OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 16, 2014, 09:52:14 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "Russian Orthodox Church" Article by National Geographic  (Read 3239 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,362


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« on: March 16, 2009, 07:40:34 PM »

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/04/orthodox/schmemann-text

Soul of Russia

Driven underground for 75 years, the faith of the Russian tsars now enjoys favored status.

By Serge Schmemann


"The new Russia steadily ebbs away on the drive out of Moscow. The gridlock and pollution, the sprawling malls and billboards of the recent boom years give way to the gray suburbs and rusting factories of the Soviet era. These in turn fade into tall forests of pine and birch, punctuated by meadows and timeless villages of log houses. Now and again a whimsically painted steeple breaks the horizon, its gilded cupola glittering in the bright spring sun. We're back in the glubinka, the "deep" Russia beloved of Slavophiles, exiles, and painters. And we're headed for its very heart."
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,064



« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2009, 10:15:14 PM »

Thank you for sharing this!
Logged

Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,070


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2009, 10:38:40 PM »

Interesting comment buried in the article, in the interview with Fr. Kirill

Quote
Raising money and restoring buildings is the easy part, he says. The pilgrims? Most are "religious tourists" who come to accumulate totems. Even the monks are here today, off to another monastery tomorrow. The church still has no real communal life, no true spiritual revival.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,692


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2009, 04:39:00 AM »

Quote
the faith of the Russian tsars

Ahem. Kievan Rus' became Orthodox "officially" in 988, and before that, Orthodoxy wasa present for at least a couple of centuries, when you think of Sts Cyril and Methodius, and St Vladimir's grandmother St Olga, the first ruler of Rus' who became Orthodox.

The first Russian autocrat who called himself tsar was Ivan IV, who ascended the throne once he came of age in 1547, more than 550 years after the Orthodox "conversion" of Russia under Great Prince Vladimir.

Orthodoxy in many circles is, unfortunately, still seen as an "exotic curiosity".  Sad
« Last Edit: March 17, 2009, 04:39:16 AM by LBK » Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,362


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2009, 07:41:43 AM »

Interesting comment buried in the article, in the interview with Fr. Kirill

Quote
Raising money and restoring buildings is the easy part, he says. The pilgrims? Most are "religious tourists" who come to accumulate totems. Even the monks are here today, off to another monastery tomorrow. The church still has no real communal life, no true spiritual revival.

I focuses on the same quote!  Very interesting perspective.  Seems like the true Russian Orthodox Christian piety is not gone! 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,362


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2009, 07:42:50 AM »

Quote
the faith of the Russian tsars

Ahem. Kievan Rus' became Orthodox "officially" in 988, and before that, Orthodoxy wasa present for at least a couple of centuries, when you think of Sts Cyril and Methodius, and St Vladimir's grandmother St Olga, the first ruler of Rus' who became Orthodox.

The first Russian autocrat who called himself tsar was Ivan IV, who ascended the throne once he came of age in 1547, more than 550 years after the Orthodox "conversion" of Russia under Great Prince Vladimir.

Orthodoxy in many circles is, unfortunately, still seen as an "exotic curiosity".  Sad

If your comment is referring to the National Geographic, then perhaps.  if you are referring to the author, he is an orthodox christian who happens to be the son of one of the greatest modern theologians of our time. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2009, 07:51:01 AM »

Interesting comment buried in the article, in the interview with Fr. Kirill

Quote
Raising money and restoring buildings is the easy part, he says. The pilgrims? Most are "religious tourists" who come to accumulate totems. Even the monks are here today, off to another monastery tomorrow. The church still has no real communal life, no true spiritual revival.

I focuses on the same quote!  Very interesting perspective.  Seems like the true Russian Orthodox Christian piety is not gone! 

I liked the caption to the picture of the imprisoned youth with a swastika tattoo on his chest, the ministering chaplain baptizing him "hoping to replace it with the Cross."

Quote
the faith of the Russian tsars

Ahem. Kievan Rus' became Orthodox "officially" in 988, and before that, Orthodoxy wasa present for at least a couple of centuries, when you think of Sts Cyril and Methodius, and St Vladimir's grandmother St Olga, the first ruler of Rus' who became Orthodox.

The first Russian autocrat who called himself tsar was Ivan IV, who ascended the throne once he came of age in 1547, more than 550 years after the Orthodox "conversion" of Russia under Great Prince Vladimir.

Orthodoxy in many circles is, unfortunately, still seen as an "exotic curiosity".  Sad

If your comment is referring to the National Geographic, then perhaps.  if you are referring to the author, he is an orthodox christian who happens to be the son of one of the greatest modern theologians of our time. 

Fr. Schemann of blessed memory stated he was never so touched and humbled as when he found out that his "For the Life of the World" was being circulated by samizdat'.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2009, 07:53:22 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,362


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2009, 07:55:42 AM »

Interesting comment buried in the article, in the interview with Fr. Kirill

Quote
Raising money and restoring buildings is the easy part, he says. The pilgrims? Most are "religious tourists" who come to accumulate totems. Even the monks are here today, off to another monastery tomorrow. The church still has no real communal life, no true spiritual revival.

I focuses on the same quote!  Very interesting perspective.  Seems like the true Russian Orthodox Christian piety is not gone! 

I liked the caption to the picture of the imprisoned youth with a swastika tattoo on his chest, the ministering chaplain baptizing him "hoping to replace it with the Cross."

Quote
the faith of the Russian tsars

Ahem. Kievan Rus' became Orthodox "officially" in 988, and before that, Orthodoxy wasa present for at least a couple of centuries, when you think of Sts Cyril and Methodius, and St Vladimir's grandmother St Olga, the first ruler of Rus' who became Orthodox.

The first Russian autocrat who called himself tsar was Ivan IV, who ascended the throne once he came of age in 1547, more than 550 years after the Orthodox "conversion" of Russia under Great Prince Vladimir.

Orthodoxy in many circles is, unfortunately, still seen as an "exotic curiosity".  Sad

If your comment is referring to the National Geographic, then perhaps.  if you are referring to the author, he is an orthodox christian who happens to be the son of one of the greatest modern theologians of our time. 

Fr. Schemann of blessed memory stated he was never so touched and humbled as when he found out that his "For the Life of the World" was being circulated by samizdat'.

Yah there are also many cases of his liturgical commentaries ( and even For the Life of the World) being burned by pious Russian Orthodox Christians, who saw what he was doing with his "liturgical theology" as being against the foundations of the church and what they knew to be true. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Trudy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 150


WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2009, 04:36:51 PM »


This quote in the text confuses me a little bit.  "In 2005 the diaries he kept from 1973 until his death in 1983 were published in Russia. To my astonishment, they became an instant sensation among many Russian believers and thinkers. Why, I wanted to learn, were the thoughts of a Western priest resonating so powerfully?"

Why be astonished?  He is the son of Fr. Schmemann and I would suspect read his father's diaries.  As an Orthodox Christian would he not be aware of the impact of the content on a country held in captivity for so long?

I'd be interested in some thoughts about this.

I dunno...a couple things in the article rubbed a little the wrong way for me.

Logged

He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?  Micah 6:8
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,469


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 17, 2009, 04:46:11 PM »


Why be astonished?  He is the son of Fr. Schmemann and I would suspect read his father's diaries.  As an Orthodox Christian would he not be aware of the impact of the content on a country held in captivity for so long?


I would imagine because Fr Schmemann's writings were excoriated by many Russian Orthodox Christians during the good priest's own lifetime.  Fr Schmemann's writings are not held in universal esteem.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2009, 04:51:47 PM »

Interesting comment buried in the article, in the interview with Fr. Kirill

Quote
Raising money and restoring buildings is the easy part, he says. The pilgrims? Most are "religious tourists" who come to accumulate totems. Even the monks are here today, off to another monastery tomorrow. The church still has no real communal life, no true spiritual revival.

I focuses on the same quote!  Very interesting perspective.  Seems like the true Russian Orthodox Christian piety is not gone! 

I liked the caption to the picture of the imprisoned youth with a swastika tattoo on his chest, the ministering chaplain baptizing him "hoping to replace it with the Cross."

Quote
the faith of the Russian tsars

Ahem. Kievan Rus' became Orthodox "officially" in 988, and before that, Orthodoxy wasa present for at least a couple of centuries, when you think of Sts Cyril and Methodius, and St Vladimir's grandmother St Olga, the first ruler of Rus' who became Orthodox.

The first Russian autocrat who called himself tsar was Ivan IV, who ascended the throne once he came of age in 1547, more than 550 years after the Orthodox "conversion" of Russia under Great Prince Vladimir.

Orthodoxy in many circles is, unfortunately, still seen as an "exotic curiosity".  Sad

If your comment is referring to the National Geographic, then perhaps.  if you are referring to the author, he is an orthodox christian who happens to be the son of one of the greatest modern theologians of our time. 

Fr. Schemann of blessed memory stated he was never so touched and humbled as when he found out that his "For the Life of the World" was being circulated by samizdat'.

Yah there are also many cases of his liturgical commentaries ( and even For the Life of the World) being burned by pious Russian Orthodox Christians, who saw what he was doing with his "liturgical theology" as being against the foundations of the church and what they knew to be true. 
Book burning happens a lot.

People risking their lives to read you is rare.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,362


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 17, 2009, 09:52:51 PM »

Interesting comment buried in the article, in the interview with Fr. Kirill

Quote
Raising money and restoring buildings is the easy part, he says. The pilgrims? Most are "religious tourists" who come to accumulate totems. Even the monks are here today, off to another monastery tomorrow. The church still has no real communal life, no true spiritual revival.

I focuses on the same quote!  Very interesting perspective.  Seems like the true Russian Orthodox Christian piety is not gone! 

I liked the caption to the picture of the imprisoned youth with a swastika tattoo on his chest, the ministering chaplain baptizing him "hoping to replace it with the Cross."

Quote
the faith of the Russian tsars

Ahem. Kievan Rus' became Orthodox "officially" in 988, and before that, Orthodoxy wasa present for at least a couple of centuries, when you think of Sts Cyril and Methodius, and St Vladimir's grandmother St Olga, the first ruler of Rus' who became Orthodox.

The first Russian autocrat who called himself tsar was Ivan IV, who ascended the throne once he came of age in 1547, more than 550 years after the Orthodox "conversion" of Russia under Great Prince Vladimir.

Orthodoxy in many circles is, unfortunately, still seen as an "exotic curiosity".  Sad

If your comment is referring to the National Geographic, then perhaps.  if you are referring to the author, he is an orthodox christian who happens to be the son of one of the greatest modern theologians of our time. 

Fr. Schemann of blessed memory stated he was never so touched and humbled as when he found out that his "For the Life of the World" was being circulated by samizdat'.

Yah there are also many cases of his liturgical commentaries ( and even For the Life of the World) being burned by pious Russian Orthodox Christians, who saw what he was doing with his "liturgical theology" as being against the foundations of the church and what they knew to be true. 
Book burning happens a lot.

People risking their lives to read you is rare.

Sorry this didn't make much sense.  help...?
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2009, 10:40:21 PM »

Interesting comment buried in the article, in the interview with Fr. Kirill

Quote
Raising money and restoring buildings is the easy part, he says. The pilgrims? Most are "religious tourists" who come to accumulate totems. Even the monks are here today, off to another monastery tomorrow. The church still has no real communal life, no true spiritual revival.

I focuses on the same quote!  Very interesting perspective.  Seems like the true Russian Orthodox Christian piety is not gone! 

I liked the caption to the picture of the imprisoned youth with a swastika tattoo on his chest, the ministering chaplain baptizing him "hoping to replace it with the Cross."

Quote
the faith of the Russian tsars

Ahem. Kievan Rus' became Orthodox "officially" in 988, and before that, Orthodoxy wasa present for at least a couple of centuries, when you think of Sts Cyril and Methodius, and St Vladimir's grandmother St Olga, the first ruler of Rus' who became Orthodox.

The first Russian autocrat who called himself tsar was Ivan IV, who ascended the throne once he came of age in 1547, more than 550 years after the Orthodox "conversion" of Russia under Great Prince Vladimir.

Orthodoxy in many circles is, unfortunately, still seen as an "exotic curiosity".  Sad

If your comment is referring to the National Geographic, then perhaps.  if you are referring to the author, he is an orthodox christian who happens to be the son of one of the greatest modern theologians of our time. 

Fr. Schemann of blessed memory stated he was never so touched and humbled as when he found out that his "For the Life of the World" was being circulated by samizdat'.

Yah there are also many cases of his liturgical commentaries ( and even For the Life of the World) being burned by pious Russian Orthodox Christians, who saw what he was doing with his "liturgical theology" as being against the foundations of the church and what they knew to be true. 
Book burning happens a lot.

People risking their lives to read you is rare.

Sorry this didn't make much sense.  help...?

There is much valid criticism of some of Fr. Schmemann's work, but that doesn't invalidate that he brougt up many things that were long over due.

Any idiot can burn a book. Usually it is an idiot burning a book (though, I'm not dogmatically against book burning).  I can't put such people in the same league as an individual whose work many found to be of such value that at great personal risk and trouble they made sure his work was disseminated.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,362


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 18, 2009, 07:37:49 AM »

Interesting comment buried in the article, in the interview with Fr. Kirill

Quote
Raising money and restoring buildings is the easy part, he says. The pilgrims? Most are "religious tourists" who come to accumulate totems. Even the monks are here today, off to another monastery tomorrow. The church still has no real communal life, no true spiritual revival.

I focuses on the same quote!  Very interesting perspective.  Seems like the true Russian Orthodox Christian piety is not gone! 

I liked the caption to the picture of the imprisoned youth with a swastika tattoo on his chest, the ministering chaplain baptizing him "hoping to replace it with the Cross."

Quote
the faith of the Russian tsars

Ahem. Kievan Rus' became Orthodox "officially" in 988, and before that, Orthodoxy wasa present for at least a couple of centuries, when you think of Sts Cyril and Methodius, and St Vladimir's grandmother St Olga, the first ruler of Rus' who became Orthodox.

The first Russian autocrat who called himself tsar was Ivan IV, who ascended the throne once he came of age in 1547, more than 550 years after the Orthodox "conversion" of Russia under Great Prince Vladimir.

Orthodoxy in many circles is, unfortunately, still seen as an "exotic curiosity".  Sad

If your comment is referring to the National Geographic, then perhaps.  if you are referring to the author, he is an orthodox christian who happens to be the son of one of the greatest modern theologians of our time. 

Fr. Schemann of blessed memory stated he was never so touched and humbled as when he found out that his "For the Life of the World" was being circulated by samizdat'.

Yah there are also many cases of his liturgical commentaries ( and even For the Life of the World) being burned by pious Russian Orthodox Christians, who saw what he was doing with his "liturgical theology" as being against the foundations of the church and what they knew to be true. 
Book burning happens a lot.

People risking their lives to read you is rare.

Sorry this didn't make much sense.  help...?

There is much valid criticism of some of Fr. Schmemann's work, but that doesn't invalidate that he brougt up many things that were long over due.

Any idiot can burn a book. Usually it is an idiot burning a book (though, I'm not dogmatically against book burning).  I can't put such people in the same league as an individual whose work many found to be of such value that at great personal risk and trouble they made sure his work was disseminated.

Or maybe it was completely antithetical to how they lived, breathed and died as orthodox christians.  Maybe it was against the nature of the church there. 

Recently in other threads there have been cases made (including some snipets by you) for the LAITY to rise up and put pressure on the hierarchy, listing the infamous "robber council" and St. Mark of Ephesus. 

Here is an example of the laity doing the selfsame thing, but somehow it is not enough.  Yet in the other thread it is.  See how this can get a little confusing for me...?
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #14 on: March 18, 2009, 07:59:19 AM »

Or maybe it was completely antithetical to how they lived, breathed and died as orthodox christians.  Maybe it was against the nature of the church there. 

Recently in other threads there have been cases made (including some snipets by you) for the LAITY to rise up and put pressure on the hierarchy, listing the infamous "robber council" and St. Mark of Ephesus. 

Here is an example of the laity doing the selfsame thing, but somehow it is not enough.  Yet in the other thread it is.  See how this can get a little confusing for me...?

It's only confusing when you create a rule that laity rising up against something they dislike is a defense of true Orthodoxy per se, rather than being based on ignorance.  Sometimes a lay revolt is based on a proper understanding of the faith and a zeal to defend it; other times it's based on ignorance and poor catechism.  Your mistake lies in the implicit assumption that all such revolts must be grouped together as either one or the other, without making any distinction between them.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2009, 09:17:03 AM »

Interesting comment buried in the article, in the interview with Fr. Kirill

Quote
Raising money and restoring buildings is the easy part, he says. The pilgrims? Most are "religious tourists" who come to accumulate totems. Even the monks are here today, off to another monastery tomorrow. The church still has no real communal life, no true spiritual revival.

I focuses on the same quote!  Very interesting perspective.  Seems like the true Russian Orthodox Christian piety is not gone! 

I liked the caption to the picture of the imprisoned youth with a swastika tattoo on his chest, the ministering chaplain baptizing him "hoping to replace it with the Cross."

Quote
the faith of the Russian tsars

Ahem. Kievan Rus' became Orthodox "officially" in 988, and before that, Orthodoxy wasa present for at least a couple of centuries, when you think of Sts Cyril and Methodius, and St Vladimir's grandmother St Olga, the first ruler of Rus' who became Orthodox.

The first Russian autocrat who called himself tsar was Ivan IV, who ascended the throne once he came of age in 1547, more than 550 years after the Orthodox "conversion" of Russia under Great Prince Vladimir.

Orthodoxy in many circles is, unfortunately, still seen as an "exotic curiosity".  Sad

If your comment is referring to the National Geographic, then perhaps.  if you are referring to the author, he is an orthodox christian who happens to be the son of one of the greatest modern theologians of our time. 

Fr. Schemann of blessed memory stated he was never so touched and humbled as when he found out that his "For the Life of the World" was being circulated by samizdat'.

Yah there are also many cases of his liturgical commentaries ( and even For the Life of the World) being burned by pious Russian Orthodox Christians, who saw what he was doing with his "liturgical theology" as being against the foundations of the church and what they knew to be true. 
Book burning happens a lot.

People risking their lives to read you is rare.

Sorry this didn't make much sense.  help...?

There is much valid criticism of some of Fr. Schmemann's work, but that doesn't invalidate that he brougt up many things that were long over due.

Any idiot can burn a book. Usually it is an idiot burning a book (though, I'm not dogmatically against book burning).  I can't put such people in the same league as an individual whose work many found to be of such value that at great personal risk and trouble they made sure his work was disseminated.

Or maybe it was completely antithetical to how they lived, breathed and died as orthodox christians.  Maybe it was against the nature of the church there. 

Recently in other threads there have been cases made (including some snipets by you) for the LAITY to rise up and put pressure on the hierarchy, listing the infamous "robber council" and St. Mark of Ephesus. 

Here is an example of the laity doing the selfsame thing, but somehow it is not enough.  Yet in the other thread it is.  See how this can get a little confusing for me...?

It's only confusing when you create a rule that laity rising up against something they dislike is a defense of true Orthodoxy per se, rather than being based on ignorance.  Sometimes a lay revolt is based on a proper understanding of the faith and a zeal to defend it; other times it's based on ignorance and poor catechism.  Your mistake lies in the implicit assumption that all such revolts must be grouped together as either one or the other, without making any distinction between them.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,362


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2009, 12:22:57 PM »

Or maybe it was completely antithetical to how they lived, breathed and died as orthodox christians.  Maybe it was against the nature of the church there. 

Recently in other threads there have been cases made (including some snipets by you) for the LAITY to rise up and put pressure on the hierarchy, listing the infamous "robber council" and St. Mark of Ephesus. 

Here is an example of the laity doing the selfsame thing, but somehow it is not enough.  Yet in the other thread it is.  See how this can get a little confusing for me...?

It's only confusing when you create a rule that laity rising up against something they dislike is a defense of true Orthodoxy per se, rather than being based on ignorance.  Sometimes a lay revolt is based on a proper understanding of the faith and a zeal to defend it; other times it's based on ignorance and poor catechism.  Your mistake lies in the implicit assumption that all such revolts must be grouped together as either one or the other, without making any distinction between them.

I gotcha.  So then my next question is:  How were the people at the time of Mark of Ephesus "well educated" and the people during the turkish times were not.  I would be willing to bet that they had about the same education (in general). 

Also, it seems like they are reacting in the same way.  What the people during Mark of Ephesus' time were saying is:  "this makes no sense to us, or to what we know to be orthodoxy.  It makes no sense to our tradition, and is a robbery of everything we know as orthodox, what the fathers have taught and etc." 

They at no time "met together and had a council" or provided theological treatises about these things.  the theologians of the time did that, and they were in many ways wrong, but the PEOPLE and the popular piety were the ones who brought it back to even keel. 

Any thoughts on this? 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,420


« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2009, 03:03:23 PM »


Why be astonished?  He is the son of Fr. Schmemann and I would suspect read his father's diaries.  As an Orthodox Christian would he not be aware of the impact of the content on a country held in captivity for so long?


I would imagine because Fr Schmemann's writings were excoriated by many Russian Orthodox Christians during the good priest's own lifetime.  Fr Schmemann's writings are not held in universal esteem.
Fr. Anastasios,

I think I asked you about this at one time (probably at least a year ago) and you pointed out that most of the criticism is of stuff written in Fr. Alexander Schmemann's Journal's - not necessarily his books.  Can you elaborate?  I've only read a couple of his books:  Great Lent being one and forget what else (maybe Church, World, Mission).
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2009, 11:15:06 PM »

Or maybe it was completely antithetical to how they lived, breathed and died as orthodox christians.  Maybe it was against the nature of the church there. 

Recently in other threads there have been cases made (including some snipets by you) for the LAITY to rise up and put pressure on the hierarchy, listing the infamous "robber council" and St. Mark of Ephesus. 

Here is an example of the laity doing the selfsame thing, but somehow it is not enough.  Yet in the other thread it is.  See how this can get a little confusing for me...?

It's only confusing when you create a rule that laity rising up against something they dislike is a defense of true Orthodoxy per se, rather than being based on ignorance.  Sometimes a lay revolt is based on a proper understanding of the faith and a zeal to defend it; other times it's based on ignorance and poor catechism.  Your mistake lies in the implicit assumption that all such revolts must be grouped together as either one or the other, without making any distinction between them.

I gotcha.  So then my next question is:  How were the people at the time of Mark of Ephesus "well educated" and the people during the turkish times were not.  I would be willing to bet that they had about the same education (in general). 

Also, it seems like they are reacting in the same way.  What the people during Mark of Ephesus' time were saying is:  "this makes no sense to us, or to what we know to be orthodoxy.  It makes no sense to our tradition, and is a robbery of everything we know as orthodox, what the fathers have taught and etc." 

They at no time "met together and had a council" or provided theological treatises about these things.  the theologians of the time did that, and they were in many ways wrong, but the PEOPLE and the popular piety were the ones who brought it back to even keel. 

Any thoughts on this? 

Now you're just trying to deliberately miss my point.  Just because the people and their popular piety are behind an outcry doesn't automatically make it correct.  Just because the people and their popular piety are behind an outcry doesn't automatically make it incorrect.  Your argument is that because the people and their popular piety were behind the repudiation of false union and got it right that time, any time there is any popular outcry, it must also be right.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,070


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2009, 11:22:30 PM »

I gotcha.  So then my next question is:  How were the people at the time of Mark of Ephesus "well educated" and the people during the turkish times were not.  I would be willing to bet that they had about the same education (in general). 

Also, it seems like they are reacting in the same way.  What the people during Mark of Ephesus' time were saying is:  "this makes no sense to us, or to what we know to be orthodoxy.  It makes no sense to our tradition, and is a robbery of everything we know as orthodox, what the fathers have taught and etc." 

They at no time "met together and had a council" or provided theological treatises about these things.  the theologians of the time did that, and they were in many ways wrong, but the PEOPLE and the popular piety were the ones who brought it back to even keel. 

Any thoughts on this?  

Now you're just trying to deliberately miss my point.  Just because the people and their popular piety are behind an outcry doesn't automatically make it correct.  Just because the people and their popular piety are behind an outcry doesn't automatically make it incorrect.  Your argument is that because the people and their popular piety were behind the repudiation of false union and got it right that time, any time there is any popular outcry, it must also be right.

ISTM this question is more along the lines of "Ok, why is this particular popular movement wrong?  Were the people not educated enough?  Was it a political or xenophobic move?"
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,362


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 18, 2009, 11:28:18 PM »

Or maybe it was completely antithetical to how they lived, breathed and died as orthodox christians.  Maybe it was against the nature of the church there. 

Recently in other threads there have been cases made (including some snipets by you) for the LAITY to rise up and put pressure on the hierarchy, listing the infamous "robber council" and St. Mark of Ephesus. 

Here is an example of the laity doing the selfsame thing, but somehow it is not enough.  Yet in the other thread it is.  See how this can get a little confusing for me...?

It's only confusing when you create a rule that laity rising up against something they dislike is a defense of true Orthodoxy per se, rather than being based on ignorance.  Sometimes a lay revolt is based on a proper understanding of the faith and a zeal to defend it; other times it's based on ignorance and poor catechism.  Your mistake lies in the implicit assumption that all such revolts must be grouped together as either one or the other, without making any distinction between them.

I gotcha.  So then my next question is:  How were the people at the time of Mark of Ephesus "well educated" and the people during the turkish times were not.  I would be willing to bet that they had about the same education (in general). 

Also, it seems like they are reacting in the same way.  What the people during Mark of Ephesus' time were saying is:  "this makes no sense to us, or to what we know to be orthodoxy.  It makes no sense to our tradition, and is a robbery of everything we know as orthodox, what the fathers have taught and etc." 

They at no time "met together and had a council" or provided theological treatises about these things.  the theologians of the time did that, and they were in many ways wrong, but the PEOPLE and the popular piety were the ones who brought it back to even keel. 

Any thoughts on this? 

Now you're just trying to deliberately miss my point.  Just because the people and their popular piety are behind an outcry doesn't automatically make it correct.  Just because the people and their popular piety are behind an outcry doesn't automatically make it incorrect.  Your argument is that because the people and their popular piety were behind the repudiation of false union and got it right that time, any time there is any popular outcry, it must also be right.

I am not trying to "deliberately" do anything other than trying to understand.  Part of the problem is that I don't understand your reasoning, so i'm trying to put it in ways that I DO understand. 

Your EXPLANATION is what I thought YOU were saying, not what I was saying.  What i'm saying is what cleveland explained below: 
I gotcha.  So then my next question is:  How were the people at the time of Mark of Ephesus "well educated" and the people during the turkish times were not.  I would be willing to bet that they had about the same education (in general). 

Also, it seems like they are reacting in the same way.  What the people during Mark of Ephesus' time were saying is:  "this makes no sense to us, or to what we know to be orthodoxy.  It makes no sense to our tradition, and is a robbery of everything we know as orthodox, what the fathers have taught and etc." 

They at no time "met together and had a council" or provided theological treatises about these things.  the theologians of the time did that, and they were in many ways wrong, but the PEOPLE and the popular piety were the ones who brought it back to even keel. 

Any thoughts on this?  

Now you're just trying to deliberately miss my point.  Just because the people and their popular piety are behind an outcry doesn't automatically make it correct.  Just because the people and their popular piety are behind an outcry doesn't automatically make it incorrect.  Your argument is that because the people and their popular piety were behind the repudiation of false union and got it right that time, any time there is any popular outcry, it must also be right.

ISTM this question is more along the lines of "Ok, why is this particular popular movement wrong?  Were the people not educated enough?  Was it a political or xenophobic move?"

Or even more clearly:  why was it right the first time but this time it's not right.  Does this make more sense?

Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #21 on: March 19, 2009, 12:04:19 AM »

I gotcha.  So then my next question is:  How were the people at the time of Mark of Ephesus "well educated" and the people during the turkish times were not.  I would be willing to bet that they had about the same education (in general). 

Also, it seems like they are reacting in the same way.  What the people during Mark of Ephesus' time were saying is:  "this makes no sense to us, or to what we know to be orthodoxy.  It makes no sense to our tradition, and is a robbery of everything we know as orthodox, what the fathers have taught and etc." 

They at no time "met together and had a council" or provided theological treatises about these things.  the theologians of the time did that, and they were in many ways wrong, but the PEOPLE and the popular piety were the ones who brought it back to even keel. 

Any thoughts on this?  

Now you're just trying to deliberately miss my point.  Just because the people and their popular piety are behind an outcry doesn't automatically make it correct.  Just because the people and their popular piety are behind an outcry doesn't automatically make it incorrect.  Your argument is that because the people and their popular piety were behind the repudiation of false union and got it right that time, any time there is any popular outcry, it must also be right.

ISTM this question is more along the lines of "Ok, why is this particular popular movement wrong?  Were the people not educated enough?  Was it a political or xenophobic move?"

I have said nothing at all about whether any particular popular movement was right or wrong.  serb1389 expressed confusion as to why someone objected to one popular movement when other popular movements were praised.  His question was not "what makes this one different?" but "you say A, then you say B; which one is it?" as if all such movements must be either objectionable or praiseworthy as a group.  My response was that such confusion only arose when falsely generalizing all of them as a group into one category or the other without evaluating each ones on the merits.  serb1389 then began misstating my arguments and demanding to know why I thought specific instances were objectionable when other specific instances weren't, when I had made no statements concerning individual such movements.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,362


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 19, 2009, 07:13:10 AM »

I gotcha.  So then my next question is:  How were the people at the time of Mark of Ephesus "well educated" and the people during the turkish times were not.  I would be willing to bet that they had about the same education (in general). 

Also, it seems like they are reacting in the same way.  What the people during Mark of Ephesus' time were saying is:  "this makes no sense to us, or to what we know to be orthodoxy.  It makes no sense to our tradition, and is a robbery of everything we know as orthodox, what the fathers have taught and etc." 

They at no time "met together and had a council" or provided theological treatises about these things.  the theologians of the time did that, and they were in many ways wrong, but the PEOPLE and the popular piety were the ones who brought it back to even keel. 

Any thoughts on this?  

Now you're just trying to deliberately miss my point.  Just because the people and their popular piety are behind an outcry doesn't automatically make it correct.  Just because the people and their popular piety are behind an outcry doesn't automatically make it incorrect.  Your argument is that because the people and their popular piety were behind the repudiation of false union and got it right that time, any time there is any popular outcry, it must also be right.

ISTM this question is more along the lines of "Ok, why is this particular popular movement wrong?  Were the people not educated enough?  Was it a political or xenophobic move?"

I have said nothing at all about whether any particular popular movement was right or wrong.  serb1389 expressed confusion as to why someone objected to one popular movement when other popular movements were praised.  His question was not "what makes this one different?" but "you say A, then you say B; which one is it?" as if all such movements must be either objectionable or praiseworthy as a group.  My response was that such confusion only arose when falsely generalizing all of them as a group into one category or the other without evaluating each ones on the merits.  serb1389 then began misstating my arguments and demanding to know why I thought specific instances were objectionable when other specific instances weren't, when I had made no statements concerning individual such movements.

I have PM'd you about this.  I hope you take me up on my request. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,516


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #23 on: March 19, 2009, 04:06:41 PM »

This post merged from Christian News   -PtA


http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/04/orthodox/schmemann-text

Quote
Soul of Russia
Driven underground for 75 years, the faith of the Russian tsars now enjoys favored status.
By Serge Schmemann
Photograph by Gerd Ludwig
The new Russia steadily ebbs away on the drive out of Moscow. The gridlock and pollution, the sprawling malls and billboards of the recent boom years give way to the gray suburbs and rusting factories of the Soviet era. These in turn fade into tall forests of pine and birch, punctuated by meadows and timeless villages of log houses. Now and again a whimsically painted steeple breaks the horizon, its gilded cupola glittering in the bright spring sun. We're back in the glubinka, the "deep" Russia beloved of Slavophiles, exiles, and painters.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2009, 05:04:03 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #24 on: March 20, 2009, 12:09:13 AM »

I thought the article was pretty near excellent. Serge Schemann is a newsman and has worked as an Orthodox Christian in the secular press, not as a cleric or theologian. There was a wisp of the secular newsman in parts of the article, but I attributed that to professional habit, not to his Orthodox heart.

I completely understood his wonder at his father's journal speaking to Russian readers. Our religion is Eastern, but we are Western people in every way but our religion. Russians are Eastern people and so is their religion. The abomination of communism was really a western virus that attacked the Eastern Russian people; the only reason it worked is that it was authoritarian and Russians love authoritarian political leadership. So, anyway, what could the Western life experiences of an Eastern religious(Orthodoxy) practitioner possibly say to Eastern people? That was Serge's question, in my estimation.

Well the answer is ALOT. This people were held in captivity to a Western religious, political and intellectual virus (communism) and when they emerged out from under it and rediscovered their Eastern faith as Eastern people, they were immediately infected with the Western virus of consumerism and secular entertainments.

So the experiences of a man who grappled with fighting these viruses in his own life as an Orthodox Christian, priest and theologian -- because the Western academy in which, as a theologian and author, was the millieu he found himself in in American academia and which was sympathetic at least and openly in favor of at worst toward the virus of communism -- this on the one hand and on the other, living in an increasingly consumerist, materialistic and secular Western society -- there really is alot of commonality there.

Plus, just as when we read the works of a truly Eastern, Eastern Orthodox; an Easterner reading the work of a Western Eastern Orthodox, there is the exotic factor which makes it more interesting for its otherness.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.146 seconds with 51 queries.