MODERNISM TEST
hrh...@idirect.com
--
..."CRY HAVOC AND LET LOOSE THE DOGS OF WAR"...
SAS KALLI MERO...............}: TASOS
mailto:hrh...@idirect.com
Bryan J. Maloney
Do you decide whether or not a parish possesses the fullness of Divine
Grace had by the Orthodox Church by means of administering a Modernism
Test?
--
To women contemplating marriage: The question you should ask is not
"How much do I love him?" The real question is "How much can I
tolerate him?"
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
Kevin Bullard
the Kevinator
hrh...@idirect.com wrote:
The Modernism Test
The following was compiled from various emails by Fr. Alexander Lebedeff. These emails were publicly sent to the Orthodox List-Forum. I have added a few questions of my own as well. I have also linked the key words to articles explaining why these things are departures from traditional Orthodoxy. More links will be added as articles become available. —Patrick Barnes
Recently a question came up "In what way can the Antiochian Archdiocese be considered 'Modernist'?"
To make things easier, I've prepared a short test that anyone can use to see if their parish/jurisdiction is modernist. Just answer the following "yes or no" questions and tally up the score. Give yourself one point for each "yes" answer and zero for each "no." [Note: this test was quickly thrown together. The questions are not arranged in order of importance, nor are they weighted.]
The Modernism Test:
1. Does your Church have pews?
2. Does your Church have an organ?
3. Does your Priest not have a beard?
4. Do most of the Priests in your jurisdiction not have beards?
5. Are any of your Bishops clean shaven?
6. Does your Priest have short hair?
7. Do you use electric vigil lamps in your Church?
8. Does your Priest keep the Royal Doors open throughout the Divine Liturgy (until after the "Our Father)?
9. Does your Iconostasis not have a curtain? or, Does your Priest not close the curtain after the Great Entrance?
10. Does your Priest go straight from the Augmented Litany (after the Gospel) to the Cherubic hymn (skipping the litanies for the catechumens and faithful)?
11. Does your Priest appear in public wearing a "clergy shirt" and "ecclesiastical collar"?
12. Does your Priest appear in public in completely civilian clothes?
13. Does your Bishop (or any of the Bishops in your jurisdiction) appear in public in a suit?
14. Does your Priest not serve an All-Night Vigil or Vespers every Saturday night?
15. Does your jurisdiction permit the ordination of a twice-married man to the diaconate or Priesthood?
16. Does your Priest or any clergy of your jurisdiction smoke in public?
17. Does your parish follow the New Calendar (meaning, are all the immovable Feasts celebrated according to the Gregorian Calendar)?
18. Are the majority of parishes in your jurisdiction New Calendar (euphemistically referred to as the "Revised Julian Calendar")?
19. Has your Church Higher authority not officially condemned Freemasonry as incompatible with Orthodoxy?
20. Do any of the women in your parish attend church in slacks or pant-suits?
21. Do most of the women in your parish come to church with their heads uncovered?
22. Does your church practice "General Confession"?
23. Is private confession not generally required before receiving Holy Communion?
24. Do monastic clergy not comprise a significant percentage (greater than, say, 10%) of all your clergy?
25. Is your Church Bingo sign larger than the sign with the name of the Church?
26. Does your parish not follow the traditional rules of fasting? Or, does your Priest condone a mitigation of fasting with teachings such as "try to abstain from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent"?
27. Do the clergy in your jurisdiction attach a great deal of importance to being a part of "canonical Orthodoxy"?
28. Is the keeping of the traditions of the Church often referred to as "legalism"?
29. Does your Priest kneel on Sundays? Does he allow others in the parish to kneel on Sundays? (In some modernist churches the entire congregation kneels during the highpoint of the Anaphora.)
30. Does your Priest serve Vesperal Divine Liturgies on days in which it is not appointed in the Typikon?
31. Are converts in your parish not expected to use their Baptismal name at all times—in and out of church?
32. Has your Priest not adopted an Orthodox name—i.e., of a Saint—or does he call himself by familiar American names such as Fr. Jack or Fr. Bob? Does his wife not go by the traditional title of "Matushka," "Khouria," or "Presbytera"? Or does she prefer "Babs," "Sally," or some other familiar name?
33. Does your Priest give out the antidoron to non-Orthodox?
34. Does a reading of the Prayers of Thanksgiving for Holy Communion not follow after the end of Divine Liturgy?
35. Does your Priest or Bishop encourage the congregation to lift their hands during the anaphora?
36. At the "Kiss of Peace" during the Divine Liturgy, does the Priest pause the service to allow parishioners to greet those around them, either by handshake or embrace?
38. Does your Priest read out loud all of the secret prayers during the Liturgy?
39. Does your Priest serve Holy Communion with plastic spoons?
40. Does your Priest encourage attendance at, or support, local ecumenical events that involve common prayer with heterodox Christians?
41. Are most of the converts to Orthodoxy in your parish received by Chrismation instead of Baptism?
42. Does your Priest commemorate the names of non-Orthodox during the litanies?
43. Does your jurisdiction allow weddings on Saturdays or during fasting periods?
44. Does your Priest serve panikhidas on Sunday?Scoring:
1 point for each "yes"
0 points for each "no"Less than 3 points: your church is not "modernist"
3 - 5 points: your church is slightly "modernist"
6 - 10 points: your church is quite "modernist"
Greater than 10 points: your church is extremely "modernist"* Questions 26 and on are by the webmaster. The feedback that follows is not based on these.
Feedback and Responses to the Modernism Test
The test for modernism is interesting but really not a very accurate one. There are plenty of us who would answer 'no' to the questions while their parish would answer 'yes'. The personal feelings of a person has nothing to do with what their parish prefers. I don't like pews, for example, but my parish has them and since we are not officially attached there is nothing we can say about it. I find this obsession with outward things disturbing at times. Just because a Priest wears a clerical collar and is clean shaven does not make him a bad Priest and visa versa. We all know what the traditional way is, but because a person does not follow it does not make them 'modernist' and, as many will tell you, there are plenty of liberal or modernist Priests who have long beards and cassocks. I don't think you can catagorize someone with a 'test for modernism' such as this one. It always has to be a case-by-case basis taking into consideration the person's environment and special situations.
Permit me a few comments on your comments.
First, the admittedly tongue-in-cheek Modernism Test was just that—it was not a test for determining Orthodoxy [i.e., in a dogmatic or ontological way—webmaster], or "goodness" or "badness." It consisted of a list of things (mostly external) that are prevalent in the majority of non-traditionalist Orthodox parishes in the US today. These are the things that make a traditionalist Orthodox cringe.
Not all are external, outward things either. The trend to make optional or eliminate private confession before communion in many, if not most, GOA, OCA, and Antiochian parishes is extremely disturbing to me.
And one must be aware that even the "outward things" I seem "obsessed with" are often a reflection of deeper "inner things." This is the relationship between "form" and "substance." I believe that form is to substance as a vessel is to the liquid it contains—you eliminate the vessel, and the liquid just leaks away.
That is why the external appearance of the Church is important, the external aspects of the services are important, and the external appearance of the Priest is important. It was God Himself Who decreed to Moses that the Priests of the Old Testament church were to wear distinctive vestments. Otherwise, it would be perfectly appropriate for the Priest to serve Liturgy wearing his suit and clerical collar—his internal essense doesn't change and his God-given grace doesn't disappear because of what he wears, does it?
One really needs to look at what the motivation is in abandoning traditions that have existed in the Orthodox Church for almost two thousand years.
Perhaps the best way to phrase the question is: "What in the world would make an Orthodox Priest put on a suit and ecclesiastical collar instead of a rasson?" The answer, unfortunately, lies in the question itself: "What in the world?" Abandoning clerical garb that has been traditional for countless centuries in order to look just like "Pastor Bob" down the street?
Whether you like it or not, we live in a society in which "clothes make the man." You would probably not interview for an executive position wearing a sweatshirt and jeans, even though your external appearance is just an "outward thing" that has absolutely nothing to do with your intelligence, experience, or ability.
When an Orthodox Priest wears his cassock outside the Church (yes, even at K-Mart) he is witnessing for the faith. I remember how impressed I was as a child when I saw Roman Catholic nuns before they "kicked the habit." Now, most wear civilian clothes with only a lapel pin to identify them as a nun. I, personally, feel that this is a sad attempt to be "of the world," when we are called by our Saviour to be "not of this world."
Pews, organs, and clergy shirts are clearly an attempt to assimilate into the Western culture—and one should seriously ask "why?" If the early immigrants were looked down upon because of their "old country" ways and accents, and so tried to assimilate into the American mainstream as soon as possible—this certainly does not apply anymore.
The ROCOR has over 300 Bishops, Priests, deacons, monks, and nuns here in the US. More than half of them are American converts to Orthodoxy. Yet the overwhelming majority of them seem to have no problem in maintaining traditional Orthodox attire and outward appearance, both in church and out. So there is no "imperative" that one needs to "go mainstream" in this country.
Orthodoxy is a "counter-current" faith—a constant struggle against the things of this world. Assimilation, even in "outward things," should be avoided, for in abandoning the "outward things" there is a real danger of losing some of the "inner things" and then Orthodoxy in America will drift on with the current and popular culture and finally become a sort of mainstream "Eastern Rite Protestantism."
It was never my intent to go "jurisdiction-bashing." There are many fine Priests among the "modernist" jurisdictions as I have been labelling them, who are doing their best in leading people to salvation.
But I believe that faithfulness to traditions, even in the smaller "outward" things, is important. Let's not forget the words of our Savior, Who said to those who were faithful in small things: "Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful in small [things], I will make thee ruler over many: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord" (Matt. 25:21).
———— Another Response to Feedback ————
You ask, "Are there canons that speak to the issues of pews and tobacco?" I would ask you, where are the Canons that forbid use of marijuana or snorting cocaine or downloading pornography from the Internet? Obviously, there are none. Does this mean that your innate Orthodox common sense should not be enough to guide you to recognize what is healthy and what is not? The Canons should not be considered a compendium of answers to all possible questions. God gave us a mind and a conscience and we should use them to determine what is right and what is wrong, whether or not the particular issue has been addressed in the canons or not.
Smoking tobacco is a digusting, filthy, addictive habit that turns the mouth of the smoker into an ashtray. It not only poisons the body of the smoker but pollutes the air that others around the smoker breathe. It is absolutely incompatible with the dignity of the Orthodox Priesthood, diaconate, or monastic state, whether the Canons specifically address it or not.
Pews violate the principle of standing while praying to God and make prostrations impossible. They are obviously an innovation in Orthodox churches, taken from non-Orthodox, heretical assemblies. They have absolutely no place in an Orthodox church.
Beards and exorassa have been a mark of Orthodox clergy for countless centuries. What, as I asked before, would be a rational reason for abandoning the traditional Orthodox external appearance of a clergyman? To look just like "Pastor Bob" down the street? I must tell you, that I have experienced many, many instances where little children, seeing me in long beard, long hair and rasson come up to me and ask: "Are you Jesus?" or even "Are you God?" These little children, who have never seen an Orthodox Priest before, still see the image of Christ in a Priest dressed in a traditional way, no matter how sinful, in this case, the Priest may be. I doubt that a modernist cleric in a clergy shirt or suit would get the same reaction. The inability to grow a beard, however, would never be an impediment to ordination (for example, the late Archbishop Paul of Sydney, being ethnically a Kalmuk, was unable to grow a full beard—no one considered him any less Orthodox for it, but he was the exception that "proves the rule"). This is a far cry from institutionalizing the "anglicanization" of the external appearance of Orthodox clergy in America.
The change to the new calendar is a gross "liturgical innovation" in itself. But there are many more. In how many Antiochian parishes does the Priest start the Divine Liturgy ("Blessed is the Kingdom") behind closed Royal Doors, as the rubrics, including the ones published by the Antiochian Archdiocese) clearly indicate? In how many parishes are the doors closed after the Gospel, and then closed again after the Great Entrance? In how many Antiochian parishes is the curtain behind the Royal Doors closed at the appropriate times during the Divine Liturgy? Isn't it true that many Antiochian parishes have only vestigial Royal Doors and no curtain at all? Aren't pews and organs a "liturgical innovation"? How many Antiochian parishes do full Vigil Services on Saturday nights? How many Antiochian parishes preserve the prayers for the catechumens and the litanies and prayers for the faithful just before the Cherubic Hymn? Aren't there many parishes where private Confession as a requirement for receiving the Holy Sacraments has been eliminated?
And, of course, the Orthodox world witnessed the incredible liturgical innovation of the Antiochian Church performing "mass ordinations" of the EOC clergy, when, according to the Canons, only one Priest and one deacon can be ordained at one Divine Liturgy. Recently, there was some scandal regarding the lax attitude of the Antiochian Church concerning some divorced Priest who had been teaching at St. Vladimir's Seminary that led to the departure of the Antichian Seminarians. I don't know the details, nor do I particularly care to, but the matter revolved around the OCA being more strict in following the canons regarding the marriage of clergy that the Antiochian Archdiocese.
The attempt to justify participation in the ecumenical movement as a sort of "witness for the Church" is so weak it does not hardly merit a response. Nothing in the Holy Canons permit prayer with heterodox, no matter how good the intentions. Anyone who saw or read anything about the WCC Assembly in Canberra can not accept Orthodox participation in these meetings at all.
And, frankly, Easter Egg hunts during Great Lent seem to be an obvious failure to teach children the Sanctity of the Holy Fast.
Regarding Freemasonry, I am unaware of any official statement by the Antiochian Church condemning it as incompatible with Orthodoxy. My own experience has been that it is tolerated, as many Parish Board members in many Antiochian are openly involved in Freemasonry. My experience with this comes from several years of serving a "mainline" OCA parish and, with the blessing of my Bishop, being a member of the Bridgeport Association of Orthodox Clergy, where the question of Freemasonry and the attitudes of the various jursidictions (twelve in all) toward it were a frequent matter for discussion. Also, my two brothers-in-law and their families have been long-term members of the local Antiochian parish, so my familiarity with the customs and practices of the Antiochian church in the US is not based on abstract "book knowledge" but actual experience.
The Antiochian choir director even consulted with me as to which music would be more appropriate to play on the organ at the entrance of my niece at her wedding—the Mendelsohn Bridal march or the Bach Cantata about Grazing Sheep. I told her I preferred the Bach, of course.
For a thorough scholarly treatment of modernism see the small monograph by Dr. Constantine Cavarnos, Orthodox Tradition and Modernism. This is available on the Ecumenism Awareness page in Adobe Acrobat format.
A Conversation About Modernism | Orthodox Christian Information Center
hrh...@idirect.com
hrh...@idirect.com
page.
And there is no way I've ever stated what parish or jurisdiction
possesses Divine Grace,no matter what my thoughts of them.
"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
--
Rachael Kenoyer
Fr. Alexander Lebedeff is not stating which jurisdictions do or do
not have Grace. This is a tongue-in-cheek test to determine the
traditional stance (or not) of a parish. Read the entire page that Tasos
sent---I think that Fr. Alexander explains himself very well.
And regardless of my unworthiness---don't you be dissin' on my
sweetheart's daddy, now! :-)
~~Rachael
Kevin Bullard
the Kevinator
(NOT a fan of the Romanovs and their ilk.)
GS
All or nothing, huh dude?
hrh...@idirect.com wrote:
> Yup it is all part of the package,there is no pick and choose for the
> sake of convenience
OH, one cannot but agree. All priests should wear Turkish headgear
(somehow missed in items 11-13). But how are you going to convince all
those bald (note item 6) Balkan priests not to pollute the Temple of the
Holy Spirit with tabacky? I personally think that the move toward
Parthee purism is gonna be a little through in that department. And a
video taping of parishes, especially during weddings should assist in
our determining who are good and bad priests via the
guilt-by-association methodologies.
>
>
> Kevin Bullard wrote:
>
>> Is that Orthodoxy? A style of clothing, presence of facial hair and
>> not smoking?
>> the Kevinator
>>
>> hrh...@idirect.com wrote:
>>
>> > SENT WITH PERMISSION OF MR.P BARNES
>> >
>> > --
>> > ..."CRY HAVOC AND LET LOOSE THE DOGS OF WAR"...
>> > SAS KALLI MERO...............}: TASOS
>> > mailto:hrh...@idirect.com
>> >
>> >
>> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> ..."CRY HAVOC AND LET LOOSE THE DOGS OF WAR"...
> SAS KALLI MERO...............}: TASOS
> mailto:hrh...@idirect.com
>
>
I wish for all the blessing of real, not juridical or holier than thou,
traditional Orthodoxy. But ya gotta have experienced it to know what it
is, eh? What it isn't is quick- to- condemnatory. REmember that that
young woman in the miniskirt (see spirit of items 20 and 21) with her
live-in boyfriend, with a little coaching for her wedding ceremony will
arrive dressed for the event in something that covers her, is likely to
church and baptize her children and those children are the future of
Orthodoxy. Ya gotta start somewhere. You can start by scaring away
your future or you can gently and lovingly bring them as near as
possible to the Temple.
Remember that there are plants that even thrive in clay, and so I am
kissing (note item 36) all you Orthodox Christians and wanna-be Orthodox
Christians, kissing my enemies, too, known and unknown, before , after
and during the liturgy, in Christian love,
Galina
P.S. Just for you, Tasos, I neglected to type and spellcheck this one.
GS
Rachael Kenoyer wrote:
> Fr. Alexander Lebedeff is not stating which jurisdictions do or do
> not have Grace. This is a tongue-in-cheek test to determine the
> traditional stance (or not) of a parish. Read the entire page that Tasos
> sent---I think that Fr. Alexander explains himself very well.
>
> And regardless of my unworthiness---don't you be dissin' on my
> sweetheart's daddy, now! :-)
>
> ~~Rachael
i had fun with it, go look
R. V. Gronoff
Bryan J. Maloney a écrit dans le message ...
>
>Do you decide whether or not a parish possesses the fullness of Divine
>Grace had by the Orthodox Church by means of administering a Modernism
>Test?
>
"Thou wilst honour thy father and mother."
If someone, especially a priest or a bishop, doesn't respect the holy
Tradition of the Church as is has been given to us by the Lord and His
saints throughout the centuries, then it means he has no respect for God and
for his neighbours (ie us !).
Either we come to the Church to transform her with our human, sinful ideas,
or we come to the Chruch to BE transformed and renewed by the Spirit of God
who speaks through the holy orthodox tradition of the true catholic Church.
And if there is no such place, with true God-fearing priests, in your
neighborhood, then it's safer for your soul to stay at home, in front of His
holy Icon, and cry for your sins hoping your tender and merciful Maker,
Lord, Father and Saviour will send you His Holy Spirit to cleanse you from
all your possible sins and call you His true, beloved Child - as you will
know it through your own sanctification.
John 16:
20 Truly I say to you, You will be weeping and sorrowing, but the world
will be glad: you will be sad, but your sorrow will be turned into joy.
21 When a woman is about to give birth she has sorrow, because her hour is
come; but when she has given birth to the child, the pain is put out of her
mind by the joy that a man has come into the world.
22 So you have sorrow now: but I will see you again, and your hearts will
be glad, and no one will take away your joy.
23 And on that day you will put no questions to me. Truly I say to you,
Whatever request you make to the Father, he will give it to you in my name.
24 Up to now you have made no request in my name: do so, and it will be
answered, so that your hearts may be full of joy.
25 All this I have said to you in veiled language: but the time is coming
when I will no longer say things in veiled language but will give you
knowledge of the Father clearly.
26 In that day you will make requests in my name: and I do not say that I
will make prayer to the Father for you,
27 For the Father himself gives his love to you, because you have given
your love to me and have had faith that I came from God.
28 I came out from the Father and have come into the world: again, I go
away from the world and go to the Father.
29 His disciples said, Now you are talking clearly and not in veiled
language.
30 Now we are certain that you have knowledge of all things and have no
need for anyone to put questions to you: through this we have faith that you
came from God.
31 Jesus made answer, Have you faith now?
ats...@my-dejanews.com
modernist) according to this "test" given tongue in cheek, although it could
be as low as a 5 or as high as 12 depending upon your interpretion of the
questions.
But for crying out loud already! Some could costume themselves to look
Orthodox (say a movie actor) but it certainly does not make them Orthodox!
Someone could build a perfect Orthodox Church replica but that does not make
it a Church!
When form takes precedence over substance I believe the Orthodox Church has a
problem.
"One really needs to look at what the motivation is in abandoning traditions
that have existed in the Orthodox Church for almost two thousand years."
Oh really? St. John Chrysostom authored the Liturgy "almost 2,000 years
ago?" Or was it a tad bit later than that? The earliest Christians prayed
under a dome or in caves, huts and in hiding? Did they have an iconostasis?
A Pantocratora? We were practicing the Troparion of Kasianis last night
during Choir Practice (using an evil organ including female voices) which was
written around 800 A.D. I believe? Was she stoned or shouted down when she
first sang it? How about all the other hymns that were composed over the
years which were added to the liturgies? Weren't they innovations when they
first were presented? I will not mention that when our "Byzantine" chantors
sang this Troparion last year they massacred it. Now the "polyphonic" choir
gets a shot at it this year.
Funny, when I take my "polyphonic" choir sheet music and chant with the
chanters on Sundays when we have no choirs, I get praises for chanting
"Byzantine" music! My Bishop even praised me! Should I let the
"traditionalists" in my Parish in on my little secret? Before I confess my
"sin" to my Bishop or after?
Or did tradition gradually evolve and grow with new innovations gaining
acceptance being also part of our tradition? Or does tradition mean stagnant
water that never flows. Stagnant water that breeds disease?
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what "tradition" really means in our
Church. And I await a REAL test about it! In the meantime, I'll keep faking
out those so-called traditionalists by using my sheet music! I mean, you
have to have some fun sometimes!
Regards,
Louis Geo. Atsaves
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Troyen
look so much to innovations themselves, but the motivation for innovation.
What is the reason for said innovation and does the attitude that accompanies
innovation seek to "correct" that which the Fathers were mistaken? What is the
product and sum of the innovations? What is the fruit of these new trees?
Time will tell and is telling as we fight.
sinner, troyen
Heilmanjon
>Church.
My friend, I think I read somewhere that the real meaning of Tradition in the
Church is the presence of the Holy Spirit which guides the growth of the
Church.
Now, just for fun - do you have a beard? I wonder how many men on this ng have
beards, and if we could rate their piety by the length of the beard, or perhaps
by how individuals have had them.
Just an idea.
John Heilman
When in Doubt, Do It
Fr. John Morris
"R. V. Gronoff" wrote:
> Bryan J. Maloney a écrit dans le message ...
> >
> >Do you decide whether or not a parish possesses the fullness of Divine
> >Grace had by the Orthodox Church by means of administering a Modernism
> >Test?
> >
>
> "Thou wilst honour thy father and mother."
>
> If someone, especially a priest or a bishop, doesn't respect the holy
> Tradition of the Church as is has been given to us by the Lord and His
> saints throughout the centuries, then it means he has no respect for God and
> for his neighbours (ie us !).
I totally agree. However, most of the items on the "Modernism Test" had nothing
to do with the Holy Tradition of the Church. They all dealt with customs that
have changed through the centuries. The Holy Tradition of the Church can never
be changed because it expresses eternal truth. However, the ways in which we
express that Holy Tradition has changed as the Church has witnessed the
unchanging Holy Tradition in different times and different places.
It is a very dangerous thing to judge someone by outward appearance. What makes
someone Orthodox is what is in their heart, not whether or not they have a
beard, how long their hair is or what calendar they use.
Archpriest John W. Morris
gr...@showme.missourinospam.edu
<frj...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "R. V. Gronoff" wrote:
> > "Thou wilst honour thy father and mother."
> >
> > If someone, especially a priest or a bishop, doesn't respect the holy
> > Tradition of the Church as is has been given to us by the Lord and His
> > saints throughout the centuries, then it means he has no respect for God and
> > for his neighbours (ie us !).
(and Fr John Morris added:)
> I totally agree. However, most of the items on the "Modernism Test" had
nothing
> to do with the Holy Tradition of the Church. They all dealt with customs that
> have changed through the centuries. The Holy Tradition of the Church can never
> be changed because it expresses eternal truth. However, the ways in which we
> express that Holy Tradition has changed as the Church has witnessed the
> unchanging Holy Tradition in different times and different places.
> It is a very dangerous thing to judge someone by outward appearance.
What makes
> someone Orthodox is what is in their heart, not whether or not they have a
> beard, how long their hair is or what calendar they use.
>
> Archpriest John W. Morris
Fr John is correct when he says that it is dangerous to judge someone by
his outward appearance. Still, that observation is irrlelvant to the
discussion. The compiler of the (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) "Modernism
Test," Fr Alexander Lebedeff, made it clear at the outset that none of the
items there would or could determine whether or not someone was Orthodox.
So repeating this particular piety ("what's in your heart is what
matters") changes the discussion to something it was not, and does not
answer either the challenge of the "test" or explain why those things are
irrelevant.
It is a particularly Western, fragmented notion of the human soul that
what is inside of us and what we do on the outside can be entirely
separate. My experience from being Orthodox for the past 25 years is that
the mind and soul must exercise dominion over the body and bring it to
Christ, and the subordination of the body to Christ's easy yoke and light
burden can bring benefit and correction to the soul. If this were not
true, then our friends the Protestants would be correct when they say that
one need not fast: after all, the Lord Himself said that it is what comes
out of the mouth that defiles it, not what goes into it. They would be
perfectly right not to kneel (or make metanoia) with their bodies before
the Lord, but merely to kneel in their hearts, as many say they do. They
are the children of Aristotle and Aquinas; for them form and substance are
strangers, or at least not attached. We Orthodox are different.
It is an ancient discipline of Eastern Christianity that the priest should
be an icon of Christ. Not the same as Christ, but His image or
reflection. For this reason the priest must be male, the husband of (at
most) one wife (as Christ is the Bridegroom of one bride, the Church), and
not a source of public scandal. It is also an ancient discipline of the
Church that the priest wear a beard, just as the Lord, being a Nazarene,
did not shave or cut His hair (which the holy icons, reflecting this
tradition, make quite clear). The defensive response that "you don't have
to do that to be Orthodox" is utterly beside the point. Men who cannot
grow beards may be ordained, as may men with dermatological conditions
that require them to shave. No responsible people, including the compiler
of the "test," suggest that these things are a measure of whether one is
Orthodox. But, possibly aside from issues of health and safety, why would
a priest *choose* to discard this ancient discipline? Why would a Bishop
tolerate or even encourage it among his presbytery? I submit that looking
like our non-Orthodox neighbors and blending into the background of
American culture are not compelling reasons for abandoning these
traditions that have been with us for centuries.
As for the calendar, most Orthodox (notably excepting the Orthodox in
Finland) adhere to the paschalion which we attribute to the decision of
the Fathers of the first Ecumenical Council at Nicea. From that time (4th
century) to our own, the Paschal cycle, based on the paschal full moon,
has become interwoven with the fixed cycle, based on the solar calendar of
Julius Caesar. The two grew together, so that the year's celebrations
were all planned with both legs of the calendar, the paschal reckoning and
the fixed, Julian dates, standing together to support the liturgical
cycle. This is why we have so many monk saints in the second half of
January, when (according to the Julian calendar) the Triodion usually
begins. This is why the feast of the Great Martyr George is written for
the Paschal period; the hymnography for the Martyr celebrates his victory
over his tormentors in the light of our celebration of Christ's victory
over death. Those Orthodox who have replaced the Julian calendar with the
Gregorian (which, for all intents and purposes, is what they have done,
euphemistic disguise of "Revised Julian" notwithstanding) now must find
themselves celebrating St George's Paschal-oriented service during the
fifth week of Lent in some years. The fast of the Apostles Peter and
Paul, which brings the relationship between the two cycles into sharp
focus, either is shortened by 13 days or completely disappears for these
unfortunate Orthodox, who have been deprived of the ability to keep this
fast by the adoption of the new calendar. Why should the Greek and
Antiochian and (most of the) OCA faithful, who are no less worthy of the
blessings of this fast than the Russians and Serbs, be deprived of it?
What positive good has it done for individual Orthodox churches to abandon
one of the two legs of the calendar on which our liturgical life stands?
How has it made the Church stronger, or brought us Orthodox closer
together, in the 75 years or so since this experiment was begun? Was not
the liturgical unity and internal cohesion of the calendars of the
previous sixteen centuries preferable to this? Can you judge people like
Fr Alexander and myself for being sad that something which was not only
not broken, but worked beautifully and throughout the Orthodox world for
so long was discarded in favor of something that caused discord and
disunity and does not work with the Nicene Paschalion which we must
follow? Is the calendar not rather a question which the *whole* Church
should decide on, taking into consideration all its effects on our
liturgical life, rather than individual autocephalous Churches?
I have heard too many people argue against the little traditions and
disciplines that Orthodox have observed for centuries, dismissing them as
things that can be changed without detriment to the Church.
"Non-essential" or "superficial" or "pharisaical" are the adjectives most
of these detractors use. But every one that is discarded is replaced with
something less edifying, something that works less well, something that
leads one step further in the impoverishment of the Orthodox expression of
life of the people who discard them. If we reduce our liturgical and
private devotional lives to a mere skeleton of what is "necessary" in
order to be Orthodox, discarding as irrelevant cultural accretions the
wealth of pious practices our ancestors (or the ancestors of our brothers
and sisters who have been Orthodox since infancy) lived by, we will be
left with an "Orthodoxy" that will be no more than a dead compendium of
correct dogma, subject to "modification" and "amendment" in accordance
with the whim of every historical period we will live through. What we do
with our outsides cannot be separtaed from what we believe on the inside,
any more than our mind, soul and body can be separated while we live.
They're not the same, but they're not separable. The Church is for the
whole man, mind soul and body. Up to this century, we understood that.
Fr John, you do a great service to the Orthodox Church in this country and
on this newsgroup. You can always be relied upon to respond to the
triumphalist claims of the proselytizing Roman Catholics and Protestants
who come here with an answer that is consistent with our dogmatic
theology, with Church history and with the sacred scriptures. I suggest
that lumping the edifying things that Orthodox used to do and many in this
country no longer do into the category of the "non-essential" and labeling
as "fundamentalist" those who lament their loss is not well motivated. I
believe it was Bishop Basil (Essey) who, on returning from a stay in
Lebanon, addressed a group of Lebanese-born priests in the Antiochian
Archdiocese saying (approxmiately), "Shame on you! You had such a wealth
of pious traditions back at home, and when you came here, instead of
sharing them with us, you adapted to our ways!" I agree with Bishop
Basil.
In Christ,
Joseph
VoxRob
>>"It is also an ancient discipline of the
Church that the priest wear a beard, just as the Lord, being a Nazarene,
did not shave or cut His hair (which the holy icons, reflecting this
tradition, make quite clear)."
Do you mean a Nazarene (somebody from Nazareth) or a Nazarite (from Leviticus,
I think)? I don't know that people from Nazareth never cut their hair. Also,
our Lord was not a Nazarite -- He drink wine.
>>" No responsible people, including the compiler
of the "test," suggest that these things are a measure of whether one is
Orthodox."
I know that people say this, but the fact that the subject seems to come up so
often in a raging controversy seems to imply otherwise. It certainly seems a
lever by which to criticize other people and groups. Granted, no one makes
official statements that state "because this guy has no beard (or it's very
short and trimmed) he ain't Orthodox," however, the undercurrent certainly
seems to remain that these people have either compromised or caved in. If such
people have compromised, then specific, important issues can be brought to bear
that can illustrate their straying from the straight and narrow -- hair should
have nothing to do with it and should not be a significant part of the argument
-- but it keeps coming up.
In looking at the above paragraph -- weren't these arguments used about 30
years ago to get people not to judge young people on the length of their hair?
"The more things change..."
BTW, and I will finish with this -- the subject cuts both ways. To the
"short-and-trim" crowd, if a priest looks kind of shaggy or looks like a hippy
-- you _can't_ assume _anything_ about his Orthodoxy. If there should be no
pressure to fit into the long-hair-and-beard mold, there should be no pressure
to do be short-and-trim in the parts of Orthodoxy where that's common. I've
heard of that happening too.
A blessed Lent to all,
R Stevenson
Troyen
producing Saints in that said time? East or West? Why change? What were the
reasons? What has been the result?
sinner, troyen
Fr. John Morris
Troyen wrote:
There is a very important reason why some Orthodox Churches changed to the New
Calendar. The governments of the countries in which they were changed. In the
Orthodox Church, we recognize the authority of the state in secular matters. One
of those powers is the authority to set units of measure, including units of time.
Had the Church of Greece not adopted the New Calendar, its people would live by
one calendar when relating to God and antoher the rest of the time. As Orthodox
Christians, we believe that Orthodoxy is a way of life not just something that we
do part of the time. Thus, we must sanctify our time the way that we actually live
it, not artificially and only part of the time. Thus, I believe that those who
follow the Old Calendar when relating to the Church but follow the New Calendar
the rest of the time follow a distorted form of Orthodoxy.
Archpriest John W. Morris
gr...@showmeno.missourispam.edu
wrote:
> The only difference between us is that you adhere
> to certain externals that I consider non essentials. I do not presume to judge
> others who disagree, and ask that they not judge me.
Which is a reasonable request. In another respnse to Troyen on the topic
of the calendar (under this thread title), he wrote
> There is a very important reason why some Orthodox Churches changed to the New
> Calendar. The governments of the countries in which they were changed. In the
> Orthodox Church, we recognize the authority of the state in secular
matters. One
> of those powers is the authority to set units of measure, including
units of time.
> Had the Church of Greece not adopted the New Calendar, its people would
live by
> one calendar when relating to God and antoher the rest of the time. As
Orthodox
> Christians, we believe that Orthodoxy is a way of life not just
something that we
> do part of the time. Thus, we must sanctify our time the way that we
actually live
> it, not artificially and only part of the time. Thus, I believe that those who
> follow the Old Calendar when relating to the Church but follow the New
Calendar
> the rest of the time follow a distorted form of Orthodoxy.
This leaves me confused, since Fr John does not wish to judge or be judge
by those who use different standards than himself in what he considers
"non-essentials." This last statement, "I believe that those who follow
the Old Calendar when relating to the Church but follow the New Calendar
the rest of the time follow a distorted form of Orthodoxy," is a
determination that sounds very much like a judgement of the Orthodoxy
(i.e. that it is distorted) of several entire Autocephalous Churches,
including the Russian, Serbian, Georgian and Jerusalem Patriarchates as
well as the autocephalous Church of Sinai and Mount Athos (the Greek civil
officials who work in Karyes follow the New Calendar in their civil
employment and in assigning dates to visitors' visas, even if the monks
have no need of the New Calendar in their lives).
To be honest I am confused by the explanation that we must subordinate the
Church calendar to the civil in order to be properly Orthodox. A logical
consequence of this would be to consider the Orthodoxy of the peoples
living under the Turkish yoke "distorted" because they kept the (Julian)
Church calendar for centuries while they were under a civil regime that
used an Islamic calendar. Certainly no one denies that Jewish Americans
are a part of the civic life of the United States in nearly every sense,
even though they observe their religious feasts by a different calendar.
Is the Orthodoxy of the Russian Church distorted because they celebrate
the fixed feasts by the old reckoning while conducting their secular
business according the the new? When there was a Christian emperor of the
oikoumene, it made sense to have one reckoning for all purposes. It is
still possible for the Church to make a change in the reckoning of the
fixed menologion. But it seems illogical to me that the Church should be
forced to do so by the whim of the secular authorities, who are not
recognizably Christian in their public policy and who no longer have the
interests of the Church in consideration when making decisions. And, in
point of fact, the Universal Church has *not* made this change.
I thank Caedmon for his observations on the Paschalion, and agree with him
that the Church *can* make modifications both to the Paschalion and to the
Menologion. I have yet to hear an explanation of why it makes sense to
change the one independent of the other. Since the two grew together over
the centuries, we need to address the fact that the New Calendar gives us
the Paschal feast of St George often during the 6th week of the Fast, and
that the New Calendar always shortens by 13 days and sometimes entirely
removes the Apostles' Fast, and that the New Calendar eliminates entirely
the beautiful Kyriopascha (coincidence of Pascha with the Annunciation of
the Theotokos), and sometimes moves Annunciation to the first week of
Lent, when the first part of the vigil for the feast would have to be
combined with the Great Canon of St Andrew of Crete, and in the Matins, a
Polyeleos would have to be served during a time when no Polyeleos may ever
occur. The simple fact is that the combination of the New Menologion with
the Old (or Orthodox :-) Paschalion causes serious problems in our
liturgical life. Is it worse to be out of synch with the rest of the
world in this matter, or to be out of synch with the Paschalion which
almost no one has dared to tinker with?
Regarding the dates of the commemoration of Saints, the picture is a bit
more complex than Caedmon suggests. Yes, the most common choice for the
commemoration of a saint is the day of his or her repose. But this is
subject to some modification on the part of the Church. Sometimes the day
of the finding or translation of the saint's relics will be his major
feast day, and sometimes a saint's day is moved for reasons no one can
fathom. In the course of my dissertation work I had to solve some puzzles
about the menologion in the back of a medieval Gospel book. I discovered
that the days of commemoration of saints vary to a greater extent than you
might suspect from Orthodox Church to Orthodox Church, and even within the
same Church over a span of time. St Sava, the first Archbishop of Serbia,
is commemorated on January 12 or 13 or 14, depending on when and where you
live. His successor as Archbishop, St Arsenije, used to be commemorated
in March, but has been commemorated in October for many centuries, and I
cannot find any explanation why. I am sure more examples could be
adduced, but suffice it to say that the repose of the saint is only one
factor that influences the day of his commemoration, and local Churches
often tinker with that day for reasons known best to them. I do not think
it out of the question that the commemoration of numerous monastic saints
might have been established for the latter part of January and the
beginning of February in connection with the beginning of the Triodion and
the coming of Lent; remember also that the day of general commemoration of
monastic saints is Saturday of Cheesfare week, and this thesis begins to
seem more plausible.
In short, we can "redeem the time" and even sanctify it even without
joining the current civil reckoning. I suggest that we will do a better
job of sanctifying the time if we respect the harmony that existed for
centuries between the Paschalion and the Menologion, and find a solution
that does not do violence to this relationship, as the recent practice
(since 1920 and later) of adopting the Gregorian calendar for one and
leaving the Julian reckoning for the other in place does. The Orthodox in
this country deserve a liturgical life that is as harmonious and organic
as that which is available to Orthodox in Russia and Serbia and Georgia.
I am sad for them that they have to look so hard to find one.
In Christ,
Joseph
Troyen
counter arguements here poppy-cock myself. Putting New Style or Old Style by a
date is no big deal and the norma 3/16 March '99 seems rather easy also.
Sometimes there is no hope for some of this stuff. The two sides will remain
polarized because someone has to be right, right? Even the Moderate Old
Calendarists are ignored for reasons unknown. I think this shows a lack of
scholarship and humility, but anyway.
sinner, troyen
Fr. John Morris
>
> To be honest I am confused by the explanation that we must subordinate the
> Church calendar to the civil in order to be properly Orthodox.
It is not a matter of subordinating the Church calendar to the civil calendar. It is
a matter of sanctifying time, which is the whole purpose of the cycle of feasts and
fasts in the Church calendar. In order to truly sanctify time, we must sanctify it
as we live it. To have one kind time in our religion and another the rest of our
lives, is an artificial separation of our lives into compartments. It is also a form
of secularism. Orthodoxy is a way of life, whereby we dedicate our whole lives to
Christ. That is why we bless our cars, houses and all sorts of things that we do not
use for specifically religious purposes. One way that I sanctify my time is to
observe the feast of a certain Saint on a certain day.
There is another theological dimension to this whole discussion. That is the
Orthodox understanding of the proper relationship between Church and state. The
proper Orthodox understanding is not Church domination of the state or state
domination of the Church, but a symphony between Church and state. The Church is
supreme over moral and religious matters. The sates is supreme over non religious
issues such as the units of measurement. In America, our state has determined that
we should tell time by the New Calendar. That means that as a faithful Orthodox
Christian that I live my time according to the decisions of the state, but that I
sanctify that time by observing the Orthodox cycle of feasts and fasts.
Therefore, I believe that Orthodox Christians living in countries in which the
government has adopted the New Calendar should respect the legitimate authority of
the state and follow the New Calendar. However, I also do not believe that
differences of opinion on this subject justify the sin of schism.
Archpriest John W. Morris
michael Dawson
Caedmon Parsons
>So before the EP went along with the RCC which time was being Sanctified and
>producing Saints in that said time?
If you'd check the history books you would know that the secular
calendar being sanctified was the Julian. When the secular calendar
changed to the Gregorian then the Church changed to the New Calendar
to sanctify it--as it should have--and went right on producing saints.
And the RCC is irrelevant. It was relevant in the 16th century which
is why neither Protestants nor Orthodox adopted the Gregorian
calendar--but these days it is simply the calendar everybody uses
whether Roman, Protestant, atheist, etc. It's also the Calendar every
single Orthodox uses for everything except the Menaion, thus refusing
to sanctify time.
>East or West? Why change? What were the
>reasons?
I've told you the reasons. That you want to stick your head in the
sand with a knee jerk 'why change' is irrelevant.
>What has been the result?
Pretty much the same result as the Nikonian Reforms or the Council of
Chalcedon. A few people fighting the authority of the Church and
choosing custom over Tradition have cut themselves off from the
Church. Some ostensibly "Orthodox" government officials have
exacerbated the problem by abusing their power. But we all know where
the Church was after Chalcedon and Nikon--and that's the same place it
is after the calendar reforms.
In Him,
the sinner Caedmon
"Attain the Spirit of Peace and thousands around you will be saved."
--St. Seraphim of Sarov
Caedmon Parsons
>Thank you very much for your thoughtful help Joseph. I think some of the
>counter arguements here poppy-cock myself.
So sorry Scripture and the words and examples of the Fathers are
poppycock to you. "I already know what the Church teaches, don't
bother me with the facts"--is that it, Nick, oops I mean Troyen. Give
a break and actually study the issue.
>Putting New Style or Old Style by a
>date is no big deal and the norma 3/16 March '99 seems rather easy also.
What does this straw man have to do with anything? Has anyone said
that the issue is whether or not it is easy? The issue is what is the
role of the Church in the world. The issue is what Genesis says is the
correct relationship between astronomy and measuring time. The issue
is St. Paul's condemnation of those who judge their brother on the
basis of their brother's calendrical observations.
>
>Sometimes there is no hope for some of this stuff. The two sides will remain
>polarized because someone has to be right, right? Even the Moderate Old
>Calendarists are ignored for reasons unknown.
Maybe because they repeat the lie that the Old Calendar is conciliarly
blessed--and unlike the people who ignorantly repeat that lie on the
internet they have the scholarship to know better. Maybe its because
having put themselves in schism from the Church it is in accordance
with the Fathers and the canons to ignore them until they repent and
submit themselves to the authority of the Church.
> I think this shows a lack of
>scholarship and humility, but anyway.
Sure does.
Caedmon Parsons
>Even the Moderate Old
>Calendarists are ignored for reasons unknown.
I should have added last time around that no one who places themselves
in a state of schism from the Church of Christ on the basis of a
calendar can be considered a 'moderate' in any sense of the term. The
only ones who can be accurately termed 'Moderate Old Calendrists' are
those who while continuing to use the Old Calendar (e.g., Serbia, MP,
Jerusalem) follow the example of St. Paul and St. Ireneus: "they all
lived in peace with one another, and so do we: the divergency in the
fast emphasizes the unanimity of our faith."
Caedmon Parsons
wrote:
>To be honest I am confused by the explanation that we must subordinate the
>Church calendar to the civil in order to be properly Orthodox.
Primarily because you are thinking in terms of subordination rather
than in the Orthodox terms of synergy/symphony: "Render unto Caesar
what is Caesar's; unto God what is God's".
Civil governments establish basic standards of measurement. It has
been one of their most basic roles running all the way back to the
first city-states of Mesopatamia. Once the civil government has
decided on a calendar (i.e., a way to figure *when* Jan. 1 is), then
the Church comes in and sanctifies that calendar with a menaion (i.e.,
Jan 1 is the feast-day of the Circumcision of our Lord and of St.
Basil the Great). One of the inaccuricies which fuels this discussion
is that the Church *never* had a calendar (old or new); it had a
menaion which it then associated with the local calendar.
Question: When you measure something, even something inside the temple
do you use a standard yardstick/ruler/tape measure marked in feet &
inches (or the metric system) or do you have a special yardstick for
the measurement of cubits (the form of linear measurement sanctified
by Scripture and the Fathers)? When you go on a pilgrimage, do you
calculate the distance to your destination in miles (or km) or in
stadia?
>A logical
>consequence of this would be to consider the Orthodoxy of the peoples
>living under the Turkish yoke "distorted" because they kept the (Julian)
>Church calendar for centuries while they were under a civil regime that
>used an Islamic calendar.
There are two reasons this is a special case. The first is that the
Islamic calendar is a purely lunar calendar. As such, it is not
reconcilable to a solar calendar, and therefore would make it
impossible to keep one of the basic standards of the Nicean
Paschalion--that Pascha never occur more than once in a single solar
year.
The second reason is indeed a distortion in that the Turks organized
their rule by millets--with the Patriarch of Constantinople the leader
of the "Greek"/"Orthodox" millet. As such, the EP took on certain
aspects of civil government for the Orthodox under Turkish rule--not
because it is our Tradition, but because it was the Turk's
practice--and in its function as civil governor, the EP continued the
use of the state calendar it had inherited from Roman
Empire--including not only the Julian Calendar but the measurement of
years in Indictions, etc. The movement to the "New Calendar" in the
20th century among the Churches in Islamic lands was as much a
movement back to their true role, as Church, and away from their role
as civic administration, as it was anything else.
>I thank Caedmon for his observations on the Paschalion, and agree with him
>that the Church *can* make modifications both to the Paschalion and to the
>Menologion. I have yet to hear an explanation of why it makes sense to
>change the one independent of the other.
The reasoning can be broken down into several points:
1) While one cannot find any general desire for 'liturgical unity' in
the Fathers, the date of the celebration of Pascha is an exception. It
is clear that while the Fathers did not consider unity in the
celebration of this feast *necessary*, they did consider it a good
thing. That means that while a local Church could legitimately change
its Paschalion unilaterally, there is greater pressure, since unity
was achieved in the 8th century on this topic, that such a decision be
made by the whole Church. However, at this time, it is impossible for
Jerusalem to change its Paschalion (I realize the current Patriarch
would probably not even consider it, but that has not and will not
necessary be in the future true). The 'Status Quo', imposed by the
British last century and maintained by the Israeli's since their
independence, which legally dictates when the Orthodox may use the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre (also, possibly the Church of the
Nativity but I'm not sure about that) will not allow the Jerusalem
Patriarchate to change their Paschalion if they wish to celebrate
Pascha in the Holy Sepulchre.
Until and unless the legal situation of the Holy Sepulchre changes,
this places a limiting factor on any discussion of a Church-wide
correction of the Paschalion.
2) Pastoral (which makes it ironic when certain Old Calendrists
combine criticism of the patchwork method with criticism of the
pastoral implementation of the change--which is not say there were not
some valid pastoral criticisms when the calendar was changed in
Greece): When introducing a major shift in praxis, no matter how well
justified, it works best when taken slowly and with catachesis. If the
Nikonian reforms had been introduced singly instead of in a great
mass, it is likely the Old Believer schism would not have occurred or
been significantly lessened. So the Church shifts the solar calendar
and waits on the Paschalion (which would need to wait anyway because
of #1) while making teaching the Faithful what is going on--a process
which has been severely hampered by the continuous stream of
misleading and often downright false propaganda emerging from certain
quarters of the 'Old Calendrist' movement.
>Since the two grew together over
>the centuries, we need to address the fact that the New Calendar gives us
>the Paschal feast of St George often during the 6th week of the Fast, and
>that the New Calendar always shortens by 13 days and sometimes entirely
>removes the Apostles' Fast, and that the New Calendar eliminates entirely
>the beautiful Kyriopascha (coincidence of Pascha with the Annunciation of
>the Theotokos),
Uh, the Greeks (Old or New Calendar) don't do Kyriopascha anyway. When
Pascha and Annunciation coincide, Annunciation is moved to the
following Monday--a practice several centuries old.
>I do not think
>it out of the question that the commemoration of numerous monastic saints
>might have been established for the latter part of January and the
>beginning of February in connection with the beginning of the Triodion and
>the coming of Lent; remember also that the day of general commemoration of
>monastic saints is Saturday of Cheesfare week, and this thesis begins to
>seem more plausible.
Your certainly right that the commemoration of monastic saints on
Cheesefare Week shows a very relevant connection between Lent and
monasticism. But I'm still curious, can you think of any part of the
calendar which *doesn't* include a host of monastic saints--that's the
basic point on which I questioin the relevance of the monastic saints
in late January/early Feb to a discussion of the calendar.
>In short, we can "redeem the time" and even sanctify it even without
>joining the current civil reckoning.
How? The headers on this post say it was posted on March 7 (bear with
me if that's wrong, I'm typing near midnight and I may finish earlier
than I think). And according to the Menaion, this day is sanctified to
the memory of the seven hieromartyrs of Cherson and St. Laurence of
Salamis.
But if we use the Old Calendar, today we are actually commemorating
the finding of the Precious Relics of the Holy Martyrs at the Gate of
Eugenius--except that they are commemorated on Feb. 22, and it's not
Feb. 22--except in church, and not even completely there because if
you write a check to make a contribution to the parish today, you'll
write March 7th. The actual date of Mar 7 isn't being sanctified--and
won't be until Mar 20. IOW, an artifical divide is created between
actual life and religious life--a divide which has never existed in
the Church prior to the modern calendrical controversies (not even
under the Turks since, as I pointed out, the life of Orthodox under
them continued according to the Julian calendar).
Or, looked at a different way, users of the Old Calendar are
'redeeming the time' for today, but they are doing so by dedicating
the day to the Precious Relics et. al. . So the reality is, the
feast-day of the Precious Relics is March 7th--except that we play
semantic games and pretend to call it Feb. 22 except that we *don't*
call it Feb. 22. If you were to be standing in the supermarket
tomorrow and someone turned to you and said, "what is today?", what
will you tell them? Sorry, but a Church founded on the Truth just
looks silly playing semantic games.
>I suggest that we will do a better
>job of sanctifying the time if we respect the harmony that existed for
>centuries between the Paschalion and the Menologion, and find a solution
>that does not do violence to this relationship, as the recent practice
>(since 1920 and later) of adopting the Gregorian calendar for one and
>leaving the Julian reckoning for the other in place does. The Orthodox in
>this country deserve a liturgical life that is as harmonious and organic
>as that which is available to Orthodox in Russia and Serbia and Georgia.
>I am sad for them that they have to look so hard to find one.
And what of the Fathers who existed before this 'harmony' you think so
much of came into being? Did the Orthodoxy of St. Athanasius or St.
Polycarp or St. John Chrysostom suffer or lack something which the
Russian or Serbian Churches had finally achieved in the 19th century?
The very fact that the liturgical life of the Church is 'organic'
means that it grows and changes. If it does not then it fossilizes and
dies. But it is ridiculous to speak of any specific stage of that
organic growth as being 'better' or 'worse' than what came before or
what comes after. The liturgical year as celebrated in Rome in the 2nd
century was different than that celebrated in Constantinople in the
9th or Moscow in the 19th. Yet none of these 'lacked' *anything*
because they were the liturgical life of the Body of Christ which is
the fullness of Him who is All in all. So long as the Communion of our
Lord is celebrated by the Body as the Body then there is nothing
lacking and, frankly, to say otherwise is to tread the line of
blasphemy.
Troyen
about the Matthewites. You know that the vast majority of Old Calendarists
consider the calendar issue a minor thing and the ecumenism and modernism the
major tragedy. The Old Calendarists have decided on a moral obligation and
stand for what they consider the True Orthodox Church. In this they have
continued in Humility, Love, Repentance, and honest scholarship.
If only ecumenists would treat their enemies the anti-ecumenists with the love
and respect that they show all of the non-Orthodox in the world.
Do you believe that sometime in the early 1920's the Ecumenical Patriarch got
his astronomers together and said, "Hey! We need to get on the correct
calendar." Then someone said, "But wait, it will look like we are just
following after Rome..." Well, if that is what we have to look like so be it,
but we cannot go on with this Calendar being 13 days behind. We must change
and all Orthodoxy must follow the Pope of Constantinople.]
Is that how it happened?
Now I am just a Pharasee who hates to shave and wants to wear a forrest green
Cassock. Oh, well.
sinner, troyen
Troyen
that of the Pope of Constantinople via 1924. Are you nuts? That is not the
Church. The Church does not fall in line with unilateral decisions without a
sobor of Bishops. This issue will be resolved cleanly when the Russians are
better established.
The Russian Church and Her servants continue to sanctify time with a New
Style/Old Style dating system. Is this not true?
sinner, troyen
Caedmon Parsons
>Shame on you for repeating this lie Caedmon.
What lie? That the so-called "moderate Old Calendrists" are a
schismatic group attempting to divide the Church of Greece? That in
their publications on the issue of the calendar they engage in what is
either deliberate falsehood or incredibly shoddy scholarship? That
they trace themselves back to the original Old Calender schism, which
whatever ancillary issues are now brought up was based on the calendar
change (look at Abp. Chrysostomos own history of the Old Calendar
movement if you doubt that one)?
If you wish to side with schismatics against the Church you are not
going to get any sympathy from me on this one.
>You know that I am not speaking
>about the Matthewites. You know that the vast majority of Old Calendarists
>consider the calendar issue a minor thing and the ecumenism and modernism the
>major tragedy.
Try again. The reason for the schism was the calendar. These days,
when pressed on what is fundamentally an indefensible position they
will begin going off about ecumenism and modernism except that a)
their group was already schismatic before they started discussing
those; b) to justify their schism on that basis they would have to be
able to accuse the recently reposed Abp. Seraphim or the the current
Abp. Christodoulos or the bishops in the dioceses they are setting up
schismatic altars in--and they can't so they attack the EP who is
absolutely irrelevant to the question no matter how easy a target he
makes himself.
>The Old Calendarists have decided on a moral obligation and
>stand for what they consider the True Orthodox Church.
St. Dionysius of Alexandria to Novation who went into schism in Rome
based on his 'moral obligation' to defend the Church from those who
were being soft on sin:
"Dionysius to his brother Novatus, greeting. If, as thou sayest, thou
hast been led on unwillingly, thou wilt prove this if thou retirest
willingly. For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide
the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division
would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. Nay, to
me it seems greater. For in the one case a man suffers martyrdom for
the sake of his own soul; in the other case in behalf of the entire
Church. And now if thou canst persuade or induce the brethren to come
to unanimity, thy righteousness will be greater than thine error, and
this will not be counted, but that will be praised. But if thou canst
not prevail with the disobedient, at least save thine own soul. I
pray that thou mayst fare well, maintaining peace in the Lord"
>In this they have
>continued in Humility, Love, Repentance, and honest scholarship.
No they didn't Troyen. They have split the Church which is a great
evil and in doing so they have told and continue to tell such lies as
that the Fathers of Nicea approved the Julian calendar or even the
Alexandrian Paschalion. That they do show considerable scholarship on
other topics simply makes it hard to believe they are anything less
than deliberate in what they are doing.
>
>If only ecumenists would treat their enemies the anti-ecumenists with the love
>and respect that they show all of the non-Orthodox in the world.
Give me a break. When have you ever seen me be an "ecumenist"? I show
them the same respect I show Gerard when he attacks the Church.
>
>Do you believe that sometime in the early 1920's the Ecumenical Patriarch got
>his astronomers together and said, "Hey! We need to get on the correct
>calendar." Then someone said, "But wait, it will look like we are just
>following after Rome..." Well, if that is what we have to look like so be it,
>but we cannot go on with this Calendar being 13 days behind. We must change
>and all Orthodoxy must follow the Pope of Constantinople.]
Who cares what the EP did? In case you missed it, he's not the Pope in
Constantinople and what he did or didn't do in the 20s is absolutely
irrelevent to either our Church or the Church of Greece. Feel free to
come visit Vladika Dmitri and explain to him that his approval of the
New Calendar is based on his 'ecumenist' tendencies.
>Now I am just a Pharasee who hates to shave and wants to wear a forrest green
>Cassock. Oh, well.
I think you'll make a good priest. If you get over second-guessing
your own bishops on a topic where they have the support of Scripture
and the Fathers if you'd just take the time to study them.
Caedmon Parsons
Among the points you seem to be missing is that the Synod of the
Church of Russia under St. Tikhon and working in conjunction with Tsar
Nicholas II and then the representative government he passed authority
to had made all the necessary plans for the simultaneous change of
both secular and ecclesiastic calendars to the New Calendar (*prior*
to the similar move on the part of the Greeks). The only reason this
did not occur was that the Soviet Revolution occurred and so St.
Tikhon put the calendar change on hold as one of the few forms of
symbolic protest he could make without getting people killed (indeed,
the Soviets were probably happy to see the Church cut off in yet
another way from the life of the Russian people).
Since we've hit the issue of 'disjunctions' caused by calendar change,
I also point out something a Russian parishoner shared with me. New
Years in Russia is a big celebration not unlike America. When the
secular and ecclesiastical calendars were together this was no big
deal as the New Year's celebration formed part of the Nativity Feast.
Now, however, it falls right in the culminating period of the Advent
Fast--cutting the life of the Church off from the life of its members.
SubDJoseph
<snip lots of good stuff>
>If you were to be standing in the supermarket
>tomorrow and someone turned to you and said, "what is today?", what
>will you tell them? Sorry, but a Church founded on the Truth just
>looks silly playing semantic games.
<snip more good stuff>
Thanks Caedmon, as usual you have expressed yourself very well and said clearly
what I just muddle through.
Joseph
Troyen
So long as the Communion of our Lord is celebrated by the Body as the Body then
there is nothing lacking and, frankly, to say otherwise is to tread the line of
blasphemy.>>>
And so those who write the date differently and do not attend WCC meetings are
called schismatics and not part of canonical Orthodoxy. Does this tread the
line of blasphemy.
In 1968, the Orthodox Directory or some such book of Orthodox Churches,
Missions, and Monasteries "inadvertantly" left out the Russian Church in Exile
or ROCA. This error was corrected. A more experienced fellow can probably
recall the exact title. What has changed sinse 1968? Did the Old Calendarists
get a little to crazy with their double-dating? Who changed? Which part of
the Church, Old or New Calendar, is trying to preserve the fullness of
Orthodoxy for the coming generations? I think both are doing the best that can
be expected. That is my nicest naive answer to my own question.
I will tell you truthfully though. I was Baptized into the Orthodox Church on
the 19th of December, 1998 (New Style) and ever sense have found it
increasingly dificult to be Orthodox for many reasons. In America it is hard
enough to convert, I would like to see One Church with strong leaders grounded
in monastic endeavor, however, to see such things I must look far into the
future.
sinner, troyen
Troyen
the end of Advent?
Pre-Revolutionary Russia used the Church as an arm of the State. Sometimes
good things were done and sometimes bad.
After reading some of the history of the time it seems that the Bishops of
Russia were happy to have a real Sobor and not just meetings that could be
approved or disapproved by the Tsar.
It is strange to me how you can blame an Old Calendarist for doing something in
the same way as is forefathers, but is now a schismatic. From 1922-1924 how
many thousands of Greeks became schismatics, cut away from the Orthodox Church?
At some point they were no longer Orthodox, but schismatic, so what did these
schismatics start doing differently? Aside from continuing to use the same
Calendar. What about those monks on Athos? Schismatics also or do they have
special permission to use the schismatic calendar, but not be schismatic?
I could care less about the rational justifications you have for a calendar
change. I do care about hurting people along the way. You know, defrocking
them, shaving their beards, arresting them, beating them, killing them. these
are minor problems that occur when a Calendar becomes schismatic.
Whatever Calendar you use. Whatever Church or church you attend. Seek God
with a pure heart and do your best wherever you are that God look down and have
mercy upon your soul. That is my answer to the Calendar issue.
sinner, troyen
Troyen
>ago, he was wearing -- you guessed it -- a forest green cassock. :=)
>
He is the Dean now? Excellent management of geography. I think I knew he was
the Dean. I love that guy. Can't wait to visit Columbia again.
sinner, troyen
Fr. John Morris
and which murders almost a million unborn babies a year and we Orthodox are arguing
over what calendar to use or over beards and cassocks. I believe that we need to
get our priorities straight and quit fighting over unimportant externals so that we
can address the real issues facing our society. The fact is that when we stand
before the awesome judgment seat of Christ, we will be asked if we lived our lives
as if Christ mattered. We will not be asked whether we followed the Old or the New
Calendar. Our priests will be asked if they did their best to lead their flocks to
salvation by preaching the truth of Orthodoxy, not how long their beards were or
what they wore to the grocery store.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Caedmon Parsons
>Stated Caedmon:
>So long as the Communion of our Lord is celebrated by the Body as the Body then
>there is nothing lacking and, frankly, to say otherwise is to tread the line of
>blasphemy.>>>
>
>And so those who write the date differently and do not attend WCC meetings are
>called schismatics and not part of canonical Orthodoxy. Does this tread the
>line of blasphemy.
>
Feel free to find any example where I have called someone a schismatic
for writing the date differently or not attending WCC meetings. When
you fail utterly, maybe you will show the kind of intellectual honesty
you're clamoring for by apologizing for the above inaninity.
The only ones I have ever called schismatics are those who have cut
their ties of communion to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
Church and rebelled against their God-anointed bishops. That's the
definition the Fathers give and it's good enough for me.
Caedmon Parsons
>It is strange to me how you can blame an Old Calendarist for doing something in
>the same way as is forefathers, but is now a schismatic.
Are the Old Believers schismatic for doing "something in the same way
as their forefathers"? After the bishops of Nicea decided that Pascha
had to be celebrated on Sunday were the Quatrodecimians considered
schismatic (even heretical) for "doing something in the same way as
their forefathers (indeed following a tradition received from St. John
the Apostle)?
You keep missing the point. The point is not whether Quatrodecimians,
Old Believers or Old Calendrists are continuing to do what their
forefathers did. The point is what is the authority of the bishops in
the Church, and are people justified in rebelling against those
bishops and cutting themselves off from the Church if they don't like
what the bishops decide on a matter that is not part of the Apostolic
Faith (i.e., anything that is not an issue of heresy)?
> From 1922-1924 how
>many thousands of Greeks became schismatics, cut away from the Orthodox Church?
> At some point they were no longer Orthodox, but schismatic, so what did these
>schismatics start doing differently? Aside from continuing to use the same
>Calendar.
Change the date to 318 to 350 and that sentence would apply just as
well to the Quatrodecimians--what did the Second Ecumenical Council
say about them?
>What about those monks on Athos? Schismatics also or do they have
>special permission to use the schismatic calendar, but not be schismatic?
Again, you are ignoring the point. The calendar is not schismatic.
What is schismatic is obedience to or rebellion against the bishops.
>
>I could care less about the rational justifications you have for a calendar
>change. I do care about hurting people along the way. You know, defrocking
>them, shaving their beards, arresting them, beating them, killing them. these
>are minor problems that occur when a Calendar becomes schismatic.
No, they occur when the civil government abuses its position. It
happened when Patriarch Nikon made liturgical changes and the Tsars
imposed that decision in a sinful manner. It happened in the Possesor,
Non-Possessor controversy when the Tsars took sides and oppressed the
losing side (but in that case, the non-possessors acted like Orthodox
Christians and did not leave the Church). It happened after Chalcedon
when the Constantinoplean Emperor used force to impose the decision on
Egyptian (Coptic) believers who were rejecting the council and bishops
which accepted it.
The sins of the Greek government in the 1920s are as irrelevant to the
issue of what calendar any Church uses as the sins of the Russian
government are irrelevant to how many fingers you use to cross
yourself.
Fr. John Morris
Those people who are making such an issue over ecumenism, are misled. They fail to understand the real nature of Orthodox ecumenism, which in no way compromises the Orthodox Faith. They also fail to realize that no one wants to compromise the Orthodox Faith. Indeed, my personal belief is that ecumenism does represent a threat to Orthodoxy because I do not believe that there is any possibility that the Orthodox Church will ever enter into communion with any group that does not accept the Orthodox Faith. We are not going to submit to Rome. We certainly are not going to unite with liberal Protestants who ordain women, bless same sex unions and deny the basic teachings of the Christian Faith or with evangelical Protestants who reject the Sacraments and basic teachings of Orthodoxy. Thus, I believe that all the fear is groundless.
Archpriest John W. Morris
hrh...@idirect.com wrote:
michael Dawson wrote:
A test for Orthodoxy
And a faq to follow 1 Do you call yourself Traditional Orthodox?
YES2 Do you consider a priest who is beardless as not Orthodox
NO3 Do you think that there is a heresy called Ecumenism?
VERY MUCH SO YES4 Do you think that anyone who uses the revised Julian Calendar is not Orthodox?
NO(not really)5 Is your bishop not in communion with the ancient sees of Constantinople and Alexandria?
NO If you answer "yes " to any of these questions then you are not Orthodox but belong to a sect that hopefully may in the future join the Orthodox ChurchDecent of you to give a test to so many ecumenists and revisionists.
Mike my boy you*really*canonical orthodox types are uptight ,is it some w.a.s.p.thing ,oh well tea and crumpets time.
wrote in message <36DEC325...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com>...Is that Orthodoxy? A style of clothing, presence of facial hair and not smoking?
the Kevinatorhrh...@idirect.com wrote:
The Ecumenism FAQ Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
Last update: 2/15/99
1. What exactly is "ecumenism"? I thought it was a synonym for missions and evangelism. (Answer) 2. Why is ecumenism a heresy? Isn't that too strong a statement? (Answer)
3. Are you saying that it is a heresy for an Orthodox church merely to be a member of the WCC? (Answer)
4. Isn't our involvement in the ecumenical movement mandated by Christ's High Priestly prayer in St. John 17 that "all may be one"? Doesn’t the Orthodox Church pray "for the union of all" at the Divine Liturgy? (Answer)
5. Isn’t our involvement in the WCC and other such organizations a "missionary responsibility"? Hasn't dialogue with those who are of a different faith been in the Church from apostolic times? (Answer)
6. Is it wrong to dialogue with non-Orthodox Christians? (Answer)
7. Isn't ecumenism waning since the Georgian, Bulgarian, and Russian Orthodox Churches have pulled back to varying degrees? (Answer)
8. What would have to happen in order for Orthodox opposed to ecumenism to agree that the controversy is coming to an end? (Answer) 9. Why are some Orthodox churches not in communion with other Orthodox churches? (Answer)
10. Why should the layman concern himself with these matters? Is this not for the Clergy to sort out? (Answer)
11. Why is there such a debate over the Church Calendar? Is the "New Calendar" a heresy, as some say? (Answer)
12. Does an anti-ecumenism stance imply a lack of concern for Christian unity? (Answer)
13. Does an anti-ecumenism stance imply a lack of concern for missions and evangelism? (Answer)
14. Are the Orthodox who oppose ecumenism rightly called "fundamentalists"? I often hear other Orthodox Christians use this term when speaking of them. (Answer)
What exactly is "ecumenism"? I thought it was a synonym for missions and evangelism.
Well, it can be taken in that way. However, in the sense in which it is commonly used today, ecumenism is both the process and the doctrines associated with the modern ecumenical movement. The word is derived from the Greek word "oikoumene," which means the "inhabited earth." In the context of the ecumenical movement, however, this Greek word typically refers to the "Christian world."
More specifically, ecumenism is a movement for visible unity among Christians—involving theological dialogue, joint prayer and worship, and common social service—that is fundamentally Protestant in ethos and outlook. The central organ of this movement is the World Council of Churches.
The main doctrines associated with this "ism" are ecclesiological. Herein lies the essential problem with the ecumenical movement for the Orthodox Church. Our involvement with this movement causes our ecclesial self-understanding as the one and only True Church of Christ—the Una Sancta of the Nicene Creed—to run headlong into ecclesiological presuppositions that are entirely at odds with Holy Orthodoxy. The involvement of some Orthodox churches in the ecumenical movement has led to serious canonical and dogmatic infractions that have been strongly resisted by anti-ecumenist Orthodox.
In short, ecumenism is a heretical bacterium that has invaded the Body of Christ, causing internal division and controversy akin to the dogmatic controversies of the past.
There is, however, such a thing as "true ecumenism." On that concept we encourage you to read the following:
- The Psychological Anatomy of Ecumenism, by Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna.
- True Ecumenism, a Q&A from Orthodox Tradition
Why is ecumenism a heresy? Isn't that too strong a statement?
No. It is clearly, and without doubt, an ecclesiological heresy that is causing enormous confusion within the Orthodox Church. Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos (State Church of Greece) puts it this way:
It can be said that if there is a great heresy today, it is the so-called ecclesiological heresy. And this should be confronted by the Pastors of the Church. There is great confusion today about what the Church is and who are its true members. We confuse or identify the Church with other human Traditions, we think that the Church is fragmented and split up, and furthermore, we are ignorant of the Church's way of salvation. Thus it is in confusion about this great theme. (The Mind of the Orthodox Church, Chapter I)Archimandrite Cyprian, in his scrupulously researched book, Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement, makes the following important points. "[E]cumenism is not simply and solely a 'canonical irregularity,' but bears directly on the ecclesiological foundations of the Most Holy Orthodox Church.The ecumenists, in their attempt to delineate the ecclesiological nature of heterodox communions, have formulated a package of theological notions, whereby they accept the "ecclesiality" of the different Christian bodies; that is, they acknowledge that the heterodox are within the "boundaries" of the Church.We suggest the following short articles as a sort of "primer" regarding this heresy. After reading these we are confident that you will understand why ecumenism is such a threat to the Church. We also urge you to familiarize yourself with traditional Orthodox ecclesiology, about which many articles can be found in the "What Is the Church?" section of the Inquirers page. For without a straight measuring stick, how will you judge the exactness of the line?Of these theological notions, the most important are the following:
i) "Baptismal theology," which maintains that baptism—Orthodox or heterodox—supposedly delimits the Church, establishing the so-called "baptismal boundaries" of the Church, and that, in this way, She includes Orthodox and heterodox, who are held together by the "baptismal unity" of the Church....
ii) The theology of "Sister Churches," according to which Orthodox and Papists are supposedly "sister Churches" in the full sense of that term, despite existing dogmatic differences; indeed, the Orthodox ecumenists are already extending the term "Sister Churches" to other heterodox communions, too….
iii) The theology of the "Broad Church," which talks about "the Church in the broadest sense"; about "the Church of Christ in her totality" and "no longer about Orthodoxy alone"; about a "church outside the Church," 12 "outside the walls," "outside the canonical limits" and "ecclesiastical boundaries" of Orthodoxy….
iv) The theology of "cultural pluralism," which regards the unity of Orthodox and heterodox as a given and existing dogmatic differences as a simple divergency in theological nomenclature for the same faith, corresponding to our individual cultures and complementing one another in a legitimate variety of theological traditions….
v) The theology of "common service," to which we will return in the course of the present critique, acknowledges that there are dead-ends in the "dialogues," that is, an impossibility of union in the same faith; and, in order to overcome these, it proposes a confederational and moral union of the Orthodox and heterodox by way of organization, action, and solidarity for "common service" to the world.
In conclusion: the Orthodox ecumenists deviate from the Truth, not simply because they pray with the heterodox, but because, in praying with them, they express their ecclesiological unity with them, within the "boundaries" of the ecumenical movement and the WCC, but not within the One (and Unique) Orthodox Church…. (pp. 17-23).
- The Price of Ecumenism: How Ecumenism Has Hurt the Orthodox Church, by Fr. John Reeves (Orthodox Church in America)
- The Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement: this article first appeared in the November 1996 edition of "Diocesan News For Clergy and Laity" (Volume 4, Number 11), printed and distributed by the Greek Orthodox Diocese of Denver.
- Bishop Artemije's official report, to the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church (1994)
- Orthodox Unity Today, by Bishop Photii of Triaditza (True [Old Calendar] Orthodox Church of Bulgaria)
Are you saying that it is a heresy for an Orthodox church merely to be a member of the WCC?
Yes, but this needs some clarification. In theory, it is not a heresy simply to be a member of an organization that facilitates communication among various Christian groups. Unfortunately, "mere communication" is not what the World Council of Churches and other similar organizations are about. Their ecclesiological presuppositions, agendas, and ethos are very far removed from the Orthodox faith.
The following is from the article "Ecumenism Marches On...":
The one theme to which we constantly return is that the Orthodox members of the W.C.C. sin very gravely because—apart from other considerations—, in their participation in the organization, their joint prayer, their coöperation, and their co-signing of its pronouncements, they help this confederation in Geneva to cultivate its consciousness as an "Ecumenical Church" and its tendency to project itself as a visible expression of the Una Sancta.In vain do veteran Orthodox ecumenists state emphatically that "the Orthodox will never recognize the W.C.C. as an ecclesiastical body, with the traits of the Una Sancta...."
And we underscore the word "in vain," since none of the foregoing can dissuade us from a purely theological and ecclesiological evaluation of the ecumenical movement (and of the W.C.C.), which genuinely constitutes "a tragic alienation from the actuality of the Church."
The resolute stand of the ever-memorable Father Justin (Popovich) points us in the right direction, and the facts underline the dire necessity and "the duty of Orthodoxy to withdraw from the W.C.C."
We repeat, that the Orthodox ecumenists sin very gravely,
—because the very fact of their participation in a man-made confederation constitutes de facto a withdrawal from an Orthodox ecclesiology and an alteration and corruption of the truth of the Church;—because, by their participation in the W.C.C., they diminish beyond measure the prestige of the One (and Only) Holy Orthodox Church, "accepting like mendicants yearly economic assistance on the part of the Protestant Council of Churches" and finding themselves linked together in various ways as "organic members" of a chain of heterodox communities, "each one of which (is) spiritual death";
—because they contribute irrevocably to the realization of the syncretistic dreams of the W.C.C., on an inter-Christian and inter-religious level, in that it has been admitted that "attempts" are being made, "chiefly by certain Third World theologians[,] to broaden the scope of the W.C.C., by embracing other religions, with the assertion that ‘the term oikoumene suggests the whole inhabited earth, and not only the Christian part of it’";
—because, finally, they fully confirm the accurate contention that the ecumenical movement, as was otherwise expected, has "long since degenerated, and aims towards being a kind of pan-religion."
Isn't our involvement in the ecumenical movement mandated by Christ's High Priestly prayer in St. John 17 that "all may be one"? Doesn’t the Orthodox Church pray "for the union of all" at the Divine Liturgy?
No. The former is talking about the union of the disciples at Pentecost and the latter about the union of the Orthodox churches all throughout the world. Regarding St. John 17, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos writes:
It is true that today there are people who speak of the union of the Churches. But this term is worthless theologically. We cannot speak of union, but of a unity of faith. We cannot speak of Churches which are separated and struggling to reach the truth and union, but about the Church which is always united with Christ and has never lost the truth, and about people who have broken away from it.Some people who speak of union of the Churches use to satiety Christ's archpriestly prayer, which is in the Gospel according to John, and especially the point where Christ asks the Father that the disciples "may be one" and "that they all may be one" (John 17, 20-22). But if anyone reads the whole text attentively, he will discover that Christ is not referring to a union of the Churches which will come about in the future, but to the union of the Disciples which will come about on the day of Pentecost, when they will receive the Holy Spirit. This text speaks of the glorification of the Apostles which took place at Pentecost. Actually, at Pentecost the Apostles became members of the Body of Christ, they saw the glory of God, they reached deification, and so attained unity together in the single Body of Christ. Anyone who experiences Pentecost in his personal life attains this unity. The Apostle Paul, although he was not present with the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, is portrayed by the Church in the icon of Pentecost, because he too reached the vision of Christ and therefore has unity with the other Apostles. (The Mind of the Orthodox Church, Chapter Two)We suggest you read these important comments by Bishop Angelos of Avlona on both prayers. There are also other articles related to this question in the "Union and Unity" section of the References and Terms page.Isn’t our involvement in the WCC and other such organizations a "missionary responsibility"? Hasn't dialogue with those who are of a different faith been in the Church from apostolic times?
Archimandrite Cyprian provides an excellent answer to these questions:
[The position that] "ecumenism is not an entirely new phenomenon," because it has, supposedly, "always been part of the Church's life" ... is generally accepted by the entire spectrum of Orthodox ecumenists, and, indeed, was given collective expression at the so-called Third Pan-Orthodox Pre-Synodal Consultation (Chambesy, Geneva, 1986)....Bishop Angelos of Avlona also writes:a. The confusion here, however, is obvious, when we take into consideration the fundamental truth that the ecumenical movement is not just a question of "dialogues"; it quite simply includes "dialogues" which, conducted as they are in the context of the ecclesiological presuppositions of the ecumenical movement, are totally unacceptable from an Orthodox standpoint.
Let us explain this in more detail.
The Holy Fathers, with purely Orthodox presuppositions, conducted dialogues with the heterodox—certainly not... "in order to achieve Christian unity," or "to achieve their visible unity," or "to give a common witness to the world," but in order to return those outside the Orthodox Church to the "Unity of the Faith." It is dialogues of precisely this kind that have truly always existed "at the epicenter of the pastoral concerns of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church from the very first days of her formation."
On this account, it is inconceivable that the charismatic dialogues of the Saints of the Orthodox Church should be equated with the "dialogues" of the ecumenical movement:
It would undoubtedly be rash to assert that dialogue between the churches today has the same characteristics as it did in times past.... The external features of contemporary inter-church dialogue are completely new, since contemporary reality presents new characteristics in a revolutionary way...[ and]..., consequently, of necessity today's dialogue has not only a different form, but also different theological content.But there is an additional reason why the dialogues of old differ from the "dialogues" of our day:Contemporary ecumenical dialogue, perhaps for the first time in the history of Christianity, is adopting almost the same principles as Greek dialogue, in terms of both method and goals....That is to say, it has adopted the principles of Socratic dialectic and Platonic dialogue; and in this way, contemporary ecumenical "dialogues" are clearly differentiated from the preaching and missionary work of the Fathers, that is, their charismatic, pastoral dialogue....d. It would be fruitless for Orthodox ecumenists to search for even a single example of the participation of the Holy Fathers in some primordial "Local Council of Churches" in their day, within which the contemporary dogmatic and ethical deviations of the WCC and its national, regional, and international branches might have taken place. (Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement, pp. 34-38, 40)
And yet, the dialogues of the Saints of the Orthodox Church, as a charismatic pastoral activity, cannot be juxtaposed in any way whatsoever with the dialogues of the ecumenical movement, since—as a first and principal reason—the ecclesiological presuppositions and foundations of the one and the other are not the same.I remind you of the dogmatic deviations of the different dialogues promoted by Orthodox ecumenists, to which I referred in the second circle, and by way of which they have rejected the notion of heresy, recognized the ecclesiality of the heterodox communities, and placed them within the boundaries of the Church.
Contrarily, the Holy Fathers were fully aware that the Church—as the charismatic Body of Christ—includes only those who believe in and confess Orthodox Truth; only through this Body is participation in the life of the Holy Trinity, that is, deification and salvation, possible (Ecumenism: A Movement for Unity or a Syncretistic Heresy?, p. 43).
Is it wrong to dialogue with non-Orthodox Christians?
It depends on what you mean by "dialogue." If you mean the kind of theological discourse that involves thesis and antithesis leading to synthesis—i.e., compromise—, yes. As Metropolitan Philaret commented in his third "Sorrowful Epistle,"
A true dialogue implies an exchange of views with a possibility of persuading the participants to attain an agreement.... The Tradition of the Church and the example of the Holy Fathers teach us that the Church holds no dialogue with those who have separated themselves from Orthodoxy. Rather than that, the Church addresses to them a monologue inviting them to return to its fold through rejection of any dissenting doctrines.Dialogue, frequent contact, and liturgical hobnobbing with heterodox Christians are not only unfruitful but also spiritually dangerous. Dr. Constantine Cavarnos writes:The question arises: Why such a strenuous opposition to participation [in ecumenical dialogue]? A major part of the answer is briefly this: participation involved repeated "dialogues" with the heterodox, especially with Roman Catholic prelates; and history has taught the Orthodox, especially the Greeks, that such dialogues end for the Orthodox disastrously. (p. 44)Those Orthodox who know well the history of their Church and the origin and evolution of the other forms of Christianity, and it diachronic relations with them, are quite aware of the great dangers in which Orthodox hierarchs involve the Church when they engage in "Ecumenical dialogues." (p. 45)
Further, so far as dialogues with various Protestant denominations are concerned, history teaches us that they are destined to failure. The Orthodox Church has had many contacts with the Protestants through the centuries. But these have not resulted in Protestant denominations becoming Orthodox. The chances of success of dialogues with Protestant denominations were small in the past; today they appear to be nil. Conversion is a matter of individual spiritual maturation and choice, not a product of Ecumenical dialogues. (p. 46)
A very important fact to be noted . . . is that exposure again and again through dialogues to this minimalistic, relativistic mentality [of typical modern dialogue] has a blunting effect on the Orthodox phronema or mindset. One becomes infected by the virus—or venom (ois) as the Orthodox Church Fathers call it—of heresy. (p. 47-48)
The reason why St. Paul and the other holy men whom I have mentioned advise avoiding repeated religious dialogues with the heterodox is clearly the danger of being infected spiritually by heretical ideas—it is not to teach hatred towards the heterodox. Such ideas are compared to poison, the venom of snakes, causing spiritual death. (p. 52).
Isn't ecumenism waning since the Georgian, Bulgarian, and Russian Orthodox Churches have pulled back to varying degrees?
No. There is no indication that ecumenism is waning. One of the most recent Orthodox ecumenical communiqués, the Thessaloniki Statement (May 1998), stated the following:
6. The participants are unanimous in their understanding of the necessity for continuing their participation in various forms of inter-Orthodox activity.7. We have no right to withdraw from the mission laid upon us by our Lord Jesus Christ, the mission of witnessing the Truth before the non-Orthodox world. We must not interrupt relations with Christians of other confessions who are prepared to work together with us.Despite the strong stance that various Orthodox member churches have recently taken on a number of issues—even to the point of the Russian Orthodox Church restricting its delegation to partial participation at the Eighth Assembly of the WCC in Harare, Zimbabwe (December, 1998)—, none of these issues have anything to do with the core ecclesiological ones that have wrought numerous internal divisions within Holy Orthodoxy. Orthodox ecumenists protest about inclusive language, homosexual agendas, and poor structure in the WCC that limits their voting power; but they offer not a word about the underlying ecclesiological assumptions that have been so much a part of the ecumenical movement from its beginning, and which the Orthodox ecumenists have clearly embraced.Also noteworthy are the following comments by Peter Bouteneff, the Assistant Secretary of the Faith and Order Commission of the WCC, in his report on the Eighth Assembly in Harare:
The character of Orthodox participation at Harare testified to what was a markedly uneven reception of the Thessaloniki Statement. The closing recommendations of that document, which suggested that delegates participate in a reduced way at Harare (for example by not attending worship services), were an attempt at voicing Orthodox dissatisfaction with the WCC in a united, pan-Orthodox way. What happened in fact was that a handful of churches chose to obey the recommendations more-or-less to the letter, while the rest felt that the most constructive means of effecting the desired changes in the WCC was to participate more fully, particularly in view of the fact that the WCC itself had been signaling a willingness to act on Orthodox concerns as never before. Add to this picture that the "Oriental" or "Non-Chalcedonian" Orthodox churches had not been invited to the Thessaloniki meeting, with the result that these churches, while sympathetic to the ideas of the Statement, did not feel particularly bound by the recommendations.Even the withdrawal of the Georgian and Bulgarian Orthodox churches from the WCC were motivated by political concerns and had little if anything to do with a return to Holy Tradition.The result of the mixed approaches to Thessaloniki was that the Orthodox boycott of ecumenical worship services was only partial, and a sizeable proportion of Orthodox participants (indeed, often the ones with the most visible headgear) were present at the major worship services. Orthodox absence from worship as, for that matter, from the voting procedure, went largely unnoticed by the assembly, or was ascribed to apathy.
For further reading:
- Commentary from Greece on the Departure of the Georgian Church from the WCC: an insightful article that helps put the events in a proper perspective.
- Letter to Bishop Photii Concerning the Withdrawal of the "Official" Bulgarian Orthodox Church from the WCC, by Archbishop Chrysostomos. Contains public statement of the BOC's decision to withdraw.
What would have to happen in order for Orthodox opposed to ecumenism to agree that the controversy is coming to an end?
This is an excellent question. We consider the following to the signs of such a momentous occurrence:
- Orthodox member churches of the WCC pull out and issue an official statement denouncing the ecumenistic heresy and reaffirming traditional Orthodox ecclesiology. This would include a renunciation of numerous heretical documents, perhaps the most notorious being the Balamand Agreement, and a reaffirmation of the Anathema of 1054 uncanonically overturned by Patriarch Athenagoras in 1964.
- Orthodox churches on the so-called "New" Calendar return to the Church Calendar, again with official statements affirming the traditional Calendar and all Canonical decrees concerning it. This would include a condemnation of the current move within some Orthodox circles to fix a common date for Pascha (Easter) in 2001.
Bishop Angelos shares some comments related to this question in his book:
- A Pan-Orthodox Synod convenes to restore union with the "official" churches of "world Orthodoxy" and those churches that have been in resistance against this heresy, walled off from the ailing Mother Churches. Orthodox who have illicitly participated in the ecumenical movement must be called to renounce their errors and repent. If they do not do so they should be deposed and/or excommunicated.
For this reason, we direct an appeal to our brothers, the ecumenists, to reverse their course.So many and such unforgivable mistakes have been perpetrated on the part of those in the ecumenical movement, that the latter has proved to be the number one danger for Orthodoxy today.
The Most Holy local Orthodox Churches have, to be sure, the ability and the duty to make a unique contribution to the unity of divided Christians and of the entire world, but exclusively and solely on the basis of purely Orthodox presuppositions.
For this reason, far from the unhealthy spirit of fundamentalism, that is, far from all self-absorbed introversion, arrogant triumphalism, and confessional fanaticism, they ought, in a spirit of gentle and humble love,
—to withdraw from the WCC and break off all relations with the ecumenical movement;
—to cultivate pan-Orthodox unity to the highest degree possible;
—to rekindle Eucharistic life and the concord of faith, for hereby "the powers of Satan are destroyed" and "his mischief is brought to naught," according to the Holy Hieromartyr Ignatios of Antioch;
—to promote vigorously the inestimable Hesychastic, liturgical, and theological wealth of Patristic Tradition;
—to intervene collectively in the social realm as living bearers of the message of the "New Creation";
—to develop in love and humility all of the invaluable gifts of charismatic Orthodoxy, as a sober and responsible missionary offering and invitation to the contemporary world.
For only the Christ of Truth; only the Christ of the Church; only the Christ of the Mysteries; only the Christ of Holiness is the Hope of the world, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega, the New Creation! (Ecumenism: A Movement for Unity or a Syncretistic Heresy?, pp. 61-64)
Why are some Orthodox churches not in communion with other Orthodox churches?
Holy Tradition makes provisions for its members to "wall themselves off" from heretical Clergy and to administratively reorganize in a time of crisis. The "walling off" is expressed in the sundering of eucharistic communion and the removal of the compromised Hierarch’s name from the diptychs (the list of commemorations at the Divine Liturgy). These two events signify that those who are "walled off" no longer consider their former Hierarch to be of an Orthodox mind and heart in matters of the faith—a oneness required for full communion.
We hasten to add that communion in Christ still exists as the two parties abide in the one Body of Christ due to Holy Baptism. Their Mysteries still have Divine Grace—although if they persist in their heresy and innovation for an indeterminable period are in danger of losing it—; and for pastoral reasons, laypeople who are in communion with the erring Hierarchs are even communed by oikonomia on rare occasions.
In short, this "walling off" constitutes an internal division and is not the same as schism. Using the medical model of the Church as a hospital for sinners, "walling off" is akin to "quarantining." Metropolitan Cyprian summarizes the implications of the Patristic stance of resistance for his faithful in Greece as follows:
In conclusion, I will attempt to put forth the following principles, which are a condensation of my brief account of the sure ecclesiological boundaries of anti-ecumenism:For further reading:The anti-innovationist plenitude of the Orthodox Church in resistance, as a specific ecclesiastical community that has walled itself off,
—does not constitute the Church;
—is not an administrative substitute for the innovating Church;
—does not function as a jurisdiction parallel to that of the New Calendar Church;
—and does not present itself as a second Orthodox Church in Greece.
It is, however, profoundly aware that
—it is within the boundaries of the Church;
—that it constitutes the "healthy part" of the Church;
—and that it continues the history of the anti-innovationist Church of Patristic Tradition, which is Orthodoxy in its genuine sense, always having in mind the prospect of a general unifying Synod (The Heresy of Ecumenism and the Patristic Stand of the Orthodox).
- Articles in the first section of the web page devoted to the Patristic stance against ecumenism. See especially Chapter 3 of The Heresy of Ecumenism and the Patristic Stand of the Orthodox. The author deals directly with the question of the difference between "internal division" and "schism."
- On Divisions Among Old Calendarists, an excerpt from Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement.
Why should the layman concern himself with these matters? Is this not for the Clergy to sort out?
No. The preservation of the faith is the responsibility of all Orthodox Christians, according to their means and abilities—"...because the protector of religion is the very body of the Church, even the people themselves..." (Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848).
We also remind our Orthodox brothers and sisters that it is a "fundamental ecclesiological truth that all members of the Church, in a certain way, constitute a continuous Synod of the People of God—since "'Church' is the name of an assembly or synod," according to St. John Chrysostomos, which "is the champion of the Faith," guards "the Faith which was once delivered," and has the right and the duty to judge synodal decisions." Furthermore, we recall "the teaching of St. Basil the Great, that 'the administration of the Churches is carried on by those to whom the chief offices in them have been entrusted, but their hands are strengthened by the laity.'" (The last two citations are from Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement, by Archimandrite Cyprian, p. 50)
For further reading:
Why is there such a debate over the Church Calendar? Is the "New Calendar" a heresy, as some say?
There are two reasons for the controversy over this seemingly trivial issue. First, quite simply this is not a trivial issue. The calendar change is not resisted because we "worship time" or consider the Julian calendar to be a matter of dogma, but rather because the liturgical unity of the Church has always been considered very important. In fact, this was one of the key reasons why the First Oecumenical Synod was convened. Second, the adoption of the Papal (Gregorian) Calendar by some of the Orthodox churches was undertaken in a completely uncanonical manner and with the goals of the ecumenical movement in mind. This is the main reason why the calendar change has been so opposed: it is merely the tip of the ecumenism iceberg. Let us explain further.
In the charter document for Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement, the infamous Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920, the very first item in the list of suggestions for bringing about unity among the "churches of Christ everywhere" is "the acceptance of a uniform calendar for the celebration of the great Christian feasts at the same time by all the churches." Additionally,
[In] The Acts and Decisions of the Pan–Orthodox Congress in Constantinople (May 10–June 8, 1923), under Patriarch Meletios (1935), which occupied itself with a variety of topics, "...the calendar was at the forefront." The participants in the Congress were preoccupied with this topic, conscious that they were "members of a pan-Christian brotherhood" and convinced that "the time had come for the reconciliation of Christians at least on this point" (viz., the common celebration of Pascha), and they especially emphasized the necessity of "the simultaneous celebration of the major Christian feasts of Christmas and Pascha by all Christians," since through this (con)celebration "the rapprochement of the two Christian worlds of the East and the West" could be accomplished (Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement, p. 62).For further reading:
- The Traditional Calendar of the Orthodox Church: Observations About its Meaning, by Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff.
- Other articles on the "Church Calendar" subpage.
Does an anti-ecumenism stance imply a lack of concern for Christian unity?
No. In fact, you may be surprised to learn that we associate such an implication with ecumenism itself! Let us explain. Christian Unity is best summed up by St. Paul's dictum, "one Lord, one faith, one Baptism" (Eph. 4:5). The Church has always understood this to mean that the common Orthodox Baptism in the one Lord—Who is the Head of His Body, the Church (Eph. 1:22-23)—brings about an organic unity that is preserved by fidelity to the "one faith," to wit: the Holy Orthodox Faith preserved unadulterated only within the Orthodox Church. Divisions arise when foreign elements—i.e., bacteria of un-Orthodox belief or practice—are introduced into the Body causing the Church's "immune system"—i.e., Her right-believing faithful, both clergy and laity—to rise up against these elements. This can involve minor protests on a local level all the way up to "oecumenical controversies" like we have today.
With this in mind, we offer these further remarks. The following question was posed to the editor of Orthodox Tradition: "You are constantly decrying the ecumenical activities of the Orthodox Patriarchates, all the national Churches, and American Orthodoxy. This spirit will lead to division. You know so much about the Faith. Why not just instruct?" Here is his answer:
There is only one thing which divides Christians: deviation from Holy Tradition, or that which has been believed at all times and in all places by the Faithful. Today, almost all of the Orthodox Churches have fallen to the pan-heresy of ecumenism, which denies the primacy of Orthodoxy. This deviation from the fundamental principle of our Faith, that it alone preserves the fullness of the Apostolic Church, accounts for the divisions among us. And just as it has divided us by compromising the Church’s traditions—beginning with the calendar innovation—, so a rejection of the pan-heresy of ecumenism and a return to the Church’s traditions will once again unite us.This is why Canon XV of the First-Second Synod, presided over by St. Photios the Great, contains the following remark concerning those who resist innovation and heresy: "...and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions." In other words, if the Body's "immune system" did not expel the bacteria of wrong belief in an effort to remain faithful to Christ and to restore the "oneness of mind, brotherly love, and piety" that Orthodox pray for in their worship services, the result would eventually be a true schism from the Church, not only on the part of those who introduced the bacteria, but also with respect to those who were subsequently infected by their mischief, either wittingly or unwittingly following them in their error.If we have any instruction to offer, it must always rest on an understanding that no lesson, no bit of knowledge about the Church, can be significant unless it first counsels the believer consciously to embrace the Orthodox Church as the True Church and her Holy Tradition as inspired and divinely established, whether that Holy Tradition be expressed in the basic dogma of Orthodox ecclesiastical primacy or something so seemingly insignificant as how we Cross ourselves. If by stating the truth we seem to divide, this is only because those who have deviated from or revile the truth are already separated from the spirit of Orthodoxy. (Orthodox Tradition, Vol. IX, No. 4, p. 11)
In the name of pan-Christian unity, the Orthodox ecumenists have carved up the seamless robe of Christ, beginning with the uncanonical thrusting of the "New" Calendar upon the Church:
The Ecumenists promise unity and union. However, they divide the Orthodox.In sum, true Christian unity must begin in the one true Church. Orthodox ecumenists hypocritically pursue "oecumenical unity" at the expense of unity in the Church. This is a wholly misguided and self-defeating endeavor.Since year 1923, Ecumenism has rent asunder the Orthodox Church with the calendar innovation. The New Calendar innovation was officially made part of their program by the Ecumenists at an earlier date. In the Ecumenistic Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920, the adoption of "a uniform calendar for the simultaneous celebration of the great Christian Feasts by all of the Churches," that is, by the Orthodox and heretical churches alike, was proffered as the first measure to be undertaken in the Ecumenical apostasy of the Orthodox. This heretical proposal tells us that the Ecumenists were seeking a uniform calendar for the sake of a common festal schedule and the illicit concelebration of these Feasts; for it is a command of God that the Orthodox "must not concelebrate" with the heretics, according to the Thirty-Seventh Canon of the Council of Laodicaea. Nonetheless, the Ecumenists do not respect the law of God. Thus, in 1923 an Ecumenistic council was convened in Constantinople, under the guidance of the well-known apostate Meletios Metaxakis, which was called a "Pan-Orthodox Congress." It was not, however a pan-Orthodox Council, since many Orthodox were absent from it—the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch, for example.
This false council, working together with the heretical Anglicans in a way befitting the love of heresy, settled upon the revision of the calendar and the Paschalion. As one would naturally expect, not a single Orthodox Church accepted this iniquitous proposal, since the Orthodox, in keeping with the First Canon of the Council of Antioch, dismiss anything at all that would transgress the decree of the First Oecumenical Synod regarding Pascha. Despite this, the Ecumenists agitated widely within the Orthodox Churches for the adoption of the evils upon which it had decided. But these Churches did not dare to touch the Paschalion. However, a number of Churches revised the calendar, with regard to the immovable Feasts. This happened also in the Church of Greece, which accepted this Ecumenist innovation in 1924.
Thus it is that the Ecumenists divided the Orthodox Church. The innovators removed themselves from the traditional Festal Calendar of the Orthodox Church. They were separated from the Holy Fathers and were cut off, with regard to the immovable Feasts, from the non-innovating Orthodox, to this day. The evil product of Ecumenism is the existence today of two calendars and two festal systems in the Orthodox Church. Thus we celebrate two Annunciations, two Nativities, two Elevations of the Holy Cross, and two commemorations of almost every other Orthodox Saint. Despite this, the Ecumenists did not come to their senses. Rather, they became even more audacious. In 1964 they in theory divided Orthodoxy. They promulgated the anti-ecclesiastical falsehood that each local Orthodox Church could on its own cultivate fraternal relations with heretics "in the name of the whole Orthodox Church." This is evidence not only that the division of the Orthodox from one another is an aspiration of the Ecumenists, but that their confessional mind-set is wrong. The Orthodox believe in "One" Orthodox Church. The Ecumenists believe in many heretical "churches" and in a single panheresy, that is, Ecumenism.
The hapless Ecumenists do not work for Orthodoxy, but for their panheresy. They thus dismember the Orthodox Church and carve up the Orthodox. And for what possible purpose? In order more easily to subjugate the Orthodox to Ecumenism! (Panheresy of Ecumenism, trans. A.C., 1995, pp. 24-25).
For further reading:
- Orthodox Unity Today, by Bishop Photii of Triaditza
Does an anti-ecumenism stance imply a lack of concern for missions and evangelism?
No. In fact, you may be surprised to learn that we associate such an implication with ecumenism. The diplomacy of the ecumenical movement has dictated that "churches of every faith all over the world" cease trying to convert others to their beliefs. Such "proselytism" is considered unloving, especially seeing as "we are all members of the Body of Christ by Baptism." Thus, outreach to heterodox Christians has been abandoned! Only the anti-ecumenical Orthodox churches—still believing that dogmatic boundaries mean something, such that, as St. Irenaeus of Lyons once said, "all who are outside the Truth (sunt extra veritatem) are outside the Church (sunt extra Ecclesiam)"—still make efforts to convert the heterodox and bring them into the Church.
But don't take our word for it. Consider the following excerpts from official ecumenical documents either drafted or favorably cited by Orthodox ecumenists:
First, we consider as necessary and indispensable the removal and abolition of all the mutual mistrust and bitterness between the different churches which arise from the tendency of some of them to entice and proselytize adherents of other confessions. For nobody ignores what is unfortunately happening today in many places, disturbing the internal peace of the churches, especially in the Exist. So many troubles and sufferings are caused by other Christians and great hatred and enemity are aroused, with such insignificant results, by this tendency of some to proselytize and entice the followers of other Christian confessions. (The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920)Archimandrite Cyprian comments on this passage:Furthermore, at the foundations of the ecumenical movement lies the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920, which proposed, in an unheard-of manner—as it has been very correctly observed—, something "without precedent in Church history," since it posits as a basis for today's dialogues" 1) Baptismal theology; 2) dogmatic syncretism; and 3) a worldly perspective.The following is from the Toronto Statement:On this threefold basis, the Church no longer appears to have a missionary orientation to the heterodox, so as to return them to the charismatic "Unity of the Faith," but is to retreat into, and to accept organic membership in, a panheretical organization (both in the WCC and, more broadly, in the "ecumenical brotherhood"), within which She unexpectedly acquires a new ecclesiological self–awareness: the dogmatic differences between Orthodoxy and heterodoxy become legitimate expressions of the same faith. Orthodoxy and heterodoxy come to have a common baptism and are both inside the boundaries of the Church. Orthodoxy and heterodoxy have become "Sister Churches." Orthodox and heterodox can offer a common witness and can, likewise, serve modern man together, for the salvation of the world…. (Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement, pp. 36-37)
7) A further practical implication of common membership in the World Council is that the member Churches should recognize their solidarity with each other, render assistance to each other in case of need, and refrain from such actions as are incompatible with brotherly relationships.Within the Council the Churches seek to deal with each other with a brotherly concern. This does not exclude extremely frank speaking to each other, in which within the Council the Churches ask each other searching questions and face their differences. But this is to be done for the building up the Body of Christ. This excludes a purely negative attitude of one Church to another. The positive affirmation of each Church's faith is to be welcomed, but actions incompatible with brotherly relationships towards other member Churches defeat the very purpose for which the Council has been created. On the contrary, these Churches should help each other in removing all obstacles to the free exercise of the Church's normal functions. And whenever a Church is in need or under persecution, it should be able to count on the help of the other Churches through the Council.The World Council of Churches Vision Statement states:To be a member means understanding the mission of the church as a joint responsibility shared with others, rather than engaging in missionary or evangelistic activities in isolation from each other, much less in competition with or proselytism of other Christian believers. (CUV, 3.7.7)For further reading:Are the Orthodox who oppose ecumenism rightly called "fundamentalists"? I often hear other Orthodox Christians use this term when speaking of them.
While there may be some traditionalist Orthodox who could rightly be called "fundamentalists"—and we do not know of any—, you may be surprised to learn that we associate such an implication with ecumenists!
The term "fundamentalist" implies something that is antithetical to the Gestalt of Orthodoxy: a reduction of the entirety of Holy Tradition to the "dogmatic essentials." This "dogmatic minimalism" has been a part of the ecumenical movement since the beginning:
In the year 1888, the would-be bishops of the heretical Anglicans gathered in the "Lambeth Conference." In this infamous "Conference," they examined the issue of Ecumenical union and adopted the so-called "Four-Point Statement." This was called a "four-point" statement because it established four basic points of incorrect belief as the essential prerequisites of false Ecumenical union: 1) Holy Scripture—as the heretics have received it, but not according to Holy Tradition; 2) the so-called Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed—as the heretics reckon them, but not as they are understood by the Ecumenical Synods; 3) the two Mysteries [or sacraments] of Baptism and the Lord's Supper—as the heterodox accept them, and not the other Mysteries; 4) the acceptance of various bodies of heretical bishops—according to the demands of each nation and people! But even these few things the Ecumenists acknowledge only in name and superficially; for as heretics, they deny the truth, as shall become subsequently obvious.Orthodoxy is Christianity's maximum. It is the only truly "catholic" (Gr., kat' holikos, "according to the whole") expression of Christianity. Holy Tradition cannot be divided up or reduced to its "essential truths" that can then be used to achieve some "basic unity of faith." No, all of the truths are interrelated; and to pull out one thread in the tapestry of Truth will eventually lead to an unraveling of the entire cloth. The traditionalist Orthodox Christians, preserving the entirety of Holy Tradition in their resistance to the innovations and heresies associated with modernism and ecumenism, are the very opposite of "fundamentalists." In other words, fundamentalism is inherently anti-catholic; and the traditionalists are the only truly catholic Christians.The Ecumenists understand their four points in light of the following three principles of unbelief: 1) dogmatic minimalism; 2) inclusiveness; and 3) the branch theory. What do these three new principles of incorrect belief mean? The profanity which is called dogmatic minimalism calls for a unity of faith based on the barest of Christian dogmas, that is, the barest of truth. This, however, is not faith, but a lack thereof. Because if one is unfaithful "in one point, he is guilty of all" infidelity (St. James 2:10).
But there is yet another connotation associated with fundamentalism: a failure to adhere to the Synodal means of decision making, choosing instead the practice of officially representing, and forcing agendas upon, the Church without the consent of the faithful. Archimandrite Cyprian notes:
Aside from the inadmissibility of this participation, on the basis of clear theological and ecclesiological considerations, this primary criticism has been passed over in a completely anti-Orthodox manner, for the following two basic reasons:He then continues with a complete list of similar infractions, concluding with:First: this participation was not the product of a joint decision:
The Encyclical of 1920 did not represent even the Church of Constantinople ( the "laboratory" work of the professors in Halki is well-known, as is also the "basis" of academic ecumenism); ...
The question raised by this is reasonable: If the so-called Great Synod is ever convened, will it, we wonder, decide in a pan-Orthodox manner on the permissibility and the possibility of participation in the ecumenical movement and the WCC? Or will it approve the two texts in question, which the bureaucrats of Geneva have [already] prepared? Or, finally, will it authorize Orthodox participation—de facto, since 1920, and in contempt of the consensus Ecclesiae of all ages—in the ecumenical movement ( and further, in the interfaith movement ) as something good?For further reading:Secondly, participation in the ecumenical movement and the WCC alike was initiated with the complete ignorance of the charismatic Body of the Church: the pious People of God and, particularly, the monastics; the academic technocrats and bureaucrats of Geneva initiated, and continue to devote themselves to, matters of ecumenism, thereby provoking unprecedented ecclesiological confusion.
Pious anti-ecumenists from the entire spectrum are not only systematically ignored, are not only kept uninformed, but are unfortunately very rudely insulted, characterized at times as "militant fundamentalists," as "representatives of myopic provincialism, or even worse, of neo-Protestant Caesaropapist politicism and para-ecclesiastical neo-pietism," and finally as "people who are literally totally irrelevant, ignorant" and "irresponsible."
The Orthodox ecumenists know very well that the "anti-ecumenical spirit" which is manifesting itself "in the bosom of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches" is not belated, but was expressed "initially after 1920," and precisely because it has been ignored, a picture of "division and theological schizophrenia" has been formed among the Orthodox.
The truly ecclesiological tragedy of Orthodoxy, because of inattention to the necessity for catholic approval and acceptance of ecumenism by the totality of the Church, the consensus fidelium, in spite of the profound notions of conciliarity found in the Orthodox Church, can be more deeply understood when one reflects on the opposite practice of the Vatican ( if we can be allowed this comparison), which, although it is constantly (and justly) attacked for being authoritarian and Papocentric, acts in this regard in a more Orthodox manner than the Orthodox ecumenists. (Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement, pp. 45, 47-49).
- Orthodoxy and Fundamentalism: The Fundamentalism of the Orthodox Ecumenists, by Archimandrite Cyprian Agiokyprianites
- The articles concerning modernism on the Ecumenism Awareness main page.
We hope this FAQ has helped answer the most commonly asked questions and properly orient you towards the problem of ecumenism. Although this FAQ is not designed to answer all of your questions, if you think that we have left out one that is significant enough to include here, please write the webmaster and we will give it every consideration. Thank you!
Caedmon Parsons
both the other participants on the thread and the readers. But the
regular recurrence of this thread disgusts me because it justifies all
those Protestant criticisms about "Making the word of God of none
effect through your tradition,"
The word of God, our Tradition, one of those traditions which we have
been taught by St. Paul's epistles, (2Th 2:15 ) forbids us to judge
our brethren even if they do not view celebrate *any* day as holy day!
(Rom 14) IOW, the Apostle Paul, the Apostolic Tradition, forbids us to
judge an Orthodox Christian who doesn't even celebrate Nativity.
Compared to that debates about when to celebrate Nativity are
ridiculous.
The Church gives us the Typikon and Menaion with their sanctification
of time, the cycle of feasts and fasts, etc. as tools for our
salvation. And a Christian who ignores this tool is like a carpenter
who says "No, I don't want that hammer, this round rock will do me."
But that is nothing compared to today when we criticize each other's
choice of hammers. In doing so, we do not merely deprive ourselves of
a tool, we actively seperate ourselves from the Tradition, "making the
word of God of no effect" so we can judge our brethren.
And if we are forbidden to judge our brethren on these matters, how
much more so our fathers, the bishops, ordained by God to administer
the Church? They have decided. Some have decided to keep the Old
Calendar, some have decided to adapt the Menaion to the secular
calendar. So why do we keep debating it?
"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he
standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to
make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another
esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own
mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he
that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that
eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that
eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none
of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we
live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord:
whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end
Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of
the dead and living. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost
thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the
judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the
Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to
God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this
rather, THAT NO MAN PUT A STUMBLINGBLOCK OR AN OCCASION TO FALL IN HIS
BROTHER'S WAY."
Troyen
>
>
>>It is strange to me how you can blame an Old Calendarist for doing something
>in
>>the same way as is forefathers, but is now a schismatic.
>
>Are the Old Believers schismatic for doing "something in the same way
>as their forefathers"? After the bishops of Nicea decided that Pascha
>had to be celebrated on Sunday were the Quatrodecimians considered
>schismatic (even heretical) for "doing something in the same way as
>their forefathers (indeed following a tradition received from St. John
>the Apostle)?
>
and adopted the Papal Calendar? Which one? What did I miss about modern
history? You mistake the whims of a Bishop in an Old City as that of an
Ecumenical Council for the sake of your own arguement.
>You keep missing the point. The point is not whether Quatrodecimians,
>Old Believers or Old Calendrists are continuing to do what their
>forefathers did. The point is what is the authority of the bishops in
>the Church, and are people justified in rebelling against those
>bishops and cutting themselves off from the Church if they don't like
>what the bishops decide on a matter that is not part of the Apostolic
>Faith (i.e., anything that is not an issue of heresy)?
What is heresy now? Who are all of these Bishops from all over the world who
have made the decision to change the Church Calendar? What Council or Sobor
was held? Please tell me.
>
>> From 1922-1924 how
>>many thousands of Greeks became schismatics, cut away from the Orthodox
>Church?
>> At some point they were no longer Orthodox, but schismatic, so what did
>these
>>schismatics start doing differently? Aside from continuing to use the same
>>Calendar.
>
>Change the date to 318 to 350 and that sentence would apply just as
>well to the Quatrodecimians--what did the Second Ecumenical Council
>say about them?
No, you do not change the date unless you can present me with an Ecumenical
Council of the magnitude of that which occured between 318 and 350. That being
said I will lower the standard and say present to me the Council or Sobor of
Bishops that has made this destructive decision.
>
>>What about those monks on Athos? Schismatics also or do they have
>>special permission to use the schismatic calendar, but not be schismatic?
>
>Again, you are ignoring the point. The calendar is not schismatic.
>What is schismatic is obedience to or rebellion against the bishops.
WHAT BISHOPS? Who is ignoring what here? I am ignorant, but i am not
ignoring!
>>
>>I could care less about the rational justifications you have for a calendar
>>change. I do care about hurting people along the way. You know, defrocking
>>them, shaving their beards, arresting them, beating them, killing them.
These are minor problems that occur when a Calendar becomes schismatic.
>
>No, they occur when the civil government abuses its position.
That is another line of slick Willie BS and you know it Caedmon. The State
Church called the shots on the take-over of land and eventually the government
began to be apalled at the actions of the State Church of Greece.
>>It happened when Patriarch Nikon made liturgical changes and the Tsars
>imposed that decision in a sinful manner. It happened in the Possesor,
>Non-Possessor controversy when the Tsars took sides and oppressed the
>losing side (but in that case, the non-possessors acted like Orthodox
>Christians and did not leave the Church). It happened after Chalcedon
>when the Constantinoplean Emperor used force to impose the decision on
>Egyptian (Coptic) believers who were rejecting the council and bishops
>which accepted it.
>
>The sins of the Greek government in the 1920s are as irrelevant to the
>issue of what calendar any Church uses as the sins of the Russian
>government are irrelevant to how many fingers you use to cross
>yourself.
>>
>
>In Him,
>the sinner Caedmon
>
>
>
Yeah, and the State Church Hierarchs had nothing to do with the persecutions?
Say it slowly so I can pin you down on such an atrocious statement.
You are stuck on St. Seraphim and the Spirit of Peace. What has the Calendar
change and the ensuing Ecumenical Council brought the Church?
Why didn't the great and obedient New Calendarists send a great and obedient
representative who had attained the said such Spirit and then 1,000 around
would have been saved right? Are you so blind as to the fruit produced in the
20th Century? Look around.
sinner, troyen
Troyen
Now, could the New Calendar not have been a small stumbling block to some
people especially as their Churches were annexed and their beards torn off?
Of course that is neither here nor there. I of course celebrate the New
Calendar out of obedience and lack of choice. I also am distressed the more I
learn about discrepencies caused in the Calendar of which you are well aware.
That the Church was hoodwinked into the Calendar change is a forgone
conclusion.
I think it odd that you would tell me that a Council of Russian Bishops were
going to do anything predictable, especially something as huge as changing the
Calendar.
sinner, troyen
Troyen
and I begin to make sense.
sinner, troyen
H. Paul Jacobson
First I see one post that is 47K long.
The next 71K and
then the one I'm responding to 127K.
What kind of attachments does thing have?
Paul
gr...@showmeno.missourispam.edu
> Primarily because you are thinking in terms of subordination rather
> than in the Orthodox terms of synergy/symphony: "Render unto Caesar
> what is Caesar's; unto God what is God's".
>
> Civil governments establish basic standards of measurement. It has
> been one of their most basic roles running all the way back to the
> first city-states of Mesopatamia. Once the civil government has
> decided on a calendar (i.e., a way to figure *when* Jan. 1 is), then
> the Church comes in and sanctifies that calendar with a menaion (i.e.,
> Jan 1 is the feast-day of the Circumcision of our Lord and of St.
> Basil the Great). One of the inaccuricies which fuels this discussion
> is that the Church *never* had a calendar (old or new); it had a
> menaion which it then associated with the local calendar.
This explanation works for the Christianized Roman Empire quite well.
Still, the Julian calendar was used by the Church for determining the
feasts according to the menologion beyond the boundaries of the Roman
Empire. And it fails to account for the fact that the calendar that
expressed the menologion for the first fifteen centuries after Nicaea
throughout the Orthodox Church came to be so closely associated with the
Orthodox Paschalion that our liturgical structure and even our hymnography
to a great extent relied on this interaction. Should Orthodox living in
lands where the civil authorities were Roman Catholic have changed to the
western paschalion? Should the (very large) Greek colony in Venice have
conducted its services according to the Gregorian calendar in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in order to "render unto Caeaar"
appropriate honor in this matter? Was their Orthodoxy "distorted" (to use
Fr John Morris's term) because they did not? Surely the civil authorities
at that time were clear about when January 1 occurred, and yet all the
Eastern Patriarchs saw fit to denounce unanimously the Gregorian calendar
on several occasions. Should the Greek Orthodox of Vienna and other
Italian cities have ignored the Patriarchs' unanimous condemnation of the
new reckoning and proceeded to change over to it?
While it is true that we must be obedient to the civil authorities in many
matters, that argument, fortified by relevant quotations from the holy
scriptures, can only go so far. In Islam, the holy day of the week is
Friday; for us, the Lord's Day is Sunday. Would it have been appropriate
to adjust the services of the Parakletike and the Octoechos by two days in
order to accomodate the reckoning of the civil authorities? I think that
we can agree that it would not have been. If we will not adjust the
weekly cycle in order to be in harmony with the surrounding society, what
obliges us to change the monthly cycle for the same purpose? I think the
confusion arises from the fact that we use the same terms "January" and
"1" to describe different days. If this country were ruled by the
Jacobins who overthrew the monarchy in France, then the names of the
months and their days would have been changed. Using your argument that
we must render unto Caesar the things that are his by changing the
reckoning of the Church's menologion, we would wind up with Church books
that had services for the first of Brumaire and so on. The argument that
the Church sometimes makes accomodations to the civil authority cannot be
refuted. The argument that the Church *must* make those accomodations
under all manner of circumstances is absurd. The question is whether the
change of the menologion reckoning apart from a corresponding change in
the Paschalion is a good one or a bad one is where the issue lies.
> Question: When you measure something, even something inside the temple
> do you use a standard yardstick/ruler/tape measure marked in feet &
> inches (or the metric system) or do you have a special yardstick for
> the measurement of cubits (the form of linear measurement sanctified
> by Scripture and the Fathers)? When you go on a pilgrimage, do you
> calculate the distance to your destination in miles (or km) or in
> stadia?
Clearly this question answers itself, but I submit that it is irrelevant
to this discussion. And I have one for you. Since we use feet and inches
in this country instead of cubits, and dollars and cents instead of
shekels and talents, would it be appropriate to rewrite the passages in
the Bible that mention these things in the old units and convert them over
to contemporary units approved by the civil authorities? (The parable of
the five dollars...or francs...or euros...) Why keep these archaic units
in our liturgical life and read from the scripture using them when our
civil authorities have given us newer ones to supercede them?
> The second reason is indeed a distortion in that the Turks organized
> their rule by millets--with the Patriarch of Constantinople the leader
> of the "Greek"/"Orthodox" millet. As such, the EP took on certain
> aspects of civil government for the Orthodox under Turkish rule--not
> because it is our Tradition, but because it was the Turk's
> practice--and in its function as civil governor, the EP continued the
> use of the state calendar it had inherited from Roman
> Empire--including not only the Julian Calendar but the measurement of
> years in Indictions, etc. The movement to the "New Calendar" in the
> 20th century among the Churches in Islamic lands was as much a
> movement back to their true role, as Church, and away from their role
> as civic administration, as it was anything else.
Again, I ask if the Orthodoxy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate during that
period was "distorted" (again, Fr John's term) because those Christians
had more than one reckoning current in their lives. In point of fact, the
Church still observes the indiction (September 1) as the beginning of the
year in spite of civil governments over the centuries (including the
Russian imperial government, beginning with Peter I) that have reckoned
the beginning of the year as January 1. Should we rewrite the menaion so
that the hymnography of the indiction is added to the services of January
1? I am trying not to be ridiculous, but to ascertain to what extent the
principle of adjusting the calendar in order to render the things of
Caesar unto Caesar should be carried through in your estimation (in your
capacity as the most articulate spokesman I have read to date on the
benefits of the New Calendar).
> The reasoning can be broken down into several points:
> 1) While one cannot find any general desire for 'liturgical unity' in
> the Fathers, the date of the celebration of Pascha is an exception. It
> is clear that while the Fathers did not consider unity in the
> celebration of this feast *necessary*, they did consider it a good
> thing. That means that while a local Church could legitimately change
> its Paschalion unilaterally, there is greater pressure, since unity
> was achieved in the 8th century on this topic, that such a decision be
> made by the whole Church.
While no one ever set a mandate that the entire Church be united
liturgically, the spread of the influence of the Jerusalem Typicon
effectively accomplished that unity. Starting in the twelfth century in
the Balkans and in the thirteenth in Russia, the older (Studite) typicon
was replaced with the Jerusalem, which was already preeminent in the
Greek-speaking parts of the East. So while you can say that "one cannot
find any general desire for 'liturgical unity' in the Fathers," the fact
is that for all intents and purposes that unity had been accomplished long
before it was broken by the calendar change. As we know, the Church is a
living Body, which grows and adapts to the circumstances She faces. The
Church was the Ark of salvation in the fourth century, before this unity
was accomplished, and She remained the Ark of Salvation in the fourteenth,
when it was complete. The breaking of this long-accomplished unity by the
various local Churches who adopted the Gregorian reckoning for the
menologion did not make those Churches no longer Orthodox (again, no
responsible people say this) any more than Peter's replacement of the
Patriarchate of Russia by the uncanonical Holy Synod-plus-Over Procurator
system made the Russian Church no longer Orthodox. But both of these
events hurt the Church. The achievement of that liturgical unity was the
result of centuries of the Church's development and growth. Undoing it
caused pains that linger to this day (not the least of which I would
consider the plethora of opportunists who peddle irresponsible religion
under the banner of "the Old Calendar" and "traditionalism").
(snip)
> Until and unless the legal situation of the Holy Sepulchre changes,
> this places a limiting factor on any discussion of a Church-wide
> correction of the Paschalion.
Do you really consider that the single biggest obstacle to revising the
Orthodox Paschalion is the status of the Church of Jerusalem and the Holy
Sepulchre? Just checking here.
> 2) Pastoral (which makes it ironic when certain Old Calendrists
> combine criticism of the patchwork method with criticism of the
> pastoral implementation of the change--which is not say there were not
> some valid pastoral criticisms when the calendar was changed in
> Greece): When introducing a major shift in praxis, no matter how well
> justified, it works best when taken slowly and with catachesis. If the
> Nikonian reforms had been introduced singly instead of in a great
> mass, it is likely the Old Believer schism would not have occurred or
> been significantly lessened. So the Church shifts the solar calendar
> and waits on the Paschalion (which would need to wait anyway because
> of #1) while making teaching the Faithful what is going on--a process
> which has been severely hampered by the continuous stream of
> misleading and often downright false propaganda emerging from certain
> quarters of the 'Old Calendrist' movement.
To be fair, I am not at all sure to what extent the reforms of Nikon were
necessary or justified. I do not wish to justify the Old Believers; with
the exception of the "Edinovercy," who reunited themselves to the Church
while retaining their pre-Nikonian rite, they chose the path of separation
from the Church, declaring that the gates of hell were overcoming the
Church, and the reign of the antichrist was at hand. As a very wise
priest I know put it, it is a fearsome thing to prefer anything (including
a rite) to Grace. But with the possible exception of the removal of the
word "true" from the Nicene Creed (pertaining to the Holy Spirit: "The
True Lord, the Giver of Life..."), the "corrections" of Nikon's scholars
were mostly rewriting of Church books according to contemporary Greek
norms, using linguistic conventions adopted from the western part of the
East Slavic realm instead of Muscovite conventions. While it may be true
that the service books of old Muscovy needed correcting, what Nikon did
was not that.
Additionally, was not the reason given in 1920 for the calendar change to
minimize differences with the western confessions in preparation for
dialogue over reunion? (I once saw a quotation from Patriarch Meletios
(Metaxakis) to that effect, but I don't have the resources to produce such
things on demand; no doubt someone else around here does.) If that were
the reason, then what catechisis would soften the blow of the change?
(point about Kyriopascha not being observed among Greeks deleted)
OK. But still, I have not heard a satisfactory explanation of how the New
Calendar is beneficial even though it can bring us the following
doxastichon as early as Saturday of the fifth week of the Fast:
Spring has arisen, come, let us enjoy it. The Resurrection of Christ has
shone forth, come let us be glad. The memory of the Passionbearer has
been shown, enlightening the faithful. Therefore come, o lovers of the
feast, let us celebrate this (memory) mystically, for he, having shown
courage against his tormentors as a valiant warrior, also put them to
shame, having been an imitator of the Passion of Savior Christ... (from
the liti of the feast of St George, April 23).
I still have not heard an explanation of the shortening of the Apostles'
Fast by 13 days every year, to the point where it disappears (or goes into
negative numbers) in some years. Do the faithful of the Churches that use
the New Calendar not deserve the blessings of this fast?
I still have not heard an explanation of how we are to celebrate the
Annunciation when it occurs during the first week of the Fast. Shall we
have fish, wine and oil in that case? Shall we have a polyeleos during
the first week? Should the Great Compline that ends with the liti for the
feast also contain the Great Canon of St Andrew of Crete? These problems
never occured when the Menologion and the Paschalion were coordinated, as
they came to be over the centuries of the life of the Church. I repeat:
changing one without changing the other does violence to our liturgical
life.
> Your certainly right that the commemoration of monastic saints on
> Cheesefare Week shows a very relevant connection between Lent and
> monasticism. But I'm still curious, can you think of any part of the
> calendar which *doesn't* include a host of monastic saints--that's the
> basic point on which I questioin the relevance of the monastic saints
> in late January/early Feb to a discussion of the calendar.
I should have been more precise: late January is the time when a great
many monastic saints of universal significance are celebrated (not local
saints, who, as Caedmon points out, are celebrated at all times of the
year). A few examples: January 11: St Theodosius the Great, the
Coenobiarch. January 15: St Paul of Thebes (who predated St Anthony the
Great as an anchorite and who is mentioned in St Anthony's life). January
17: St Anthony the Great. Jamuary 19: St Macarius the Great. January
20: St Euthymius the Great. January 21: St Maximus the Confessor (OK,
he was known more for his defense of Orthodoxy against Monothelitism, but
he is a great monastic saint of universal significance). January 28: St
Ephraim the Syrian. You can find monastic saints throughout the year, but
this many of this great significance you do not find. I don't believe it
is an accident.
This really is unfair: please do not put words into my mouth. The
liturgical unity that occurred on the harmonized Menologion and Paschalion
was not a uniquely Russian or Serbian phenomenon. It was a universal
Orthodox phenomenon. Greeks, Arabs, Romanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians,
and Orthodox of every nationality were able to experience it as well as
Russians and Serbs. And they experienced it for many centuries before the
change in the menologion by several parts of the Church in the twentieth
century. That the Church had not acheived this unity during the time of
St Ignatius the Godbearer or St Basil the Great is irrelevant. They did
not need such liturgical unity. God allowed the Church to develop this
way, because clearly later Christians needed it.
> The very fact that the liturgical life of the Church is 'organic'
> means that it grows and changes.
Precisely my point. The Church grew and changed to the point where Her
liturgical celebrations were unified. Not simultaneous, as some tongue in
cheek detractors of the old calendar have suggested, but the *system* of
Her celebrations, fasts and feasts, was everywhere the same within each
place, with the most minor of variations for local circumstances.
75 years ago or so, the blink of an eye in Church history, part of the
Church broke that unity with the other part, and broke the interrelation
between the two parts of the calendar.
If it does not then it fossilizes and
> dies. But it is ridiculous to speak of any specific stage of that
> organic growth as being 'better' or 'worse' than what came before or
> what comes after. The liturgical year as celebrated in Rome in the 2nd
> century was different than that celebrated in Constantinople in the
> 9th or Moscow in the 19th. Yet none of these 'lacked' *anything*
> because they were the liturgical life of the Body of Christ which is
> the fullness of Him who is All in all. So long as the Communion of our
> Lord is celebrated by the Body as the Body then there is nothing
> lacking and, frankly, to say otherwise is to tread the line of
> blasphemy.
I do not think it is blasphemy to suggest that decisions can be taken that
are harmful to the Church. I submit that one such decision was the
Emperor Peter's abolition of the Russian Patriarchate and its replacement
with a Holy Synod overseen by a layman, who reported directly to the
Tsar. Was there anything lacking in the Russian Church for those two
centuries? In the sense that Christ was in Her, and the Holy Spirit
sanctified people through Her, then of course nothing was lacking. But
the ability of the Church to carry out some aspects of Her mission on
earth was impared. Priests were obliged to violate the secrecy of
confession under certain circumstances. Church lands were seized and
monasteries closed by the government (yes, the Tsarist government,
especially under Catherine II), and the one bishop who protested this was
defrocked and imprisoned in a remote monastery. The hierarchy and clergy
were deprived of their ability to speak the truth about some things. This
is bad. If I am a blasphemer for saying this, than I am in good company.
Likewise, I suggest that crippling one aspect of the Church's development,
the festal calendar, by ruining its long-developed synchronicity with the
Paschalion, is something that has bad consequences for the Church. This
is the point, and it seems of more consequence to me than being able to
use the same calendar date on the kliros and in the checkbook.
In Christ,
Joseph
Troyen
Sorry, but I do not repeat posts, although that one deserves to be saved to the
hard drive.
sinner, troyen
Nanhwmd
>The Modernism Test
>
>The following was compiled from various emails by Fr. Alexander Lebedeff.
>Theseemails were publicly sent to the Orthodox List-Forum. I have added a few
>questions of my own as well. I have also linked the key words to articles
>explaining why these things are departures from traditional Orthodoxy. More
>links will be added as articles becomeavailable. Patrick Barnes
Who is this Patrick Barnes, a Ben Lomonder? My friends, who successfully
defended their church against an invasion of these schismatics, refer to the
BL'ers as the "Men in Black," or MIB's.
Since the MIB's are all converts, they are ignorant of the fact that
Moscow added quite a few innovations to the Orthodox faith, such as doing
prostrations on every "Lord have mercy." The purpose of pews is to store each
parishioner's many Liturgy books and Bible. They were introduced after the
invention of the printing press. In the Moscow church, the choir(in
beautifully innovated polyphonic hymns) sings all the responses on behalf of
the faithful, as serfs were not expected to know how to read. The Greek
Orthodox Archdiocese expects its faithful, all freemen, to fully participate in
the Liturgy and all worship services. Our Liturgy is not shorter in time than
the Russian Liturgy, because many prayers are repeated in Greek and English.
I wish Frankie S., Jim B., Patrick B., and these other holier-than-thou
MIB's would spend their Lenten time practicing hospitality, obedience, and
humility. I also wish they would stop pretending they are followers of Elder
Ephraim, no wonder Greeks back East think Californians are a bunch of kooks!
Nancy
Fr. John Morris
Balkans to the Old Calendarists. Whatever happened over there happened
over there and should not be used to justify schism among the American
Orthodox or to spread the kind of lies being circulated about the
canonical Orthodox Church by the so called Traditionalists.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Fr. John Morris
something as petty as which calendar one uses. It makes no difference for our
salvation or our commitment to Orthodoxy which calendar we use. The only reason
that the Church used the Julian Calendar was the fact that the secular state in
which Christians lived used the Julian Calendar. There is nothing holy or sacred
about the Julian Calendar. Today most Orthodox Christians live in countries that
follow the Gregorian Calendar. That means that most Orthodox Christians should
follow the Gregorian Calendar.
The Old Calendarists accuse the New Calendarists of causing schism. However, never
has any canonical Orthodox Church that has adopted the New Calendar broken
communion with another canonical Orthodox Church that has continued to use the Old
Calendar. There are no schismatic New Calendar groups in Serbia, Russia or within
the canonical territory of any canonical Orthodox Church.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Fr. John Morris
Calendar.
There are actually more ways to determine what is dogmatic than calling an
Ecumenical Council. The fact that none of the canonical Orthodox Churches which
follow the Julian Calendar have questioned the Orthodoxy or broken communion with
the canonical Orthodox Churches which have adopted the Gregorian Calendar shows
that it is not a dogmatic issue and that different practices concerning the
calendar do not justify the terrible sin of schism.
Archpriest John W. Morris
GS
hrh...@idirect.com wrote:
>
>
> michael Dawson wrote:
>
>> A test for Orthodoxy
>> And a faq to follow 1 Do you call yourself Traditional Orthodox?
>> YES2 Do you consider a priest who is beardless as not Orthodox
>> NO3 Do you think that there is a heresy called Ecumenism?
>> VERY MUCH SO YES4 Do you think that anyone who uses the revised
>> Julian Calendar is not Orthodox?
>> NO(not really)5 Is your bishop not in communion with the ancient
>> sees of Constantinople and Alexandria?
>> NO If you answer "yes " to any of these questions then you are not
>> Orthodox but belong to a sect that hopefully may in the future join
>> the Orthodox ChurchDecent of you to give a test to so many
>> ecumenists and revisionists.
>> Mike my boy you*really*canonical orthodox types are uptight ,is it
>> some w.a.s.p.thing ,oh well tea and crumpets time.
>> wrote in message <36DEC325...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com>...
>>
>> Is that Orthodoxy? A style of clothing, presence of facial
>> hair and not smoking?
>> the Kevinator
>>
>> hrh...@idirect.com wrote:
>>
Timos,
WOuld you please ask if one of you guys still has Bishop Artemije's
official report to the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church (i.e.
Patriarch Pavle). It has disappeared from the Rashka Prizren website.
It was only ever on there in the Serbian version. This looks like you
have an English copy available The letter is references in teh article
by Michael Vezie that you just posted.
GS
H. Paul Jacobson wrote:
half a website, Paul, ask for the URL
hrh...@idirect.com
NOT, OXI, NYET, NON,NEVER WAS:
TIMOS orTIMOTHY
GS wrote:
--
Troyen
will we do? I don't know who the liars are, but time will tell.
sinner, troyen
Troyen
You say schism and scoff at walling off or any other such term. I heard it
said that an OCA member cannot commune in a ROCA church. The vice versa has
probably been said also. That would be the bottom line right?
How about it Fr.? Would you let one of your parishoners commune up in Etna?
Would you commune one the "shismatic Old Calendarists?"
sinner, troyen
Catherine Hampton
: If it can happen over there, it can happen over here. All of these
: lies. What will we do? I don't know who the liars are, but time
: will tell.
And God knows. We just need to wait and pray. (A lot of this isn't
our business anyway.) :)
--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>
Home Page * <http://www.hrweb.org/ariel/>
Orthodox Christian Resources * <http://www.hrweb.org/orthodox/>
(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)
Bryan J. Maloney
gr...@showme.missouriNOSPAM.edu wrote:
> Test," Fr Alexander Lebedeff, made it clear at the outset that none of the
> items there would or could determine whether or not someone was Orthodox.
However, the test is being used by others to make such a determination.
> It is a particularly Western, fragmented notion of the human soul that
> what is inside of us and what we do on the outside can be entirely
> separate. My experience from being Orthodox for the past 25 years is that
Does a beard really mean Orthodoxy? Does its lack mean otherwise? What
about those centuries before the Church required beards of its clergy?
> that require them to shave. No responsible people, including the compiler
> of the "test," suggest that these things are a measure of whether one is
> Orthodox. But, possibly aside from issues of health and safety, why would
But irresponsible people then take that test as a measure of Orthodoxy.
> As for the calendar, most Orthodox (notably excepting the Orthodox in
> Finland) adhere to the paschalion which we attribute to the decision of
> the Fathers of the first Ecumenical Council at Nicea. From that time (4th
> century) to our own, the Paschal cycle, based on the paschal full moon,
Actually, it isn't based on the Paschal full moon any more, since the
Paschal full moon is based on the Vernal Equinox, which is not the date
given in the old Julian calendar.
> previous sixteen centuries preferable to this? Can you judge people like
> Fr Alexander and myself for being sad that something which was not only
Yet can you then claim that those of us who obey our priests and use the
calendar they use are no longer Orthodox? Such claims have been made.
> follow? Is the calendar not rather a question which the *whole* Church
> should decide on, taking into consideration all its effects on our
> liturgical life, rather than individual autocephalous Churches?
This is another matter--the way that the calendar was imposed has
definitely caused many problems.
--
To women contemplating marriage: The question you should ask is not
"How much do I love him?" The real question is "How much can I
tolerate him?"
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
Bryan J. Maloney
(Troyen) wrote:
> And so those who write the date differently and do not attend WCC meetings are
> called schismatics and not part of canonical Orthodoxy. Does this tread the
> line of blasphemy.
Actually, Moscow writes the date differently and no longer attends WCC
meetings, as far as I know.
GS
hrh...@idirect.com wrote:
> G.S.:TASOS the name is TASOS.
> NOT, OXI, NYET, NON,NEVER WAS:
> TIMOS orTIMOTHY
sorry (again) I try to remember names but sometimes i am a failure.
Now, about that letter to the Serbian Archbishop that is no onger accessible
(I went to get it, having meant to get around to reading it and it was
expunged (lot of stuff on that site, wonder why).
So send it if you have it. (in Serbian or English)
Fr. John Morris
Troyen wrote:
I would not commune anyone who is under a bishop who is not in communion with my
bishop. I would also tell my spiritual children to avoid contact with schismatic
groups.
Archpriest John W. Morris
GS
Fr. John Morris wrote:
Dear Father Morris,
:(
What if the cause of the schism were to be politically based or biased or
unnecessary or insane? (or all of these)
Disgusted with nationalism masquerading as Orthodoxy, turf wars so that everyone in
one jurisdiction or another could keep their jobs, evidence of interference of small
cult like groups in national churches outside any jurisdiction with which they had
ever been associated, lawsuits of one jurisdiction to another gone to court,
jurisdictions claiming sole canonicity to cover up the sins of individuals within
their jurisdictions, jurisdictions claiming canonicity over practice/praxis issues
mostly related to their ability to control the personal lives of membership,
jurisdictions attempting to get international recognition for bishops through
ecumenical activities, jurisdictions remaining silent about important moral and
ethical issues, in addition to all the modernism in other jurisdictions, etc.etc. -
well, disgusted with all this I was delighted to find a traditional jurisdiction
where the practice was not modernist, where the morality was traditional, where
there was speaking out on moral and ethical issues on a regular basis, and where
there was a refreshing sense of sanity and even discussion up front of problems in
its church, removal of problem clergy on the rare occasion inclusive.
Unfortunately, this is the one jurisdiction universally dismissed by literally all
other worldwide jurisdictions, not that they , the jurisdiction, are proud of it.
Just that that is the way it is until things change. And they attempt to make
things better without compromising anything.
I am not Orthodox to be a Protestant (little kneelers and choirs that whisper,
excess respect for the military versus anti violence, anti killing stances), nor a
Roman Catholic (just went through a deal where my son got interested in kneeling on
Sundays because other people had been seen to do it over at the OCA where he was
baptized so that he could understand why we don't and at the same time not go
verbally condemn anyone for the same without demeaning his intelligence by
suggesting they don't know any better), nor to join an ethnic club (although ethnic
cultures and their local traditions are wonderful), nor for social acceptance
(although friends are nice) nor for aesthetics (although I love our various music
and our iconography) but because it is the True Faith.
And here I had a little dream of one day visiting your church, wherever it is,
because I love your posts.....
for ONE HOLY APOSTOLIC CHURCH!
Galina
Bryan J. Maloney
> What if the cause of the schism were to be politically based or biased or
> unnecessary or insane? (or all of these)
Is it the place of a priest to second-guess his Bishop?
> I am not Orthodox to be a Protestant... nor a
> Roman Catholic
Neither am I. You claim that "little kneelers" and other externals make
one Protestant or Catholic. Do you likewise agree that the Uniates are
Orthodox, since they go through all the Eastern motions so very nicely.
After all, externals seem to be so incredibly important.
> baptized so that he could understand why we don't and at the same time not go
> verbally condemn anyone for the same without demeaning his intelligence by
But you are condemning me for kneeling, even though kneeling is part of
the traditional (and Traditional) Greek practice. The extra prostrations
are mere INNOVATIONS, after all. Likewise, the chanting of the Lord's
Prayer by a chanter rather than its collective recitation is an
INNOVATION.
Troyen
responsible people of accusing the people with no beards and such as not being
Orthodox.
Guess what?
(You say, "What?")
Niether of my Priests have beards. They are in the Army, but even after the
Army I don't care what they do. I am fiercely loyal to them.
However, they do not run around saying things about externals not being
important. When did Icons become externals, unnecessary for the true
Christian? How about prayer to the Saints? The slope is slippery, choose your
way with care.
sinner, troyen
Troyen
and I missed Feast days and Lent had started and I have been seriously angry
ever sense. Well, my anger is abaiting somewhat, but seeing this childish
banter brings out the little pisser in me and well, I do like to fight.
Anyway, men of prayer will prevail.
sinner, troyen
Troyen
Fr. John has stated his stand with his Bishop. Now what seems to the case is
that the Bishop in Fr. Johns case can pray with imans, rabbis, cardinals, and
whoever else, but call someone else "schismatic." Remember that nice prayer
session up in New York not to long ago? That is an embarassment to honest
Orthodoxy. It is one thing to reach out and quite another to condemn folk who
do not condone such "reaching out."
We all have our lines in the sand and we are all somewhat equally responsible
for the Orthodox Church. Or have I gone and mistaken Saint John the
Wonderworker, who cannot possibly be a "real" Saint because he was a Bishop in
an "uncanonical" organization. However, the rotting coffin around his incorrupt
body does not say much for oraganizational canonicity. Kiss that schismatic
Icon, pray for mercy, and by all means stay away from the schismatics who are
not reposed yet.
sinner, troyen
GS
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> In article <36E43DC8...@erols.com>, GS <sp...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > What if the cause of the schism were to be politically based or biased or
> > unnecessary or insane? (or all of these)
>
> Is it the place of a priest to second-guess his Bishop?
I guess all the iconodules were wrong back then. THey second guessed their rpiests
and bishops to the point that a few icons even survived.
Fr. Anthony
>What makes someone Orthodox is what is in their heart, not whether or not they
>have a beard, how long their hair is or what calendar they use.
However, that which is interior (in the heart) affects - and is affected by -
that which is exterior. The Protestant so-called "reformers" knew this well, as
they cast away the externals in order to facilitate changing the faith of those
who looked to them for leadership.
When the best arguments that can be made for doing away with so-called
"externals" is something to the effect of, "This is America!" or "It is almost
the 21st century!" or even "This is America and it's almost the 21st century!"
then there is no reason at all. And those *are* the best arguments out there.
Fr. Anthony
caedm...@SPAMmindspring.com says...
>So sorry Scripture and the words and examples of the Fathers are
>poppycock to you. "I already know what the Church teaches, don't
>bother me with the facts"--is that it, Nick, oops I mean Troyen. Give
>a break and actually study the issue.
Apparantly ad hominem attacks and insults are not beneath even the best of us
here. Sad.
>"Attain the Spirit of Peace and thousands around you will be saved."
>--St. Seraphim of Sarov
Indeed. Attacking our brothers is not, I think, included in such attainment.
Fr. John Morris
Troyen wrote:
> I think Galina has made a good deal of sense.
>
> Fr. John has stated his stand with his Bishop. Now what seems to the case is
> that the Bishop in Fr. Johns case can pray with imans, rabbis, cardinals, and
> whoever else, but call someone else "schismatic."
Neither my bishop, nor any other Antiochian bishop prays with non Orthodox. Indeed,
there have been times when our bishops have refused to attend or have left meetings
that include prayer with non Orthodox.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Fr. John Morris
> When the best arguments that can be made for doing away with so-called
> "externals" is something to the effect of, "This is America!" or "It is almost
> the 21st century!" or even "This is America and it's almost the 21st century!"
> then there is no reason at all. And those *are* the best arguments out there.
If we were to accept your argument, we would have to go back to the 1st century and
get rid of any external that is different. Externals do change. That is why we have
vestments, the 8 Tones, incense, the iconostasis and many other beautiful things
that make our Orthodoxy richer.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Fr. John Morris
> However, they do not run around saying things about externals not being
> important. When did Icons become externals, unnecessary for the true
> Christian? How about prayer to the Saints? The slope is slippery, choose your
> way with care.
> sinner, troyen
Neither icons nor prayer to the Saints are externals. They are essential parts of
the Orthodox Faith. No one wants to change anything that is essential to the
Orthodox Faith. No one wants to get rid of vestments, incense, chanting or anything
else but a few externals. Orthodoxy is not so fragile that changing a few
unessential externals will threaten or damage the Faith of the Church.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Caedmon Parsons
>Very nice post Caedmon.
>
>Now, could the New Calendar not have been a small stumbling block to some
>people especially as their Churches were annexed and their beards torn off?
IOW, your justification is "they sinned first"? Get a clue: "they" are
a) dead; b) already in the hands of God; and c) irrelevant to this
discussion since all its participants live in the Americas where none
of the above occurred.
Or, to quote somebody, I forget who: "Are you that hellbent on
destruction that you have to make allusions to the "EP" every time
something comes up that can concievable relate to him?"
Any time you decide you want to address the issue instead of obsessing
about the sins of long-dead government officials and hierarchs feel
free.
(BTW, 'churches were annexed' is the height of hypocrisy as a
criticism for someone claiming to defend a 'traditionalist' viewpoint.
Care to do a little study on what was *always* the role of an
ostensibly Orthodox government in dealing with heretical or schismatic
groups? Or would actually studying history be too much to ask?)
>
>Of course that is neither here nor there. I of course celebrate the New
>Calendar out of obedience and lack of choice. I also am distressed the more I
>learn about discrepencies caused in the Calendar of which you are well aware.
>
>That the Church was hoodwinked into the Calendar change is a forgone
>conclusion.
Considering that you have yet to address a single one of the
Scriptural or Patristic justifications for the Calendar change I have
pointed out to you, the only thing the above sentence shows is that
you don't give a damn about the truth, you just want to bitch.
>
>I think it odd that you would tell me that a Council of Russian Bishops were
>going to do anything predictable, especially something as huge as changing the
>Calendar.
>
Why do you find it odd? As far as I can tell you've never done a bit
of study on this issue except to swallow the propaganda line of
schismatics whole. Of course you're surprised that reality differs.
In Him,
the sinner Caedmon
Caedmon Parsons
wrote:
>This explanation works for the Christianized Roman Empire quite well.
>Still, the Julian calendar was used by the Church for determining the
>feasts according to the menologion beyond the boundaries of the Roman
>Empire.
I have no idea what you mean here. It's not true for Persia or Armenia
both of which used their own calendars throughout the period they were
in communion with the Church. It's not even true of Egypt and the
Patriarch of Alexandria which used the Egytian calendar until the
split after Chalcedon at which point the Copts continued (and still
do) to use their own calendar while the Chalcedonian appointees from
Constantinople started using the calendar they were used to. It's not
even true of Antioch (which used the Syriac or 'Macedonian' calendar)
until the Islamic pressure forced the Patriarchate into a subordinate
position to Constantinople with hierarchs being appointed in (and
often living in) Constantinople. The only place it could be considered
valid would be the West after the collapse of the Western Empire when
the various Germanic invaders did adopt the Julian calendar--along
with many other mechanisms of Roman rule. And then the Slavic
countries when they were missionized, but again, like the Western
Germanic tribes, the slavs did not start with a developed calendar of
their own and adapted that of their missionaries since in both cases
the Christian mission coincided with a cultural civilizing effect.
(IOW, Russian use of the Julian is the same as their use of the
Greek-based Cyrillic alphabet. They didn't have one so they took the
one the missionaries brought them. But I don't hear anyone arguing
that the example of the Orthodox countries means use of the Roman
alphabet is a problem)
>And it fails to account for the fact that the calendar that
>expressed the menologion for the first fifteen centuries after Nicaea
>throughout the Orthodox Church came to be so closely associated with the
>Orthodox Paschalion that our liturgical structure and even our hymnography
>to a great extent relied on this interaction.
I have never disagreed with you that over the centuries the menologion
and Paschalion have developed interdependently (and will undoubtedly
continue to do so). However to say that that development occured
"throughout" the Orthodox Church over the course of 'fifteen
centuries' is inaccurate. It did occur over 'fifteen centuries' in
Constantinople. Different developments using different calendars were
occuring elsewhere, but as other centers of Church authority fell to
heresy or non-Christian invaders they began adopting what had
developed in 'the Great Church' rather than maintaining their own
traditions.
> Should Orthodox living in
>lands where the civil authorities were Roman Catholic have changed to the
>western paschalion? Should the (very large) Greek colony in Venice have
>conducted its services according to the Gregorian calendar in the
>eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in order to "render unto Caeaar"
>appropriate honor in this matter?
Whether they 'should' or 'shouldn't' is irrelevent since we know they
didn't. Before you try to take that too far however, consider, what
language to the Greek colony in Venice conduct its service in? And do
you or your bishops think that example should influence the language
churches in America should use?
My point is, did the 'Greek colony in Venice' consider itself to have
a role in the conversion and transformation of Venetian society--or
was it simply an extension (colony) of the Greek Church serving (and
maintaining) children of the Greek Church until they returned to their
homeland and society?
> Surely the civil authorities
>at that time were clear about when January 1 occurred, and yet all the
>Eastern Patriarchs saw fit to denounce unanimously the Gregorian calendar
>on several occasions.
And the Anglicans and Reformed churches were denouncing it at the same
time. Context *is* relevant (e.g., see canon12 or 6 of Nicea and
compare later applications of these canons) . When Orthodox and
Protestants were both firmly 'denouncing' the Gregorian calendar, use
of the Gregorian really did involve, if not actual recognition of
Papal authority, at least the appearance of the same. In the 20th
century when secular countries like the US, ostensibly Protestant
countries like Scandinavia, and even non-Western countries use the
Gregorian as the most accurate calendar available, the context is
decidedly different (or does anyone believe that the US usage of the
Gregorian indicates Papal control of our government? Which is what
people in, for example, the 17th century thought)
>Should the Greek Orthodox of Vienna and other
>Italian cities have ignored the Patriarchs' unanimous condemnation of the
>new reckoning and proceeded to change over to it?
I have never advocated anyone's ignoring what their own bishops have
decided on this matter. Indeed that has been the most basic of my
points from the beginning--that whether one prefers the Old or New
Calendar, this is an issue completely within the authority of the
episcopacy and whatever they decide is what should be done.
>While it is true that we must be obedient to the civil authorities in many
>matters, that argument, fortified by relevant quotations from the holy
>scriptures, can only go so far. In Islam, the holy day of the week is
>Friday; for us, the Lord's Day is Sunday. Would it have been appropriate
>to adjust the services of the Parakletike and the Octoechos by two days in
>order to accomodate the reckoning of the civil authorities?
Come on, Joseph, as you yourself point out that is the holy day of
*Islam* (a religion not a government) not of Syria or Egypt or Iran.
We've already gone over the difference between the government saying
what day is Dec. 25th and the Church saying whether and why Dec. 25th
is a holy day. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, unto God what is
God's" clearly means that Caesar doesn't have a bit of say in what is
holy or what is not since that is God's alone.
>Using your argument that
>we must render unto Caesar the things that are his by changing the
>reckoning of the Church's menologion, we would wind up with Church books
>that had services for the first of Brumaire and so on.
So? What is the Russian word for "January"? This entire conversation
invalidates this line of reasoning because we are indeed using the
secular English terms for "January" and "one" not the Greek or Russian
words for the same--and so do our service books when they are written
in English.
>The question is whether the
>change of the menologion reckoning apart from a corresponding change in
>the Paschalion is a good one or a bad one is where the issue lies.
Uh, did you miss the part where I agreed with you that such a partial
change is problematic? Where the issues lie is
a) do bishops have authority to change elements of the calendar?
b) is there Scriptural and canonical justification for use of the
secular calendar?
Because the Church year is one large, organic whole *every* change to
requires at least some adjustment of other factors. What was
celebrated yesterday before St. Gregoy Palamas was given that postion
in the Triodion? And forgive me for not being able to remember what
day ROCOR commemorates the Synaxis of the New Martyrs of Russia but
you can't tell me that such an important commemoration didn't involve
adjustments to the menologion for those saints who were formerly the
primary commemorations of the day. The point is not that adjustments
are needed or that changes occur, but where the proper authority lies
to do these things--with the bishops.
>
>> Question: When you measure something, even something inside the temple
>> do you use a standard yardstick/ruler/tape measure marked in feet &
>> inches (or the metric system) or do you have a special yardstick for
>> the measurement of cubits (the form of linear measurement sanctified
>> by Scripture and the Fathers)? When you go on a pilgrimage, do you
>> calculate the distance to your destination in miles (or km) or in
>> stadia?
>
>Clearly this question answers itself, but I submit that it is irrelevant
>to this discussion.
Why what is the difference between the way space is measured and the
way time is?
>And I have one for you. Since we use feet and inches
>in this country instead of cubits, and dollars and cents instead of
>shekels and talents, would it be appropriate to rewrite the passages in
>the Bible that mention these things in the old units and convert them over
>to contemporary units approved by the civil authorities? (The parable of
>the five dollars...or francs...or euros...) Why keep these archaic units
>in our liturgical life and read from the scripture using them when our
>civil authorities have given us newer ones to supercede them?
See I think this is irrelevant. I'm not asking anyone to change
historical fact. Christ said 'ten talents', St. John described the
wall of New Jerusalem as 144 cubits, St. Athanasius celebrated
Nativity on Tybi 11th, and St. Seraphim celebrated it on Dec. 25th
(O.S.).
I, on the other hand, use dollars, feet and celebrate Nativity on Dec.
25th (N.S) (or when I attended an Old Calendar Church in Canada Jan.
7th [N.S.])
IOW, what is "Caesar's" does not include historical fact (not that
some don't try), but it does include weights and measures.
>Again, I ask if the Orthodoxy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate during that
>period was "distorted" (again, Fr John's term) because those Christians
>had more than one reckoning current in their lives.
And I answered this question already. Yes, the Orthodoxy of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate under the Turks was and is distorted in the
area of the proper relationship of Church and State (or do you believe
that non-Christians should have a say in either the choice or the
dismissal of Orthodox bishops?). Since the relationship of calendar to
menaion is a subset of this relationship, yes, that was distorted too.
> In point of fact, the
>Church still observes the indiction (September 1) as the beginning of the
>year
No, the Church does not still observe the indiction--which was a
15-year cycle used by the Roman Empire (and later the EP as ruler of
the Orthodox millet) for taxes. Do you have any idea what the current
indiction or the current year of the indiction is?
>in spite of civil governments over the centuries (including the
>Russian imperial government, beginning with Peter I) that have reckoned
>the beginning of the year as January 1.
Yes, the Church does still use September 1 (the date on which
indictions started) as the beginning of the ecclesiastical year and
that is seperate from the civil New Year of January 1st. But that is a
seperation that runs all the way back to Diocletian's establishment of
the indiction starting point as seperate from the Roman civil New Year
of January 1.
>Should we rewrite the menaion so
>that the hymnography of the indiction is added to the services of January
>1?
Why? The 'ecclesiatic New Year' is and has always been a seperate
thing from the 'civil New Year'. (But notice which date the Church
uses and has always used to figure out which year of our Lord (AD) it
is.).
IOW, moving the hymnography of the ecclesiastic New Year to the civil
New Year would put the hymnography to a use it was never intended for
and would not be an adjustment of the Typikon to reflect "Caesar's"
legitimate authority since "Caesar" doesn't have indictions. Now *if*
civil authority had ever changed the date of indiction beginning then
the Church's reaction would give us something to discuss one way or
another, but that never occurred. The only parallel to the current
situation would be if the civil government simply dropped linear
measurements of less than a mile from things it measured. In that case
the Church (and anybody else who had need to measure things a few
inches or feet long) would go on using the old system. (Though, I
suppose it is relevant that when the indication *was* introduced by
the civil authority in the late third/early fourth century, the Church
followed suit).
>While no one ever set a mandate that the entire Church be united
>liturgically, the spread of the influence of the Jerusalem Typicon
>effectively accomplished that unity. Starting in the twelfth century in
>the Balkans and in the thirteenth in Russia, the older (Studite) typicon
>was replaced with the Jerusalem, which was already preeminent in the
>Greek-speaking parts of the East. So while you can say that "one cannot
>find any general desire for 'liturgical unity' in the Fathers," the fact
>is that for all intents and purposes that unity had been accomplished long
>before it was broken by the calendar change. As we know, the Church is a
>living Body, which grows and adapts to the circumstances She faces.
First, I probably should have used stronger wording than "any general
desire." When the Fathers gathered at Nicea, Bp. Hosius of Cordova was
celebrating Nativity on "VII calend January" and the baptism 12 days
later; St. Alexander of Alexandria (and his deacon St. Athanasius)
celebrated Nativity and the Baptism together on a wholly seperate day.
And there is not a single shred of evidence there or elsewhere that
anybody cared. The only issue of 'liturgical unity' the Fathers ever
discuss is Pascha. Period.
Second, what was the single greatest cause of the liturgical unity
found in the Church in this millenium? Schism, heresy and muslim
oppression. The Copts left, the Armenians left, the Latins left.
Alexandria and Antioch fell to the point where their clergy had to be
trained in Constantinople or occasionally Jerusalem. All that left a
single strand of liturgical tradition. Yes, the Slavs copied that
strand from their Mother Church among the Greeks, but that's kind of
the point of having a Mother Church (the Russians were still receiving
their Metropolitans from Constantinople in this period remember).
Compared to the liturgical disunity which did not bother the previous
Fathers (indeed is *celebrated* by some of them, see the quote I've
given from St. Ireneus) the difference between the Studite Typikon and
the Jerusalem Typikon is infinitismel--its spread was not a creation
of liturgical unity but a reflection of one that already existed.
IOW, the source of liturgical unity is apostacy. I can't see any of
the Fathers thinking that was a good trade (indeed, that's why we see
modern Fathers like St. Tikhon and St. John Maximovitch at least
contemplating the Western rite despite the many problems inherent in
such a move--better that people be united to the Church than that
liturgical unity be preserved).
The
>Church was the Ark of salvation in the fourth century, before this unity
>was accomplished, and She remained the Ark of Salvation in the fourteenth,
>when it was complete. The breaking of this long-accomplished unity by the
>various local Churches who adopted the Gregorian reckoning for the
>menologion did not make those Churches no longer Orthodox (again, no
>responsible people say this) any more than Peter's replacement of the
>Patriarchate of Russia by the uncanonical Holy Synod-plus-Over Procurator
>system made the Russian Church no longer Orthodox.
The situation is not parallel on at least two critical points. First,
there was and is no precedent of the Church recognizing the authority
of the civil power to so interfere in its self-government or to give a
layman (the Over Procurator) such authority over bishops. OTOH, there
is plenty of precedent for local churches altering their calendrical
observations--including following the civil calendar. Second, there
has never been any justification for Peter's reforms except to put the
Church firmly under the control of the government. You may not agree
with them or think they outweigh what you consider the drawbacks but
there are Scriptural and Patristic justifications for the preference
of the New Calendar.
>But both of these
>events hurt the Church. The achievement of that liturgical unity was the
>result of centuries of the Church's development and growth.
Here is my basic problem with your train of thought. You assume that
the liturgical unity of the fourteenth century was an "achievement".
But
a) I cannot find any evidence of any Father's seeking to "achieve"
this, combined with
b) that we can trace the key points which brought about this
'liturgical unity' and they cannot be said to be the work of the Holy
Spirit (which does not lead people away from the Church), the best
calendrical unity can be called is a historical accident--of the same
kind which for a time made the Church "Eastern".
c) Most importantly is your phrase "when it was complete", referring
to the 14th century. If it became 'complete' in the the 14th century,
then necessarily it was incomplete prior to the 14th century. But what
was incomplete? I very much doubt that you would argue that the
religion of St. Athanius or St. Leo the Great or St. Theodore the
Studit was incomplete in either praxis or belief--so what was
'incomplete'?
(Not to mention the contradiction between your claims of 'acheived'
completeness' and Scripture itself (2 Pet 1:3 or Eph 1:23)
>Undoing it
>caused pains that linger to this day (not the least of which I would
>consider the plethora of opportunists who peddle irresponsible religion
>under the banner of "the Old Calendar" and "traditionalism").
Here I assume you are referring to:
a) The loss of liturgical unity between local churches: which much of
this thread has addressed and which I will leave with the comment that
the Fathers did not consider the Church hurt by such 'disunity'.
b) Loss of liturgical unity between the Menaion and Paschalion: I
don't totally disagree with you here, but I also don't see that it is
an enormous issue either compared to the issues of the proper
relationship of calendar to astronomy/civil government and redeeming
the time which I have discussed. Certainly I think the best option
would be to move forward and adopt a Paschalion which is fully
faithful to Nicea--but the fact that we are still debating a change in
the Menaion is a pretty good reason for the bishops to hold off
introducing yet another change.
c) And, of course, the big one: The resultant schisms.
My biggest problem here is that when someone leaves the Church, *they*
are responsible for their schism, they are the ones who split the
Church. Yes, members of the Church whose personal sins or simply
unpastoral behavior created a stumblingblock will answer to God for
their failures in their responsibility as shepherds--but the mistakes,
sins, errors, or inadequacies of individuals is *never* a
justification for leaving the Church. Otherwise, Gerard or the
non-Chalcedonians or the Old Believers or the Donatists, et. al. would
have had a valid point. I.e., if the Church has been 'hurt', then that
hurt has been caused by those who chose to leave it. And, as always,
such schisms are not solved by the Church caving in to those who left,
but by the schismatic repentence and humbling of themselves to obey
the Church.
I have always realized that the strongest argument against the
adoption of the New Calendar comes from the same chapter of St. Paul
where we are told not judge about calendar issues: that of abstaining
from X if it will scandalize the "weaker brother". However, like
'render unto Caesar', this maxim has limits, limits which can be seen
in St. Paul's own life with his relationship to the Judaizers, weaker
brethren scandalized by Gentile converts freedom from the Old Law.
While I'm open to having new input, the best I have been able to
understand, studying this passage and the commentary of the Fathers on
it as well as the real examples from the Church's history, is that St.
Paul's words are not a justification for the 'weaker brethren' to
control those who understand that "all things are pure".
IOW, so long as a Judaizer kept the Law himself, that was fine, even
good. But if he tried to impose it on someone else, then the Apostles
cut him off at the knees. The parallel between local churches is
obvious, if Serbia or Russia or ROCOR wishes to maintain the Old
Calendar that is fine, but they have no place trying to bind it on
other local Churches--and this has in fact been how the local churches
have interacted on this matter.
The picture within a local church is more complex however, since it is
the bishops busindess to 'bind' things on their flock. Here, when we
go back through Church history we can find both positions supported.
Thus for example, the canon of Quinsext which ended the practice of
married bishops gives the explicit rationale being that some faithful
were being scandalized. OTOH, starting with the Council of Jerusalem
we also find the bishops, when they believe there is justification for
a move, imposing a ruling even if it will scandalize some. But the one
certain thing is that *once* the bishops have made a decision, whether
it is wise or not, those who rebel against the bishops are the ones in
the wrong (heresy of course, excepted, I am referring only to
disciplinary issues).
Which is the most fundamental point which can be made in this
discussion. My bishops and the bishops of Greece have made their
decision. The bishops of ROCOR and Serbia have made their decision. So
far as I know, no synod is currently considering changing their
position and even if they were, debates on the internet are unlikely
to have any effect on that decision. Which means the only part of this
discussion which has *practical* applications, is whether or not
individuals should obey their bishops on this matter on a decision
which has *already* been made.
>Do you really consider that the single biggest obstacle to revising the
>Orthodox Paschalion is the status of the Church of Jerusalem and the Holy
>Sepulchre? Just checking here.
I wouldn't say "single biggest obstacle". I would say it is an
important limitation.
>To be fair, I am not at all sure to what extent the reforms of Nikon were
>necessary or justified. I do not wish to justify the Old Believers; [snip]
> As a very wise
>priest I know put it, it is a fearsome thing to prefer anything (including
>a rite) to Grace. [snip]
> While it may be true
>that the service books of old Muscovy needed correcting, what Nikon did
>was not that.
Agreed. And even beyond the issue of the necessity/wisdom of Patriarch
Nikon's specific reforms, there is room for criticism in the way the
reforms were imposed and the civil government acted in the persecution
of Old Believers. Which is why I think that history is relevant to the
issue before us, specifically the status of those who rebel against
the decision of their bishops on this matter.
>
>Additionally, was not the reason given in 1920 for the calendar change to
>minimize differences with the western confessions in preparation for
>dialogue over reunion? (I once saw a quotation from Patriarch Meletios
>(Metaxakis) to that effect, but I don't have the resources to produce such
>things on demand; no doubt someone else around here does.)
I don't know. I have certainly seen that repeated in many places but
since those places are the same sources which claim that the current
Paschalion was mandated by Nicea so I will maintain my skepticism
until I see some actual proof.
In any case, I fail to see the relevance. First, Patriarch Meletios'
'motivation' does not necessarily generalize to the other bishops who
were there. It certainly does not generalize to bishops of other local
churches who acted later. It also does not generalize to bishops in
the same local church living 70 years later. In my case, I know my
bishop's motivation for supporting the New Calender because it has
come up in conversation and he has told me (specifically, he supports
it because of the evidence of the Fathers using the local calendar
everywhere that was possible and concept of redeeming the time.) Since
the Church does not exist as an abstraction but in the physical and
sacramental reality of the laity and clergy gathered around their
bishop, I have no idea what a Patriarch Meletios motivations have to
do with my obedience to and agreement with my own bishop.
Beyond that, motivations are a very slippery slope. If a televangelist
gets on television and sees "Jesus is Lord" because he knows it will
bring him cash, does that make the statement false? If a politician
supports anti-abortion policies because it plays well for his
constituents should we question the policies? One thing I have enjoyed
about our current discussion is that (unusually on this topic in my
experience) while we may disagree we actually have been discussing the
issues (the applicability of the 'Caesar' passage, the unity of the
calendar, etc) and not speculating about people's motives (always
problematic, I mean, are you always certain of your own motivations,
much less other people's? Indeed, motivations are the most obvious
application of Christ's injunction 'judge not lest ye be judged'. We
can look at actions or words and say that is right or wrong according
to the teaching of the Church, but since we cannot see the hearts of
others, we have no basis to judge their motivations).
>OK. But still, I have not heard a satisfactory explanation of how the New
>Calendar is beneficial
There is always a certain limit here. I have given you explanations
(fidelity to Scripture [not merely the 'Caesar' passage but Genesis as
well], to the spirit and letter of certain canons and the example of
the Fathers). I (and my bishop) find them satisfactory. You (and your
bishop) do not. <shrug> I've run into the same situation trying to
explain how the filioque subordinates the Spirit to Romans or the
intercession of the Saints to Evangelicals. I'm sure you have your own
examples. I don't know what else to tell you.
[snip--questions about perceived disjunctions in the current New
Calendar]
And I have yet to receive *any* explanation from you or any other
defender of the Old Calendar why God stated at creation that the sun,
moon, and stars were "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and
years" and yet both Pascha and the OC Nativity fall 13 days later than
they should according to the equinoxes.
Nor have I received an explanation of why, when St. Paul strictly
forbids judging a brother who doesn't keep *any* holy days at all, we
think its worthwhile to judge when the better date to keep this or
that holy day is?
Nor how we 'redeem the time' by ignoring the time?
When you answer these questions of Scriptural and theological
significance, then I'll worry about coming up with a more
'satisfactory' explanation for why the New Calendar doesn't meet your
standards.
> [snip-monastic saints] January 11: St Theodosius the Great, the
>Coenobiarch. January 15: St Paul of Thebes (who predated St Anthony the
>Great as an anchorite and who is mentioned in St Anthony's life). January
>17: St Anthony the Great. Jamuary 19: St Macarius the Great. January
>20: St Euthymius the Great. January 21: St Maximus the Confessor (OK,
>he was known more for his defense of Orthodoxy against Monothelitism, but
>he is a great monastic saint of universal significance). January 28: St
>Ephraim the Syrian.
And in the period of less than a week we find St. Sophronius of
Jerusalem (March 11); St. Gregory the Great AND St. Symeon the New
Theologian (both like St. Maximus in being exemplars in both theology
and asceticism) (March 12); and St. Benedict of Nursia (March 14).
This year not a single one of those saints fell within Lent--indeed
many of them could be argued to be closer to Nativity than to Lent,
which rather works against the point you are trying to make. Even
accepting the point, 13 days is decidely less than the period you are
trying to cover. These saints are *still* in the period running up to
Lent, whichever calendar one uses.
>> And what of the Fathers who existed before this 'harmony' you think so
>> much of came into being? Did the Orthodoxy of St. Athanasius or St.
>> Polycarp or St. John Chrysostom suffer or lack something which the
>> Russian or Serbian Churches had finally achieved in the 19th century?
>
>This really is unfair: please do not put words into my mouth.
I did not put words in your mouth, I asked questions based on your
line of reasoning. I do apologize if my mention of Churches which are
still using that completed, 'harmonized' system made that unclear. But
to return to the questions
> That the Church had not acheived this unity during the time of
>St Ignatius the Godbearer or St Basil the Great is irrelevant.
Not at all. You have spoken of a harmony being 'achieved' or
'completed'. If something has to be achieved that means it did not
previously exist. If something has to be completed, then that means it
was previously incomplete. And by definition something that is
incomplete lacks something to make it complete. So the question
remains, what was lacking to St. Ignatius or St. Basil or St. Theodore
the Studite that needed to be completed?
Or, going back to 'achieved', St. Peter assured the Church that they
had been 'given all things pertaining to life and godliness," and
Christ Himself promised that the Apostles would know 'all truth'. Now,
if the Church *had* all things pertaining to life and godliness, did
it lose something somewhere that had to be added back or compensated
for by the 'achievement' of harmony? Or did something about the world
or human nature change that the Apostolic doctrine was no long all
sufficient and needed new 'achievements' to make it full?
>They did
>not need such liturgical unity. God allowed the Church to develop this
>way, because clearly later Christians needed it.
Why? In what way do 'later Christians' differ from 'earlier
Christians' that the Apostolic doctrine is no longer sufficient for
them, that St. Paul's words on calenders no longer apply? Are the
saints of this century less saints than those of the Nicean period?
Are we sinners different sinners than those of the Apostles day? (and
if so, what does this do to St. Paul's assurance that Christ has been
"tempted in all ways as we are"?) Human Nature is human nature--if
modern human nature were different from the human nature of the past,
then we couldn't say that the Son took on our nature (which of course
leads us into salvation-denying heresy)
>
>> The very fact that the liturgical life of the Church is 'organic'
>> means that it grows and changes.
>
>Precisely my point. The Church grew and changed to the point where Her
>liturgical celebrations were unified. Not simultaneous, as some tongue in
>cheek detractors of the old calendar have suggested, but the *system* of
>Her celebrations, fasts and feasts, was everywhere the same within each
>place, with the most minor of variations for local circumstances.
And now it has grown and changed again. What is the difference?
>
>75 years ago or so, the blink of an eye in Church history, part of the
>Church broke that unity with the other part, and broke the interrelation
>between the two parts of the calendar.
Please find *any* Father who defines "unity" in terms of calendar or
Typikon. When the Scriptures or the Fathers speak of unity they
*always* mean sacramental unity--and that was never broken by the New
Calendrists or by those local churches (including ROCOR) which did not
change.
>
>If it does not then it fossilizes and
>> dies. But it is ridiculous to speak of any specific stage of that
>> organic growth as being 'better' or 'worse' than what came before or
>> what comes after. The liturgical year as celebrated in Rome in the 2nd
>> century was different than that celebrated in Constantinople in the
>> 9th or Moscow in the 19th. Yet none of these 'lacked' *anything*
>> because they were the liturgical life of the Body of Christ which is
>> the fullness of Him who is All in all. So long as the Communion of our
>> Lord is celebrated by the Body as the Body then there is nothing
>> lacking and, frankly, to say otherwise is to tread the line of
>> blasphemy.
>
>I do not think it is blasphemy to suggest that decisions can be taken that
>are harmful to the Church.
That is not what I was referring to as blasphemy. Obviously decisions
can be made and actions taken which are harmful to the Church in its
human aspect (the introduction of the filioque, the behavior of
Cardinal Humbert, the persecution of the Old Believers or, your
example, Peter's distortion of the relationship of Church & State).
What I was talking about was a (perceived) intimitation that when an
Orthodox Christian attends liturgy and partakes of the Body and Blood
of Christ, the fullness of that act can be considered to lack anything
because of some aspect of non-Apostolic practice is missing or
different from what was found in 19th century Greece or 5th century
Rome or whatever.
When the New Martyrs of Russia served liturgy in the gulags without
vestments or altars or incense using wine made of crushed raisins and
crusts of bread which were not proper prosphora, that act was in no
way less than the same service performed in Agia Sophia in 1400 with
every detail perfect.
We can discuss preferences all we want. We can discuss effectiveness
for this or that purpose. What we cannot do is doubt that where the
Body and Blood *are*, there is the Church and there is the fullness of
salvation. A point which frankly takes priority over any other point
of discussion.
Daniel Kisliakov
Church should change. The only reason offered is taht teh Church should be
in tune with teh secular world. This idea aws given a theological
dimension whn it is stated that time whould be sanctified, that therefore
teh Church calender should correspond to teh secular calender. However, I
don't consider this very plausible. Time should be sanctified no matter
what calender we use, because there are no secular feasts which correspond
with Church ones. The 'religious' feasts which are recognised by the State
do not exist in teh spirit of Orthodoxy, such as all the shopping
associated with Christmas. Therefore, there is nothing corresponding
between teh Church and secular calenders, the sanctifying process can be
achieved even if there isn't a corresponding calender.
The only reason remaining for the consistency in calender is that the
Orthodox should be teh asme as the heterodox, either for the sake of
'Christian unity', or for the sake of mixed marriages where it may be
sometimes difficult to celebrate Christmas twice. The former explanation
may be plausible in some respects, although more attention should be given
to the actual dogmatic differences between teh Orthodox and the Heterodox.
The latter is also plausible when considering the plight of certain
marriages. However, when weighed against the arguments against the
calender reform, these arguments fail to stand. The Gregorian Calender is
inherently inaccurate. With the growing difference of a day every hundred
years or so, there are certain feasts which must be omitted, should not be
the case. Furthemore, the inaccuracy leads to the joining of Easter and
Christmas in a few thousand years, which again should not be the case. The
inaccuracy in some respects is so important that scientists use the Julian
calender in dating stars because of its accuracy.
There is no scientific or dogmatic reason to change the calender. The
Paschal date was affirmed by the Ecumenical Councils. Against this, the
only reason for the change is that teh Church needs to be more attuned
with either the Heterodox or secular society, an argument which cannot
stand above the dogmatic or scientific reasons. Therefore, maintaining teh
old calender is the better alternative.
In Christ,
Daniel Kisliakov
P.S. Fr. John, your clain about the sanctification of time, was that
backed up by teh Councils?
Caedmon Parsons
<ki...@russian-gateway.com.au> wrote:
>The Gregorian Calender is
>inherently inaccurate.
If inaccuracy is an issue (and I agree that it is), the Julian
calendar is a several orders of magnitude more inaccurate than the
Gregorian:
Astronomical year: 365.242199 days
Julian year: 365.25 days
Gregorian year: 365.2422 days
IOW, the Julian is inaccurate by .007801 days each year. The Gregorian
by .000001 days per year. Which is why right now the Gregorian equinox
is the astronomical equinox while the Julian equinox is off by 13
days. The Julian calendar will continue to lose a day-and-a-half every
two centuries--moving to 14 days off in the very near future. The
Gregorian, on the other hand will take another 99,840 years before it
is a full day off of astronomical reality.
>With the growing difference of a day every hundred
>years or so, there are certain feasts which must be omitted, should not be
>the case.
This difference is caused by the *Julian* calendar's inaccuracy.
>The
>inaccuracy in some respects is so important that scientists use the Julian
>calender in dating stars because of its accuracy.
No they don't. The "Julian" dating used by astronomers is a system
worked out in the 16th century by Joseph Scaliger (an astronomer who
was also involved in the development of the Gregorian system) and
named after his father Julius Scaliger.
The Julian date is simply a straightforward count completely ignoring
months and years from an arbitrarily fixed date (Joseph chose Jan 1,
4713 BC). The current Julian date (as opposed to the date on the
Julian or Gregorian calendars) is 2451246 JD, meaning 2,451, 246 days
from the fixed start.
Astronomers use it because it allows them to simplify their
mathematical calculations by ignoring the multiple historical
calendars, the shift from BC to AD, and the basic inaccuracy generated
by the length of the earth's orbit (solar year) not being evenly
divisible by the length of the earth's rotation (day).
> There is no scientific or dogmatic reason to change the calender. The
>Paschal date was affirmed by the Ecumenical Councils.
And the current Pascha date does *not* match what was confirmed at
ecumenical councils. Nicea defined the *astronomical* equinox as the
determining factor. Current practice uses the inaccurate Julian
equinox to put Pascha some two weeks later than Nicean standards place
it.
IOW, once the facts are corrected in your post, you are making one of
the best arguments for calendar reform in the Church in order that we
might once again be in conformity with Scripture and the Fathers on
this matter:
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for
seasons, and for days, and years: (Gen 1:14).
"The functions of the sun and moon serve further to mark years . . . .
As to the solar year, it is the time that the sun, having started from
a certain sign, takes to return to it in its normal progress." (St.
Basil)
"the arrangement of sun and moon, but also at the well-ordered choirs
of the stars, their unimpeded courses, and their risings in the
seasons due to each: and how some are signs of summer, and others of
winter; . . . . For of these matters the Scripture says well, 'And let
them be for signs, and for seasons, and for years,' not for fables of
astrology and nativities." (St. Cyril of Jerusalem)
"It is therefore your duty, brethren, who are redeemed by the precious
blood of Christ, to observe the days of the passover exactly, with all
care, after the vernal equinox, lest ye be obliged to keep the
memorial of the one passion twice in a year. Keep it once only in a
year for Him that died but once . . . . But do you observe carefully
the vernal equinox . . . . [lest] you should through ignorance
celebrate the passover twice in the year, or celebrate the day of our
Lord on any other day than Sunday." (Apostolic Constitutions)
See also Book II, ch. 7 of the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith
by St. John of Damascus that I won't burden bandwith by quoting in
full here.
P.S. I'm sure everybody will be happy to hear that this will be my
last post on this topic until and unless someone else bothers to
actually look at the words of the Fathers in this matter.
Daniel Kisliakov
written by the Holy Fathers, so were the tones. Insence is passed on from the Old
Testament, which came as a directive from God. Insence is also reminiscent of the
vision St. John had in teh book of Revelation, the service in Heaven. Things only
change in the Orthodox Church because they re approved of, so to speak, by Holy
Tradition, in the teachings of the Holy Fathers. Other external changes often come
about with much less sobriety, and often are people giving in to passion. Let us
examine the issue of shaving beards. Although the issue may seem trivial at first, the
motivation behind this is that the whim of some culture, or congregation, or wife, does
not like thePriest to have the beard. The whim in this case is a passion. Although this
issue is obviously small, as the post above stated, a small external step can have
internal consequences. therefore there is the upmost need for sobriety in this matter.
In Christ,
Daniel Kisliakov
Fr. John Morris
incidentals such as which calendar one uses, how long a priest's beard is or
whether or he wears a cassock at K Mart the measure of Orthodoxy. I honestly
believe that this is a serious deviation of the spirit of true Orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy is not legalistic, nor is it petty. The Holy Tradition of Orthodoxy
never changes, but sometimes the way that we express that truth in different
times and places has changed. To deny that there have been changes in outward
expressions only shows one ignorance of the historical development of
Orthodoxy. Even today, there is a very different atmosphere in a Russian
Orthodox Church than a Greek Orthodox Church, yet both are Orthodox. However,
changes in non essentials and non dogmatic matters must never lead to a change
in the essential and the dogmatic.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Daniel Kisliakov wrote:
> On the calender issue, the most important issue is the reason why the
> Church should change. The only reason offered is taht teh Church should be
> in tune with teh secular world. This idea aws given a theological
> dimension whn it is stated that time whould be sanctified, that therefore
> teh Church calender should correspond to teh secular calender. However, I
> don't consider this very plausible. Time should be sanctified no matter
> what calender we use, because there are no secular feasts which correspond
> with Church ones. The 'religious' feasts which are recognised by the State
> do not exist in teh spirit of Orthodoxy, such as all the shopping
> associated with Christmas. Therefore, there is nothing corresponding
> between teh Church and secular calenders, the sanctifying process can be
> achieved even if there isn't a corresponding calender.
>
> The only reason remaining for the consistency in calender is that the
> Orthodox should be teh asme as the heterodox, either for the sake of
> 'Christian unity', or for the sake of mixed marriages where it may be
> sometimes difficult to celebrate Christmas twice. The former explanation
> may be plausible in some respects, although more attention should be given
> to the actual dogmatic differences between teh Orthodox and the Heterodox.
> The latter is also plausible when considering the plight of certain
> marriages. However, when weighed against the arguments against the
> calender reform, these arguments fail to stand. The Gregorian Calender is
> inherently inaccurate. With the growing difference of a day every hundred
> years or so, there are certain feasts which must be omitted, should not be
> the case. Furthemore, the inaccuracy leads to the joining of Easter and
> Christmas in a few thousand years, which again should not be the case. The
> inaccuracy in some respects is so important that scientists use the Julian
> calender in dating stars because of its accuracy.
>
> There is no scientific or dogmatic reason to change the calender. The
Wayne Andres
And I'm just curious...but does your church have electricity? And do you have flush
toilets? And when you walk into an Orthodox Christian home do you first greet the family
icon? Do you use wax votive candles? And is the iconostasis in your church higher than one
tier (after all the 'earliest' churches had an icon screen only waist high)? And does your
choir use four part harmony? And are the beards of your priests trimmed at all?
These are externals for heaven's sake..get with the game! Show me your heart!! Show me the
alms you give to the poor.... the people you lead to the truth.... the love you demonstrate
for your brothers and sister by NOT gossiping, fault-finding...etc. etc. Do you honestly in
all sincerity believe Christ is terribly interested in whether or not our priests are
wearing their riassa to K-mart?
--
Wayne
mailto:wayne...@sprint.ca
Bryan J. Maloney
(Troyen) wrote:
> Wonderworker, who cannot possibly be a "real" Saint because he was a Bishop in
> an "uncanonical" organization. However, the rotting coffin around his
The "non-canonical" status of ROCOR is not as cut-and-dried as some US
jurisdictions would have us believe. Believe me, my priest and I (and
he's GOA) have spoken with each other on this matter at length.
FTT
Wayne Andres <wayne...@sprint.ca> wrote in article
<36E537AD...@sprint.ca>...
|
| And I'm just curious...but does your church have electricity? And do you
have flush
| toilets? And when you walk into an Orthodox Christian home do you first
greet the family
| icon? Do you use wax votive candles? And is the iconostasis in your
church higher than one
| tier (after all the 'earliest' churches had an icon screen only waist
high)? And does your
| choir use four part harmony? And are the beards of your priests trimmed
at all?
|
| These are externals for heaven's sake..get with the game! Show me your
heart!! Show me the
| alms you give to the poor.... the people you lead to the truth.... the
love you demonstrate
| for your brothers and sister by NOT gossiping, fault-finding...etc. etc.
Do you honestly in
| all sincerity believe Christ is terribly interested in whether or not our
priests are
| wearing their riassa to K-mart?
|
|
| --
| Wayne
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I
| > Bravo, Wayne!
I > You are the kind of Orthodox who gives "heart"
I > to Holy Tradition and Orthodox Belief and practice.
| > As a "hereodox" Christian and Priest ( in the eyes of
I > "official Orthodoxy" and used in a very maligning way
I > by some *super* "O"rthodox posters on this nsg) you
I > strike an "authentic" note. You're more of an apologist for
I > your faith than any of "them". Keep up the good work and have
I > a genuinely blessed and spiritually rewarding Lent
I > PEACE IN CHRIST OUR LORD
I > FTT
Matanna
What makes you think that those with beards and rassons and wax candles in the
church DON'T give alms to the poor, lead people to the faith, etc.? As St. Paul
says, "Against these there are no laws." There's nothing that says that you
HAVE to have pews and an organ and a priest in western attire or civies in
order to love God and your brother.
How is it "harshly judgemental" to ask if your priest and parish observe these
things and NOT "harshly judgemental" to assume that a lack of shaving leads to
a lack of love, charity, almsgiving, etc.?
If you'll look at the Orthodox books available in English, twenty years ago
there were none that hadn't been translated by people with bearded, berassoned
(okay, I made the word up) clergy. Why? Because the Americans loved God and
their brother enough to learn the necessary Russian and Greek and the Russians
and Greeks loved God and their brother enough to learn the necessary English to
put out these books.
Explain to me how it is that you can not allow for the existing of Christian
charity in a Traditionalist heart.
Matushka Ann Lardas
(mat...@aol.com)
Kevin Bullard
2. Is your priest concerned more for the return of the Tsar than Jesus
Christ Himself?
3. Does your priest often shop at the "Visions of Rasputin" Clothing
store?
Please grade your own papers!
the Kevinator
Wayne Andres
I didn't imply any of this, Matushka. I think, if you examine your post, you will
see that you are being just a bit defensive. I don't need to read books re this
sort of stuff. All I need to do is look at the person. I see our wonderful
Metropolitan maligned by ignoramuses because he doesn't happen to wear his funny
hat all the time...nor always appear with his beard. But his life and acts speak
volumes on the Spirit of Truth which resides within him. He is maligned by some of
the very people who were brought to Orthodoxy when no other jurisdictions would
welcome them. I will follow Metropolitan Philip's leadership and that of the
priests of my church any day of the week. The fruit speaks for itself.
--
Wayne
mailto:wayne...@sprint.ca
GS
Wayne Andres wrote:
> Daniel Kisliakov wrote:
>
>
>
> And I'm just curious...but does your church have electricity?
Actually i was thinking of a lot of churches I attended that are packed with people in
Macedonia that do not have this
> And do you have flush
> toilets?
nor do they have this. Maybe a privy outside if you are lucky. That is how a lot of people
live day to day. And they stay clean.
> And when you walk into an Orthodox Christian home do you first greet the family
> icon?
often there, yes
> Do you use wax votive candles?
they use oil lamps, mostly or beeswax candles stuck on a metal tray or saucer sometimes with
with sand in it.
> And is the iconostasis in your church higher than one
> tier (after all the 'earliest' churches had an icon screen only waist high)?
nope usually about there - ie. accessible
> And does your
> choir use four part harmony?
mostly BYzantine chant but occasional harmony on a couple pieces left over form period of
Serbian domination.
> And are the beards of your priests trimmed at all?
nope, nor the readers or deacons or whoever. But the people show up in overalls, rags,
miniskirts, leather or no, jeans and undershirts, but mostly covered up. transitions,
transitions.
>
>
> These are externals for heaven's sake..
but it is nice when people keep them as they are, no?
> get with the game!
it is no game
> Show me your heart!!
but this is important.
> Show me the
> alms you give to the poor....
they share what little they have - put us to shame
> the people you lead to the truth.... the love you demonstrate
> for your brothers and sister by NOT gossiping, fault-finding...etc. etc.
and what do you do with this post - do you imagine that the ancient things cannot exist with
Faith Love and Charity?
> Do you honestly in
> all sincerity believe Christ is terribly interested in whether or not our priests are
> wearing their riassa to K-mart?
actually, if someone sees the priest in his riaza at the Kmart they are going to feel more like
they are in an Orthodox village which is GOOD.
>
>
> --
> Wayne
> mailto:wayne...@sprint.ca
|:[ <---sternface
Wayne Andres
Galina...now seriously...you are purposely misinterpreting what I posted and you are an intelligent
woman (much more so than I...oopsie...I'm male btw). This is not Macedonia so let's stay within the
proper context here. We do not need to recreate Macedonian conditions here to be Orthodox. :-)
--
Wayne
mailto:wayne...@sprint.ca
Kevin Bullard
"Oh, Lookit! A Holy Man! He's wearing a cassock and has a beard!"
the Kevinator
"Fr. John Morris" wrote:
> ... The fact is that when we stand before the awesome judgment seat of Christ, we
> will be asked if we lived our lives as if Christ mattered. We will not be asked
> whether we followed the Old or the New Calendar. Our priests will be asked if they
> did their best to lead their flocks to salvation by preaching the truth of Orthodoxy,
> not how long their beards were or what they wore to the grocery store.
>
> Archpriest John W. Morris
>
Troyen
You are correct in your assertions Father. However, you are to well ecucated
to get by with saying "noone" this and, "nobody" that. You can speak for
yourself and I do believe you. You know that I have complimented you on your
stands before, but you can have no assurance that one who comes after you and
has indeed emulated your "style" of "ministry" will mimic your internals as
well as your externals.
Hopefully we are getting to a general agreement here on the influence that you
as an accomplished Priest exert over others.
sinner, troyen
Troyen
the Church happened in this Century. You casually parade out ancient history
in your own light that of course backs your party line and expect me to believe
it. Your true colors come out.
Don't put that signature block down at the end of your posts if you are going
to speak to me in such a way. I have asked honest questions and you have
resorted to attack on a personal level.
I will tell you straight out that I often fail to turn the other cheek and I am
not a peacefreak hippy. If you want to speak as such to me then don't hide
behind a facade of Orthodoxy because I am not into it. I know full well that I
could go to hell nine days out of ten and you sir in your arrogance and cruelty
to your fellow Orthodox Christians(be they uncanonical before your Cannons)
make matters worse.
sinner, troyen
Kevin Bullard
the Kevinator
"Fr. Anthony" wrote:
> In article <36E55B22...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com>,
> Sput...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com says...
> Does your Priest know the type of things you write on a public forum regarding
> the Church? I guess I'll ask him when he gets back in town and we have lunch.
> >
> >
Fr. Anthony
Caedmon Parsons
>Your true colors come out.
> I have asked honest questions and you have
>resorted to attack on a personal level.
Troyen, I have responded to you in a blunt manner because your posts
indicate that not only can you take it but that's how you like your
discussion. If I was wrong in that and have offended you, I apologize
but then you need to take a very long look at how you choose to post.
As to your 'honest questions' and my 'true colors'
Anytime you want to deal with the Scriptues and Patristic quotes I
have given, go ahead.
Any time you want to back up your statement that I have ever used the
term schismatic for anyone besides those who have cut themselves off
from communion with the Church, which happens to be the Patristic
definition feel free. And if you can't then feel free to retract your
false statement.
And if you can't tell the difference between a discussion of what the
Church or the Fathers did in the past and how that applies to now and
a discussion of how big a sinner Meletios or anyone else is, then
there's really not much else to say, is there?
So, yes, until you deal with the above, I'll stick with my
description: your contribution to this thread has been to bitch based
on a willingness to second-guess your own bishops on the basis of
personal opinions and a strange obsession with the sins of certain
bishops that are none of your business.
Daniel Kisliakov
You are right when you say that the Orthodoxy isn't legalistic. In fact, it's
really disappointing when people take little consideration of the true seriousness
of an issue suchg as teh length of a beard, and would call someone a heretic over
a trivial matter. Shaving and not waaring a Cassock is not a heresy, but both teh
Cassock and the long beard can act as symbols of being further away from teh
world, and in turn further away from passions. Also, teh Cassock gives teh visible
presence of Priest in public. This Orthodox Christians, we should try to cling to
every possible reminder of our faith. Seeing a Priest in public in a Cassock is a
very good reminder. The same is true whenever I go into a shop or office taht is
owned by someone Orthodox. When there is an icon, this acts in teh same way. While
there shouldn't be any fundamentalistic requirement for Priests to have beards or
to wear a Cassock, there can be little doubt as to teh usefulnes of this when in
remembering what we believe.
In Christ,
Daniel Kisliakov
Daniel Kisliakov
Lutherans in Sweden at teh anaversary of teh lutheran Church there a few
years ago. What about the presence and participation of several Orthodox
jurisdictions in the 'Lima Liturgy'in Canberra in 1991, and before that
in Montreal in 1983? There was full Communion with the Heterodox in
these case, and participation with pagans in the latter. Is this a
witness of 'Orthodox Ecumenism'? As I understand it, Communion with
heterodox was strictly forbidden in the Canons.
In Christ,
Daniel Kisliakov
Caedmon Parsons
There was no intercommunion at Canberra or Montreal. Whatever other
failures have occurred at the WCC the Orthodox representatives have
maintained that basic line. And if by 'pagans' you are referring to
the Australian Aborigines wearing native dress at Canberra, they were
Protestants.
GS
Wayne Andres wrote:
But would be nice
GS
Wayne Andres wrote:
I missed Baptism of our Lord because I had a bit of a setback and there when i got to church the next
week was a baby pool and a hose right outside the church hall door. As the priest came back for his
little apartment above part of the church hall with my pint of Holy water with a large sprig of
mountain tea he had used to do the blessing in a pint size Evian water bottle whose cap had been scotch
taped on so I could get this intact back to Washington, I happened to ask him where in the Los Angeles
area the young guys had done the diving, remarking i thought it pretty incredible some Macedonians
diving into frozen water in the Midwest. "We simplify", he said," by retrieving the cross nearby,"
pointing to the Toys R Us baby pool, "and we have running water", he finished, pointing to the green
garden hose attached to the spigot o the side of the building. "Here," one of the parishioners said,
"have a blessing from California. These giants are not bananas. they only appear to be bananas. You
let these ripen and these fruits you cook." They were plantains from a tree planted out in the parking
lot area.
God is good!
Galina
Fr. John Morris
Daniel Kisliakov wrote:
> What about when Patriarch Bartholemew participated with Catholics and
> Lutherans in Sweden at teh anaversary of teh lutheran Church there a few
> years ago. What about the presence and participation of several Orthodox
> jurisdictions in the 'Lima Liturgy'in Canberra in 1991, and before that
> in Montreal in 1983? There was full Communion with the Heterodox in
> these case, and participation with pagans in the latter. Is this a
> witness of 'Orthodox Ecumenism'? As I understand it, Communion with
> heterodox was strictly forbidden in the Canons.
>
> In Christ,
> Daniel Kisliakov
There is no communion with non Orthodox. There is a difference between being
present and participating. Unfortunately, some people are spreading a
highly distorted view of Orthodox ecumenism. From your message, it appears
that you have seen a video that some people are distributing. That
particular work of propaganda is so false that it can be called fiction. It
shows all the things that the Orthodox found offensive at Canaberra, but
neglects completely to mention that hte Orthodox protested against these
abuses. I have no respect for people who resort to such deceptions in their
efforts to gain followers.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Wayne Andres
> Wayne Andres wrote:
> snipperoonies
> > > > --
> > > > Wayne
> > > > mailto:wayne...@sprint.ca
> > >
> > > |:[ <---sternface
> >
> > Galina...now seriously...you are purposely misinterpreting what I posted and you are an intelligent
> > woman (much more so than I...oopsie...I'm male btw). This is not Macedonia so let's stay within the
> > proper context here. We do not need to recreate Macedonian conditions here to be Orthodox. :-)
> >
> > --
> > Wayne
> > mailto:wayne...@sprint.ca
>
> But would be nice
Hmmm.... I'll have to take your word on that, Galina, having never been there before. I know that when I
visited Moscow and Kiev in 1990 I was impressed by extremely glad to get back to Canada and my doorknobs
that turn the right way....heh heh.
--
Wayne
mailto:wayne...@sprint.ca
Bryan J. Maloney
> Actually i was thinking of a lot of churches I attended that are packed
with people in
> Macedonia that do not have this
And in America?
> and what do you do with this post - do you imagine that the ancient
things cannot exist with
> Faith Love and Charity?
But do you imagine that one must have beards to exist in Faith, Love, and
Charity?