"Russian Orthodox Church" Article by National Geographic

[serb1389]

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."

[username!]

Thank you for sharing this!

[Fr. George]

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

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.

[LBK]

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". 

[serb1389]

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

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! 

[serb1389]

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". 

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. 

[ialmisry]

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

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."

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". 

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'.

[serb1389]

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

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."

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". 

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. 

[Trudy]

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

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.

[Schultz]

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.

[ialmisry]

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

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."

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". 

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.

[serb1389]

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

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."

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". 

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...?

[ialmisry]

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

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."

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". 

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.

[serb1389]

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

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."

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". 

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...?

[Veniamin]

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.

[ialmisry]

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

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."

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". 

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.

[serb1389]

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? 

[Elisha]

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).

[Veniamin]

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.

[Fr. George]

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?"

[serb1389]

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?

[Veniamin]

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.

[serb1389]

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. 

[Quinault]

This post merged from Christian News   -PtA


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
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.

[BrotherAidan]

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.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Other Topics > Topic: "Russian Orthodox Church" Article by National Geographic