Why is this website so critical?

[Knowledge3]

Has anyone read this?

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/averk_trueorth.aspx

[Knowledge3]

This article is very critical of new converts:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/averky_terms.aspx

[Happy Orthodox]

that website in general is critical...

[repentant]

I really don't see any criticism..just blunt truth...what specifically did you find critical?

Also, you must remember that this site does not write it's own articles, but uses writing's of other's....the two you posted were written by Archbishop Averky (memory eternal), former Abbot of Holy Trinity Monastery in NY...

[authiodionitist]

Orthodox info is not a good place for information at all. The homilies from the saints... you have to pick and choose...

[repentant]

Like I said, show something specific..

[jckstraw72]

orthodoxinfo.com helped me a great deal when i was a catechumen.

the articles are critical bc they see dangers to the Church that should be called out. i cant say i really disagree with the articles ...

[Akathist]

When in doubt about anything like this, please consult your Priest.

[repentant]

i cant say i really disagree with the articles ...

Me niether..happy birthday btw..

[jckstraw72]

Me niether..happy birthday btw..

thank thee kind sir

[Dust and Ashes]

Are they part of a schismatic group? I couldn't help notice the "which of us is the real schismatic" question and other such questions and statements. Aside from that, the article seems very truthful and shows just how narrow the way is.

[Silentchapel]

Oh geez.
:sigh:
While I'm glad that the site helped some people, I must admit that I horribly regret recommending it to some other people. I get that special red flag flying when I read words 'modernist' and/or 'True Orthodox' since I know precisely what that implies.
1) The attitude that we're TRUE Orthodox and THEY aren't (which is ironic, since the opposite is true, considering they've separated themselves from Orthodoxy via schism).
2) The attitude that we have to point out that we're the TRUE Orthodox because we have doubts in our faith.
3) The attitude that we have to be baptised 2+ times just to make sure that the magical ceremony is performed according to the spellbook. I mean, Priest's Service Book.
4) The attitude that we're oh-so-better than they are because we see non-Orthodox/non-true-Orthodox as hellbound heretics.
5) Frankly, I'm wondering how many of you TAW people would be around if we listened to all that nonsense that's oozing from "Orthodox" Info.
6) The true fruits of such vile sites are probably difficult to notice in the West where religious pluralism is at it's highest. However, in a traditional Orthodox country (like Serbia) - people like these are sending out pamphlets, telling sky-high lies, snatching people away from the canonical Church.
7) While JWs are dangerous to people who are not very informed about Orthodoxy, Old Calendarist / True Orthodox heresy (I have no problem calling it that) is dangerous to those who are well-versed in Orthopraxis. I should know.

My opinion is that the site, helpful as it may be, is in fact rather dangerous, since it openly supports schismatic behaviour. And I hope we all know how grave the sin of schism is.

[JustinHesychast]

I ended up reading that article and the most part of 2 more like it that I found on the links section on the right. I’ve read helpful articles on that website several times before. This one seems… I don’t know. I mean, I have no clue what it’s even talking about. The article is quite depressing, though…

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

This is not a website created by a schismatic group. It has one webmaster, Patrick Barnes, who is a member of a canonical Orthodox Church (Serbian Orthodox...they aren't considered schismatic, are they?). His parish website is here: http://www.dormitionorthodoxchurch.org/

Repentant is right. This is a website which has links to articles written by other people. Yes, it is a traditionalist website, but I don't believe the webmaster is a schismatic.

[Knowledge3]

I was concerned because I actually spend alot of time reading the Fathers of the Church. I have not seen the Fathers endorsing any of these opinions about Orthodoxy. The only distinction the Fathers made was the distinction between catechumens and the faithful. Between clergy and laity. They never used the term "true Orthodox". I'll just have to take this with a grain of salt.

[Prawnik]

Interesting. The "True Orthodox" (for want of a better term) came to Ukraine and Russia soon after after the fall of Communism.

The lack of interest here has been overwhelming.

[RobNJ]

K3, also keep in mind that both those articles you linked to were written by the same man.

[Xpycoctomos]

This article is very critical of new converts:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/averky_terms.aspx
From the article above:

Such, for example, in our days are the Ecumenical Patriarchs of Constantinople, who in the past recognized the "Living Church" in Soviet Russia as legal and now recognize the Pope of Rome as the "head of the whole Christian Church", and even admit the papist Latins to Holy Communion without their first being united to the Holy Orthodox Church.


Is this true? I wish things were cited here. Anyone have anything to back this up or know what the author is referring to?

[Padraig]

Is this true? I wish things were cited here. Anyone have anything to back this up or know what the author is referring to?

HAH Bartholomew may have some "ecumenical" leanings, and he may recognize the bishop of Rome as the head of the Roman church, but they have never concelebrated, nor has HAH Bartholomew communed RC's - at least knowingly or under normal circumstances. It seems here the author is relying on misconceptions and half-truths to agendize his particular brand of theology, and cast "ecumenists" in a negative light.

It is unfortunate that this site feels the need to categorize "traditionalist" vs "modernists" and so forth. The pejorative use of "modernist" creates the impression that these are ultra-liberal rebels functioning outside the "canonical traditionalist" Church, when all of the people who are considered "modernists" (i.e. anybody from St Vladimir's Seminary with the exception of Fr Florovsky - and other leading Orthodox theologians engaging modern culture) are firmly within, or have fallen asleep firmly within the canonical Church.

I would like to see them spend more time preaching the Gospel and less time tearing down their brothers. Again, it is unfortunate.

May you bear the fruit of the Passion,
Dn Kevin

[jckstraw72]

he's probably thinking of things like the lifting of the 1054 anathemas and the Balamand Agreement. there's also articles on there somewhere about some celebration where Catholics were supposedly communed by the Patriarch. i have no idea how to find them now but I read them sometime in the past.

[Knowledge3]

From the article above:


Is this true? I wish things were cited here. Anyone have anything to back this up or know what the author is referring to?

It is his opinion. It seems that other Orthodox do not measure up to his standard of Orthodoxy- so he has to complain like a crybaby.

[Vasileios]

havent read the article but I see it's from bishop Averky of blessed memory. I do not appreciate your charaterization K3.

As for the Ecumenical Patriarch, he is referring to Patriarch Athenagoras, and unfortunately it is true, along with some other unfortunate phrases. He was a very controversial patriarch and he met skepticism from many Orthodox, not just fringe groups.

[Padraig]

havent read the article but I see it's from bishop Averky of blessed memory. I do not appreciate your charaterization K3.

As for the Ecumenical Patriarch, he is referring to Patriarch Athenagoras, and unfortunately it is true, along with some other unfortunate phrases. He was a very controversial patriarch and he met skepticism from many Orthodox, not just fringe groups.
Then my presumption it was about Bartholamew was in error. Thank you for this clarification.

May you bear the fruit of the Passion,
Dn Kevin

[Knowledge3]

Pope Benedict XVI attended a Divine Liturgy of HAH Barthomelew as a formal guest at St. Georges Cathedral in Turkey/Instanbul(?), but he did not commune or concelebrate with other Orthodox. All that happened was a formal acknowledgement of each Patriarch's office and juridsiction. I saw it on ETWN

[RobNJ]

Pope Benedict XVI attended a Divine Liturgy of HAH Barthomelew as a formal guest at St. Georges Cathedral in Turkey/Instanbul(?), but he did not commune or concelebrate with other Orthodox. All that happened was a formal acknowledgement of each Patriarch's office and juridsiction. I saw it on ETWN

K3... Read the article, there WAS no Pope Benedict XVI, OR EWTN when this article was written, it was originally published in a May-June 1975 magazine.

[Knowledge3]

havent read the article but I see it's from bishop Averky of blessed memory. I do not appreciate your charaterization K3.

As for the Ecumenical Patriarch, he is referring to Patriarch Athenagoras, and unfortunately it is true, along with some other unfortunate phrases. He was a very controversial patriarch and he met skepticism from many Orthodox, not just fringe groups.

To clarify: I was referring to the author of that site, not the patriarch.

Forgive me.

[jckstraw72]

It is his opinion. It seems that other Orthodox do not measure up to his standard of Orthodoxy- so he has to complain like a crybaby.

we should not speak of a bishop this way. you should get your hands on a copy of the Fr. Seraphim Rose biography -- it has a wonderful chapter about Archbishop Averky who was a great Orthodox presence in this country.

As Vasilieos said, there are unfortunate circumstances such as those the Archbishop has written about. A priest I know said his Athonite spiritual father went to Athos to escape the ecumenism in the Middle East -- they wanted him to commune non-Orthodox.

[jckstraw72]

also, to be critical of ecumenism and what not is not necessarily an endoresement of schism groups. for instance, Fr. Seraphim who was in support of Old Calendar groups early on significantly reviewed his opinion later in life when he saw the mess that those groups were, but his zealous anti-ecumenism position did not change.

[jckstraw72]

one more thing -- St. John of San Francisco (who commemorated the Moscow Patriarch) told Fr. Seraphim and Fr. Herman to turn to Archbishop Averky for guidance after his own repose. Sounds like a good endorsement to me.

[Knowledge3]

Just to be sure: I do not mean to say anything negative about any of our bishops or clergy.

[choirfiend]

The webmaster of that site USED ot belong to a schismatic group, which is why so many articles there still have a tinge of schismatic wackadoo-ness. Browsing is best left to the advice of your priest. Ive found some articles there to be in line with what Ive been taught as Orthodoxy, and some to be full of crap. It's a mix, so read with care and as your priest advises you.

[repentant]

I am still waitiing for a reference..

[choirfiend]

Quoted per the creator of the site:
"My academic credentials include...Licentiate in Orthodox Theological Studies from the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies (http://www.sisqtel.net/%7Esgpm/ctos/). "

The C.T.O.S. referred to in this quote is run by a schismatic group in Etna, CA. They're not hard to look up if you want to see who they are. This is only an indirect tie, to be sure, but I will ask my schismatic friends (yes, I have some) to see if they have more direct proof from their schismatic circles.

[buzuxi02]

orthodoxinfo.com is by far the best Orthodox website in english. Most of their articles are written by eminent scholars. The group in question headed by Metropolitan Cyprianos is the most moderate group of old calendarists and the second largest greek old calendar church in existance.


As far as intercommunion with the RC it occured a few years back when the E.P. celebrated the DL at Ravenna, Italy, Also intercommunion takes place on certain aegean greek islands (Samos comes to mind) where there is a large RC precense. Many in Greece have criticised this practise .

[Kristos]

I have read many of the articles on orthodoxinfo.com and found most of them to be useful and in line. I don't remember the exact articles, but there were a few (a small number) that gave me a bad taste and I filed them under that heading in my noggin. Many of these articles were essential to my conversion, so I won't throw out the baby with the bath water on this. Develop discernment and use it. Just like I was skeptical of deathtotheworld at first, but now warmed up to them. The truth has a way of coming to the top when you give it time and are patiently seeking it. If nothing else, it good to understand opposing POVs. Since Patrick is a fellow ring knocker, I'm probably partial.

[Nickolai]

Geeez, if you all think that website is bad now, you should have seen it about 4 years ago. Back when Patrick Barnes was a schismatic (I believe he was under The Cyprianites) the site was full of old-calendarist propaganda.

Now it's one of the best resources out there for Orthodox who already know a bit about the faith. I don't direct inquirers there however. Some of the articles are still too polemical and can confuse some people.

As for Archbishop Averky, that man very well may be canonized one day. He was somewhat of a mentor to my Bishop, when he was with the ROCOR. In fact he decided to leave the Synod for the OCA only after Vladyka Averky passed away. There are many people who can attest to his holiness. But during the time he was a Bishop, the MP was still in a somewhat strange position, since Russia was still communist. Most of the Bishops in ROCOR just wouldn't trust it. They did not like anything that seemed take away anything from the faith, or even anything that might possibly be loosely connected to the faith (calendar, ecumenism, modernism etc...).

[Xpycoctomos]

Hey Nikolai, are you in the ROCOR or the OCA? Just curious.

[MichaelArchangelos]

As for the Ecumenical Patriarch, he is referring to Patriarch Athenagoras, and unfortunately it is true, along with some other unfortunate phrases. He was a very controversial patriarch and he met skepticism from many Orthodox, not just fringe groups.

If I remember rightly, Patriarch Athenagoras was even criticized by the holy elders of Mt. Athos.

OrthodoxInfo has been a great help to me. I was shocked to read the articles about modernism. I fled the Roman Catholic Church because of modernism, and now I find that it's in the Orthodox Church as well.

Especially with regard to ecumenism, I find OrthodoxInfo a much better resource than, say, the Greek Archdiocese of America site. OrthodoxInfo actually upholds the canonical position that praying with heretics is forbidden. I used to attend a traditional Roman Catholic Mass until I read that it is forbidden in the Canons (and I first saw the appropriate Canons on that site).
I am a firm opponent of ecumenism. The Orthodox Church is the one true Church.

[Silentchapel]

There is no "modernism" in the Orthodox Church - just a couple of bad things in couple of American parishes - and even there you will find no hippy masses, requests for gay marriages, womenpriests or anything similar.
And ecumenism is a "good thing." You wouldn't be on this board if we were all nice and canonical in the first place, and most certainly not in catechumenate.
:angel:

[MichaelArchangelos]

There is no "modernism" in the Orthodox Church - just a couple of bad things in couple of American parishes - and even there you will find no hippy masses, requests for gay marriages, womenpriests or anything similar.


That's good to know. :)

[Oblio]

Not sure if you are cradle EO, but beware the spectre of convertitis

[Silentchapel]

Not sure if you are cradle EO, but beware the spectre of convertitis
Was this meant for me or MichaelArchangelos? :scratch:

[Xpycoctomos]

Convertitis: an zeal that often blinds converts of their own pre-formed prejudices and underlying beliefs which allows those very prejudices to quietly informs their fundamental POVs on many issues allowing for the deeper issues of their beliefs to never be fully confronted and erradicated. Perhaps someone can offer a mor sussinct definition.

However, the symptoms can come forth in countless ways. Some common ones are assuming that we know where the problems lie in the Church, why the cradles need to follow our example (although we rarely say this so explicitly), where the Church needs to change, and fosters a pick-and-choose metality. It also manifests itself in an obsession to cross yourself and prostrate three times as much as the most pious yaya in the Church and "mistakenly" drop unsubtle hints (although in our minds we fool ourselves into thinking they're really quite subtle and done on accident) around people who aren't Orthodox and talk about fasting or leave your prayer rope laying around or something in secret (and odd) hopes that such might strike up a conversation with the person (who vould be a friend, collegue, enemy or perfect stranger) and that they might be saved becuase of our piety. I could go on and on becuase I've been there and continue to be there. About 99% of converts (I think) go through it and most of us never fully grow out of it.

[Dust and Ashes]

Convertitis: an zeal that often blinds converts of their own pre-formed prejudices and underlying beliefs which allows those very prejudices to quietly informs their fundamental POVs on many issues allowing for the deeper issues of their beliefs to never be fully confronted and erradicated. Perhaps someone can offer a mor sussinct definition.

However, the symptoms can come forth in countless ways. Some common ones are assuming that we know where the problems lie in the Church, why the cradles need to follow our example (although we rarely say this so explicitly), where the Church needs to change, and fosters a pick-and-choose metality. It also manifests itself in an obsession to cross yourself and prostrate three times as much as the most pious yaya in the Church and "mistakenly" drop unsubtle hints (although in our minds we fool ourselves into thinking they're really quite subtle and done on accident) around people who aren't Orthodox and talk about fasting or leave your prayer rope laying around or something in secret (and odd) hopes that such might strike up a conversation with the person (who vould be a friend, collegue, enemy or perfect stranger) and that they might be saved becuase of our piety. I could go on and on becuase I've been there and continue to be there. About 99% of converts (I think) go through it and most of us never fully grow out of it.

Ouch, ouch and ouch. I find myself there all too often, mostly when I think I'm starting to get over it. I should worst, rather that mostly because I'm never not there, just occasionally not quite as badly there.

[Silentchapel]

:( I tend to leave stuff around, hoping to convert people...
Oh my G-

I'm turning into Jack Chick! :eek:

[Oblio]

Was this meant for me or MichaelArchangelos? :scratch:

It was not specifically addressed for a reason :)

[Vasileios]

hey, leaving a couple of books strategically placed around the house is not bad :P

(seriously though, it isn't!)

[Xpycoctomos]

hey, leaving a couple of books strategically placed around the house is not bad :P

(seriously though, it isn't!)
I agree. I think it gets down to a very personal level. For me it was often difficult to tell if I was leaving that object in plain site for the good of another, or in order to impress someone. If I discovered that it was in ANY way a part of the reason why I did or said such "subtle" thing, I conclude that it is best to avoid that action in the future until I can be sure my intentions are pure and to self-glorify in any way small or big.

John

[Nickolai]

Hey Nikolai, are you in the ROCOR or the OCA? Just curious.

OCA, why do you ask?

[RobNJ]

OCA, why do you ask?

For his Soooper Seeekret Files!!!! :eek:



^_^

[xristos.anesti]

Christ is ascended!

I do not see anything wrong with expressing our faith in a way that will get people to ask questions (to me that usually comes down to "enforcing" Serbian Orthodox Calendar - even if just for the sake of just a simple answer but, also, for an all-evening "argument" or just a "chill-out" coversation.

As far as Orthodoxinfo is concerned - God bless every Orthodox website, book, radio emission, tv programe...

Convertitis - ah well, such a thing is a human thing - happens with all the things that we consider important not just faith. But - like all things human it can be annoying - at the same time - hey, it's all good.

[BabyLutheran]

Is there also an anti convertitis syndrome exhibited by the cradles?

[choirfiend]

Sure. It's called "smack ya upside the head, who do you think you are trying to 'fix,' foo!" syndrome.



In all seriousness, every day is a conversion. And cradles have some of the same convertitis problems with each daily renewal of faith.

[SeraphimSarov]

I think I have a baaad case of convertitis, though I think I've been smacked down a few times by the Holy Spirit to save others from myself. :P

[Xpycoctomos]

OCA, why do you ask?
Icouldn't tell by your post and I thought maybe you were ROCOR. Do we have any ROCOR here?

[Xpycoctomos]

Is there also an anti convertitis syndrome exhibited by the cradles?
this is very possible... but it's not our (converts)problem.

[Nickolai]

I couldn't tell by your post and I thought maybe you were ROCOR. Do we have any ROCOR here?

No, my Bishop was ROCOR at one time, he was consecrated at Jordanville actually (One of the the Bishops who did the consecration was St. John of San Francisco).

I also happen to like the traditionalism of the ROCOR. I have moderately liberal tendencies in a few areas of pastoral practice. But I pretty much agree with them 100% on how they do things liturgically. I also agree with them on things like the calendar, clerical dress, disagreements on some forms of ecumenism... Let's just say that if I was told to transfer to ROCOR, I wouldn't hesitate a bit.

In Christ,
Reader Nikolai

[jckstraw72]

woot woot for ROCOR!

[TrueHope]

Sure. It's called "smack ya upside the head, who do you think you are trying to 'fix,' foo!" syndrome.



In all seriousness, every day is a conversion. And cradles have some of the same convertitis problems with each daily renewal of faith.
I like this one!!!

The humble facto! :)

[Xpycoctomos]

For anyone interested, I talked to my friend yesterday and he went to a local ROCOR Parish where ROCOR and MP cleric held an all-night vigil. The next morning he went to another parish that was holding a Liturgy not specifically for the Reunion (for it was OCA) but becuase the parish is called "Holy Ascension" and my friend said that a ROCOR priest showed up and concelebrated "just cuz he could". So, that's awesome and it shows that a lot of Jurisdictions here (MP, ROCOR and OCA) are excited about this reunion.

Again, it doesn't mean that there aren't disagreements about the details or petty things liek who was right and who was wrong. But this certainly doesn't preclude them from being happy fro the Reunion.

Just thought I would share that little Anecdote!

John

[authiodionitist]

I also happen to like the traditionalism of the ROCOR. I have moderately liberal tendencies in a few areas of pastoral practice. But I pretty much agree with them 100% on how they do things liturgically. I also agree with them on things like the calendar, clerical dress, disagreements on some forms of ecumenism...


What do you mean by traditionalism? Is it the political climate of their Archdiocese that you like? (As in there are cosmopolitan conservatives there?)

By liturgical practice I assume you mean you like the High Russian way of doing things. It is rare to find liturgical corruption in the Orthodox Church. If you like the way they do things it's the High Russian thing, not because they're more accurate than anyone else.

The calendar issue I understand.
Clerical dress? Also, this is a uniform practice of the Orthodox Church. Is it a Church function, or will a clergyman see one of the faithful? Then he will be wearing his cassock.

On ecumenism - are you accusing the Church of being ecumenical (in the contemporary sense, not in the conciliar sense)?

[Nickolai]

What do you mean by traditionalism? Is it the political climate of their Archdiocese that you like? (As in their are cosmopolitan conservatives there?)

Traditionalism is the sense that they aren't willing to give up parts of the faith because of the whims of the culture. There are many things that some people find trivial, but the ROCOR stands firmly in what they believe, adn I respect them for that.

To give an example, I had an OCA "Theologion" once tell me that the entrance of the Theotokos into the temple never happened. This was someone who is a well read Orthodox author. Such a crazy statement would never fly in the ROCOR.

By liturgical practice I assume you mean you like the High Russian way of doing things. It is rare to find liturgical corruption in the Orthodox Church. If you like the way they do things it's the High Russian thing, not because they're more accurate than anyone else.

Not necessarily. I do like the Greek practices as well. But I was speaking more of the liturgical mindset than anything. In the ROCOR there is a established way to do things, and there is very little variation. I have been to quite a few OCA parishes where I've been completely appalled at some of the liturgical practices. As if the Priest doesn't even understand liturgical theology.

The calendar issue I understand.
Clerical dress? Also, this is a uniform practice of the Orthodox Church. Is it a Church function, or will a clergyman see one of the faithful? Then he will be wearing his cassock.

Tell this to Metropolitan PHILIP of the Antiochians, he actually forbids his clergy to wear anything but a clerical shirt outside of services, and even then many don't wear cassock. To the Antiochian's credit, every single Antiochian seminarian I've met at St. Tikhon's has been extremely traditional, and the three Antiochain Bishop's I've met are all very Holy men. But there is no standard for priestly look with them. There is lots of variation. Variation that does not exist in the ROCOR.

On ecumenism - are you accusing the Church of being ecumenical (in the contemporary sense, not in the conciliar sense)?

I don't like my Church being in the WCC or NCC. We have no need to be there, and we don't support the branch theory. Simple as that to me. I don't have a problem with ecumenism in the sense of dialog, but when we dismiss certain aspects of our faith to please others outside of the Church it creates a problem.

In the end though, I am happy in the OCA. I am not looking to jump Js anytime soon, but I happen to like the way ROCOR does certain things. I am entitled to my opinion, aren't I?

In Christ,
Reader Nikolai

[authiodionitist]

Traditionalism is the sense....There are many things that some people find trivial, but the ROCOR stands firmly in what they believe, adn I respect them for that.

To give an example, I had an OCA "Theologion" once tell me that the entrance of the Theotokos into the temple never happened. This was someone who is a well read Orthodox author. Such a crazy statement would never fly in the ROCOR.

Not everyone is the best speaker, and the Church is Traditional, not individual. Just because one person says something that is not necessarily within a literal look at the Tradition does not necessarily make him a heretic.
Also, if you want to talk crazy in ROCOR, think of how they talked for years about "validity" and "true" in their canonical debate over the Russian Church. I'm glad to see this Augustinian Catholic position has dissipated so that we are now one Church.




But I was speaking more of the liturgical mindset than anything. In the ROCOR there is a established way to do things, and there is very little variation. I have been to quite a few OCA parishes where I've been completely appalled at some of the liturgical practices.


Liturgical variation within the OCA can be due to several traditions: Carpatho-Rusyn, Great/High Russian, Siberian, Romanian, Albanian, etc. Each region has a particular tradition of being Christian, and this shows through in the Liturgy. Either the priest or the congregation would have had to ask for some of these 'corruptions' you present. Economia, my brother, economia.



Tell this to Metropolitan PHILIP of the Antiochians, he actually forbids his clergy to wear anything but a clerical shirt outside of services, and even then many don't wear cassock. To the Antiochian's credit, every single Antiochian seminarian I've met at St. Tikhon's has been extremely traditional, and the three Antiochain Bishop's I've met are all very Holy men. But there is no standard for priestly look with them.

Sounds like a cultural problem. I'd blame it on those Arabs letting the Evangelicals come in as a group! In the future I think it's important that the Church breaks these little groups up - we don't want 'sanctioned' cultural cliques within any of the jurisdictions of the US that do not embrace moving towards American Orthodoxy (baptizing the salvagable parts of converts' culture that they bring with them to make part of the Christian cultures of the Old Countries).

There is lots of variation. Variation that does not exist in the ROCOR.



I don't like my Church being in the WCC or NCC. We have no need to be there, and we don't support the branch theory. Simple as that to me. I don't have a problem with ecumenism in the sense of dialog, but when we dismiss certain aspects of our faith to please others outside of the Church it creates a problem.

We never drop any propositional statement that we hold to be our existential reality of our faith in the name of unity. As one Orthodox priest put it, "The Orthodox way of being ecumenical is making everyone else Orthodox."


I am entitled to my opinion, aren't I?



A sense of entitlement is a dangerous thing to posess.

[Nickolai]

Not everyone is the best speaker, and the Church is Traditional, not individual. Just because one person says something that is not necessarily within a literal look at the Tradition does not necessarily make him a heretic.
Also, if you want to talk crazy in ROCOR, think of how they talked for years about "validity" and "true" in their canonical debate over the Russian Church. I'm glad to see this Augustinian Catholic position has dissipated so that we are now one Church.

I never called said person a heretic. But there is no way to dismiss what he said. He said "it did not happen". One of the 12 great feasts didn't happen? This wasn't just some individual. i won't give too much away, but this person has helped form countless clergy.

As for the "valid" and "true" thing. This was specifically about 2 Bishops (one who left the ROCOR). and has very little to do with what we are actually discussing.

Liturgical variation within the OCA can be due to several traditions: Carpatho-Rusyn, Great/High Russian, Siberian, Romanian, Albanian, etc. Each region has a particular tradition of being Christian, and this shows through in the Liturgy. Either the priest or the congregation would have had to ask for some of these 'corruptions' you present. Economia, my brother, economia.

The kind I am speaking of has nothing to do with cultural differences. I am an Orthodox seminarian, and can usually spot the difference. And on the occasion that I can't I ask people who do. The person who teaches liturgics at seminary happens to be a Bishop who's an expert at liturgics.

Aside from this the corruptions (and some you really can call them that) have little to do with the sake of the people. Economia is for when akrevia can't be adhered to. Akrevia is the ideal, and if there is no need for economia, then why invoke it?

Sounds like a cultural problem. I'd blame it on those Arabs letting the Evangelicals come in as a group! In the future I think it's important that the Church breaks these little groups up - we don't want 'sanctioned' cultural cliques within any of the jurisdictions of the US that do not embrace moving towards American Orthodoxy (baptizing the salvagable parts of converts' culture that they bring with them to make part of the Christian cultures of the Old Countries).

It is a bit of a cultural problem. More to do with the atmosphere toward foreigners 60 years ago that the EOC. but now that atmosphere is gone, and there is no reason to wear a clerical shirt anymore, ever!

We never drop any propositional statement that we hold to be our existential reality of our faith in the name of unity. As one Orthodox priest put it, "The Orthodox way of being ecumenical is making everyone else Orthodox."

I agree with the quote, but here's the preamble of the NCC constitution

"The National Council of Churches is a community of Christian communions, which, in response to the gospel as revealed in the Scriptures, confess Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God, as Savior and Lord. These communions covenant with one another to manifest ever more fully the unity of the Church. Relying upon the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, the communions come together as the Council in common mission, serving in all creation to the glory of God."

I have a big problem with that bolded part. There already is unity in the Church. Most of the members of the NCC are heretics, and some are maybe not even Christian.

A sense of entitlement is a dangerous thing to posess.

OK, but I do have the ability to make a decision on my own. especially when my opinion isn't all that strange.

[Matrona]

I have been to quite a few OCA parishes where I've been completely appalled at some of the liturgical practices. As if the Priest doesn't even understand liturgical theology.

Can you give some more detail?

Tell this to Metropolitan PHILIP of the Antiochians, he actually forbids his clergy to wear anything but a clerical shirt outside of services, and even then many don't wear cassock. To the Antiochian's credit, every single Antiochian seminarian I've met at St. Tikhon's has been extremely traditional, and the three Antiochain Bishop's I've met are all very Holy men. But there is no standard for priestly look with them. There is lots of variation. Variation that does not exist in the ROCOR.

I see Antiochian priests wear cassocks all the time, with or without the clerical shirt. They are not forbidden to wear "anything other than a clerical shirt".

I'm not a huge fan of Metropolitan Philip's wearing that Anglican thing, but there's no accounting for taste. :D

A priest is a priest and a metropolitan is a metropolitan, no matter what he's wearing, and this is all outside-church wear, not vestments for liturgical use.

I don't like my Church being in the WCC or NCC. We have no need to be there, and we don't support the branch theory. Simple as that to me. I don't have a problem with ecumenism in the sense of dialog, but when we dismiss certain aspects of our faith to please others outside of the Church it creates a problem.

Luckily, the Antiochians already bounced out of that. :)

[Nickolai]

Can you give some more detail?

I'd rather not, these things are somewhat common, and I don't want to offend anyone specifically. I'd rather just say I disagree with certain things and leave it at that, that way no one is upset.

I see Antiochian priests wear cassocks all the time, with or without the clerical shirt. They are not forbidden to wear "anything other than a clerical shirt".

I've not seen the letter myself. But know priests who have. From what I'm told Met. PHILLIP sends the letter out every year. And then people like Bishop BASIL tell their clergy to ignore it. :D

I'm not a huge fan of Metropolitan Philip's wearing that Anglican thing, but there's no accounting for taste. :D

A priest is a priest and a metropolitan is a metropolitan, no matter what he's wearing, and this is all outside-church wear, not vestments for liturgical use.

Agreed, it has no impact on their priesthood. But I don't like it. Again, I was merely expressing my opinion all along. I never said clerical dress was a matter of dogma.

Luckily, the Antiochians already bounced out of that. :)

I just wish the OCA would do the same.

[Xpycoctomos]

Nikolai,

I don't really like that we are in the WCC either. I think this is a fair criticism from the ROCOR of the MP. However, in the defnese of the MP, I don't know of anytime they denied any Orhtodox truth. While the Methodists might be there to demonstrate the branch theory, the Russian Church has repeatedly said publicly that they are there purely in order to be a light among darkness so other can learn about the true Church. I don't worry too much about this compromising our Orthodoxy. however, I do think this sends out a mixed messages to others who might assume things about our involvement and I don't think it's worth it. And honestly, how many people have we actually brought to the Church throught he auspices of the WCC (either directly or indirectly). i am having a difficult time thinking of many plausible scenarios. My next question, how many people have been turned off from the Orthodox Church becuase of our involvement in the WCC. Not sure.

Anyway, while our premises for not like the WCC are different, I agree with your conclusion. Let's pack up and shake the dust off of our sandles on the way out.

John

[Xpycoctomos]

It is a bit of a cultural problem. More to do with the atmosphere toward foreigners 60 years ago that the EOC. but now that atmosphere is gone, and there is no reason to wear a clerical shirt anymore, ever!


You see, the canons of having to wear clerical wear around came out of a different culture that is completely irrelevant to ours. That came out of a culture that was through and through Orthodox or that was becoming Orthodox by way of their king/tsar/leader, etc... So, my point is that they were an institutional part of society much like a policeman is. In my opinion that makes complete sense in that culture. It's important to know who the priests are so you greet them properly and treat them with their due respect. Here in America, most people would even know what they are looking at. A monk? A satanist at first glance (the long beard and a black robe)? A catholic priest? A Muslim? Who is this? It's utterly irrelevant to our culture on the whole. There's no cultural demand for such a thing.

Now, personally, I like it when priests wear it around town. I prefer it. I've never heard that the Antiochian bishop condemns wearing it. I know it's possible but I would have to see documentation before I would believe it. If this were the case my initial reaction is "that's wierd" but my final reaction is... perhaps he's wiser than you or I are and he understands things that we don't. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the reason is stupid. But, I'm having a hard time seeing a circumstance in which this can possibly matter in all reality.

As I said, I like it. I prefer it. But, that's because it gives me warm fuzzies. i don't think warm fuzzies is what they had in mind when they wrote the canon in 12th century Russia (I made that up, but I think you get the point).

The problem is in the past when Orthodoxy spread, it spread within a world culture where the norm was for an entire society to conform to one religion (for many sociological reasons) so when we say "Well the Russian lands weren't always orthodox" we can't compare that to the US. There is no governing body here to coherse an entire nation into Orthodoxy and baptize the culture. Russia did not become immersed in Orhtodoxy simply becuase of Ss Methodius and Kyril and other great evangelizers to the Slavs. If modern the modern French philosophy of democracy existed in 10th century "Russia", Russia would not be an "orthodox" country without a very different (and more drastic) miracle.

Cassocks are not to convert, they are for the faithful to know who is who. Where I live, the priest may as well be wearing an orange jumpsuit around town. It has almost as much meaning and looks almost as funny.

I know this sounds like a copout... but really, what are we copping out from? I like the clerical wear. But I think in comparing Russian culture to American society, we are comparing apples and oranges.

By the way, you are totally entitled to your opinion, and despite my disagreement, I appreciate your opinions expressed above.

[Xpycoctomos]

I've not seen the letter myself. But know priests who have. From what I'm told Met. PHILLIP sends the letter out every year. And then people like Bishop BASIL tell their clergy to ignore it. :D


Well, this I can say just as confidently. My priest (used to be ROCOR) knows about hte ROCOR insistence on wearing the cassock everywhere but he knows many ROCOR clergy that do not wear it everywhere they go. I wasn't going to share that becuase I didn't think a third hand story would mean anything. I'm not sure it should.

[Xpycoctomos]

Agreed, it has no impact on their priesthood. But I don't like it. Again, I was merely expressing my opinion all along. I never said clerical dress was a matter of dogma.


Cool. In that case... I agree with you.

However, I think some people's problems is that in the past it seemed as if some of these more hard-core, strict jurisdictions DID treated almost as a matter of dogma. While I do prefer my priests to have long beards and wear cassocks like you do, I would rather be on the OCA's side of the court than a jurisdiction that over emphaisses the importance of these issues. i suppose it's all a balance.

[jckstraw72]

just for the record -- Jordanville=booyah

[The Virginian]

Has anyone read this?

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/averk_trueorth.aspx

The argument and posts here could be a duplicate of the Modernism thread.
I've read articles and books by Frederica Matthews-Green, and Alexander Schemman (sp) which I liked quite well. To my horror they were reviewed not favorably by the Administrator of Orthodoxinfo.com. But then again like I said in the beginning, this could be a mirror of the Modernism thread.

[buzuxi02]

Orthodox does indeed need to quit the WCC. While Russians tend to be better in upholding Orthodoxy within the WCC, the same cant be said for the greeks (Shaeffers Christian Activist wrote quite abit about what went on amongst Orthodox participants in the WCC over the years.

Secondly, to claim that the Orthodox in the WCC claim they reject the branch theory is false since membership within the WCC makes it mandatory to accept the branch theory.
The claims that the Orthodox are there to show the "Truth" is also misleadiing because WCC by-laws forbids trying to demonstrate your Church is doctrinally correct and the other wrong.

The WCC is an extreme ecumenist organization which seeks syncretism with all who baptise in the Trinity and believe in the divinity of Christ, These are the only two 'dogmas" which concern them. The link below is a document WCC members must strive for , part II of the document demonstrates that the phrase in the Creed "One, holy ,catholic and apostolic church" is interpreted radically different than in Orthodoxy.Its a clear and concise branch theory doctrine, The branch theory doctrine which Orthodox ecumenists in the WCC have agreed to. ( or they would have been denied membership)

World Council of Churches - Called to be the one church (revised) (http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/assembly/porto-alegre-2006/1-statements-documents-adopted/christian-unity-and-message-to-the-churches/called-to-be-the-one-church-revised.html)


Here is the link to the constitution of the WCC, the section titled 'purpose and function' is alarming:

World Council of Churches - Constitution and rules as amended by the 9th Assembly (http://www.oikoumene.org/index.php?id=2297)