Charismatic movement and Orthodoxy - an attempt to unhijack the infant baptism thread

[Orthosdoxa]

Ok, eoe wins. :)

If anyone wants to continue the discussion here, we can.

Just a few more comments on what Kathmenouc posted:

It's interesting to note how our backgrounds influence WHAT baggage we will encounter as we come into the Orthodox Church. Former Catholics often have a hard time giving up the papacy because it's "in the Bible". Former OSAS'ers of any stripe have a hard time giving up that doctrine because "it's in the Bible". As a Baptist, I had a hard time with prayers to saints because it seemed like the opposite was "in the Bible". I know at least one former Mormon who still hasn't finished converting because the doctrine of the Trinity is "wrong", and THAT is clearly "in the Bible". And Kathmenouc has questions about charismatic gifts not being used by all members regularly, because THAT is "in the Bible".

It's all a matter of what traditions we have been taught influencing what we think the Bible says - or, more accurately, what it means.

I hope there are members here who can clear up this a little more than I can. It's just not an issue that ever bothered me, because as a Baptist I was taught that the way charismatics interpret those verses in Corinthians was clearly wrong, and "clearly" against the Bible! So beings as it was not part of my baggage, I really haven't thought about it. I did pull up some articles, though, that perhaps will spur discussion:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/searchresults.aspx?kw=charismatic

http://fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sermon_st_seraphim.htm

http://fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/holy_spirit.htm



(I of course have not read these yet, so they may or may not be helpful.)


LK

[eoe]

I think that it would be beneficial to discuss in general the threefold way of catharsis, fotisis and theosis and how that process relates to the reception of the gifts. (Why yes, I did just finish Mountain of Silence.)

(did that sound like gobeldygook?)

[Jacob4707]

Ok, eoe wins. :)

If anyone wants to continue the discussion here, we can.

Just a few more comments on what Kathmenouc posted:

It's interesting to note how our backgrounds influence WHAT baggage we will encounter as we come into the Orthodox Church. Former Catholics often have a hard time giving up the papacy because it's "in the Bible". Former OSAS'ers of any stripe have a hard time giving up that doctrine because "it's in the Bible". As a Baptist, I had a hard time with prayers to saints because it seemed like the opposite was "in the Bible". I know at least one former Mormon who still hasn't finished converting because the doctrine of the Trinity is "wrong", and THAT is clearly "in the Bible". And Kathmenouc has questions about charismatic gifts not being used by all members regularly, because THAT is "in the Bible".

It's all a matter of what traditions we have been taught influencing what we think the Bible says - or, more accurately, what it means.

I hope there are members here who can clear up this a little more than I can. It's just not an issue that ever bothered me, because as a Baptist I was taught that the way charismatics interpret those verses in Corinthians was clearly wrong, and "clearly" against the Bible! So beings as it was not part of my baggage, I really haven't thought about it. I did pull up some articles, though, that perhaps will spur discussion:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/searchresults.aspx?kw=charismatic

http://fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sermon_st_seraphim.htm

http://fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/holy_spirit.htm



(I of course have not read these yet, so they may or may not be helpful.)


LK

A couple clarifications:

#1 - It was not an infant baptism thread. The OP said that because he had come to believe in infant baptism, he was now exploring the Orthodox Church because he could no longer stay in the Baptist Church because of his changed beliefs. He wrote:

Paedobaptist looking for home

Hi! I am a Southern Baptist who recently started to believe in infant baptism. Now there are not many doctrines that one MUST believe in as a Baptist but believers only baptism through immersion is one of them. (It just might be the only one that is strictly Baptist) So I am looking for a new home and have a few questions for y'all.

1. Does one hae to reject penal substitutionary atonment in order to be an EO?
2. Can one just believe that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a mystery and not accept transubstantiation over spiritual presence? (Calvin)
3. What are the doctrines (different than the protestant in the West) that are required to be believed in order to be EO?
4. What is requierd belief as far as the energies?

none of which had to do with infant baptism. He entitled the thread "Paedobaptist looking for home," but his questions weren't about paedobaptism, so my comments re: Christian practices that Orthodox do not practice did not actually hijack the thread, even if they took it in a slightly different direction.

#2 - My questions about the exercise of the charismata do not necessarily come from "baggage" I have brought from my Protestant background, nor just because it's "in the Bible." Read Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World by David Aune, and Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit: Evidence from the First Eight Centuries by Kilian McDonnell and George T. Montague (they discuss both the Western Church and the Eastern Church), and Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity by E. Earle Ellis, as well as similar books. My questions/issues don't just come from what's "in the Bible" but from scholarly and historical works on the subject - i.e., the presence and practice of the charismata in the early church.

But... he's doing it according to HIS understanding, HIS interpretation, and how HE wants it, not what the Church that Christ built has said it should be for 2000 years. That's why it's "self-made". He's reading the Bible independantly of the Church that created it. That's why it is a type of American Protestantism, and nothing Orthodox.

I don't want to argue and usually stay out of this type of discussion for that reason. But Bajis is a poor example for ANYONE to look to, and I can't emphasize that enough. Yeah, "Common Ground" is a pretty good book. But he left the Church in order to start his own false church, with "some" elements of his Orthodox past thrown in. That's an extremely dangerous thing to do. The early heretics had their verses to support their false teachings as well.

LK

So to get back to my questions again re: your above statement: "what the Church that Christ built has said it should be for 2000 years":

How does the Orthodox Church incorporate St. Paul's teachings in 1 Corinthians 12-14 re: the exercise of and mutual sharing and edification by the charismata by all the members of the Body when they "come together" (i.e., assemble as a church)?
Through the Divine Liturgy :idea: :)

I asked my question because the Orthodox Church specifically does NOT incorporate these teachings and practices through the Divine Liturgy - there is no place for these practices during the Divine Liturgy. I thus assume that Oblio's response was made somewhat in jest. :)

[Shubunkin]

in addition.... Lutherans come into Orthodoxy with a bit of baggage too, most commonly known as "Romaphobia" !! :)

[Orthosdoxa]

I thus assume that Oblio's response was made somewhat in jest.

I don't think it was in jest at all.

LK

[Jacob4707]

I don't think it was in jest at all.

LK

Well, if it wasn't in jest - and the smilies suggest to me it was - it is not, IMO, a valid answer, because, as I noted, the Divine Liturgy specifically does NOT incorporate those teachings of St. Paul - and my question was how these teachings of St. Paul ARE incorporated by the Orthodox Church. Many Orthodox observe and practice St. Paul's teachings in the first part of 1 Corinthians 11 re: women wearing head coverings, so it's reasonable to ask how they observe and practice his teachings in 1 Corinthians 12-14 - and if they don't, why don't they?

[Orthosdoxa]

I just read those 3 chapters. It all fits in perfectly with my experience of Orthodoxy in the last 3+ years. Some have the gifts (mainly monastics, when speaking of prophecy or tongues). Some don't. We should earnestly desire them... but not as end to themselves. We first and foremost should desire a deeper relationship with Christ, to TRULY become partakers of the Divine Nature, something most of us only scrape the surface of (if that) in our lifetimes. When someone is in that place, these gifts wil follow. St. John Maximovitch, who I love more than I can ever say for having healed and saved our children, comes to mind.

The problem with putting too much emphasis on these gifts is they can just as easily come from demonic deception, and often do. They must be a natural outflow from theosis, or they are worthless and/or demonic. This does not fit well with presuming they have to be experienced by all/most members at all/most services, nor do those chapters indicate so, either.

A few questions for you, K - are you feeling frustrated or hostile? Because I feel like I'm sensing some hostility on your end. I'm 8 mths pg w/ twins, in terrible pain, plus I'm a lot better at talking to recovering Baptists than charismatics, as that is my background. I'm dialoguing with you in the hopes of helping you, but I don't claim to be a scholar, esp. in this area. Please be patient with me.

My other question is, what are you hoping to accomplish? Honest question. Are you trying to convince US, because you're convinced the Church has it wrong on this point? Are you trying to "get over" this notion, because you know it's wrong? or what? I really want to understand where you're coming from with this.

LK

PS - and as far as Oblio's answer, it was perfectly valid. If charismata are to be a deeper experience of Christ, what is moreso than that than experiencing the Eucharist? Perhaps he can elucidate further as well.

[Vasileios]

It is my understanding that all gifts are present in the Church today. We have many stories of miraculous healings, prophetic words, foreseeing, speaking in tongues, etc.

However, we do not have them as much as in the early years of Christianity. My take on this is that Christians then were so much stronger in faith and love for Christ than most of us are today. Many had met Christ. Many had met his Apostles. Many had met the Theotokos. Saints all over the place!

This was not only natural but also necessary. Christianity was preached to the world and established itself with the teachings of the apostles through their lives. And their lives were so holy that miracles and wonders were natural to them.

When the faith started to get rooted in the world it was more of a matter of believing, not getting convinced.
If every divine liturgy had people speaking foreign languages (instead of gobeldygook), healing people, foretelling the future etc FOR REAL, then all would be Christians. It is not strange to me that I hear many wonderful stories from converts. Here in Greece we are lukewarm, chasing after this monastery that has a "super" elder. That church that has this weeping icon.

The truth is we have fallen. We have less elders and staretz, fewer true ascetes. Difficult times. We still have them but we have to look for them. Why? My opinion is because we are testing the Church. In the beginning there was no question of testing the Church. People were simpler and with a fiery love for God. And the gifts were given freely. But today, especially today, we are going to see less and less of it. And I think in the end days there will be almost no miracles and only the true believers will hold steadfast. I think it would be wise to love and embrace the Body of Christ without expecting an outward guarantee of holiness but just faith.

Sorry for my totally confused post. its late and I wrote as it came. I do think the early days were ...um, supercharged with grace (!) and that these days are trying times...

But I'd suggest reading about the few contemporary saints who had the gifts. May I suggest Elder Paisios? (yet again!)

[Jacob4707]

I just read those 3 chapters. It all fits in perfectly with my experience of Orthodoxy in the last 3+ years. Some have the gifts (mainly monastics, when speaking of prophecy or tongues). Some don't. We should earnestly desire them... but not as end to themselves. We first and foremost should desire a deeper relationship with Christ, to TRULY become partakers of the Divine Nature, something most of us only scrape the surface of (if that) in our lifetimes. When someone is in that place, these gifts wil follow. St. John Maximovitch, who I love more than I can ever say for having healed and saved our children, comes to mind.

The problem with putting too much emphasis on these gifts is they can just as easily come from demonic deception, and often do. They must be a natural outflow from theosis, or they are worthless and/or demonic. This does not fit well with presuming they have to be experienced by all/most members at all/most services, nor do those chapters indicate so, either.

A few questions for you, K - are you feeling frustrated or hostile? Because I feel like I'm sensing some hostility on your end. I'm 8 mths pg w/ twins, in terrible pain, plus I'm a lot better at talking to recovering Baptists than charismatics, as that is my background. I'm dialoguing with you in the hopes of helping you, but I don't claim to be a scholar, esp. in this area. Please be patient with me.

My other question is, what are you hoping to accomplish? Honest question. Are you trying to convince US, because you're convinced the Church has it wrong on this point? Are you trying to "get over" this notion, because you know it's wrong? or what? I really want to understand where you're coming from with this.

LK

PS - and as far as Oblio's answer, it was perfectly valid. If charismata are to be a deeper experience of Christ, what is moreso than that than experiencing the Eucharist? Perhaps he can elucidate further as well.

No, I'm not being hostile. Sorry if it came across that way. Straight-to-the-point questions without a lot of chatter can appear that way, though.

No, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm asking for some answers, because the answers I have received or read have not been very satisfactory. I know that 2,000 years of tradition have shaped and formed the Orthodox way - both the services and the practices. I'm just kind of curious why the Orthodox seem to have neglected or rejected this part of St. Paul's teaching.

(It's not just the Orthodox. Luther, Calvin, Baptists, etc., also seem to not have a place or mode for this kind of activity when the people "come together as the church," and just this year the Southern Baptists passed a resolution barring persons from having or using a private prayer language (i.e., "tongues") if they want to be missionaries, etc.)

The Roman Catholic Church seems to have been more receptive of the Charismatic Movement and the operation/exercise of the charismata among large numbers of the laity than the Orthodox Church. The most sympathetic view of the charismata that I have found among Orthodox Christians is here: http://www.stsymeon.org/index.htm

[grov]

...the answers I have received or read have not been very satisfactory. I know that 2,000 years of tradition have shaped and formed the Orthodox way - both the services and the practices. I'm just kind of curious why the Orthodox seem to have neglected or rejected this part of St. Paul's teaching.
(It's not just the Orthodox. Luther, Calvin, Baptists, etc., also seem to not have a place or mode for this kind of activity when the people "come together as the church," and just this year the Southern Baptists passed a resolution barring persons from having or using a private prayer language
KATHXOUMENOC,
This is a fascinating set of questions, and there are several corrolary issues in my mind:
1. Why do most (all?) mainline Protestant confessions reject these parts of St. Paul's teaching?
2. Why do so many individuals within the various Protestant confessions who believe in and walk in the "gifts of the Spirit", seem to burn out, and/or stomp on each other, and/or become mega-money-making publishing and convention-holding organizations, and/or leave their churches (and start home churches) looking for something more sustainable and substantive, and why so centered on cults of personality?
3. Why do Roman Catholic ventures into these "gifts" so often become (forgive me) so very wierd? [I was going to add specifics here, but don't feel like it would be appropriate in retrospect - I saw a lot of "wierd" stuff amongst Protestant charismatics as well]
4. Why are so many recent converts to Orthodoxy coming from Charismatic backgrounds (several in my Parish alone).
5. Orthodoxy is the only place I can find that has had, in every generation over the past two millenia, those that have operated in a sound, sustained manifestation of the gifts so coveted by modern charismatics, without fracturing or being burned out by those gifts...
6. Why does this seem to happen only in Orthodox monasteries and not in most home parishes?

I've recently heard of various "regular parishes" where the priest or a layperson was gifted in astonishing ways. So it may be that these gifts spoken of by Paul are in fact present in many Orthodox parishes, but not in a way that most people become aware of. One member of my church told me that there are many Orthodox operating with gifts of healing, and that I'll probably never know who they are unless I need one and God wills it, because (except for those who are told to) they will not advertise.

Some monks greet visitors by name, having never met them (I was told this at Holy Archangels Monastery near San Antonio by someone who personally experienced it on Mt. Athos, along with healing of brain damage from a car accident). Some speak to foreigners in their own language, having never learned that language. St. John of San Francisco went through a hospital healing those he passed by, including non-Christians(!), simply by raising his cross and announcing "Christ is Risen" as he walked by their room. A little Orthodox grandmother in a babushka in Moscow would cast out demons in visitors brought to her by friends. And so on and so on. Not like any other Christian denomination I ever heard of.

And yet your question remains valid - why don't we operate this way in our home parishes? I can only go back to what my friend at St. Barbara's said - they are there, and you generally won't know who they are until/unless you need it and God wills it. And if at some point God so gifts you after whatever conditioning He requires, you'll probably be very circumspect too, because of your Orthodox training in soberness and quietness.

For what it's worth (I know this is a bit tangential to your concern),
George

[Iacobus]

KATHXOUMENOC,
This is a fascinating set of questions, and there are several corrolary issues in my mind:
1. Why do most (all?) mainline Protestant confessions reject these parts of St. Paul's teaching?
2. Why do so many individuals within the various Protestant confessions who believe in and walk in the "gifts of the Spirit", seem to burn out, and/or stomp on each other, and/or become mega-money-making publishing and convention-holding organizations, and/or leave their churches (and start home churches) looking for something more sustainable and substantive, and why so centered on cults of personality?
3. Why do Roman Catholic ventures into these "gifts" so often become (forgive me) so very wierd? [I was going to add specifics here, but don't feel like it would be appropriate in retrospect - I saw a lot of "wierd" stuff amongst Protestant charismatics as well]
4. Why are so many recent converts to Orthodoxy coming from Charismatic backgrounds (several in my Parish alone).
5. Orthodoxy is the only place I can find that has had, in every generation over the past two millenia, those that have operated in a sound, sustained manifestation of the gifts so coveted by modern charismatics, without fracturing or being burned out by those gifts...
6. Why does this seem to happen only in Orthodox monasteries and not in most home parishes?

I've recently heard of various "regular parishes" where the priest or a layperson was gifted in astonishing ways. So it may be that these gifts spoken of by Paul are in fact present in many Orthodox parishes, but not in a way that most people become aware of. One member of my church told me that there are many Orthodox operating with gifts of healing, and that I'll probably never know who they are unless I need one and God wills it, because (except for those who are told to) they will not advertise.

Some monks greet visitors by name, having never met them (I was told this at Holy Archangels Monastery near San Antonio by someone who personally experienced it on Mt. Athos, along with healing of brain damage from a car accident). Some speak to foreigners in their own language, having never learned that language. St. John of San Francisco went through a hospital healing those he passed by, including non-Christians(!), simply by raising his cross and announcing "Christ is Risen" as he walked by their room. A little Orthodox grandmother in a babushka in Moscow would cast out demons in visitors brought to her by friends. And so on and so on. Not like any other Christian denomination I ever heard of.

And yet your question remains valid - why don't we operate this way in our home parishes? I can only go back to what my friend at St. Barbara's said - they are there, and you generally won't know who they are until/unless you need it and God wills it. And if at some point God so gifts you after whatever conditioning He requires, you'll probably be very circumspect too, because of your Orthodox training in soberness and quietness.

For what it's worth (I know this is a bit tangential to your concern),
George
Grov makes some very valid points that I concur with. In addition, keep in mind that St. Paul himself said it was one of the most minor gifts. To listen to many non-Orthodox one would assume that it was a very major gift, but Paul certainly taught otherwise.

In addition, the Church is acutely aware of the abuse and misuse of the gift, real or imagined. Take, for example, one of the earliest heresies, that of montanism. Montanus is explicitly endorsed as a patron saint of sorts by some modern charismatics, although it is plain that his movement was utterly bogus. See, for example, this essay (http://evlogeite.com/?p=53).

So, I would suggest, as Grov did, that the gift is quietly active in the Church, but at the same time that the Church, after the experience of Montanus and others, refuses to give it a more prominent place than it deserves. Certainly the stsymeon.org people that are referred to by KATHXOUMENOC are not well received by Orthodoxy in general.

[Jacob4707]

KATHXOUMENOC,
This is a fascinating set of questions, and there are several corrolary issues in my mind:<snip>

Thanks for your response. Those are good things for me to mull over. We ourselves fit #4. I'm looking forward to meeting you next Wednesday night.

[eoe]

I know nothing. Forgive me.

[Jacob4707]

So - you have a group of people that have first person access to Apostles with many giving up the world completely and really trying to live according to the teachings of Christ as set forth by the Apostles. They lived in Ascesis. These people were in Catharsis - purification. They knew that there was a starting point to all of this and they did not attempt to skip steps.

You say that you do not see the gifts being displayed in the Liturgy? I say that you are not paying attention. There is certainly teaching in every Liturgy and in addition to that you have the miracle of the eucharist and spiritual healing. You also have people coming together to HELP one another and you have the structure of the government(Parish council?) of the church with Christ himself at the top. All of these gifts are greater than tongues. All of them.

It is better *IN THE CHURCH* to speak with understanding in a known tongue.

Who are tongues for? Are they for believers? NO. So why on earth would you expect them to appear there? If it is better to speak in the church with a tongue of understanding AND the sign of tongues is expressly NOT for believers then where does anyone get that they should be displayed in the Church?

So. Who here is done with step 1? Anyone? Just stand up if you are free from passions and are a true ascetic. Anyone? Who here was baptized and catechized by an Apostle? Anyone? Anyone here finished with Step 1?

Why, if there is no one standing do we then expect to have widespread gifts? If we have no one that is willing to do step 1 then why do we look around for the signs?

The truth is that the Church - the Ecclesia HAS all of the gifts and has had them in operation since 33AD. They are just as valid and active today as they were in 44AD. Not only that but they are given to the exact same type of people today as they were back then - those who do what?

Step 1 - Follow after charity - catharsis - denial of self and promotion of others.

Why do you seem to assume that I am focusing on tongues? I am not.

Also, re: your statement:
"So - you have a group of people that have first person access to Apostles with many giving up the world completely and really trying to live according to the teachings of Christ as set forth by the Apostles. They lived in Ascesis. These people were in Catharsis - purification"does not seem to be supported by what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians (or even 2 Corinthians). What verses from these Epistles support this assertion? (It may be true; I'm just not sure that the text says this.) In fact, contrary to the idea that these people gave up the world completely to follow Christ, Paul seems to be saying in 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 that the Corinthians in fact had nothing to begin with, and hence had nothing of the world to give up when they became Christians.

In 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 Paul is talking about the assembled believers sharing - as individuals - psalms, teachings, revelations, tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecies. (Thus, he indeed DOES see "tongues" as being for an assembly of believers.)

Paul doesn't make askesis or catharsis a criterion for receiving a spiritual gift (charisma). In 1 Corinthians 12:6-7 he seems to suggest that each member of the body/church has been given a charisma. True, they are to be exercised in love and for the edification of the body, but he also says that they are to be exercised and displayed when the believers "come together" in church.

I agree that "There is certainly teaching in every Liturgy and in addition to that you have the miracle of the eucharist and spiritual healing." But when Paul writes about "teaching" being exercised in the church service in 1 Corinthians 14:26-33, he is not placing that solely in the presiding priest or bishop; he has in mind any of the believers so gifted to bring forth or share the teaching (as well as the psalm, revelation, prophecy, etc.) he has received. He is not talking about "spiritual healing" in 1 Corinthians 12:9-10, but physical healings (lit. "gifts of healings"; and the same word dynamis that was used in the Gospels to describe Jesus's miracles is used in verse 10). And he NEVER describes the bread and wine becoming Christ's body and blood (i.e., "the miracle of the eucharist") as being a "miracle." Never. Ever. In any Epistle. Nor do any of the other writers of the New Testament.

[Andrea Elizabeth]

I saw a picture of a Russian priest in church exorcizing a hysterical woman. Maybe it was during the blessing part at the end of the service.

[Jacob4707]

I saw a picture of a Russian priest in church exorcizing a hysterical woman. Maybe it was during the blessing part at the end of the service.

I've been in services (non-Orthodox) where we exorcised some hysterical men. It was pretty intense. Was it real? Were there effective results? That's probably a subject for another thread and/or another forum.

[Orthocat]

ah, the church of Corinth did someone say???
The church of Corinth was rampant with problems, far from exemplary. It was in a port town with lots of sailors and the temples there were built for Diana (?) and the priestesses were prostitutes. Port town/sailors/prostitutes - we understand the scene.
These priestesses and their uhm...congregation began infiltrating the Christian church....introducing many things not quite in our playbook. These women began to attempt to take them over and Paul had to deal with this ("women should remain quiet", etc). Right now with some current protestant church changes it would do them well to remember how these priestesses attempted to take over and ruin the church....

If you read the monastics you will find they are leery of "spiritual gifts" - because the demons can manifest them as well - and it takes an experienced guide to tell between the two. I believe I read of Paisaios beating up one such "spirit-filled" person, driving out a demon in a most pugilistic manner. At no time did any of them pursue any such gifts nor did they ever view them as a result of greater theosis, nor would they even admit to having them! In the west, Padre Pio, after receiving stigmata, prayed for it to be taken away, because of the pain and the embarrassment. But in our world, we take pride in them and judge others on whether or not their faith is strong enough to receive gifts....pah!!

You also cannot box these gifts in - where do we read of the gift of bi-location - something exhibited in east/west saints alike? Being able to know the sins about to be confessed and those hidden?

Seeking gifts, of any fashion, is an egotistical drive, and is to be avoided. Seek humility and love first and foremost, then you may receive the greatest gift of all inside you - that of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

[Andrea Elizabeth]

I've been in services (non-Orthodox) where we exorcised some hysterical men. It was pretty intense. Was it real? Were there effective results? That's probably a subject for another thread and/or another forum.

It was a while back when I read about it, but I got the idea it was pretty commonplace over there. Orthodoxy is still new in the west, and still stifled in Russia, and persecuted in Greece. I personally believe Orthodoxy was more Charismatic 100 years ago.

(Ooo, "Mother Russia" just came up randomly on itunes. Thanks Oblio)

[Jacob4707]

ah, the church of Corinth did someone say???
The church of Corinth was rampant with problems, far from exemplary.

I agree - which is why I was puzzled by the statement that these Corinthian Christians "lived in Ascesis" and "were in Catharsis" when the evidence suggests the exact opposite.

[gzt]

well, yes, we do receive the gifts of the holy spirit at our chrismation. and?

[eoe]

St. John Chrysostom Homily XXXIV 1Cor xiii 8 (http://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xxxv.html)

But whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away.
Having shown the excellency of love from its being requisite both to the spiritual gifts, and to the virtues of life;and from rehearsal of all its good qualities, and by showing it to be the foundation of exact self-denial; from another, a third head, again he points out its worth. And this he doth, first from a wish to persuade those who seemed to be accounted inferior that it is in their power to have the chief of all signs, and that they will be no worse off than the possessors of the gifts, if they have this, but rather much better: secondly, with regard on the other hand to them that had the greater gifts and were lifted up thereby, studying to bring them down and to show that they have nothing unless they have this. For thus they would both love one another, envy as well as pride being hereby taken away; and reciprocally, loving one another, they would still further banish these passions. “For love envieth not, is not puffed up.” So that on every side he throws around them an impregnable wall, and a manifold unanimity, which first removes all their disorders, and thereby again waxes stronger. Therefore also he put forward innumerable reasons which might comfort their dejection. As thus: both “the same Spirit,” saith he, is the giver; and He “giveth to profit withal; and divideth as he will,” and it is a gift which He divideth, not a debt. Though thou receive but a little, thou dost equally contribute to the body, and even thus thou enjoyest much honor. And he that hath the greater, needs thee who hast the less. And, “Love is the greatest gift, and ‘the more excellent way.’”
Now all this he said doubly to bind them to each other, both by their not considering themselves disparaged while they had this; and because, after pursuit and attainment of it, they henceforth would not feel human infirmity; both as having the root of all gifts, and as no longer capable of contentiousness even though they had nothing. For he that is once led captive by love is freed from contentiousness.
And this is why, pointing out to them how great advantages they shall thence reap, he sketched out its fruits; by his praises of it repressing their disorders: inasmuch as each one of the things mentioned by him was a sufficient medicine to heal their wounds. Wherefore also he said, “suffereth long,” to them that 202 (http://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112/png/0218=202.htm)are at strife one with another; “is kind,” to them that stand mutually aloof, and bear a secret grudge; “envieth not,” to them that look grudgingly on their superiors; “vaunteth not itself,” to them that are separated; “is not puffed up,” to them that boast themselves against others; “doth not behave itself unseemly,” to them that do not think it their duty to condescend; “seeketh not her own,” to them that overlook the rest; “is not provoked, taketh not account of evil,” to them that are insolent; “rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth,” to them again that are envious; “beareth all things,” to them that are treacherous; “hopeth all things,” to the despairing; “endureth all things, never faileth,” to them that easily separate themselves.


Forgive me.

[Jacob4707]

Catharsis = purification. That is step 1. There is no step 0. This is where they were - step 1. Some were farther along than others but by and large it appears to me that Paul, in giving them the "excellent way" is encouraging them in thier struggle and prodding them along to further charity and love.

If I was wrong it was likely here. Maybe they were trying to skip steps and this is why Paul had to write this.


My point was that they seemed to have the charismata, and have them operating in and among themselves, with no suggestion that this was due to anything - i.e., askêsis, katharsis, etc. - other than their having become Christians.1 Corinthians 1:4-9: 4 I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given to you by Christ Jesus, 5 that you were enriched in everything by Him in all utterance and all knowledge, 6 even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, 7 so that you come short in no gift (charisma), eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
And again, another church, but the same suggestion that the acquisition and operation of the charismata were a result of their trust (pistis) in Christ Jesus - again, with no mention of askêsis or katharsis:
Galatians 3:1-9: 1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles (dynamis) among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
One reason they were called charismata is because they, like salvation, were an operation and bestowal of God's grace (charis), and not the result of the believers' spiritual development or discipline.

[Mark Downham]

John (eoe)

What is the relationship between the Catharsis of the Cross and the Catharsis of Acsesis?

Love.

Mark

[Mark Downham]

John (eoe)

What is the relationship between the Photosis of the Holy Spirit and the Photosis of Orthopraxis in illuminating the human Heart in a neptic and noetic way?

Love.

Mark

[Mark Downham]

John (eoe)

What is the relationship between the Theosis of Cardiagnosis and the Theosis of the Sacramental Life?

Love.

Mark

[Mark Downham]

John (eoe)

WOW! The energy that is starting to collect and gather in YOU!

It is starting to kick in!

Love.

Mark

[eoe]

Forgive me for thinking that I know anything. Thank you Mark for reminding me that I have no business trying to teach anyone anything.

I will leave up the homily and retract the rest. My suggestion is to look to the fathers - the link I provided will take you to St. John's homilies on 1cor.

[Mark Downham]

Forgive me for thinking that I know anything. Thank you Mark for reminding me that I have no business trying to teach anyone anything.

I will leave up the homily and retract the rest. My suggestion is to look to the fathers - the link I provided will take you to St. John's homilies on 1cor.

John,

I am not happy with this response.

You are 31 years old and YOU have the MIND of Christ....


Colossians 4:6b be ready to give answers to anyone who asks questions.


Love.

Mark

[icxn]

John,

I am not happy with this response.

You are 31 years old and YOU have the MIND of Christ....



Colossians 4:6b be ready to give answers to anyone who asks questions.

Love.
Mark
There are instances when keeping silence is better than "spiritual chatter":Once a brother came to Abba Theodore of Pherme and spent three days with him asking him for direction. But the Abba did not answer him, and the brother went away sad. The Abba's disciple said to him: "Why did you not say a word to him? He has gone away sad." The elder replied: "True, I did not say a word to him, but that is because he is a merchant [and a fraudulent one at that, watering down the merchantise], and wants to be praised for other people's words." - The Desert Fathers [remixed] ;)

[Mark Downham]

There are instances when keeping silence is better than "spiritual chatter":Once a brother came to Abba Theodore of Pherme and spent three days with him asking him for direction. But the Abba did not answer him, and the brother went away sad. The Abba's disciple said to him: "Why did you not say a word to him? He has gone away sad." The elder replied: "True, I did not say a word to him, but that is because he is a merchant [and a fraudulent one at that, watering down the merchantise], and wants to be praised for other people's words." - The Desert Fathers [remixed] ;)





icxn

Responding in the opposite spirit is always an interesting test of Christian Character.

The Desert Fathers used to test each other like this as Abba Moses will confirm to you.

Be Deeply Blessed and Be Loved in the Lord Jesus Christ!

Love.

Mark

[Andrea Elizabeth]

John (eoe)

What is the relationship between the Catharsis of the Cross and the Catharsis of Acsesis?

Love.

Mark

Isn't ascetic struggle part of taking up our cross and denying ourselves to follow Him? To be united with His sufferings and death, to be raised with the power of His Resurrection.

[Andrea Elizabeth]

John (eoe)

What is the relationship between the Photosis of the Holy Spirit and the Photosis of Orthopraxis in illuminating the human Heart in a neptic and noetic way?

Love.

Mark

Same thing? Through Orthopraxis we seek to unite ourselves to Christ, through the Holy Spirit, to obtain illumination.

[Andrea Elizabeth]

John (eoe)

What is the relationship between the Theosis of Cardiagnosis and the Theosis of the Sacramental Life?

Love.

Mark

At first I thought you were talking about diagnosing the heart, then I looked it up and the dictionary asked if I meant car diagnosis, then there was an option for cardia gnosis! I bet that's the one. Heart Knowledge.

Illumination through heart-prayer and Illumination through the corporate Sacramental Life in the Church. I'm not sure exactly their relationship, but I know we need both.

[Vasileios]

Andrea, how do you mean Orthodoxy is persecuted in Greece?

[Andrea Elizabeth]

Vasileios,

Actually I was mainly thinking of Constantinople, sorry. I've heard a lot of Orthodox have had to flee because of oppression by the Turkish govt., as well as generalized oppression from some Muslims in the middle east, but I'm not an expert.

[Oblio]

At first I thought you were talking about diagnosing the heart, then I looked it up and the dictionary asked if I meant car diagnosis

Car diagnosis Theosis


:D

It even rhymes nicely.

[ClementofRome]

WILL RETURN SHORTLY.

ClementofRome
TAW Mod

[ClementofRome]

MOD HAT ON

Thread reopened with the same request as has been placed in a couple of the most recent threads: Those from other congregations are welcome to fellowship and ask serious questions, but will not debate/teach/instruct.

MOD HAT OFF

[Alchemist]

Hi Kathxoumenoc,

I assume the charismata of which you speak are the spiritual gifts mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor 12:28-30? Sorry, my Greek is bad...

If so, then I do not see where these are not at work in the church? Apostleship is not really something that happens within a single congregation, so that can be excluded (though sending witnesses to other countries to edify the Church is certainly happening in Orthodoxy). Teaching and prophecy? Every Divine Liturgy teaching takes place, and even in the few times I have attended the Bible has been expounded on in ways more relevant to me than any other church I have ever been to. Miracles and healings? Well, scripture makes it clear that miracles are primarily to act as a sign for unbelievers, but there are accounts of many miracles occuring even in the last 100 years, and Orthodox strongly refute any dispensationalist suggestion that miracles suddenly "stopped" after the passing of the Apostles.

And so we are left with the classic issue of tongues. Certainly, if we get tied up in one or two verses, then we will see contradictions and problems with Paul's teaching, as compared to current Orthodox practise. But looking at the three chapters as a whole, it is clear that the problem is one of context. Paul goes to great lengths to say that tongues can be useful, and should be permitted, but they should not take priority over other gifts which are more suited to edify the Church.

And really at the end of the day, this is what it comes down to: how are we to tell the Holy Spirit what gifts to give us? If tongues aren't in use in some Orthodox congregations, does it mean the Holy Spirit is not working in that church? Of course not. It only means the Holy Spirit sees no use for tongues within that church. And in a day and age where any overtly "charasmatic" display of spirituality will not only be perceived as unusual, but likely push people away from the Church, it is really not that hard to see why miracle healings and speaking in tongues feature less prominently in Western Orthodox expressions of faith than perhaps they would have 2000 years ago; it simply won't edify the Church.

So was the early Church charasmatic? Certainly. Is the Church today charasmatic? Well, if you are going to judge it by the number of congregations in which there are people able to speak in tongues, probably not. But if you are going to judge it on the edification which comes from the use of spiritual gifts - which scripture clearly states is the whole point of them! - then mostly certainly, the Church is charasmatic. And really, that is what we should be looking at, IMO.

Peace,
Nick

[Jacob4707]

Hi Kathxoumenoc,

I assume the charismata of which you speak are the spiritual gifts mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor 12:28-30? Sorry, my Greek is bad...

If so, then I do not see where these are not at work in the church? Apostleship is not really something that happens within a single congregation, so that can be excluded (though sending witnesses to other countries to edify the Church is certainly happening in Orthodoxy). Teaching and prophecy? Every Divine Liturgy teaching takes place, and even in the few times I have attended the Bible has been expounded on in ways more relevant to me than any other church I have ever been to. Miracles and healings? Well, scripture makes it clear that miracles are primarily to act as a sign for unbelievers, but there are accounts of many miracles occuring even in the last 100 years, and Orthodox strongly refute any dispensationalist suggestion that miracles suddenly "stopped" after the passing of the Apostles.

And so we are left with the classic issue of tongues. Certainly, if we get tied up in one or two verses, then we will see contradictions and problems with Paul's teaching, as compared to current Orthodox practise. But looking at the three chapters as a whole, it is clear that the problem is one of context. Paul goes to great lengths to say that tongues can be useful, and should be permitted, but they should not take priority over other gifts which are more suited to edify the Church.

And really at the end of the day, this is what it comes down to: how are we to tell the Holy Spirit what gifts to give us? If tongues aren't in use in some Orthodox congregations, does it mean the Holy Spirit is not working in that church? Of course not. It only means the Holy Spirit sees no use for tongues within that church. And in a day and age where any overtly "charasmatic" display of spirituality will not only be perceived as unusual, but likely push people away from the Church, it is really not that hard to see why miracle healings and speaking in tongues feature less prominently in Western Orthodox expressions of faith than perhaps they would have 2000 years ago; it simply won't edify the Church.

So was the early Church charasmatic? Certainly. Is the Church today charasmatic? Well, if you are going to judge it by the number of congregations in which there are people able to speak in tongues, probably not. But if you are going to judge it on the edification which comes from the use of spiritual gifts - which scripture clearly states is the whole point of them! - then mostly certainly, the Church is charasmatic. And really, that is what we should be looking at, IMO.

Peace,
Nick

I have tried to clarify what I am asking, yet people think I am focusing on tongues. I am not. So I'll repeat what I wrote above in this post:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=25422246&postcount=14

So - you have a group of people that have first person access to Apostles with many giving up the world completely and really trying to live according to the teachings of Christ as set forth by the Apostles. They lived in Ascesis. These people were in Catharsis - purification. They knew that there was a starting point to all of this and they did not attempt to skip steps.

You say that you do not see the gifts being displayed in the Liturgy? I say that you are not paying attention. There is certainly teaching in every Liturgy and in addition to that you have the miracle of the eucharist and spiritual healing. You also have people coming together to HELP one another and you have the structure of the government(Parish council?) of the church with Christ himself at the top. All of these gifts are greater than tongues. All of them.

It is better *IN THE CHURCH* to speak with understanding in a known tongue.

Who are tongues for? Are they for believers? NO. So why on earth would you expect them to appear there? If it is better to speak in the church with a tongue of understanding AND the sign of tongues is expressly NOT for believers then where does anyone get that they should be displayed in the Church?

So. Who here is done with step 1? Anyone? Just stand up if you are free from passions and are a true ascetic. Anyone? Who here was baptized and catechized by an Apostle? Anyone? Anyone here finished with Step 1?

Why, if there is no one standing do we then expect to have widespread gifts? If we have no one that is willing to do step 1 then why do we look around for the signs?

The truth is that the Church - the Ecclesia HAS all of the gifts and has had them in operation since 33AD. They are just as valid and active today as they were in 44AD. Not only that but they are given to the exact same type of people today as they were back then - those who do what?

Step 1 - Follow after charity - catharsis - denial of self and promotion of others.

Why do you seem to assume that I am focusing on tongues? I am not.


Also, re: your statement:"So - you have a group of people that have first person access to Apostles with many giving up the world completely and really trying to live according to the teachings of Christ as set forth by the Apostles. They lived in Ascesis. These people were in Catharsis - purification"does not seem to be supported by what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians (or even 2 Corinthians). What verses from these Epistles support this assertion? (It may be true; I'm just not sure that the text says this.) In fact, contrary to the idea that these people gave up the world completely to follow Christ, Paul seems to be saying in 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 that the Corinthians in fact had nothing to begin with, and hence had nothing of the world to give up when they became Christians.

In 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 Paul is talking about the assembled believers sharing - as individuals - psalms, teachings, revelations, tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecies. (Thus, he indeed DOES see "tongues" as being for an assembly of believers.)

Paul doesn't make askesis or catharsis a criterion for receiving a spiritual gift (charisma). In 1 Corinthians 12:6-7 he seems to suggest that each member of the body/church has been given a charisma. True, they are to be exercised in love and for the edification of the body, but he also says that they are to be exercised and displayed when the believers "come together" in church.

I agree that "There is certainly teaching in every Liturgy and in addition to that you have the miracle of the eucharist and spiritual healing." But when Paul writes about "teaching" being exercised in the church service in 1 Corinthians 14:26-33, he is not placing that solely in the presiding priest or bishop; he has in mind any of the believers so gifted to bring forth or share the teaching (as well as the psalm, revelation, prophecy, etc.) he has received. He is not talking about "spiritual healing" in 1 Corinthians 12:9-10, but physical healings (lit. "gifts of healings"; and the same word dynamis that was used in the Gospels to describe Jesus's miracles is used in verse 10). And he NEVER describes the bread and wine becoming Christ's body and blood (i.e., "the miracle of the eucharist") as being a "miracle." Never. Ever. In any Epistle. Nor do any of the other writers of the New Testament.

My main points/questions, using my own words:

1. Why do you seem to assume that I am focusing on tongues? I am not.

2. In 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 Paul is talking about the assembled believers sharing - as individuals - psalms, teachings, revelations, tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecies.

3. In 1 Corinthians 12:6-7 he seems to suggest that each member of the body/church has been given a charisma. True, they are to be exercised in love and for the edification of the body, but he also says that they are to be exercised and displayed when the believers "come together" in church.

4. When Paul writes about "teaching" being exercised in the church service in 1 Corinthians 14:26-33, he is not placing that solely in the presiding priest or bishop; he has in mind any of the believers so gifted to bring forth or share the teaching (as well as the psalm, revelation, prophecy, etc.) he has received.

[eoe]

No one is saying that you are focused on tongues. Why are you totally ignoring the other parts of those comments? The only gifts that are not widely used in every single Liturgy are tongues and prophecy. That is why people are commenting on them. Tongues is simply the only part of these comments that you are responding to.

If so, then I do not see where these are not at work in the church? Apostleship is not really something that happens within a single congregation, so that can be excluded (though sending witnesses to other countries to edify the Church is certainly happening in Orthodoxy). Teaching and prophecy? Every Divine Liturgy teaching takes place, and even in the few times I have attended the Bible has been expounded on in ways more relevant to me than any other church I have ever been to. Miracles and healings? Well, scripture makes it clear that miracles are primarily to act as a sign for unbelievers, but there are accounts of many miracles occuring even in the last 100 years, and Orthodox strongly refute any dispensationalist suggestion that miracles suddenly "stopped" after the passing of the Apostles.

You want Apostleship? Those are the bishiops or Patrirchs. Teaching and healing happen at at every Liturgy. People are healed at every liturgy - it might not be a dramatic "get up and walk" moment but there is healing going on. There is a miracle that happens at every Liturgy - every single one - possibly more than just one. I see the healing even in myself - I see the miracle - I see the teaching and the caring. I see the gifts every time I attend.


Try this another way.

Other than tongues and maybe prophecy - what gifts do you see a lack of sharing in the liturgy? Is it possible that they are happening but not in the way that you expect to see them?

[kamikat]

Teaching and healing happen at at every Liturgy. People are healed at every liturgy - it might not be a dramatic "get up and walk" moment but there is healing going on. There is a miracle that happens at every Liturgy - every single one - possibly more than just one. I see the healing even in myself - I see the miracle - I see the teaching and the caring. I see the gifts every time I attend.


And what about the Holy Unction service during Holy Week, where the entire parish is annointed with holy oil? I heard people telling about their healings after this service.

kamikat

[Jacob4707]

No one is saying that you are focused on tongues. Why are you totally ignoring the other parts of those comments? The only gifts that are not widely used in every single Liturgy are tongues and prophecy. That is why people are commenting on them. Tongues is simply the only part of these comments that you are responding to.

You want Apostleship? Those are the bishiops or Patrirchs. Teaching and healing happen at at every Liturgy. People are healed at every liturgy - it might not be a dramatic "get up and walk" moment but there is healing going on. There is a miracle that happens at every Liturgy - every single one - possibly more than just one. I see the healing even in myself - I see the miracle - I see the teaching and the caring. I see the gifts every time I attend.

Try this another way.

Other than tongues and maybe prophecy - what gifts do you see a lack of sharing in the liturgy? Is it possible that they are happening but not in the way that you expect to see them?

I mustn't be making myself clear. It's not just about the specific gifts, but also about the way they are to be exercised, and by whom and when.

Paul describes the church meeting ("when you come together" - synerchomai) as being a time when the people share with each other and the assembled church their teaching, prophetic words, psalms, revelations, and messages in tongues and their interpretation. This could include "spiritual" songs and prayers, i.e., singing or praying in tongues.

I've already cited the relevant passages from 1 Corinthians 12-14 that give this description of Paul's view of a church meeting.

You say: "What gifts do you see a lack of sharing in the liturgy?"

My response/question again: When in the Liturgy do you have a time for the individual members (not just the priest or deacon or reader) to do the following:

give a teaching
give a revelation
give a prophecy (for the other members or the other prophets to test and judge)
give a message in tongues (followed by an interpretation)
sing/speak out a psalm (whether a Scriptural psalm, or a Spirit-inspired one like the Odes of Solomon)
sing or pray in tonguesThat seems to be what we see in 1 Corinthians and which I so far do not see in the Divine Liturgy or Vespers or Matins or any other Orthodox Church service I have attended - i.e., when the saints "come together in church."

Why is the worship service to God when the church assembles solely and repeatedly and regularly a structured, scripted service, when in 1 Corinthians (and also implied in Galatians) we see a place for free-form expression and personal charismatic ministry and activity (to be done decently and in order, though, which means that it must have been free-form enough to allow for it to get out of hand) - i.e., what some would call "body ministry" or "ministry time"?

Why are St. Paul's instructions and descriptions here (i.e., 1 Corinthians 12-14) no longer considered valid or operational for when the church "comes together," whereas some of his other church assembly instructions in the same Epistle (e.g.: women wearing head coverings; people taking the Eucharist properly) are still considered valid practices?

[eoe]

My response/question again: When in the Liturgy do you have a time for the individual members (not just the priest or deacon or reader) to do the following:

The liturgy is not the time to do these things. The liturgy is specifcally for it's own purpose. It is one of many reasons that people come together and it s not the only type of church meeting.

give a teachingCatechism class. At our parish they are taught by the laity.
give a revelation
Coffee hour - special purpose meetings. During lent we had special meetings where people would come in and discuss a given topic - repentance for example. After the speaker was done there was an agape meal and people could discuss the topic. If you had some revelation about the topic you could discuss it then.

give a prophecy (for the other members or the other prophets to test and judge)
Got me. I would say that if you want to see this you are going to have to go to a monastery.
give a message in tongues (followed by an interpretation)
For me this happens at every liturgy literally because although I am of German descent I have no culture at all of my own and yet I sing in Greek.

sing/speak out a psalm (whether a Scriptural psalm, or a Spirit-inspired one like the Odes of Solomon)
Choir practice?

sing or pray in tongues
Choir practice?

Adding one - healing - Holy Unction, visiting the sick.

That seems to be what we see in 1 Corinthians and which I so far do not see in the Divine Liturgy or Vespers or Matins or any other Orthodox Church service I have attended - i.e., when the saints "come together in church."
The services you mention are simply not for those things. They are for a different purpose - ie, praying the hours. It is at the informal services where you will see the laity with gifts. It is not like we get together and say "Alright - lets see that charisma!" it does not work that way. The gifts appear when it pleases God, not when it pleases us. Attempting to stage such an event would be looking the gift horse in the mouth. This is why I have such a hard time with the idea that the gifts must be demonstrated. It attempts to force a miracle. It seems like some people want to trot out the charismata like a dog and pony show.:sick:

Why is the worship service to God when the church assembles solely and repeatedly and regularly a structured, scripted service, when in 1 Corinthians (and also implied in Galatians) we see a place for free-form expression and personal charismatic ministry and activity (to be done decently and in order, though, which means that it must have been free-form enough to allow for it to get out of hand) - i.e., what some would call "body ministry" or "ministry time"?

Why are St. Paul's instructions and descriptions here (i.e., 1 Corinthians 12-14) no longer considered valid or operational for when the church "comes together," whereas some of his other church assembly instructions in the same Epistle (e.g.: women wearing head coverings; people taking the Eucharist properly) are still considered valid practices?
I would not say that they are inactive or anything like that - I would say that they do indeed happen but it is not in big dramatic ways all the time.

HERE:
http://www.saintjohnwonderworker.org/MaryEvelyn/MaryEvelyn0925-02.gif
Here is a specific service for healing.
More healing:
http://www.saintjohnwonderworker.org/images/carla.gif
teaching
http://www.saintjohnwonderworker.org/images/Azar0925.gif

These things happen all the time. Maybe not in the middle of Vespers - but they happen.

[Jacob4707]

The liturgy is not the time to do these things. The liturgy is specifcally for it's own purpose. It is one of many reasons that people come together and it s not the only type of church meeting.<snip>

Thanks for the detailed response.

FYI - I found out this morning that a person on this Forum works across the street from me. :) :)

[eoe]

FYI - I found out this morning that a person on this Forum works across the street from me.
What a hoot!

[silouanathonite]

That's me, we'll meet for lunch sometime.