah, actually, I know that we won't. Ah well.
Why, it would be Paradise on earth!
Perhpas that's why it survived for 2,000 years with only a few blemishes.
Destro, that is very similar to what Catholics believe about receiving Communion from an Orthodox. Something to do in an emergency. Which makes sense of course, since if you're a Catholic and you have access to a Catholic priest, why would you choose to receive from an Orthodox priest?
Amen to that. I would agree with you that many of our countrymen seek for too simple an explanation to the divine mysteries (I have NO respect at all for Western Followers of Buddhism, they generally like 'Buddhism-lite' and think it's all just vegetarianism and cymbals, they generally lack the depth of buddhist friends I know from Thailand or Sri Lanka)
But no Orthodox believe in giving communion to a Catholic as far as I know. I could be wrong of course. My google search was not too fruitful on this subject.
Oriental Churches were offshoots from the one true Church - what happened is as ecumenical councils were held they did not agree with them and thus fell away from the Church. They would not be as Protestants who created their dogma out of whole cloth anew.
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.