Posted on 06/29/2005 10:39:18 AM PDT by jec1ny
I just spent a long week in Tbilisi and found that Georgia has some 80+% of the people devoutly Orthodox. Lots of new churches going up there.
"Be sure to drink your Ovaltine?"
" Lots of new churches going up there."
Outside of the few big cities in Greece, there are also new churches going up all over the place, my own family's village for example.
This is very surprising given what his public personae is otherwise (just a tad away from outright heresy).
As for a decline, the GOA isn't closing parishes, its opening new ones and we have no shortage of priests and won't for the foreseeable future. Do you honestly think that if we graduate 20 seminarians a year we can't staff 600 parishes????
One can open parish after parish, but if the population is declining overall (which is what the statistics put out by the Orthodox Churches say), this just continues the thinning out process. And the issue is the ENTRY of 10-20 seminarians per year, not the ordination of that many. Lets say the average is under 15 ordinations per year (reasonable, since entries vary from 10-20). Average age at entry is 31.5, according to your Church. If you assume a 5 year course of study, that gives an age of around 37 at ordination. The priests will not live long enough to make up 1 priest per parish in the long run, especially if you continue to open additional parishes.
http://www.helleniccomserve.com/holycross.html
I can't speak for the OCA.
But you could look. They have a grand total of 47 seminarians in both their seminaries.
http://www.oca.org/news.asp?ID=76&SID=19
Your comments about the faithfulness of Greek Orthodox in Greece bespeaks a particularly Roman "You'll go to hell if you miss Mass" mindset. The Greeks are very religious people, also great sinners.
The Catholics Church doesn't "damn you to hell" either. It says the way to fulfill the 3rd Commandment is to attend Mass on Sunday, and it has "bound" the faithful to that precept, based on, "whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."
Thus the Canons. "Canon 21. If someone living in a city does not come to Church for three Sundays, fasting is to be imposed on him for a short time, until he is seen to have reformed." (Council of Elvira)
I suspect that weekly attendance probably is about 20% of the population which is nearly 100% Orthodox.
Well, most of the western countries like Spain, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, etc. are nearly 100% Catholic, but the behavior of around half the population makes it difficult to accept this is anything more than a cultural legacy. Same as Anglicanism in Britain, or Protestantism in America. How is this any different? They show up on Easter and for First Communions and Baptisms and Funerals too.
It is clear that many Orthodox, hierarchs, monastics and clergy, simply don't trust or like their Roman counterparts. The reverse is also true.
I'm not aware of Catholics who distrust or dislike the Orthodox.
I don't think I'm revealing any secrets when I say that among non Roman Catholic lay people, Orthodox included, there is a certain distaste and disdain for, and even a fear of, Rome. Among the Orthodox in particular, there is a deep and abiding refusal to worship God like you do, accept your ecclesiology or engage in the mental knot tying of so much of your theology. In other words, they don't want to submit to Rome, go to your churches or take on your problems. Now, how do we deal with that?
I don't know. It seems quite sad to live your life in fear of and running away from someone else.
I've pointed out this before, but so much Orthodox material I've read takes the Apophatic method of explaining Orthodoxy to the extreme of "Catholics believe X and Orthodox don't", unable to even explain belief in terms of anything but a contradiction of a perceived belief of Rome. One wonders if Catholicism suddenly vanished, how these type of people would explain their own beliefs.
My question to you is: What are you afraid of? What do you fear Rome doing to you?
Oooops! Can one ask for "compensation" for time spent in hell?
No, what they said was if you purposefully ate meat on Friday, knowing the Church had bound the faithful to abstinence on that day, and thus eating it in contempt of the authority of the Church, you had committed a mortal sin. Certainly you would accept that acts of contempt towards the authorities in the Church are sinful?
Rome still asks the faithful to maintain the former discipline, and our American Bishops have even made the discipline more rigorous in what they ask the faithful to do - we are supposed to both fast and abstain every Friday outside the octaves of Christmas and Easter, and all the weekdays of Lent. And many of us do so. However, she has released us from the pain of sin in not doing so, provided we do some other penitential act in its place.
I very much doubt there are many people in hell for eating a ham sandwich on Friday.
Were 80% at Church on Sunday? I'd find that remarkable.
Lots of new churches going up there.
Undoubtedly to undo the fury of the Communists in that land.
Don't the Orthodox accept the authority of the Apostolic Constitutions? In Book 2 we read:
That Every Christian Ought to Frequent the Church Diligently Both Morning and Evening.LIX. When thou instructest the people, O bishop, command and exhort them to come constantly to church morning and evening every day, and by no means to forsake it on any account, but to assemble together continually; neither to diminish the Church by withdrawing themselves, and causing the body of Christ to be without its member. For it is not only spoken concerning the priests, but let every one of the laity hearken to it as concerning himself, considering that it is said by the Lord: "He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Do not you therefore scatter yourselves abroad, who are the members of Christ, by not assembling together, since you have Christ your head, according to His promise, present, and communicating to you. Be not careless of yourselves, neither deprive your Saviour of His own members, neither divide His body nor disperse His members, neither prefer the occasions of this life to the word of God; but assemble yourselves together every day, morning and evening, singing psalms and praying in the Lord's house: in the morning saying the sixty-second Psalm, and in the evening the hundred and fortieth, but principally on the Sabbath-day. And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent Him to us, and condescended to let Him suffer, and raised Him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning the resurrection, on which we pray thrice standing in memory of Him who arose in three days, in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the Gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food?
The Vain Zeal Which the Heathens and Jews Show in Frequenting Their Temples and Synagogues is a Proper Example and Motive to Excite Christians to Frequent the Church.
LX. And how can he be other than an adversary to God, who takes pains about temporary things night and day, but takes no care of things eternal? who takes care of washings and temporary food every day, but does not take care of those that endure for ever? How can such a one even now avoid hearing that word of the Lord, "The Gentiles are justified more than you? "as He says, by way of reproach, to Jerusalem, "Sodom is justified rather than thou." For if the Gentiles every day, when they arise from sleep, run to their idols to worship them, and before all their work and all their labours do first of all pray to them, and in their feasts and in their solemnities do not keep away, but attend upon them; and not only those upon the place, but those living far distant do the same; and in their public shows all come together, as into a synagogue: in the same manner those which are vainly called Jews, when they have worked six days, on the seventh day rest, and come together into their synagogue, never leaving nor neglecting either rest from labour or assembling together, while yet they are deprived of the efficacy of the word in their unbelief, nay, and of the force of that name Judah, by which they call themselves,-for Judah is interpreted Confession,-but these do not confess to God (having unjustly occasioned the suffering on the cross), so as to be saved on their repentance;-if, therefore, those who are not saved frequently assemble together for such purposes as do not profit them, what apology wilt thou make to the Lord God who forsakest His Church, not imitating so much as the heathen, but by such thy absence growest slothful, or turnest apostate, or actest wickedness? To whom the Lord says by Jeremiah: "Ye have not kept my ordinances; nay, ye have not walked according to the ordinances of the heathen, and you have in a manner exceeded them." And again: "Israel has justified his soul more than treacherous Judah." And afterwards: "Will the Gentiles change their gods which are not gods? Wherefore pass over to the isles of Chittim, and behold, and send to Kedar, and observe diligently whether such things have been done. For those nations have not changed their ordinances; but," says He, "my people has changed its glory for that which will not profit." How, therefore, will any one make his apology who has despised or absented himself from the church of God?
Faith-sharing bump.
I suppose you mean the 4th Commandment "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy." [Deut. says "Keep" instead of "Remember"]. How does that mean going to Mass? And what happened to the free will God gave us if we are "bound" to go to Mass?
The main reason one needs to go to Church is to receive the Mysteries.
Canon 21. If someone living in a city does not come to Church for three Sundays, fasting is to be imposed on him for a short time, until he is seen to have reformed." (Council of Elvira)
So, fasting is now "punishment?" Something that is imposed on the believer? Sounds like a speeding ticket. And what happens if one does not "pay back" the non-attendence? More fasting? Is that what the Roman Catholic do when they miss going to Mass on Sundays? The priests imposes fasting on them? Or is this another one of those customs that was dropped in order to keep up with the times?
I'm not aware of Catholics who distrust or dislike the Orthodox
I will quote you on that and ping you next time one of them comes out of the woodwork.
I don't know. It seems quite sad to live your life in fear of and running away from someone else
The fear comes from the knowledge that our faiths are not the same -- or compatible -- even if the Pope says they are. The fear is that the Church will be reduced to an admission of papal supremacy regardless what the different churchs in that communion teach. The fear is that everything is relativized in order that everyone can accept the Pope as their master. The fear is the knoweldge that you have changed the faith and church organization to the point where it is unrecognizable to us.
We're not sad at all, to my knowledge. As for fear, well I think that is real. Unlike most Western Catholics, Eastern Orthodox people come from cultures where what happened 1000 or more years ago is like yesterday, especially when it comes to the Church. Until the mid 1960s, Rome was quite clear about Orthodoxy. We were heretics pure and simple. This unity stuff is really quite new. What isn't new is the price of admission, submission, just like it has always been, even to the point of allowing The City to fall to the Mohammedans in 1453. What have we heard that is in anyway different from the proclamations of the Dictatus Papae, or the Council of Trent even from this new Pope, let alone any of his predecessors. In 1453 the intensity of the feelings held by the Orthodox East against Rome was so great that the people proclamed "Better the sultan's turban than the pope's mitre!" Imagine that, the depth of the distrust and even hatred the East felt for the West and it came not from the EP or the Emperor, but from a number of the metropolitans, the monastics, the lower clergy and the Laos tou Theou. It is fair to ask, Hermann, what has changed? Rome stood by and allowed the great capitol of the Christian East to fall under the heel of the Turks because the Orthodox wouldn't submit. In the last century, when much of Orthodoxy groaned under the oppression of the communists, what did Rome do? Did Rome pray for the faithful Orthodox Christians suffering martyrdom to be strengthened in the faith? No, of course not. I won't even go into the Uniate story. Rome broadcast the Fatima story and encouraged its people to say the Rosary so the heretics and schimatics of Orthodoxy in Russia would be converted to Roman Catholicism. The Fatimists still do, in between Hindoo rites as I understand it. After all, Hermann, as I was taught myself by the Sisters of Mercy, unless one submitted to the Pope of Rome, one was damned and the Orthodox Christians of Eastern Europe were suffering because they themselves were damned. That's the recent reality of your Roman Church, Hermann! People are afraid of an organization like that, rich, politically powerful, media savvy and just 50 years ago proclaming that the Orthodox were getting what they deserved. What has changed, Hermann and if anything, why?
I can give you certain guarantees. There isn't an Orthodox person in the world who thinks we would be better off as a Church, in any fashion, if we were to embrace the Dictatus Papae...not one. I can guarantee to you that there is not a single Orthodox person who believes that our hierarchs should be elevated, moved or removed at the whim of the Pope of Rome...not one. Finally I can guarantee to you that there is not one Orthodox person who believes that the Pope of Rome, primus inter pares which he would be in an united Church or not, can proclaim dogma sua sponte ex cathedra...none, Hermann, none.
I know that there is undoubtedly a Roman spin on things which will use the Fathers or the words of a Council, local or Ecumenical, to demonstrate otherwise, but Hermann no one in Orthodoxy will agree, no more than all that argument here on FR, with a relatively well informed crowd of Orthodox, has changed anyone's opinion. Personally I think many of the theological differences can be worked out and that that is a good thing. But the Pope's recently expressed hope that the Petrine Ministry prove not to be a stumbling block to unity is a hope in vain. He cannot be the Pope of the Dictatus Papae, universal jurisdiction and infallibility and have unity with Orthodoxy anymore than Canute could tell the tide what to do. But that won't change, Hermann, because Rome cannot change its ecclesiology or its view of the Petrine Ministry because it has abrogated to itself, without the fullness of The Church, the power to dogmatically proclaim these very things. Rome is stuck.
Well, this is one of those man-made "traditions" that has changed substantially as the Church developed. It used to be unregulated as to the days or food. Then it was different for the monastics and the laity.
Fast is a prayer of sorts and it is a custom that the Church implemented to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. The Western Church eventually dropped Wednesdays. Then it dropped even that and substituted it with other works -- perhaps an extra prayer or two?
Whether we are "punished" for fasting, completely or not, I leave up to God, not the Church. There is nothing is what our Lord taught that says we can eat anything or have to abstain from anything on any particular day.
" The main reason one needs to go to Church is to receive the Mysteries."
Exactly. Living our lives as Orthodox Christians, hopefully advancing in theosis, involves far more than weekly attendance at the Divine Liturgy.
Hermann, we don't attend the Liturgy and pray the prayers and chant the chants because we're afraid God will whack us if we don't. I know of very pious Orthodox Christians in the old country and even here for that matter, who do not reguarly attend the Liturgy...but they have their icons at home, in their workplaces, even in their wallets and venerate those icons two or more times a day everyday. Through lives of prayer, especially noetic prayer, they become more like God as each day passes.
The Church has also bound us not to murder young children through abortion. Does that abridge our free will also?
So, fasting is now "punishment?" Something that is imposed on the believer? Sounds like a speeding ticket. And what happens if one does not "pay back" the non-attendence? More fasting? Is that what the Roman Catholic do when they miss going to Mass on Sundays? The priests imposes fasting on them? Or is this another one of those customs that was dropped in order to keep up with the times?
No, it is a penance for sin in this case. Most priests today would impose prayers on such a penitent.
The Council of Elvira which made this canon and imposed a penitential punishment for violators of Sunday was held around AD 300. Perhaps they were heretics anticipating by omniscence the "evils" of St. Pope Gregory VII 750 years later? (/sarcasm)
The fear comes from the knowledge that our faiths are not the same -- or compatible -- even if the Pope says they are. The fear is that the Church will be reduced to an admission of papal supremacy regardless what the different churchs in that communion teach. The fear is that everything is relativized in order that everyone can accept the Pope as their master. The fear is the knoweldge that you have changed the faith and church organization to the point where it is unrecognizable to us.
If that is true, how then are you able to say this with a straight face to members of the Melkite Greek or Ukranian Catholic Churches?
Also, we don't view the Pope as our "Master". He is our primary leader and shepherd and teacher. But not a master, since we are not his slaves.
No, we transferred it from Wednesday to Saturday (except in Ember Weeks), because there was a feeling in the Latin West that we should fast on the days Our Lord spent in the tomb, rather than on the day Judas betrayed Him (Wednesday).
There is nothing is what our Lord taught that says we can eat anything or have to abstain from anything on any particular day.
Not in the Bible perhaps (but then we don't accept Sola Scriptura, do we?), but Apostolic Tradition (and I mean APOSTOLIC) is quite clear about penance on Fridays and during Lent, with a traditional emphasis on fasting and abstinence from meat. Are you suggesting the Apostles just randomly made this up, as opposed to arranging it by direction of the Lord?
"The Council of Elvira which made this canon and imposed a penitential punishment for violators of Sunday was held around AD 300. Perhaps they were heretics anticipating by omniscence the "evils" of St. Pope Gregory VII 750 years later?"
No, they were heretics because they were iconoclasts, canon xxxvi. The punishment was for failing to attend Church for three undays in a row. They also came up with a gem of a canon which forbade eating with Jews. Ever eat with a Jew, Hermann? Better stay away from communion, canon L.
The East, by the way, never accepted this council as authoritative.
Most works pre-1960 referred to the Orthodox as schismatics, not heretics. Intercommunion had been allowed up until 1729.
What have we heard that is in anyway different from the proclamations of the Dictatus Papae
The Dictatus Papae was not a "proclamation" but a Canon Law extract of supposed canonical teaching and privileges.
stood by and allowed the great capitol of the Christian East to fall under the heel of the Turks because the Orthodox wouldn't submit.
Actually, at the time, the Orthodox had "submitted" just 14 years prior at Florence, and westerners from Genoa and Venice bravely fought side-by-side with the East Romans to defend the City right to the final day.
Of course, the Pope was not able to send 50 legions to assist you, because that was never under his power (as Stalin observed), despite his pretensions. He could not prevent his own children from wasting their days warring with each other over perceived slights of honor. How could you seriously expect him to save you from the Turkish onslaught with the long ago death of the Crusader impulse? It has been observed by many that the Orthodox applied themselves to the wrong Council looking for military salvation. Rather than going to Basle, where the nations with military power were meeting (France, Germany, England, etc.), then went to Florence and argued with the Italians over esoterica.
Did Rome pray for the faithful Orthodox Christians suffering martyrdom to be strengthened in the faith?
Yes. Rome even sent Priests and Monks among you to preserve you in learning while under the Turkish yoke do the closure of your schools. Today this period and assistance is castigated by you as one of western oppression.
For many years, after every Low Mass in the entire Catholic world, prayers were said for the Liberty of the Church in Russia from the Communists.
The Crusades were first called by Pope St. Gregory VII (writer of the Dictatus Papae you are obssessed about) in AD 1074 to reverse the catastrophe of Mazinkert.
Rome broadcast the Fatima story and encouraged its people to say the Rosary so the heretics and schimatics of Orthodoxy in Russia would be converted to Roman Catholicism.
Fatima was about the coming evils of Communism, and its daughter of secularism. Our Lady did not ask for prayers for the conversion of the Orthodox to Catholic Orthodoxy, and only the idiots among our communion would ever put out such a story.
After all, Hermann, as I was taught myself by the Sisters of Mercy, unless one submitted to the Pope of Rome, one was damned and the Orthodox Christians of Eastern Europe were suffering because they themselves were damned.
Those who willfully refuse Communion or to seek Communion are refusing to live in charity with their brothers. How can someone who purposefully propogates schism in the Church, or glories in living in seperation, come to glorification and salvation? Their life is not one of love, but of hate for their fellow man, and worse, their fellow believers. Do you believe that haters and schismatics receive salvation? What did St. Paul say about this in Galatians 5.19-21?
There isn't an Orthodox person in the world who thinks we would be better off as a Church, in any fashion, if we were to embrace the Dictatus Papae...not one.
That's good, because we Catholics don't accept it either.
I can guarantee to you that there is not a single Orthodox person who believes that our hierarchs should be elevated, moved or removed at the whim of the Pope of Rome...not one.
Good. Rome doesn't have such powers outside her Patriarchate. We agree.
Finally I can guarantee to you that there is not one Orthodox person who believes that the Pope of Rome, primus inter pares which he would be in an united Church or not, can proclaim dogma sua sponte ex cathedra...none, Hermann, none.
What then do you take the Tomes of Leo and Agatho to be? Friendly letters to help the poor easterners in their disputes?
But the Pope's recently expressed hope that the Petrine Ministry prove not to be a stumbling block to unity is a hope in vain. He cannot be the Pope of the Dictatus Papae, universal jurisdiction and infallibility and have unity with Orthodoxy anymore than Canute could tell the tide what to do.
The Pope has never been the Pope of Dictatus Papae except in the fervid imaginations of a few like Boniface VIII.
Universal jurisdiction means that the Pope can hear cases and settle disputes and provide order in the Churches throughout the world, not that he is every Bishop's Metropolitan and every Priest's Bishop and every faithful's Pastor.
Infallibility is an inability to err when passing dogmatic judgement, not an ability to create new binding doctrines never before heard.
Rome is stuck.
We'll see. But if she is stuck, its not such a bad place to be in.
Sources from your own Church say that this conclusion is not at all clear.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/icon_faq.aspx
The East, by the way, never accepted this council as authoritative.
The old final and last word on the authority of anything, eh?
The West never accepted the Council of Trullo (Quinisext). Does that mean it never had any real authority?
Actually, the Church of Greece, like the Church of Cyprus is very autonomous. Far more autonomous than is any "Patriarchate" in communion with Rome. I used the term (re?)developed. I think it is appropriate.
Regardless of how you term it, the reality is that Orthodoxy has a ecclesiology that is in continuity with the patristic era and Rome does not. Are we supposed to be broken up over the fact that a temporary abberation in our ecclesial organization (and that only in the Greek-speaking Patriarchates) was corrected, when Rome has yet to acknowledge the grave error of declaring universal jurisdiction and infallibility?
It is difficult to see how advancement in theosis occurs by purposefully absenting oneself from communion with ones brothers. This is certainly not the way of the Apostles (Acts 2.42-47).
Hermann, we don't attend the Liturgy and pray the prayers and chant the chants because we're afraid God will whack us if we don't.
Such a queer conception you have of western beliefs!
"The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered to God for four ends: (1) To honor Him properly, and hence it is called Latreutical; (2) To thank Him for His favors, and hence it is called Eucharistical; (3) To appease Him, make Him due satisfaction for our sins, and to help the souls in Purgatory, and hence it is called Propitiatory; (4) To obtain all the graces necessary for us, and hence it is called Impetratory." (Catechism of St. Pius X)
I don't see anything about going to Mass to avoid damnation as an end or purpose of attending. Are you quite sure you had some years of Catholic schooling?
I know of very pious Orthodox Christians in the old country and even here for that matter, who do not reguarly attend the Liturgy...but they have their icons at home, in their workplaces, even in their wallets and venerate those icons two or more times a day everyday. Through lives of prayer, especially noetic prayer, they become more like God as each day passes.
This is Quietism and Quakerism.
Christianity is a corporate religion in worship, not a private personalistic one. If we didn't need the Liturgy on Sunday, Christ would not have told his Apostles to celebrate it, nor would the Church oblige her Priests to do so for the benefit of the faithful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.