Father Ted Bobosh: What Really is a Mother Church?

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

"The Episcopal Assemblies, the new effort to establish hierarchical unity for the Orthodox in America, accepts the assumption that there is a division within the universal Church between “mother” churches and then some form of immature/infant churches.   The immature churches in this thinking apparently do not hold the fullness of the Faith, and are somehow less full or less catholic than the mother churches and so must keep a dependency on the mother churches.

It would seem pretty hard to defend this idea based in the Scriptures or in the idea of the church professed in the Nicene Creed in which there is only one Church – holy, catholic and apostolic – not different kinds of churches – mother, daughter and infant.

Indeed should not Jerusalem rather than Constantinople be considered the mother church of Orthodoxy?"

Read the rest at http://frted.wordpress.com/, Mother Churches?,  Posted on September 16, 2010 by Fr. Ted.

[ialmisry]

My favorite in the whole EA scheme of Mother Churches is the Orthodox Church of Albania:it's Mother Church is the OCA Albanian Diocese of Boson.

[Tzimis]

"The Episcopal Assemblies, the new effort to establish hierarchical unity for the Orthodox in America, accepts the assumption that there is a division within the universal Church between “mother” churches and then some form of immature/infant churches.   The immature churches in this thinking apparently do not hold the fullness of the Faith, and are somehow less full or less catholic than the mother churches and so must keep a dependency on the mother churches.

It would seem pretty hard to defend this idea based in the Scriptures or in the idea of the church professed in the Nicene Creed in which there is only one Church – holy, catholic and apostolic – not different kinds of churches – mother, daughter and infant.

Indeed should not Jerusalem rather than Constantinople be considered the mother church of Orthodoxy?"

Read the rest at http://frted.wordpress.com/, Mother Churches?,  Posted on September 16, 2010 by Fr. Ted.

I believe that Jerusalem was reestablished by the Patriarchs of Antioch because the see became vacant after the last Jewish bishop, Judas (-135) right after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt.  Jerusalem is still considered the mother church but it was ranked fifth after the Sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch during Fourth Ecumenical Council (the Council of Chalcedon) in 451 when it was reestablished.

[ialmisry]

"The Episcopal Assemblies, the new effort to establish hierarchical unity for the Orthodox in America, accepts the assumption that there is a division within the universal Church between “mother” churches and then some form of immature/infant churches.   The immature churches in this thinking apparently do not hold the fullness of the Faith, and are somehow less full or less catholic than the mother churches and so must keep a dependency on the mother churches.

It would seem pretty hard to defend this idea based in the Scriptures or in the idea of the church professed in the Nicene Creed in which there is only one Church – holy, catholic and apostolic – not different kinds of churches – mother, daughter and infant.

Indeed should not Jerusalem rather than Constantinople be considered the mother church of Orthodoxy?"

Read the rest at http://frted.wordpress.com/, Mother Churches?,  Posted on September 16, 2010 by Fr. Ted.

I believe that Jerusalem was reestablished by the Patriarchs of Antioch because the see became vacant after the last Jewish bishop, Judas (-135) right after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt.  Jerusalem is still considered the mother church but it was ranked fifth after the Sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch during Fourth Ecumenical Council (the Council of Chalcedon) in 451 when it was reestablished.

It was elevated to Patriarchate, but it had been around continuously, the see being translated to Pella, and then returned, being subject to the Metropolitan of Caesarea, a situation recognized at Nicea in the canons.

I've posted some on this.:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19811.msg334770/topicseen.html#msg334770
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19811.msg334770/topicseen.html#msg334770

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Right but father Ted's thesis is "The Church is our mother, not the Russian Church or the Greek Church, but the Orthodox Church.   The notion of “mother churches” creates an artificial division between churches, as if there is more than one church or more than one kind of church!   We claim to believe in ONE church, not an extended family of churches with mothers and daughters of unequal rank (Ephesians 4:4-5).   If anything, the OCA is a sister church to the Russian Church.  Either the Russian mission brought the fullness of the faith to America or it did not.    For the OCA to accept the idea of the Russian Church being our mother, rather than the Orthodox Church as our mother is to deny what we profess in the Creed about the Church, to deny the Eucharist fullness of each and every local church, to deny that there is any real ecclesial unity among all local churches, and to deny the Catholicity of each local Eucharistic assembly.  When any Orthodox “jurisdiction” acts as if it is a dependency on a “mother” church rather than the fullness of faith incarnate in its locality in North America, then it is denying Orthodox ecclesiology.   Parishes and dioceses and bishops which are in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy are fully Orthodox."

[Melodist]

I was always under the impression that where the local bishop is gathered with the priests, deacons, and laity, in communion with the rest of the Chuch, that there was the fulness of the Church as the Body of Christ and that nothing was lacking.

[deusveritasest]

Well, from an OO perspective, it would seem the the idea of "mother churches" is a solid part of the way the faith operates. The See of Alexandria is understood as the mother church of the Copts, Ethiopians, and Eritreans. The See of Antioch is understood as the mother church of the Syrians and Indians. And the See of Etchmiadzin is understood as the mother church of all Armenian jurisdictions, including Cilicia. But from what I can tell, this understanding does not imply such an inequality as is described in the OP; each church is understood as having the fullness of the faith.

[JLatimer]

"When I left you, I was but the learner; now I am the master." -Darth Vader

[That person]

If I may ask, do you live in Dayton? If not, how did you find out about Father Ted's blog? I found it while looking for a local parish to visit (which I still haven't gotten to do), and I've always found it to be well-written, thought-provoking, and full of wisdom. This post was no exception.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

If I may ask, do you live in Dayton? If not, how did you find out about Father Ted's blog? I found it while looking for a local parish to visit (which I still haven't gotten to do), and I've always found it to be well-written, thought-provoking, and full of wisdom. This post was no exception.

I have a list of Orthodox blogs that I visit; some frequently and some not so much. BTW, welcome to the forum!

You know, most Orthodox churches have Great Vespers every Saturday night and, of course, all have the Divine Liturgy on Sunday morning. Where do you live? I am sure that you will have many ideas of where to visit. Incidentally, since you are an inquirer, it may be useful to download and read the following short essay by Frederica Mathewes-Greene, herself a convert to Orthodoxy: http://www.frederica.com/12-things/. May the Lord bless your inquiries.

[That person]

If I may ask, do you live in Dayton? If not, how did you find out about Father Ted's blog? I found it while looking for a local parish to visit (which I still haven't gotten to do), and I've always found it to be well-written, thought-provoking, and full of wisdom. This post was no exception.

I have a list of Orthodox blogs that I visit; some frequently and some not so much. BTW, welcome to the forum!

You know, most Orthodox churches have Great Vespers every Saturday night and, of course, all have the Divine Liturgy on Sunday morning. Where do you live? I am sure that you will have many ideas of where to visit. Incidentally, since you are an inquirer, it may be useful to download and read the following short essay by Frederica Mathewes-Greene, herself a convert to Orthodoxy: http://www.frederica.com/12-things/. May the Lord bless your inquiries.

Thank you. My father is a Baptist minister in Dayton, so I attend church with my family out of respect for him, and can't go to Divine Liturgy as a result. Attending Vespers might be possible, but I'm not sure how well I could convince him to drive me. I should be licensed in a few months, so that should definitely open up some new doors. So far though, I've only been to Orthodox services for one wedding and two Divine Liturgies when visiting my sister in Memphis. (She's not Orthodox, but she allows me to attend a parish very near her house.)

[Melodist]

If I may ask, do you live in Dayton? If not, how did you find out about Father Ted's blog? I found it while looking for a local parish to visit (which I still haven't gotten to do), and I've always found it to be well-written, thought-provoking, and full of wisdom. This post was no exception.

I live in Cincinnati and have visited St Paul's a few times. It's beautiful and the people are nice. If you ever get to visit there on a sunday morning you might like the service books they use. They have the text for the liturgy on one side of the page and scripture references and other notes on the other side.

[augustin717]

They have the text for the liturgy on one side of the page and scripture references and other notes on the other side.

That's sooo neat

[ialmisry]

They have the text for the liturgy on one side of the page and scripture references and other notes on the other side.

That's sooo neat : : )

Fixed that for you.

[Melodist]

They have the text for the liturgy on one side of the page and scripture references and other notes on the other side.

That's sooo neat

It can be helpful for converts or anyone else who may or may not be that familiar with the liturgy or how it ties into everything.

[augustin717]

What do they do with the parts without "scriptural reference"? The cut them out?

[Melodist]

What do they do with the parts without "scriptural reference"? The cut them out?

No. I think you misunderstood. It's a regular service book with the whole liturgy. They just put notes on the side wherever there is something that can be referenced. The references and side notes are just that - references and side notes. The notes are off to the side. They do not change the text. The text is not altered to conform to the notes.

[ialmisry]

They have the text for the liturgy on one side of the page and scripture references and other notes on the other side.

That's sooo neat

It can be helpful for converts or anyone else who may or may not be that familiar with the liturgy or how it ties into everything.

or cradles or anyone else not familiar enough with the Scriptures to appreciate the richness of the Liturgical texts.

[That person]

If I may ask, do you live in Dayton? If not, how did you find out about Father Ted's blog? I found it while looking for a local parish to visit (which I still haven't gotten to do), and I've always found it to be well-written, thought-provoking, and full of wisdom. This post was no exception.

I live in Cincinnati and have visited St Paul's a few times. It's beautiful and the people are nice. If you ever get to visit there on a sunday morning you might like the service books they use. They have the text for the liturgy on one side of the page and scripture references and other notes on the other side.

Have you seen their new icons?

[Paisius]

What do they do with the parts without "scriptural reference"? The cut them out?

No. I think you misunderstood. It's a regular service book with the whole liturgy. They just put notes on the side wherever there is something that can be referenced. The references and side notes are just that - references and side notes. The notes are off to the side. They do not change the text. The text is not altered to conform to the notes.

No Melodist he understands perfectly well; he is just taking any opportunity he can to insult and disparage converts. You have to read every single post he makes through the lens of his bigotry. His world view is incredibly simple,

Romanian = good

Non-Romanian, American and especially converts = bad

[augustin717]

What do they do with the parts without "scriptural reference"? The cut them out?

No. I think you misunderstood. It's a regular service book with the whole liturgy. They just put notes on the side wherever there is something that can be referenced. The references and side notes are just that - references and side notes. The notes are off to the side. They do not change the text. The text is not altered to conform to the notes.

No Melodist he understands perfectly well; he is just taking any opportunity he can to insult and disparage converts. You have to read every single post he makes through the lens of his bigotry. His world view is incredibly simple,

Romanian = good

Non-Romanian, American and especially converts = bad

Of course, American converts should never be criticized, even when their former Protestantism shines through what they do in the Orthodox church, no?

[Paisius]

Of course, American converts should never be criticized, even when their former Protestantism shines through what they do in the Orthodox church, no?

Ok, can you say one good thing about American converts?

[augustin717]

It depends on the specific persons: I have up to 10 very good friends who are all American and Orthodox.  I can only say good things about them.
One thing I've noticed: the less someone was involved into a Protestant church and related activities even if of a Protestant background , before, the better he gets what our Church is about.
Those that were very serious about their Protestantism can oftentimes be as pesky as Orthodox as they were before as Protestants.
I once had a very zealous newly chrismated fellow come up to me and instructing me how to carry a certain item in a certain procession. I let him finish his little sermon, didn't say anything but I was thinking: Man, I've seen and done this stuff when you didn't even know there was an Orthodox Church or whatever.

[Alveus Lacuna]

No Melodist he understands perfectly well; he is just taking any opportunity he can to insult and disparage converts. You have to read every single post he makes through the lens of his bigotry.

He's managed to make me angry a time or two, but I've come to realize that he is one of the only representatives on this forum of someone from a legitimate and thoroughly ingrained native Orthodox context. Almost everyone on here is a convert, and while he can be inconsiderate some or even most times, he quite often just tells it like it is. For all of that, despite his rude demeanor, he's come to be a poster that's fun to watch and interesting to consider.

[ialmisry]

What do they do with the parts without "scriptural reference"? The cut them out?

No. I think you misunderstood. It's a regular service book with the whole liturgy. They just put notes on the side wherever there is something that can be referenced. The references and side notes are just that - references and side notes. The notes are off to the side. They do not change the text. The text is not altered to conform to the notes.

No Melodist he understands perfectly well; he is just taking any opportunity he can to insult and disparage converts. You have to read every single post he makes through the lens of his bigotry. His world view is incredibly simple,

Romanian = good

Non-Romanian, American and especially converts = bad

Of course, American converts should never be criticized,

Only for valid reasons, and by those who know what they are talking about.

Often what is made into a cradle/convert dichotomy is not.  On the topic of American autocephaly, you find converts and cradles on both sides of the issue.

even when their former Protestantism shines through what they do in the Orthodox church, no?

Like reading the Bible?

It depends on the specific persons: I have up to 10 very good friends who are all American and Orthodox.  I can only say good things about them.
One thing I've noticed: the less someone was involved into a Protestant church and related activities even if of a Protestant background , before, the better he gets what our Church is about.

Nominalism? So they were nominal as Protestants, and now they are nominal as Orthodox. How is that not their former Protestantism shining through what they do in the Orthodox Church?

(btw, it case augustine717 changes his avatar, I say this only because he put down "nominal Orthodox" as "Faith," and has otherwise argued for nominalism as a goal to shoot for).

Those that were very serious about their Protestantism can oftentimes be as pesky as Orthodox as they were before as Protestants.

I'll give you that, and agree that you example is a good one of what you are talking about (although such behavior is not confined to former Protestants).

I once had a very zealous newly chrismated fellow come up to me and instructing me how to carry a certain item in a certain procession. I let him finish his little sermon, didn't say anything but I was thinking: Man, I've seen and done this stuff when you didn't even know there was an Orthodox Church or whatever.

That may be true (it often is), but such "correction" is not limited to converts (Protestants or otherwise).  It is often amusing to watch two cradles from different traditions go at it.

[Michał Kalina]

He's managed to make me angry a time or two, but I've come to realize that he is one of the only representatives on this forum of someone from a legitimate and thoroughly ingrained native Orthodox context. Almost everyone on here is a convert, and while he can be inconsiderate some or even most times, he quite often just tells it like it is. For all of that, despite his rude demeanor, he's come to be a poster that's fun to watch and interesting to consider.

I have also been wondering about this. As I am a cradle Orthodox and since 2008 I hadn't met any convert at all during the last two years I have gained loads of convert mindset and I more like a convert know (especially with the negative aspects).

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

No Melodist he understands perfectly well; he is just taking any opportunity he can to insult and disparage converts. You have to read every single post he makes through the lens of his bigotry.

He's managed to make me angry a time or two, but I've come to realize that he is one of the only representatives on this forum of someone from a legitimate and thoroughly ingrained native Orthodox context. Almost everyone on here is a convert, and while he can be inconsiderate some or even most times, he quite often just tells it like it is. For all of that, despite his rude demeanor, he's come to be a poster that's fun to watch and interesting to consider.

I suppose I may be considered sort of a convert as well, although I am indeed a cradle Orthodox and the son of an Orthodox priest. My "conversion" was of two kinds. First, I found out there were differing but still genuinely Orthodox mindsets and practices outside of my ethnic tradition. Second, I realized that cradles had a greater problem overcoming the burdens of their churches' pious practices--as opposed to genuine Holy Tradition--than many of the converts. Why is that ? Because, many converts come into the faith with conviction, determination and knowledge, while many converts are in auto-pilot. Take just two issues: tithing and frequent communion. Admittedly, cradles were not tithing and still have an issue with this requirement, while the frequent communion renaissance did not occur in North America until relatively recently. In both of this issues, the converts are ahead of, and in keeping with Holy Tradition, than the cradles. I myself am a cradle whose practice fell short until I was "converted" by the example of the converts to true Orthodox practice. Bottom line: lets be careful when slinging about terms like cradle and convert; it may boomerang on us.

[JLatimer]

I remember reading in Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars how during the Marian Restoration (to RCism) in England, these sorts of annotations became common. No longer do we just light a candle, we light a candle which represents the light of Christ, etc. In an Orthodox context, there's nothing wrong per se with commentary of this sort, or with citing Scripture references in the Liturgy; but Duffy implies that this second wave Catholicism in England had already ceded too much ground to Protestantism by even seeking to "justify" traditional piety with Scripture, etc. The Prots have already won when you've got to intellectualize everything. I think this applies to the Orthodox situation in America. Familiarizing the flock whether cradle or convert with Scripture is great, but I'm inclined to think augustin is on to something when he detects a whiff of unregenerate Protestantism in service books with Scripture references.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I remember reading in Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars how during the Marian Restoration (to RCism) in England, these sorts of annotations became common. No longer do we just light a candle, we light a candle which represents the light of Christ, etc. In an Orthodox context, there's nothing wrong per se with commentary of this sort, or with citing Scripture references in the Liturgy; but Duffy implies that this second wave Catholicism in England had already ceded too much ground to Protestantism by even seeking to "justify" traditional piety with Scripture, etc. The Prots have already won when you've got to intellectualize everything. I think this applies to the Orthodox situation in America. Familiarizing the flock whether cradle or convert with Scripture is great, but I'm inclined to think augustin is on to something when he detects a whiff of unregenerate Protestantism in service books with Scripture references.

The problem with Augustin is his visceral reaction to all things alien to him or to his experience. Take this "whiff of unregenerate Protestantism" for example: Referring to Scriptures references is a common ploy of the early Protestants, such as the Lord Himself, any of the Apostles, and particularly Saint Paul. I don't know about you but I would rather be like these early Protestants and be tainted with alleged unregenerate Protestantism than be a pious but nominal Orthodox Christian.

[JLatimer]

I remember reading in Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars how during the Marian Restoration (to RCism) in England, these sorts of annotations became common. No longer do we just light a candle, we light a candle which represents the light of Christ, etc. In an Orthodox context, there's nothing wrong per se with commentary of this sort, or with citing Scripture references in the Liturgy; but Duffy implies that this second wave Catholicism in England had already ceded too much ground to Protestantism by even seeking to "justify" traditional piety with Scripture, etc. The Prots have already won when you've got to intellectualize everything. I think this applies to the Orthodox situation in America. Familiarizing the flock whether cradle or convert with Scripture is great, but I'm inclined to think augustin is on to something when he detects a whiff of unregenerate Protestantism in service books with Scripture references.

The problem with Augustin is his visceral reaction to all things alien to him or to his experience. Take this "whiff of unregenerate Protestantism" for example: Referring to Scriptures references is a common ploy of the early Protestants, such as the Lord Himself, any of the Apostles, and particularly Saint Paul. I don't know about you but I would rather be like these early Protestants and be tainted with alleged unregenerate Protestantism than be a pious but nominal Orthodox Christian.

I agree with you that augustin can be rude and I don't agree with everything he says.

The Lord and the Apostles were in no wise Protestant.

The "nominal" "real/authentic/whatever" dichotomy is really of Protestant origin and IMO of limited utility.

Yes I would rather be Orthodox than "nominal".

Don't get me wrong, I love to cite Scripture as much as the next guy. But I'm still not convinced we need lay people walking around with annotated service books citing Scripture. This in my mind seems to be making the service book into a tool of apologetics. But worship is just not apologetic in nature.

[ialmisry]

I remember reading in Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars how during the Marian Restoration (to RCism) in England, these sorts of annotations became common. No longer do we just light a candle, we light a candle which represents the light of Christ, etc. In an Orthodox context, there's nothing wrong per se with commentary of this sort, or with citing Scripture references in the Liturgy; but Duffy implies that this second wave Catholicism in England had already ceded too much ground to Protestantism by even seeking to "justify" traditional piety with Scripture, etc. The Prots have already won when you've got to intellectualize everything. I think this applies to the Orthodox situation in America. Familiarizing the flock whether cradle or convert with Scripture is great, but I'm inclined to think augustin is on to something when he detects a whiff of unregenerate Protestantism in service books with Scripture references.

The problem with Augustin is his visceral reaction to all things alien to him or to his experience. Take this "whiff of unregenerate Protestantism" for example: Referring to Scriptures references is a common ploy of the early Protestants, such as the Lord Himself, any of the Apostles, and particularly Saint Paul. I don't know about you but I would rather be like these early Protestants and be tainted with alleged unregenerate Protestantism than be a pious but nominal Orthodox Christian.

I agree with you that augustin can be rude and I don't agree with everything he says.

The Lord and the Apostles were in no wise Protestant.

The "nominal" "real/authentic/whatever" dichotomy is really of Protestant origin and IMO of limited utility.

Yes I would rather be Orthodox than "nominal".

Don't get me wrong, I love to cite Scripture as much as the next guy. But I'm still not convinced we need lay people walking around with annotated service books citing Scripture. This in my mind seems to be making the service book into a tool of apologetics. But worship is just not apologetic in nature.

Oh?

Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; 17 and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written, 18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, 19 to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." 20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 And he began to say to them, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." 22 And all spoke well of him, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth; and they said, "Is not this Joseph's son?" 23 And he said to them, "Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, 'Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Caper'na-um, do here also in your own country.'" 24 And he said, "Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own country. 25 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Eli'jah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there came a great famine over all the land; 26 and Eli'jah was sent to none of them but only to Zar'ephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Eli'sha; and none of them was cleansed, but only Na'aman the Syrian." 28 When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath.

It seems some are still "filled with wrath."

Btw, I'm not a fan of ANYONE having ANY service book in hand during worship. But for those who need them, let them have them. And if they need them, why not the most informative?  Looking up the references (not necessarily during the DL ) can enrich what they bring to the DL.

[biro]

Not to sidetrack the thread, but as I am someone with modest skill in Greek at this point, although I think I've picked up a tad bit, I'd be lost without the bilingual service books our parish uses. Each page has one language on one side, the other on a facing page. I find it very helpful. Yes, I've read the same thing many times, and I have 'gotten the gist' or memorized parts of it, but at this part of my progress I'm just too new to be able to get along without some kind of help. I don't wish for anyone to have to take away from their culture or the long-standing practice of the liturgy. It's just that books like this make a big difference for me. I don't spend 100% of the time staring at the page. I look down, scan a bit, look up... so on. Unless I want to change parishes, there is simply no other way for me to effectively take part.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I remember reading in Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars how during the Marian Restoration (to RCism) in England, these sorts of annotations became common. No longer do we just light a candle, we light a candle which represents the light of Christ, etc. In an Orthodox context, there's nothing wrong per se with commentary of this sort, or with citing Scripture references in the Liturgy; but Duffy implies that this second wave Catholicism in England had already ceded too much ground to Protestantism by even seeking to "justify" traditional piety with Scripture, etc. The Prots have already won when you've got to intellectualize everything. I think this applies to the Orthodox situation in America. Familiarizing the flock whether cradle or convert with Scripture is great, but I'm inclined to think augustin is on to something when he detects a whiff of unregenerate Protestantism in service books with Scripture references.

The problem with Augustin is his visceral reaction to all things alien to him or to his experience. Take this "whiff of unregenerate Protestantism" for example: Referring to Scriptures references is a common ploy of the early Protestants, such as the Lord Himself, any of the Apostles, and particularly Saint Paul. I don't know about you but I would rather be like these early Protestants and be tainted with alleged unregenerate Protestantism than be a pious but nominal Orthodox Christian.

I agree with you that augustin can be rude and I don't agree with everything he says.

The Lord and the Apostles were in no wise Protestant.

The "nominal" "real/authentic/whatever" dichotomy is really of Protestant origin and IMO of limited utility.

Yes I would rather be Orthodox than "nominal".

Don't get me wrong, I love to cite Scripture as much as the next guy. But I'm still not convinced we need lay people walking around with annotated service books citing Scripture. This in my mind seems to be making the service book into a tool of apologetics. But worship is just not apologetic in nature.

Here is the crux of the problem, if I may be perfectly honest and bold. We have some Orthodox who stress Holy Tradition as everything that their own church currently does and believes in. These Orthodox would not deviate from an iota of the rubrics, for example, even if one can prove that that one iota is wrong. Nope, nothing that they have received can be wrong and everything is of equal value. These types of Orthodox hate to be corrected by others. If they are corrected by a member of another national tradition or jurisdiction, they will, at least at first, tend to defend their own practice--sometimes with vehemence, sometimes with counter-attack, and sometimes with accusations of heresy and impiety. The correction that they object the most is when it is based on the Scriptures (even when backed by the Fathers). I can see why they resent this because their whole existence as a distinct church or jurisdiction is based on the claim that it was the Holy Spirit that guided to Church to her current practices and beliefs. They cannot stand to be contradicted by the Word of God, especially when it contradicts their practices. And, they really (really!) resent it when a convert Orthodox uses the Scriptures. So, out comes the essentially meaningless accusation that these folks are not really Orthodox, that they are or act like Protestants. Never mind that many of the convert Orthodox start as inquirers, graduate into catechumens, undergo a long period of instruction (both theoretical and on-the-job), and are accepted into the Body by the appropriate Holy Mystery. Truly a much more arduous process than most cradles who come in by infant baptism.

[Melodist]

If I may ask, do you live in Dayton? If not, how did you find out about Father Ted's blog? I found it while looking for a local parish to visit (which I still haven't gotten to do), and I've always found it to be well-written, thought-provoking, and full of wisdom. This post was no exception.

I live in Cincinnati and have visited St Paul's a few times. It's beautiful and the people are nice. If you ever get to visit there on a sunday morning you might like the service books they use. They have the text for the liturgy on one side of the page and scripture references and other notes on the other side.

Have you seen their new icons?

I haven't been there in a while, probably at least a year.

[Melodist]

I remember reading in Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars how during the Marian Restoration (to RCism) in England, these sorts of annotations became common. No longer do we just light a candle, we light a candle which represents the light of Christ, etc. In an Orthodox context, there's nothing wrong per se with commentary of this sort, or with citing Scripture references in the Liturgy; but Duffy implies that this second wave Catholicism in England had already ceded too much ground to Protestantism by even seeking to "justify" traditional piety with Scripture, etc. The Prots have already won when you've got to intellectualize everything. I think this applies to the Orthodox situation in America. Familiarizing the flock whether cradle or convert with Scripture is great, but I'm inclined to think augustin is on to something when he detects a whiff of unregenerate Protestantism in service books with Scripture references.

God gave us the ability to reason for a purpose. I'm not saying that it should be the only way we approach God and I'm aware that our ability to reason is corrupt just like the rest of our nature, but Christ came to heal us and we are to love God with all of our hearts, mind, soul, and strength. That means engaging and communing with God with the whole human person - including intellect and reason. Christians are not mindless zombies. St Paul said to "test the spirits" and commended the Bereans for putting his claims to the test. He also said to be ready to give a good defense (apologia) for one's faith. Having the ability to check and see how different elements of Tradition (scripture included) tie into each other can help to strengthen one's faith. My guess would be that the references are there for anyone who may not know why something is done, which can range from a first time visitor to a someone who has been Orthodox their whole life but were never taught "why" some things are done. I've also seen service books printed for children with explanations for everything that included some of the different antiphons that some of the different jurisdictions use.

Not to mention the thought was put out there that an Orthodox church, with an Orthodox priest and two deacons, under the oversight of an Orthodox bishop, in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy, would be able to get away with just not doing parts of the liturgy.

I would say that some of the achitecture is a little different than what one might expect to find in an eastern rite church, but the liturgy is celebrated the same as it is any other OCA church, and as I said above is under the oversight of an Orthodox bishop in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy.

[JLatimer]

I remember reading in Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars how during the Marian Restoration (to RCism) in England, these sorts of annotations became common. No longer do we just light a candle, we light a candle which represents the light of Christ, etc. In an Orthodox context, there's nothing wrong per se with commentary of this sort, or with citing Scripture references in the Liturgy; but Duffy implies that this second wave Catholicism in England had already ceded too much ground to Protestantism by even seeking to "justify" traditional piety with Scripture, etc. The Prots have already won when you've got to intellectualize everything. I think this applies to the Orthodox situation in America. Familiarizing the flock whether cradle or convert with Scripture is great, but I'm inclined to think augustin is on to something when he detects a whiff of unregenerate Protestantism in service books with Scripture references.

The problem with Augustin is his visceral reaction to all things alien to him or to his experience. Take this "whiff of unregenerate Protestantism" for example: Referring to Scriptures references is a common ploy of the early Protestants, such as the Lord Himself, any of the Apostles, and particularly Saint Paul. I don't know about you but I would rather be like these early Protestants and be tainted with alleged unregenerate Protestantism than be a pious but nominal Orthodox Christian.

I agree with you that augustin can be rude and I don't agree with everything he says.

The Lord and the Apostles were in no wise Protestant.

The "nominal" "real/authentic/whatever" dichotomy is really of Protestant origin and IMO of limited utility.

Yes I would rather be Orthodox than "nominal".

Don't get me wrong, I love to cite Scripture as much as the next guy. But I'm still not convinced we need lay people walking around with annotated service books citing Scripture. This in my mind seems to be making the service book into a tool of apologetics. But worship is just not apologetic in nature.

Oh?

Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; 17 and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written, 18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, 19 to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." 20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 And he began to say to them, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." 22 And all spoke well of him, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth; and they said, "Is not this Joseph's son?" 23 And he said to them, "Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, 'Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Caper'na-um, do here also in your own country.'" 24 And he said, "Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own country. 25 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Eli'jah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there came a great famine over all the land; 26 and Eli'jah was sent to none of them but only to Zar'ephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Eli'sha; and none of them was cleansed, but only Na'aman the Syrian." 28 When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath.

It seems some are still "filled with wrath."

Btw, I'm not a fan of ANYONE having ANY service book in hand during worship. But for those who need them, let them have them. And if they need them, why not the most informative?  Looking up the references (not necessarily during the DL ) can enrich what they bring to the DL.

I fail to see how anything I said was especially wrathful. I'm also not entirely sure about what you're getting at with that lengthy Scripture passage: is it supposed to prove the apologetic nature of worship?

I should have been more clear what I meant by that statement, since obviously much of our hymnody takes an apologetic (or perhaps more precisely polemic) stance toward various heresies. What I meant is that worship is primarily a place where the already believing glorify, give thanks to, and commune with their Creator. We do so within our Tradition, which is the Life of God in the Church. The Scripture is part of that Tradition, and we rightly hold it aloft, celebrate it, venerate it. But I do not think we need to apologize to Protestant for the rest of our Tradition, or prove to them (or to ourselves) that everything we do has a chapter and verse.

This is what I meant by worship not being the time for apologetics. We should be comfortable with what we do as the Church, and not be anxious about having to "justify" our practices from the Scriptures (that is a Protestant mindset). (that doesn't mean we should ignore the Scriptures.)

Incidentally, I have read a commentary on the Luturgy that gave all the references to Scripture and found it edifying, and I am not speaking against the whole idea of it. I just think we need to do things judiciously.

Converts and cradles both have strengths and weaknesses. Let us all work together in humility. Not seeking to justify ourselves, but seeking to understand and benefit from each other's criticism. Let us edify each other and stop this convert vs. Cradle mentality.

Looking up the references (not necessarily during the DL ) can enrich what they bring to the DL.

Agreed. The time for such study is not during the Liturgy. But the study itself is not inherently bad.

So, out comes the essentially meaningless accusation that these folks are not really Orthodox, that they are or act like Protestants.

Just because this accusation is sometimes made unfairly or in bad faith, does that really mean it is "essentially meaningless"? I myself am a covert "from Protestantism via atheism". I acknowledge I've got some Protestant tendencies. It can take a long time to acquire an Orthodox mindset. And the truth is cradles aren't immune to Prot influence - our surrounding culture is Protestant. It affects the way we think and feel and act. And that's okay. I don't think we need to really stress out about it. But we should exercise basic caution, and we also need to try our best to really dig into the Orthodox Tradition that's been given to us.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > General Forums > Christian News (Moderator: Michał Kalina) > Topic: Father Ted Bobosh: What Really is a Mother Church?