Orthodox Church drawing converts from other branches of the faith

cantonrep.com ^ | Saturday, September 25, 2004 | CHARITA M. GOSHAY

[Kolokotronis]

Cronos is right, Destro. We are in Schism. Were it not for the innovations which we hold the Roman Church has instituted without the "imprimatur" of an Ecumenical Council, the lifting of the mutual anathemas of the of the Great Schism by the Pope and the EP, we might well be One Church in the West and the East by now. A Great and Holy Council of the Church, with both Rome and the East present might be able to review the innovations which the West (and to a lesser extent the local councils of the East) since the 7th Ecumenical Council have advanced. Protestants, in the main, are true heretics, affirmatively rejecting various teachings of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and teaching new revelations of the Faith. Romans, from our pov are not heretics or Protestants nor are we to them, the opinions of individuals in both Churches to the contrary notwithstanding.

I am in no position to comment upon the RCs who claim we are heretics or the first Protestants. I am, however, in a position to observe that the Eastern Church, especially here in America, has in the relatively recent past been subject to a low level anti-Catholicism coming from Protestant converts to the Faith who, while sometimes quite vociferously rejecting their former error, nevertheless hold tight to a particularly nativist American anti-Catholicism. I say "nativist" because this sentiment raises its ugly head in an anti "cradle orthodox" attitude which was stunningly revealed by Frank Schaeffer's writings in his publication "The Christian Activist" during the great Archbishop Spyridon controversy in the GOA of some years ago. The worst epithet these fundy converts can throw at a Church is to call it "Protestant". This attitude is wholly un-Orthodox and indeed may be an example of the heresy of Phyletism.

[Destro]

Well a Greek would say that. :)

For discussion purposes only I also bring about the point that the RCC was the first "Protestant" Church per Kosat50's wording above. It is a point I have also made in the past.

[Kolokotronis]

"Well a Greek would say that. :)"

Well, yes, I suppose you're right. On the other hand, with Iroqois ancestors and English ones who came to Massachusetts in 1623, my qualifications as a "native" aren't all that bad, either! :)

[Cronos]

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.

Oh, I agree with that -- I never consider them on par with Protestants. However, on that definition, the Catholic-Orthodox relationship cannot be analogous to the Catholic-Protestant relationship.

What I DID mean was that I do know that the the Ethiopian and Assyrian (and Armenian?) are Monophysite churchs, but I do not know what their current dogma is, so would not like to comment on them

[Cronos]

A Great and Holy Council of the Church, with both Rome and the East present might be able to review the innovations which the West (and to a lesser extent the local councils of the East) since the 7th Ecumenical Council have advanced.

I would agree with that -- mayhaps us CAtholics and Orthodox should be posting this to our Bishops asking them to take this forward?

[Cronos]

I am in no position to comment upon the RCs who claim we are heretics or the first Protestants.

I don't know of any Catholic who would put the Orthodox on par with Protestants

[The_Reader_David]

It is not a ridiculous sentiment. St. Justin Popovich and Fr. John Romanides (memory eternal!) of the University of Thesselonika's Faculty of Theology felt the same way. "Papism is the first protestantism," St. Justin wrote in his wonderful book Ecumenism and the Orthodox Church, while Fr. John once commented, "With the exception of the well-known differences Orthodox Christianity has more in common with Orthodox Judaism than with the Christian confessions which arose in the Augustinian West."

Neither of them was carrying any protestant baggage, both were formed in traditionally Orthodox countries. Even if Fr. John was a bit modernist in sometimes wearing a leather jacket and jeans in place of his cassock, it is hard to find anyone in recent times more thoroughly grounded in Holy Tradition that St. Justin. If you think the view is nonsense, read St. Justin's book.

[Kolokotronis]

I know little or nothing of St. Justin Popovich save that he is greatly admired by the adherents of ROCOR, which to my way of thinking has descended in some measure and in some places into a sort of Old Calendarist fringe group made up of odd "back to the earthers". Given the impending reunion of most of ROCOR with Moscow, an interesting problem will arise since for most of the GOA and indeed in all jurisdictions under the EP, there is a great reluctance to have anything to do with the religious extremism of many of the ROCOR clergy and congregants. I understand that Moscow plans to "deal with them" when the time comes. I certainly hope so, since I've heard the horror stories from ROCOR refugees into the GOA and the AAOA.

By the way, interesting screen name. Maybe I should change mine to "Tonsured Altar boy Kolokotronis"

I think it is unfair to attribute Popovich's sentiments to Romanides because of his remark concerning Orthodox Judaism. In a liturgical sense, Romanides was right on the money, but as to our relations with the Roman Church, he certainly makes a great distinction between RCs and Protestants. See for example: http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.30.en.saltonstall.htm

[SQUID]

I agree that the Protestant spin he brings to Orthodoxy is not helpful in bringing the East and the West together and brother in Christ. There is an Orthodox church prayer every Sunday to this effect. I hope he pays close attention to those words.

[AlbionGirl]

Excellent post, and thanks for pinging me to #128.

Went to Mass this morning with my Mom and Brother, and kept wondering how an Orthodox Mass (or is it properly called Liturgy?) would differ.

The Call of the Orthodox is pretty strong for those who sense that Christ is becoming an allegorical figure -if not by design, by default- in many RC Parishes. Man rises and God subsides; it's an unsettling feeling tinged with despair.

[The_Reader_David]

Yes, ROCOR folk like St. Justin, but he was a very well educated bishop of the Serbian Church, not a doctrinaire Old Calendarist. I read his book because it was the reading for a Lenten retreat two years back led by our bishop, Bishop BASIL (Essy), soon to be enthroned as Bishop of Wichita and Mid-America once North American Antiochian autonomy becomse a reality. He has no sympathy for fringe groups, although he is arguably the most traditionalist of the Antiochian hierarchs and has good enough relations with Holy Transfiguration Monastery that they let him use their translations of the psalms in his translation of the Liturgicon. Popovich's arguments deserve to be taken seriously whether you end up agreeing with them or not.

Likewise, Romanides' comment was not confined to liturgics: his suspicion of the West's raising Blessed Augustine to the status of Father Among Fathers, a problem as much with the Latin church as with protestants (esp. Lutherans and Calvinists) is all through is writings, particularly his commentary on the Palamite controversies and the Latin embrace of Barlaam.

[Kolokotronis]

"I read his book because it was the reading for a Lenten retreat two years back led by our bishop, Bishop BASIL (Essy), soon to be enthroned as Bishop of Wichita and Mid-America once North American Antiochian autonomy becomse a reality. He has no sympathy for fringe groups, although he is arguably the most traditionalist of the Antiochian hierarchs and has good enough relations with Holy Transfiguration Monastery that they let him use their translations of the psalms in his translation of the Liturgicon."

+Basil is certainly the most traditionalist of the AAOC hierarchs. His stance on the Ben Loman controversy was "interesting". I'm surprised that he has good relations with Holy Transfiguration Monastery, since Holy Transfiguration is part of HOCNA, Holy Orthodox Church in North America, an extreme sect, the ultimate in fringe here in America, claiming to be Orthodox but part of the "True Orthodox Church of Greece". The name says it all. HOCNA even thought that ROCOR wasn't traditional enough for them and split from them a few years ago to join up with the Greek Old Calendar sect. To the best of my knowledge, HOCNA is in communion with no one and is one of those groups which thinks that all the rest of the Orthodox, from the EP on down are a bunch of heretics (let alone what they think of Catholics!). Given the "progressive" attitudes of the AAOC and +Philip, I'm surprised HOCNA would even talk a call from +Basil.

[Kolokotronis]

"Popovich's arguments deserve to be taken seriously whether you end up agreeing with them or not."

Depends on where you are coming from. For example, I would hardly expect a Serbian Archmandrite to be anything other than uncomplimentary of Rome, given the depredations of the Roman Catholic Croatians under Cardinal Stepanic.

"Likewise, Romanides' comment was not confined to liturgics: his suspicion of the West's raising Blessed Augustine to the status of Father Among Fathers, a problem as much with the Latin church as with protestants (esp. Lutherans and Calvinists) is all through is writings, particularly his commentary on the Palamite controversies and the Latin embrace of Barlaam."

Oh, I agree 100% with what you say here. Fr. John wrote one of the most succinct commentaries on the errors of Augustine and their unfortunate effect on the West I have ever read. In fact, I think Fr. John believed that Augustine's errors, as they played out in the Roman Church, contributed in no small way to the rise of Protestantism, a position many Orthodox in this country, myself included, share. But he never equated the Roman Church with Protestantism. I might add that his thoughts on "Barlaamism" have gained some currency in the GOA and cause all of us to proceed very cautiously when discussing matters of theology with Western Christians of any stripe.

[AlbionGirl]

I think you're right.

Looking to get one past the goalie on a safe day is trying to avoid pregnancy, joyfully or otherwise, to my way of thinking. What I've never fully understood though, is why or when the change concerning contraception occured in the Church.

Before Vatican II, wasn't the thinking that it was sinful to divest sex from procreation, therby leaving the aspect of its joy singularly attached to the possibilty that that joy could bring life? Didn't they consider NFP the beginning of the acceptance of any type of contraception at all? And wasn't the thinking that sex, for the sake of the joy of it alone, comitted it predominatly to the physical realm? Thereby sabotaging the Spirituality of it, which was the primary force and motivation encouraging each member of the marriage to treat one another's body as if it were their own?

While I can't say with absolute certainty, if I had to bet on the percentage of Catholics who think NOTHING of using contraception, natural or not, it's got to be way up there.

Another thing that struck me lately concerning this issue, is that it would seem God's design without a doubt. For doesn't the avoidance of all methods of contraception naturally provide for the exponential increase in the number of Faithful? Because isn't it inarguable, as the New Oxford Review asserted 10 or more years ago, that the future [of the Church] belongs to the fertile?

[kosta50]

As it turns out, the Vatican did change its position on the purpose of sex, allowing it to be used for pleasure of a married couple, but left the caveat that, regardless of the possibility of pregnancy (i.e. post-menopausal women, infertile, or practicing NFP) the sex "deed" must be life-giving. They very precisely state (see my post #129, ref. Catholic position) what that "life-giving" means. Bottom line is: the act or the "deed" requires certain physiological functions to take place in the male which are not always possible and leave some questions in my mind, even if there is no possibility whatsoever of a new life taking place. That, to me, is a convoluted way of beating around the bush.

However, the Church in the East and the West considered sex an evil consequence of man's Fall from God. Under social and other changes, the Church as a whole changed its teachings to accommodate the "times." There is nothing in our Lord's teachings that even resembles the attitudes the Church developed toward sex. Church teachings about sex therefore cannot be defended as part of the Tradition other than the tradition of men.

[MarMema]

This is one of my least favorite cop-outs. Rules are important. There are reasons that we have them. Neither of our religions are just about some New Age/Protestant-style "be nice to each other."

What did Christ say in the Sermon on the Mount? How about the parable of the goats and sheep? Do you place these things higher in importance than what the church tells you about birth control?

[MarMema]

Some HOCNA are not so haughty. Fr. Neketas here, of the local HOCNA church, is well-loved by all of us in this area.

Yes we are not in communion but they have joined us in several pan-Orthodox projects, such as collecting for the Serbs after the bombing. They also have a huge Orthodox bookstore so we all visit there quite often.

[MarMema]

There is nothing in our Lord's teachings that even resembles the attitudes the Church developed toward sex.

It is too easy to put the cart before the horse. Seek first the Kingdom and everything else comes along.

When we have Christ within us, we will know what is desired of us at home, and elsewhere. There is no need for the church to lay out specific guidelines about each and every aspect of our behavior. And there is too much chance of human error becoming doctrine.

[monkfan]

This is one of my least favorite cop-outs. Rules are important. There are reasons that we have them.

And there are reasons why we make exceptions to them. Adherence to a rule for the sake of the rule is the way of the Pharisee. When the rule fails to be helpful and instead becomes harmful, we can address the situation. We do this on a case-by-case basis. Just because a bishop bends or waves a rule in one case, doesn't mean he'll do it in another. That is for the bishop to decide. If anyone has a problem with that, they can deal with it by either taking it up with the bishop or minding their own business.

[kosta50]

Easier said than done, MarMema. Of all the divisions among Christians, everyone justifies claims to have Christ inside and Kingdom of Heaven first -- everyone. Our divisions are not over rules, but ultimately how we interpret, understand, and follow Christ's message.

Eliminating rules favors individualism, and individualism leads to atomization, not communion; protestantism, not ecumenism.

St. Paul did not offer individualism, but obedience to authority and unity in faith. Christ did not say "Turn the other cheek if you believe you should..." Being Christian is not easy, because Christianiuty is not a "kumbaya" religion.

We drive on the right and others on the left. There is no right or wrong side to drive on. It becomes wrong when people drive on both -- it becomes chaos. And chaos is what human corruption made out of Christianity; it corrupted it.

The early Church did not spell out details but made general pronouncements about sexual behavior. The Church later created its own "standards" not based on what Christ taught, but on what the prevailing attitude was at the time, always placing Christ first as the guide. Luther did the same, pretending to reform the Church, while he reformed the faith. And so does every Christian who, for the sake of his or her own preference manages to fit an agenda or prejudice into the faith and make it synonimous with our Lord's message.

We need rules so we can all drive on the same side, rules that applly to and everyone. We alone cannot know more than the wisdom of the entire ekklesia. Isn't individualism, carried to an extreme, but Adam's pride that started all this, instead of humility and cross that Christ taught?