The Orthodox Marriage Ceremony: Why It Is The Way It Is.
OrthodoxNews
The Orthodox Marriage Ceremony: Why It Is The Way It Is.
By Father Andrew Harrison
In January the Parish Council surveyed St. Luke parishioners regarding our
Strategic Plan. Four responses to the survey were related to the Orthodox
Marriage ceremony. This is significant, and I feel compelled to address
these concerns.
The survey comments referred specifically to two American practices: "Giving
the bride away," and the use of instrumental music, especially the song,
"Here Comes the Bride." Both of these have been introduced by some Orthodox
jurisdictions into Orthodox wedding services.
The practice of "giving the bride away" comes from Medieval European times
when women were considered property that was purchased for a price (dowry).
In contemporary Catholic and Protestant worship "giving the bride away" has
come to mean that the father bestows the protection of his daughter on her
husband. This tends to degrade the Biblical teaching about equality of men
and women.
In Orthodox tradition the bride is not considered the property of the father
or the husband. No dowry is involved. A father escorting his daughter into
the church is a nice tradition, but it is not part of the Orthodox ceremony.
In no way can it be called "giving the bride away."
The use of instrumental music is also not a traditional part of Orthodox
worship. In 692 the Byzantine Emperor Justinian called the Council in Trullo
(Quinisext Council). This Council followed the 2nd and 3rd Ecumenical
Councils (553 and 680-81, respectively) and dealt with disciplinary matters
not covered by the Ecumenical Councils. The Council in Trullo decreed that
instrumental music couldn't be used in the church. In modern times, however,
some Orthodox jurisdictions have adopted the use of an organ and the song,
"Here Comes the Bride." This song comes from the opera Lohengrin, composed
in 1850 by the German musician, Richard Wagner.
Catholic and Protestant wedding services are very similar because they have
the same roots and are based on legal agreements and covenants. Thus, these
wedding services do contain "Here Comes the Bride" (or some other selected
song), as well as a mutual recitation of vows, the placing of rings, and the
legal pronouncement by the clergy that the bride and groom are now man and
wife. None of this exists in the Orthodox Wedding service.
So why have these practices been tacked on to some Orthodox wedding
ceremonies? This may have come about in an attempt to make the non-English
Orthodox wedding service intelligible to non-Orthodox Americans. I believe
this happens when Orthodox Christians feel embarrassed about Orthodox
worship, and they try to make it palatable for non-Orthodox people.
In the Orthodox Church, Marriage, as a Sacrament, is both a mystery and a
martyrdom, not a legal contract. The Orthodox wedding ceremony has two
parts: Betrothal and Crowning. The Betrothal is an agreement or promise to
marry, which is symbolized by the exchange of rings. In ancient times it was
a separate service. Today it directly precedes the Crowning in the Marriage
ceremony. The rubric books (service instructions) say that the exchange of
rings is to take place in the Narthex.
After the betrothal the priest leads the couple in procession into the Nave
while chanting Psalm 128: "Blessed are they who walk in the way of the
Lord." This begins the actual Sacrament of Marriage (Crowning). The crown is
a sign of the glory and honor that God bestows on the couple. This is a
blessing and confirmation by God of an earthly pledge, not a verification of
a legal agreement.
The adoption of non-Orthodox customs into the Marriage ceremony raises the
larger question: How much of American religious tradition, can be absorbed
into Orthodox liturgical worship? This is a very difficult and controversial
issue. The church in its history has adopted and blessed many cultural
traditions, such as the date of Christmas, numerology, Greek philosophy,
iconography, and in modern times in America, fellowship, Sunday school, and
pews.
The Orthodox Church is about Faith and Truth. If a custom, tradition, or
practice does not deter but actually enhances the Gospel and evangelism,
then it is permitted. The decision to do this, however, must be made by our
Diocesan Bishop, who is the teacher who is "rightly dividing the word of
truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). ("Dividing" in this case means expounding the
truth).
On occasion our Bishop does make concessions for the good of the couple and
family. For example, Saturday weddings are not permitted according to the
canons. The Sabbath day in Church tradition is dedicated to the departed. It
is the day of rest, mourning, and preparation for Sunday. Saturday is the
day of the Old Covenant, which prepared Israel for the coming of Christ.
Weddings are joyful celebrations and one of the sacraments of the Kingdom.
In American society weddings generally take place on Saturday. In addition,
sometimes one of the marriage partners is non-Orthodox. Thus, the bishop
will allow a Saturday wedding with his personal dispensation, providing that
the wedding begins in the early afternoon. Then the wedding will not
conflict with Vespers which is the Sabbath day service.
As the Orthodox Church begins to evangelize America, it will become more and
more important to, as St. Paul said, remain firm in the traditions which
have been handed down (2 Thessalonians 2:15). The only way to do this is to
raise questions about non-Orthodox practices so that the Holy Spirit will
guide us to all Truth (John 16:13).
Alexander Arnakis
<Orth...@nospam04.net> wrote:
>http://www.stlukeorthodox.com/html/evangelist/2003/orthodoxmarriage.cfm
>
>The Orthodox Marriage Ceremony: Why It Is The Way It Is.
>By Father Andrew Harrison
>
><snipped>
>
>The practice of "giving the bride away" comes from Medieval European times
>when women were considered property that was purchased for a price (dowry).
>In contemporary Catholic and Protestant worship "giving the bride away" has
>come to mean that the father bestows the protection of his daughter on her
>husband. This tends to degrade the Biblical teaching about equality of men
>and women.
>
>In Orthodox tradition the bride is not considered the property of the father
>or the husband. No dowry is involved. A father escorting his daughter into
>the church is a nice tradition, but it is not part of the Orthodox ceremony.
>In no way can it be called "giving the bride away."
>
Dowry *does* exist in Orthodox countries, but not in the manner
described above.
Traditionally in Greece (this custom is gradually fading), the dowry
was property given by the *bride's* family to the new couple. This was
a means of helping them get started, but it was also based on a
patriarchal attitude. That is, far from being considered the
"property" of the father, an unmarried daughter was considered a
*liability*, to be foisted off on some other man who had to be bribed
to take her on.
The institution of the dowry is in fact enshrined in Greek law. If the
couple divorces, the law prescribes that the dowry must be returned.
(This obviously could be an incentive for couples to stay together.)
And the Church traditionally has approved of the dowry system.
If a girl has fantastic looks and/or education, this can be considered
a substitute for a monetary dowry. If not, money (or, more often, real
estate) may be required to seal the deal. If the girl is really ugly,
*lots* of money may be needed. But in any case, the groom *receives*;
he does not pay.
Sometimes the bride's brothers have to work for years to help marry
off their sister, and during this period, they're not supposed to
themselves marry. The dowry system therefore has resulted in a lot of
spinsters and old bachelors in Greece. It's been a serious social
problem.
Catherine Jefferson
> Dowry *does* exist in Orthodox countries, but not in the manner
> described above.
>
> Traditionally in Greece (this custom is gradually fading), the dowry
> was property given by the *bride's* family to the new couple. This was
> a means of helping them get started, but it was also based on a
> patriarchal attitude. That is, far from being considered the
> "property" of the father, an unmarried daughter was considered a
> *liability*, to be foisted off on some other man who had to be bribed
> to take her on.
Are you sure about your interpretation of these facts? "Bride price" is
a practice in a lot of cultures. In some, it does mean that the woman
is considered a liability. In others, however, the tradition is that
children of both genders have a "portion" coming to them from their
parents when they reach adulthood that will allow them to marry and
support a family. The portion given to daughters was usually given when
she married. This was true in Ireland until very recently, and a number
of other places in Europe.
Viewed in this manner, the custom of providing a daughter with her
portion just as you would a son implies, not that she's a liability, but
that she is a partner in the marriage, not a chattel being sold, and
will contribute to it financially as well as in other matters.
> The institution of the dowry is in fact enshrined in Greek law. If the
> couple divorces, the law prescribes that the dowry must be returned.
> (This obviously could be an incentive for couples to stay together.)
> And the Church traditionally has approved of the dowry system.
I see nothing here that implies your reading rather than mine. This
sounds very similar to the rules in Ireland, except that the dowry was
returned in case of separation since actual divorces were almost never
allowed. (Strict Roman Catholic culture.)
> If a girl has fantastic looks and/or education, this can be considered
> a substitute for a monetary dowry. If not, money (or, more often, real
> estate) may be required to seal the deal. If the girl is really ugly,
> *lots* of money may be needed. But in any case, the groom *receives*;
> he does not pay.
>
> Sometimes the bride's brothers have to work for years to help marry
> off their sister, and during this period, they're not supposed to
> themselves marry. The dowry system therefore has resulted in a lot of
> spinsters and old bachelors in Greece. It's been a serious social
> problem.
I can see how. Frankly, speaking as a woman who didn't marry til she
was 45, I'd infinitely rather have remained single to the type of thing
you describe. <wry grin> Maybe that's why things are changing; the
girls won't put up with it any more.
Under the mercy,
--
Catherine Jefferson <ar...@devsite.org>
Personal Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
Alexander Arnakis
<spam...@spambouncer.org> wrote:
>
>Are you sure about your interpretation of these facts? "Bride price" is
>a practice in a lot of cultures. In some, it does mean that the woman
>is considered a liability. In others, however, the tradition is that
>children of both genders have a "portion" coming to them from their
>parents when they reach adulthood that will allow them to marry and
>support a family. The portion given to daughters was usually given when
>she married. This was true in Ireland until very recently, and a number
>of other places in Europe.
>
>Viewed in this manner, the custom of providing a daughter with her
>portion just as you would a son implies, not that she's a liability, but
>that she is a partner in the marriage, not a chattel being sold, and
>will contribute to it financially as well as in other matters.
>
"buy" the bride. The Greek dowry is the exact opposite of that. It's
an amount paid by the bride's family to be rid of the responsibility
of caring for her.
The Greek dowry applies to daughters only, not to sons. In fact, it's
a detriment to sons, since they're expected to contribute to their
sister's dowry. And they're not supposed to marry until she's "safely"
married. Pity the poor son who has several sisters and no brother.
I had an aunt (in Greece) who was engaged to a man for years, and even
had a child with him out of wedlock. He refused to marry her until a
suitable dowry could be raised. She was a penniless practical nurse,
and her siblings were in no position to help, either. The engagement
was eventually called off, and she put the child up for adoption, at
the age of five, to an American couple. This is the sort of tragedy
caused by a system like this.
++
Alexander Arnakis wrote:
What a one sided way to look at a custom that ensured a measure of
independence and women's rights. The property remains the woman's. She
has a say in how it is used. The liability is to the husband should he
ill use it, or her. Should she be widowed or divorced, it is a way of
ensuring her future within a patriarchal system. It also ensures that
the couple has a decent start for a household, in some ways preferable
to the out at eighteen or twnety-one, make your own way common in
America, which leaves parents isolated and children impoverished . At
least Orthodox families keep their progeny at home until they are
established one way or another and take care of their own.
>
>
>
Alexander Arnakis
>
>What a one sided way to look at a custom that ensured a measure of
>independence and women's rights. The property remains the woman's. She
>has a say in how it is used. The liability is to the husband should he
>ill use it, or her. Should she be widowed or divorced, it is a way of
>ensuring her future within a patriarchal system. It also ensures that
>the couple has a decent start for a household, in some ways preferable
>least Orthodox families keep their progeny at home until they are
>established one way or another and take care of their own.
>
Catherine, elsewhere in this thread.) My parents didn't marry with a
dowry, and they did quite well for themselves.
The property technically remains the woman's, but the husband (until
very recently) had the exclusive right to control how it would be
used. The wife gets it back only in the case of divorce, and even then
only when she isn't at fault. And (again, until recently) there was no
such thing as no-fault divorce. That is, to get the dowry back, she
would have to prove her husband's infidelity or other misconduct.
The idea that "Orthodox families keep their progeny at home," once
again, is you generalizing from a local custom. Keeping a 35-year-old
spinster daughter at home is good neither for the parents nor for the
daughter, and is certainly not an "Orthodox" standard.
Catherine Jefferson
> "Bride price," to me, means money (or equivalent) paid by the groom to
> "buy" the bride. The Greek dowry is the exact opposite of that. It's
> an amount paid by the bride's family to be rid of the responsibility
> of caring for her.
Oops, right. I got the direction wrong; the Greek custom is a dowry.
So is the Irish custom I was discussing. (My husband is an
archaeologist who, like most American archaeologists, has an
undergraduate degree in anthropology. He corrected me.) ;)
> The Greek dowry applies to daughters only, not to sons. In fact, it's
> a detriment to sons, since they're expected to contribute to their
> sister's dowry. And they're not supposed to marry until she's "safely"
> married. Pity the poor son who has several sisters and no brother.
Yeah, and who sticks around for this nonsense, although I think I pity
the poor sisters even more.
> I had an aunt (in Greece) who was engaged to a man for years, and even
> had a child with him out of wedlock. He refused to marry her until a
> suitable dowry could be raised. She was a penniless practical nurse,
> and her siblings were in no position to help, either. The engagement
> was eventually called off, and she put the child up for adoption, at
> the age of five, to an American couple. This is the sort of tragedy
> caused by a system like this.
Well.... IMHO the tragedy you mention was caused by a man who was
either a fool or of bad character, and a woman who got sexually involved
with and pregnant by a man she should have realized was not of good
character and would not keep his promises. Since I don't know the
situation in Greece at the time, I wouldn't say that putting the child
up for adoption was wrong; it might have been the most loving thing she
could have done. That said, I can't imagine doing any such thing to a
child I'd borne and raised to five years of age. :(
But then, I'm American, and while we have our own versions of the
marriage cattle market, we never had the idea that it was right to
require a dowry or bride price.
Lord, have mercy!
Catherine Jefferson
> The dowry is an evil system, plain and simple. (See my reply to
> Catherine, elsewhere in this thread.) My parents didn't marry with a
> dowry, and they did quite well for themselves.
I'm glad you got a better picture of marriage from your parents than it
seems you did from your culture. <wry grin>
> The property technically remains the woman's, but the husband (until
> very recently) had the exclusive right to control how it would be
> used. The wife gets it back only in the case of divorce, and even then
> only when she isn't at fault. And (again, until recently) there was no
> such thing as no-fault divorce. That is, to get the dowry back, she
> would have to prove her husband's infidelity or other misconduct.
This isn't that different from the position of a married woman in much
of America, in Texas until the 1970s. In the early 1960s, my mother --
who owned stock and property in her own name that she got from her
family when she turned eighteen -- had to get my father's permission to
sell some of it to put a down payment on a house. This was not stock
she had bought or acquired while married -- it was not community
property under Texas law. But the laws in Texas gave men control over
the real and personal property of their wives, control that was
abolished only in 1972 or 1973.
Nonetheless, I agree with Galina that a dowry that remains the wife's
property and that she has the right to reclaim if the marriage ends is
at least an attempt to fix the balance of power and protect her in a
society that largely treated women as minor children/incompetents. :/
> The idea that "Orthodox families keep their progeny at home," once
> again, is you generalizing from a local custom. Keeping a 35-year-old
> spinster daughter at home is good neither for the parents nor for the
> daughter, and is certainly not an "Orthodox" standard.
It would have been the Christian standard in a society where she was not
allowed to work to support herself except at a few menial tasks or as a
prostitute. :/ But I agree that a society where she gets an education
and is not dependent upon others for her financial support is *much*
preferable. Still, preferences of this type are largely dependent on
how you grew up and what you know; the customs of one's own tribe are
not the unalterable laws of the universe.
Under the mercy,
++
Catherine Jefferson wrote:
> This isn't that different from the position of a married woman in much
> of America, in Texas until the 1970s. In the early 1960s, my mother
> -- who owned stock and property in her own name that she got from her
> family when she turned eighteen -- had to get my father's permission
> to sell some of it to put a down payment on a house. This was not
> stock she had bought or acquired while married -- it was not community
> property under Texas law. But the laws in Texas gave men control over
> the real and personal property of their wives, control that was
> abolished only in 1972 or 1973.
>
> Nonetheless, I agree with Galina that a dowry that remains the wife's
> property and that she has the right to reclaim if the marriage ends is
> at least an attempt to fix the balance of power and protect her in a
> society that largely treated women as minor children/incompetents. :/
>
> It would have been the Christian standard in a society where she was
> not allowed to work to support herself except at a few menial tasks or
> as a prostitute. :/ But I agree that a society where she gets an
> education and is not dependent upon others for her financial support
> is *much* preferable. Still, preferences of this type are largely
> dependent on how you grew up and what you know; the customs of one's
> own tribe are not the unalterable laws of the universe.
Those weren't the only options, of course. In a traditional society,
and many Orthodox traditional socieites still remain, often one sibling
will care for aging parents, disabled individuals or members of the
community requiring support, while another sibling might work, or use
her and her husband's money to help support the family in their old
age. In an extended community within a functioning village, the level
of luxury might be quite low, even subsistance, but everyone is cared for.
Liekwise, the concept of letting adult children remain in the household
and save up for their futures until marriage is not a bad one, but it
does cramp a non Orthodox lifestyle. You're not going to be a lass of
28 sleeping with her third partner and doing clubs. You're more likely
to be doing Church, doing charities and going out in groups with friends
(and maybe doing clubs that way, but only during non fast periods) The
difference is large. But the payoffs can be substantial such as being
in a financial position to start a family once you are married, and so
on. A lot of traditional slocities have such and similar and even more
stringent provisions as a norm. A daughter of an Orthodox Jewish young
woman could expect to own her own house free and clear at marriage, and
she might have contributed to that, but it would still be a large
parental burden in today's society.
We should recall that not only are there provisions within traditional
Orthodox household for caring for everyone and working toward their
future, but that there are obligations as well and that the provisions
and obligations cover both male and female these days.
In American society, a lot of parents decry the fact that the freedom
they enjoyed as empty nesters has been compromised with adult children
returning to live with them. Coming back and forth and living with one
another in these age categories is not so unusual a proposition in an
Orthodox household where life shifts can be accommodated more easily in
a multi-adult intergenerational household with shared morals and ethics
and some communal tasks. It takes a lot of pressure off the young
people not to be constantly negotiating living costs and constructing
temporary support systems in the middle of making their way in the world
>
>
> Under the mercy,
>
>
Alexander Arnakis
<spam...@spambouncer.org> wrote:
>
>Well.... IMHO the tragedy you mention was caused by a man who was
>either a fool or of bad character, and a woman who got sexually involved
>with and pregnant by a man she should have realized was not of good
>character and would not keep his promises. Since I don't know the
>situation in Greece at the time, I wouldn't say that putting the child
>up for adoption was wrong; it might have been the most loving thing she
>could have done. That said, I can't imagine doing any such thing to a
>child I'd borne and raised to five years of age. :(
>
and I had already moved to the U.S., and my aunt's pride prevented her
from mentioning her predicament to my parents. If they had known, they
would have done everything they could to help.
Yes, my aunt showed poor judgement. She made bad life decisions fairly
consistently. The man she was engaged to was a policeman, so I suppose
she thought that he was of good moral character. That turned out not
to have been the case.
Giving up the child for adoption may have been another of her bad
decisions. The stories that I've heard were that the child "went bad"
in his adopted home of California, got involved in drugs, and may or
may not have died at an early age. Nothing can be verified because
we've long since lost contact.
We visited my aunt in her home in Greece a couple of years ago. She
still had a big portrait of her son, aged 5, prominently displayed on
her bedroom wall -- with no indication of who it was. (His name was
Manoli -- maybe it got changed,) This has to be tearing her apart.
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>
>The dowry system was phased out in Britain in the 1850's and in Greece
>in the 1980's !
>
>My parents got married in 1961 with no dowry , so it isn't like the
>old days . Times have changed and the influence of imported western
>feminism has taken it's toll ...
>
My parents got married in 1941 with no dowry. In fact, they got
married on the very day the Germans entered Athens. My mother had to
throw her bouquet of flowers away, lest she be mistaken for one of
those Quislings who greeted the Germans with flowers. Needless to say,
the wedding was a low-key affair.
I'll tell you this -- dowries are still being paid in some quarters in
Greece, despite having been "phased out."
Catherine Jefferson
<snip a very sad story>
> We visited my aunt in her home in Greece a couple of years ago. She
> still had a big portrait of her son, aged 5, prominently displayed on
> her bedroom wall -- with no indication of who it was. (His name was
> Manoli -- maybe it got changed,) This has to be tearing her apart.
What's her first name? I'd like to put her on my prayer list. It
sounds like she could use some prayers.
Under His mercy,
Alexander Arnakis
>
>Likewise, the concept of letting adult children remain in the household
>does cramp a non Orthodox lifestyle. You're not going to be a lass of
>28 sleeping with her third partner and doing clubs. You're more likely
>to be doing Church, doing charities and going out in groups with friends
>(and maybe doing clubs that way, but only during non fast periods) The
>difference is large. But the payoffs can be substantial such as being
>in a financial position to start a family once you are married, and so
>on.
In the cases of adult children living at home that I've seen, this is
not the case at all. The "cocoon" of free room and board serves as a
disincentive to work and save. Not only that, but in many cases they
end up partying at their parents' expense! So the truth is often the
exact opposite of what you're postulating. For a parent to coddle an
adult child at home is to foster a neer-do-well. Far better to adopt a
policy of "tough love" and kick the kid out. (Unless, of course,
there's an issue of physical or mental disability.)
Reading the idealized stuff you write, one gets the impression that
you're still living in the Victorian era! Nobody is that Pollyanna any
more.
++
Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>On Wed, 14 May 2008 15:54:08 -0400, ++ <fri...@spambot.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Likewise, the concept of letting adult children remain in the household
>>and save up for their futures until marriage is not a bad one, but it
>>does cramp a non Orthodox lifestyle. You're not going to be a lass of
>>28 sleeping with her third partner and doing clubs. You're more likely
>>to be doing Church, doing charities and going out in groups with friends
>>(and maybe doing clubs that way, but only during non fast periods) The
>>difference is large. But the payoffs can be substantial such as being
>>in a financial position to start a family once you are married, and so
>>on.
>>
>>
>
>In the cases of adult children living at home that I've seen, this is
>not the case at all. The "cocoon" of free room and board serves as a
>disincentive to work and save. Not only that, but in many cases they
>end up partying at their parents' expense! So the truth is often the
>exact opposite of what you're postulating. For a parent to coddle an
>adult child at home is to foster a neer-do-well. Far better to adopt a
>policy of "tough love" and kick the kid out. (Unless, of course,
>there's an issue of physical or mental disability.)
>
>
You forget that I'm the parent of adults and consequently know many
parents of adults, many of whom do live at home off and on these days.
It's a natural desire to live one's own life that sends the kids out,
whether to shared quarters or off on their own. There are also
boundaries of entitlements. How much a parent is entitled to in terms
of contributions to family costs is as important to discuss as how much
notice members of the household are given before inviting guests. ,
especially since these days all parties are likely to have
intergenerational friends .
Of course, shared quarters with the parents only works with some pretty
clear boundaries in both directions.
>Reading the idealized stuff you write, one gets the impression that
>you're still living in the Victorian era!
>
Maybe I am to an extent.
Alexander Arnakis
<spam...@spambouncer.org> wrote:
>
>What's her first name? I'd like to put her on my prayer list. It
>sounds like she could use some prayers.
>
(Note that I myself still don't believe in the efficacy of prayer. I
believe in actions -- taking the right action in the first place often
eliminates the need for prayers after the fact.)
James
years of age. All received college/university degrees and today are
married with families of their own. No adult children hanging about the
nest for us!
Catherine Jefferson
I have no problem with that when it is possible. But you don't have to
believe in the efficacy of prayer. I do. ;)
Alexander Arnakis
<spam...@spambouncer.org> wrote:
>
>I have no problem with that when it is possible. But you don't have to
>believe in the efficacy of prayer. I do. ;)
>
++
Alexander Arnakis wrote:
Let's pray for all the children out there who lost a parent one way or
another.
>
>
>
>
++
James wrote:
> ++ wrote:
> Raised three: two girls and a boy. They were all out of the nest by 21
> years of age. All received college/university degrees and today are
> married with families of their own. No adult children hanging about
> the nest for us!
You are fortunate indeed after your hard parental work. What a blessing!
OrthodoxNews
"James" <leushin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rMMWj.42$DX4...@newsfe02.lga...
***In our home, we raised two biological children, have two adopted kids
(one of which is mentally challenged) and raied two foster boys. I sometimes
cannot name all the gradchildren!! The only one left at home is our adopted
daughter (also our first born grandchild) who will be a sophomore in college
this fall.
James
I feel a bit ashamed for having entered it at all. It sounds as though I
were bragging and that should not have been my motivation in posting. If
it was, may God forgive this sinner. I'm no longer certain what my
motivation was, but I suspect it wasn't for the right reasons. I've no
reason to be proud given my sinful nature.
++
James wrote:
I didn't take your post as bragging, just as the reality in your home.
If one of your children of any age was in need, I am sure you would help
them some way or another and in the best of all worlds, you would
receive help if you needed it from one of your children you helped
establish. It's lovely to hear about a whole generation working out
well. I have only one still in the nest with two established.
James
from 3 to 16 years of age. I pray for these precious ones growing up in
a very different world from my own youth.
Catherine Jefferson
> Alexander Arnakis wrote:
> Elli. Pray for Manoli too (whether or not he's still alive).
> Let's pray for all the children out there who lost a parent one way or
> another.
Certainly. But don't forget to pray for specific people, either.
Remember, Elli and Manoli. From what Alex said, they both need our
prayers. :/ Then, perhaps, pray for all women who have lost children
and children who have lost their parents.
Under the mercy,
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>
>You know, Galina, while I am blessed as you say, somehow in reading this
>I feel a bit ashamed for having entered it at all. It sounds as though I
>were bragging and that should not have been my motivation in posting. If
>it was, may God forgive this sinner. I'm no longer certain what my
>motivation was, but I suspect it wasn't for the right reasons. I've no
>reason to be proud given my sinful nature.
I don't think it's bragging to mention "success stories." The
opposite, complaining about misfortunes, is all too common. Mentioning
the things that can go bad is depressing to other people, but
mentioning the things that turn out well can be uplifting to them.
Success often has as a root cause correct human behavior, while
misfortune often is caused by bad human behavior. Thus, each such
story can be a moral exemplar, teaching people the things to do and
the things to avoid.
++
Catherine Jefferson wrote:
> ++ wrote:
>
>> Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>
>
>> Elli. Pray for Manoli too (whether or not he's still alive).
>
>
>> Let's pray for all the children out there who lost a parent one way
>> or another.
>
>
> Certainly. But don't forget to pray for specific people, either.
Why would I?
> Remember, Elli and Manoli. From what Alex said, they both need our
> prayers. :/ Then, perhaps, pray for all women who have lost children
> and children who have lost their parents.
Why not add all children who are hoping for parents?
>
>
> Under the mercy,
>
>
>
Catherine Jefferson
Because I don't have all their names? Last I heard, there were a lot....
The point I was trying to make is to pray for specific people when you
hear about their need, not just pray in general for "everybody" who has
that need. We can't name every child who needs parents specifically,
but we can name those individual children whose names we know. We can't
pray for all women who lost a child by name, but we can pray for those
whose names we know.
At least in my case, people's needs tend to feel/become unreal unless
I'm careful to pray for those individual people whom I know and keep
them in mind. It anchors me. I suspect it does other people as well.
I admit a prejudice in favor of specific prayers. ;)
++
Catherine Jefferson wrote:
>
> Because I don't have all their names? Last I heard, there were a lot....
>
> The point I was trying to make is to pray for specific people when you
> hear about their need, not just pray in general for "everybody" who
> has that need. We can't name every child who needs parents
> specifically, but we can name those individual children whose names we
> know. We can't pray for all women who lost a child by name, but we
> can pray for those whose names we know.
>
> At least in my case, people's needs tend to feel/become unreal unless
> I'm careful to pray for those individual people whom I know and keep
> them in mind. It anchors me. I suspect it does other people as well.
>
> I admit a prejudice in favor of specific prayers. ;)
We all have prayer lists, Catherine. You didn't get the point.
>
>
> Under the mercy,
>
>
Catherine Jefferson
> Catherine Jefferson wrote:
>> I admit a prejudice in favor of specific prayers. ;)
> We all have prayer lists, Catherine. You didn't get the point.
Which was?
++
Catherine Jefferson wrote:
> ++ wrote:
>
>> Catherine Jefferson wrote:
>
>
>>> I admit a prejudice in favor of specific prayers. ;)
>>
>
>> We all have prayer lists, Catherine. You didn't get the point.
>
>
> Which was?
Implying I didn't
>
>
Catherine Jefferson
>
>
> Catherine Jefferson wrote:
>
>> ++ wrote:
>>
>>> Catherine Jefferson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I admit a prejudice in favor of specific prayers. ;)
>>>
>>
>>> We all have prayer lists, Catherine. You didn't get the point.
>>
>>
>> Which was?
>
>
> Implying I didn't
Let's play 20 questions, shall we? :( Implying that I didn't *what*?
++
Catherine Jefferson wrote:
> Let's play 20 questions, shall we? :( Implying that I didn't *what*?
Do specific prayers and/or that I was substituting general for
specific. Nuff said. You meant well but you didn't assume others meant
as well and that they needed direction. And you didn't get my original
point which is that we should pray and think about all women caught in
such difficult situations and all children caught in such diffiult
situations. While we do as Orhtodox Christians pray for speicific
people, and we never eschew praying for anyone who asks our prayers, and
we try always to make that prayer focused and fervant and to empty our
minds of extraneous things in the process, we also live within a mindset
that suggests as Christians to care for all babies, all children, and to
give love to one another.
It is sad when love is sometimes made impossible as in the situation of
Alexo's auntie. When our communities do not provide help and we isolate
ourselves from others and others isolate themselves from us, many
Christian alternatives can seem impossible. Trust is made very difficult
in modern times. I know one woman, age 60, who had a child at 18 when
the concept of a bastard and the concept of unwedded mother were quite
different than they are today in this country. She is still looking for
her child, has listed herself on various registries and etc. without
success. I have had her and unknown daughter on my prayer list for them
to find one another, and that the daughter might be happy and well for
twenty-five years, when I first heard her story. Her daughter could
conceivably, at 42, be a grandmother? I know another woman who is still
upset that she never got to know that her cousin was dying of aids so
she could go visit him and tell him she loved him and attend his
funeral. I know a childless women who wishes she could have raised the
child her sister gave away. There are similar stories in lots of
countries, even here. There are even people who do not wish our prayers.
People are fragile in this society and they have far less community than
they usually need for economic, spiritual and optimal physical
survival. Individuals are so often caught up in their own petty
struggles that they don't look around and see how they could make the
best happen for others, or even make sure that their own and other live
sintersect and interact more regularly. So, beyond being against
abortion, how can it be prevented? Beyond someone having to give up a
child, how can that be prevented and the mother assisted. Beyond
Orthodox women getting desperate and engaging in prostitution, how do we
functionally help them make a living. How can we support one another?
We can at least pray, but we can also think around what is needed for us
to do related to that prayer or that circumstance.
Pray for me, for I can use all the prayer I can get,
Galina
>
>
Catherine Jefferson
> Catherine Jefferson wrote:
>
>> Let's play 20 questions, shall we? :( Implying that I didn't *what*?
> Do specific prayers and/or that I was substituting general for
> specific. Nuff said. You meant well but you didn't assume others meant
> as well and that they needed direction.
You're right about my assumption that some others might miss the point.
I didn't think you had; I thought it was so obvious to you that both
were needed that you hadn't said so, and that omission might mislead
other readers. Sorry if what I said sounded otherwise.
> And you didn't get my original
> point which is that we should pray and think about all women caught in
> such difficult situations and all children caught in such diffiult
> situations. While we do as Orhtodox Christians pray for speicific
> people, and we never eschew praying for anyone who asks our prayers, and
> we try always to make that prayer focused and fervant and to empty our
> minds of extraneous things in the process, we also live within a mindset
> that suggests as Christians to care for all babies, all children, and to
> give love to one another.
<nod> Absolutely.
<snip rest, but read>