OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 31, 2014, 01:05:28 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 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hellenism, Romanity among other issues...  (Read 8076 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« on: November 01, 2005, 04:04:02 PM »

Now that GreekisChristian is back to posting, hopefully he will respond to some of the questions he has evaded for awhile:

What precisely cannot be translated from the Divine Liturgy into English as you claimed was the case? 

But to my bigger question about certain people's stated obsession with Hellenistic things (not just GiC here).  Even from the start of the Church populations outside of the Empire flourished in the faith and made no attempt to have a nostalgia for the Empire.  This would include the Orthodox Church of Georgia which is still extant to this day. Today the vast majority of the land where the population is predominantly Orthodox was never under the jurisdiction of the Roman Empire. 

I fully understand the cultural signifigance of what was meant by saying civis Romanus sum.  The problem though of preaching an Orthodoxy filled with that nostalgia is that is misses the entire reason why the Greek language and thought was important to the Church at one time.  Greek was the lingua franca of much of the world - educated people from even outside the empire understood the language.  Hence one could preach to the whole world by using Greek.  The ideals of civilized living were held in the Greek culture and philosophy.  But this civilization is dead and has been dead for centuries.  President Kennedy was right in asserting that instead of saying civis Romanus sum we say Ich bin ein Berliner today.  If Orthodoxy used the main languages of Western Europe (primarily Enlgish, but also German and French) and dealt with modern philosophy they would be speaking to modern people in their own language and culture. 

But instead many Orthodox will insist on not becoming missionary.  They will insist on the importance of the Byzantine era and hellenistic thought while Orthodoxy remains a small and unoticed immigrant community in the West and the official Church of Eastern Europe that nobody really attends....

Logged
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2005, 04:46:39 PM »

What precisely cannot be translated from the Divine Liturgy into English as you claimed was the case?ÂÂ
 

If it were up to me, everything but the homily.  English is a barbaric tongue.
 
The problem though of preaching an Orthodoxy filled with that nostalgia is that is misses the entire reason why the Greek language and thought was important to the Church at one time.ÂÂ  Greek was the lingua franca of much of the world

Even more importantly, Greek was the language spoken at the court of the Holy Emperors, who kept the faith shielded from heresy and barbarism.

ÂÂ  But this civilization is dead and has been dead for centuries.

A fact that should produce nothing but tears.  St. Constantine's sight of the Life-Giving Cross in the sky and his admonition to conquer in this sign have come to nought and now we Orthodox are at the mercy of Babylon!

ÂÂ
But instead many Orthodox will insist on not becoming missionary.ÂÂ  They will insist on the importance of the Byzantine era and hellenistic thought while Orthodoxy remains a small and unoticed immigrant community in the West and the official Church of Eastern Europe that nobody really attends....
 

To destroy God's given Empire in any form is a grave act without excuse.  The geo-political atomism that has resulted from the demolition of God's earthly kingdom is no excuse for spiritual atomism.
Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2005, 05:04:18 PM »

Quote
If it were up to me, everything but the homily.  English is a barbaric tongue.

Αν θέλεις, μπορούμε να γράψουμε στα Ελληνικά...

How is English any worse than Slavonic, Georgian, Romania or Serbian which the church has prospered in? 

Honestly where does this self-hatred come from?

Quote
Even more importantly, Greek was the language spoken at the court of the Holy Emperors, who kept the faith shielded from heresy and barbarism.

First off, do you have any knowledge of Byzantine history?  The imperial court was hardly free from heresy.  And FWIW Russian was the language of the Romanovs, who protected a much larger piece of territory for the Orthodox than empire did. 

Quote
A fact that should produce nothing but tears.  St. Constantine's sight of the Life-Giving Cross in the sky and his admonition to conquer in this sign have come to nought and now we Orthodox are at the mercy of Babylon!

Empires come and go, that is the reality of history.  Even the American empire will someday see its end.  But until then we might as well use what this empire has given us - free and realitively peaceful societies plus educated people around the world now speak English. 

Quote
To destroy God's given Empire in any form is a grave act without excuse.  The geo-political atomism that has resulted from the demolition of God's earthly kingdom is no excuse for spiritual atomism.

How precisely have I advocated destroying a "God given Empire" or "spiritual atomism"?


Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2005, 05:14:51 PM »

Now that GreekisChristian is back to posting, hopefully he will respond to some of the questions he has evaded for awhile:

Please forgive me for not taking time out from my midterms to engage in an online debate.

Quote
What precisely cannot be translated from the Divine Liturgy into English as you claimed was the case?ÂÂ  

Much of the liturgy cant, especially the participles and subjunctives, a looses much of it's meaning if you change the mood in translation. But unfortunately few people are well enough versed in the English language to understand the use of the English Subjunctive (which has been in steady decline over the last century, especially in regular verbs, though thank God is not yet gone) and the literal translation of participles often sounds awkward and thus is avoided by translators. So while it may be theoretically possible to translate the liturgy literally into english, it will lose all of it's poetic nature. Of course, you could use some of these modern translations which seek to maintain the poetic nature (often poorly), but change the nuances of the meaning.

Quote
But to my bigger question about certain people's stated obsession with Hellenistic things (not just GiC here).ÂÂ  Even from the start of the Church populations outside of the Empire flourished in the faith and made no attempt to have a nostalgia for the Empire.ÂÂ  This would include the Orthodox Church of Georgia which is still extant to this day. Today the vast majority of the land where the population is predominantly Orthodox was never under the jurisdiction of the Roman Empire.ÂÂ  

The Church came to maturity under the Empire and after coming to maturity lived with it in a marriage as a common entity for over a thousand years, by the time of the turkokratia the concept of the existance of the Church appart from the Empire was foreign to the conscienceness of the Christian Church. And through that time the Church of Christ survived my maintaining, to the best of their ability, the institutions and form of the Empire while the Churches outside Ottoman Rule looked to their own states for the context of their Existance. The exceptions you state are just that, exceptions to the General rule, exceptions to the common conscienceness and understanding of the Church. I simply fail to see how your attempt to divorce the Church and the Culture of the Empire fits into the culture and conscienceness of our Church.

Quote
I fully understand the cultural signifigance of what was meant by saying civis Romanus sum.ÂÂ  The problem though of preaching an Orthodoxy filled with that nostalgia is that is misses the entire reason why the Greek language and thought was important to the Church at one time.ÂÂ  Greek was the lingua franca of much of the world - educated people from even outside the empire understood the language.ÂÂ  Hence one could preach to the whole world by using Greek.ÂÂ  The ideals of civilized living were held in the Greek culture and philosophy.ÂÂ  But this civilization is dead and has been dead for centuries.ÂÂ  President Kennedy was right in asserting that instead of saying civis Romanus sum we say Ich bin ein Berliner today.ÂÂ  If Orthodoxy used the main languages of Western Europe (primarily Enlgish, but also German and French) and dealt with modern philosophy they would be speaking to modern people in their own language and culture.ÂÂ  

While the might, power, and grandeur of Rome did lead to the initial alliance between the Church and the Empire, by 1453 there was far more to it than the political posistion of the Empire, the Church had become one with the Empire their weltanschuung had become one, and regardless of how the political winds would blow the Church was firmly established as an Imperial Church as a Greek (or, perhaps more properly, Roman) Church. The fall of the Empire did not alter this Ecclesiastical Culture which was established over the Course of a Thousand Years; in 1453 there was far more to the Relationship than flirting with Power.

Quote
But instead many Orthodox will insist on not becoming missionary.ÂÂ  They will insist on the importance of the Byzantine era and hellenistic thought while Orthodoxy remains a small and unoticed immigrant community in the West and the official Church of Eastern Europe that nobody really attends....

For better or worse, one of the results of the marriage between Christianity and the Empire was an interlinking of their fates to a certain Degree, since the fall of the Empire we have not been in a posistion to spread our Religion as the west has...western Christiantiy spread via the political support of Spain, Portugal, France, and Italy (Catholic) and Engliand and Holland (Protestantism), we simply lacked the means to compete on the the National Scale without the Empire. Russia did try, but because of the position of their country relative to the western powers during the Era of Imperialism they met with only limited success.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2005, 05:18:24 PM »

But unfortunately few people are well enough versed in the English language to understand the use of the English Subjunctive.

Be that as it may.....lol
Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2005, 05:26:08 PM »

First off, do you have any knowledge of Byzantine history?ÂÂ  The imperial court was hardly free from heresy.ÂÂ  

But who finally won in the end?  Was it the iconoclasts?  No.  Yes, there have been lulls in the reliability of the authority vested in the court.  But just because Dioscoros was once Patriarch of Alexandria, do we therefore nullify the honor accorded to its See?  Just because Nestorius once held the Constantinopolitan seat, do we strip that See of all prestige?  No.  Just because someone like Lyndon B. Johnson may temporarily hold the Presidency does not nullify the claim that the CiC's job is to protect personal and economic freedom.  Neither does the fact that there have been some bad apples on the throne nullify the fact that the Emperor's function was to protect spiritual integrity.
Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2005, 05:34:21 PM »

President Kennedy was right in asserting that instead of saying civis Romanus sum we say Ich bin ein Berliner today.

Well, not precisely. He should have said "Ich bin Berliner"-- what he did say translates to "I am a jelly donut".

 Grin Grin Grin
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2005, 05:41:27 PM »

Much of the liturgy cant, especially the participles and subjunctives, a looses much of it's meaning if you change the mood in translation. But unfortunately few people are well enough versed in the English language to understand the use of the English Subjunctive (which has been in steady decline over the last century, especially in regular verbs, though thank God is not yet gone) and the literal translation of participles often sounds awkward and thus is avoided by translators.

If that were the case, nobody would understand what I write. The thing is that the subjunctive mood is often as not a grammatical construct which requires no meaningful translation. The structure of the sentence either requires it or does not, and what has happened in English is that the general reduction and elimination of inflections has reduced the difference between "If I were you" and "If I was you" to little more than a class distinction. French by contrast requires it in cases where English (proper or im-) doesn't. It doesn't make translation from French to English any more difficult.
Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2005, 11:56:07 PM »

Quote
Well, not precisely. He should have said "Ich bin Berliner"-- what he did say translates to "I am a jelly donut".

No he didn't.  The indefinite article can be used in this instance to give a more emphatic tone to that statement. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_bin_ein_berliner
Logged
Elisha
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,452


« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2005, 12:59:36 AM »

I think these two threads contain the questions GiC has missed during his absence:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=7040.0

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=7242.0

Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2005, 01:48:50 AM »

There were several times while he was still posting regularly that he was asked to elaborate on his claims against an English liturgy.  His main argument was that Istanbul was opposed to using English. 

As to GiC's points - he still didn't provide any concrete examples of an untranslatable phrase.  Then complains that sutble nuances will be lost (which a good translator can avoid).  Yet the absurd part of that is most Greek people don't get the sutble nuances of liturgical Greek and obviously very very few Americans would.  So option 1 is do liturgy "correctly" in Greek so a handful of people get their nuances and the rest have almost no idea what is going on or option 2 is liturgy in a language in which the meaning is not lost and the people understand. 

Also what is a more egregious attack on the Liturgical life of the Church?  Translating liturgical texts into the language of the land, the language of modern academia and trade, a language understood by people in every nation.... OR the GOA's liturgical abuses: the abolition of vespers, loss of frequent confession, taking much of the Orthros texts out of Sunday Orthros, cutting the litany of the catechumens, shortening the litany after the consecration - don't you think you lost some meaning when you abolished all of that?

Quote
The Church came to maturity under the Empire and after coming to maturity lived with it in a marriage as a common entity for over a thousand years, by the time of the turkokratia the concept of the existance of the Church appart from the Empire was foreign to the conscienceness of the Christian Church.

Is that how the Orthodox Christians of Georgia believed at this time?  What about the pre-schism churches in the West - the British Isles, Gaul, Germany ? 

Quote
While the might, power, and grandeur of Rome did lead to the initial alliance between the Church and the Empire, by 1453 there was far more to it than the political posistion of the Empire, the Church had become one with the Empire their weltanschuung had become one, and regardless of how the political winds would blow the Church was firmly established as an Imperial Church as a Greek (or, perhaps more properly, Roman) Church. The fall of the Empire did not alter this Ecclesiastical Culture which was established over the Course of a Thousand Years; in 1453 there was far more to the Relationship than flirting with Power.

By the time the Empire was collapsing the Church was well established far outside of the Greek world and inculturated in Slavic life.  When these Slavs started their own missionary work in the far east (and eventually North America) they didn't preash a Russian or a Hellenic Christianity.  They preached what Christianity was in its essence - God becoming incarnate and rising from the dead.  They were able to preach to the Chinese in terms of Taoism - speaking of 道 rather than the λογος. 

Quote
For better or worse, one of the results of the marriage between Christianity and the Empire was an interlinking of their fates to a certain Degree, since the fall of the Empire we have not been in a posistion to spread our Religion as the west has...western Christiantiy spread via the political support of Spain, Portugal, France, and Italy (Catholic) and Engliand and Holland (Protestantism), we simply lacked the means to compete on the the National Scale without the Empire.

Precisely why it is important to not turn Orthodoxy into an ethnicity or mere cultural identity.  Now such nostalgia for the Byzantine era is hurting Orthodoxy - serving liturgy entirely in Greek in America is not helping Orthodoxy.  Saying that Christianity can only be understood through the lens of Hellenism isn't helping Orthodoxy. 


As a side note - since you believe imperialism is so vital to Orthodoxy you do believe Moscow is the third Rome, right?  Since you believe in Romanity and not just Greek ethnicity, as you have stated. 
Logged
Elisha
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,452


« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2005, 03:01:15 AM »

The Church came to maturity under the Empire and after coming to maturity lived with it in a marriage as a common entity for over a thousand years, by the time of the turkokratia the concept of the existance of the Church appart from the Empire was foreign to the conscienceness of the Christian Church. And through that time the Church of Christ survived my maintaining, to the best of their ability, the institutions and form of the Empire while the Churches outside Ottoman Rule looked to their own states for the context of their Existance. The exceptions you state are just that, exceptions to the General rule, exceptions to the common conscienceness and understanding of the Church. I simply fail to see how your attempt to divorce the Church and the Culture of the Empire fits into the culture and conscienceness of our Church.
You just explained it right here.  These "exceptions" have BECOME the common conscienceness the old Culture of the Empire is just that - OLD and a relic of the past.  Why doesn't it occur to you that the way Christ intends for the Church to spread is by baptizing cultures and having the Church present in His creation in whatever culture that is out there.  There is nothing particularly holy or superior about the old Culture of the Empire.  The Empire WAS and IS no more.  Remenisce all you want, but it is not coming back.

For better or worse, one of the results of the marriage between Christianity and the Empire was an interlinking of their fates to a certain Degree, since the fall of the Empire we have not been in a posistion to spread our Religion as the west has...western Christiantiy spread via the political support of Spain, Portugal, France, and Italy (Catholic) and Engliand and Holland (Protestantism), we simply lacked the means to compete on the the National Scale without the Empire. Russia did try, but because of the position of their country relative to the western powers during the Era of Imperialism they met with only limited success.
While you have a valid point of WHY (historically), it is no excuse for what is going on or should be going on NOW.  I would hate to have to make my case before the Lord on the Day of Judgement use Canoncial Process/Perogatives like you do as an excuse to not preach the Gospel to all nations.  All of this about the "Empire" is completely besides the point when compared to the parable of the Sheep and the Goats.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2005, 07:50:56 AM »

Also what is a more egregious attack on the Liturgical life of the Church? Translating liturgical texts into the language of the land, the language of modern academia and trade, a language understood by people in every nation.... OR the GOA's liturgical abuses: the abolition of vespers, loss of frequent confession, taking much of the Orthros texts out of Sunday Orthros, cutting the litany of the catechumens, shortening the litany after the consecration - don't you think you lost some meaning when you abolished all of that?   

One walks a very thin line when they talk about "liturgical abuses" φίλε μου.  First, the assertion that they are "the GOA's" ignores that the aforementioned changes are largely due to practice on the local level, and not coming from some Archdiocesan directive. 

Vespers was never "abolished" - but rather fell into disuse; no matter how much either one of us would like it to be, the people may not have gone to vespers.  In the churches where they did, they still do vespers on a regular basis.  And methinks you should make the distinction between "Sunday and Festal Vespers," which is the only practice of Vespers you'll see in any other churches in this country, and just "vespers" - which is only done in monastic practice in this country (really - who besides the monks and seminarians goes to church every day in America?).

Loss of frequent confession is a sad reality, but not an institutional wish.  You did, though, have priests sent here from Greece in the early parts of the century who were not theologically educated enough for the bishops to trust them with confession - and they had good reasons not to.  That's why in the Greek Churches you have this idea of being "made" a Father Confessor (even though my bishop rightly states that the ability to administer the sacrament of confession is given at one's ordination to the Priesthood, not by some offikion later).  Well, after having a generation go without frequent confession, it is hard to get the people to do otherwise now.  Anecdote: my father's godfather was a priest for 41 years in a parish in Ohio.  He worked for 30+ years trying to get the families to go to confession; in fact, he would just come out and direct it for the kids ("this thursday the 4th graders will be coming here for confession after school; friday will be for the 5th grade; next week, we will move to the junior high and high school" - and he had enough respect from the people to pull it off!).  The only thing I wanted to demonstrate here is that the priests are aware of the problem, and are often doing what they can to fix it.

Okay, taking much of the Orthros text out of Sunday Orthros - I'm going to need you to be more specific on this one.  Are we talking about cutting out the Kathisma's and the Canon?  I'm not sure if I disagree with this for the parish - all this cutting does is re-establish a sort of "cathedral rite" without some of the helpful practices that are right now only benefitting the monasteries.  I'd love, though, to get a parish with people who would appreciate the readings from the Psalter.  If you are referring to anything else, then that is based probably on your observations of how they do things parish-to-parish; there has been no official movement to cut hymns or eliminate sections (other than the Canon and the readings from the Psalter).

As for shortening and cutting litanies: I may be going out on a limb, but if the litanies had already lost their meaning before they were cut, it could also explain their being cut.  Otherwise, they were probably cut for time purposes; while I find this an abhorrent reason, it is the right of the local church to do this - each local church maintains its own liturgical tradition.  So, if a bishop orders this done, the only group that can "correct him" would be the local synod; and if the local synod agrees with the change, then it would be the Patriarchal Synod; and if the Patriarchal Synod agrees with the change, then it would be an Ecumenical Synod.  That's how the system works.  Since this forum is not any one of those groups, then the best we can do here is educate one another and foster the hope that some day we can have a more full liturgical tradition.
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.
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #13 on: November 02, 2005, 12:25:59 PM »

.....okay, I give up already.  I'm not really a senselessy provocative, ultra-Byzantine neo-Imperialist.  I was just trying to play devil's advocate.  Needless to say, I'm not very good at it. Embarrassed
Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
spedrson
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #14 on: November 02, 2005, 01:40:32 PM »

Vespers was never "abolished" - but rather fell into disuse; no matter how much either one of us would like it to be, the people may not have gone to vespers.  In the churches where they did, they still do vespers on a regular basis.  And methinks you should make the distinction between "Sunday and Festal Vespers," which is the only practice of Vespers you'll see in any other churches in this country, and just "vespers" - which is only done in monastic practice in this country (really - who besides the monks and seminarians goes to church every day in America?).

FWIW, Holy Cross in Linthicum, MD, has two weekday vespers (Tues/Thurs evenings), in addition to weekends and feasts. Not exactly every day, but still nice for someone like me who's exploring Orthodoxy while still maintaining regular attendance with my wife at another church.
Logged

أبوئيّÙâ€
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #15 on: November 02, 2005, 02:40:04 PM »

There were several times while he was still posting regularly that he was asked to elaborate on his claims against an English liturgy.ÂÂ  His main argument was that Istanbul was opposed to using English.ÂÂ  

It is true that the Great Church of Christ discourages the Americanization of the Liturgy, and that should be reason enough to avoid such things as english translations.

Quote
As to GiC's points - he still didn't provide any concrete examples of an untranslatable phrase.ÂÂ  Then complains that sutble nuances will be lost (which a good translator can avoid).

Because I am better versed in the theoretical elements of linguistics than the pragmatic elements, thus it is rational that I present my argument from such a perspective. It is unfortunate my Liturgical Greek professor isn't here for this argument, because she can point out elements in every prayer that demonstrate translations are and must be at least slightly different from the original. And if good translators can avoid these problems, I have yet to see a good translator, for example, one who can regularly demonstrate in their translation the differences between the usage of the present and the aorist in moods other than the indicative (continuous vs. one time action).

Quote
Yet the absurd part of that is most Greek people don't get the sutble nuances of liturgical Greek and obviously very very few Americans would.ÂÂ  So option 1 is do liturgy "correctly" in Greek so a handful of people get their nuances and the rest have almost no idea what is going on or option 2 is liturgy in a language in which the meaning is not lost and the people understand.

This is where we differ in opinions, as I have said before I don't believe it to be particularly important for everyone to understand every word said, the liturgy isn't about 'personal meaning and edification.' It is a communal act, and not only with the immediate community but with the Church Past, Present, and Future, in Heaven and on Earth.

Quote
Also what is a more egregious attack on the Liturgical life of the Church?ÂÂ  Translating liturgical texts into the language of the land, the language of modern academia and trade, a language understood by people in every nation.... OR the GOA's liturgical abuses: the abolition of vespers, loss of frequent confession, taking much of the Orthros texts out of Sunday Orthros, cutting the litany of the catechumens, shortening the litany after the consecration - don't you think you lost some meaning when you abolished all of that?

See Cleveland's post.

Quote
Is that how the Orthodox Christians of Georgia believed at this time?ÂÂ  What about the pre-schism churches in the West - the British Isles, Gaul, Germany ?ÂÂ  

Essentially a footnote to a Church that was Greco-Roman in Essence. The Germans understood this, this is why they tried to associate themselves with the Roman world, many of Charlemagne's reforms were directed towards making German culture more Roman and less German. Furthermore, the failure of the Council of Frankfurt demonstrates how insiginficant the Church in this part of the world was, it didn't even invoke significant concern in the Greco-Roman world, it was simply casually dismissed, it was no threat; in addition, this failure would insure that the pre-schism gremanic Church would never become a significant player in Christianity.

Quote
By the time the Empire was collapsing the Church was well established far outside of the Greek world and inculturated in Slavic life. When these Slavs started their own missionary work in the far east (and eventually North America) they didn't preash a Russian or a Hellenic Christianity.ÂÂ  They preached what Christianity was in its essence - God becoming incarnate and rising from the dead.ÂÂ  They were able to preach to the Chinese in terms of Taoism - speaking of 道 rather than the λογος.

The slavs adopted what was essentially Greek Christianity, and they understood the role and significance of the Roman Culture in the Church, this is why many of the Customs of the slavic Aristocracy came to mimic the Empire in addition to the Imperial Culture of the Church. It is also why the Russians tried to claim moscow as the Third Rome, somewhat how Charlemagne tried to claim to be a Roman Emperor, they both realized that this Roman Culture was central to Civilization in general and Christianity in particular.

Quote
Precisely why it is important to not turn Orthodoxy into an ethnicity or mere cultural identity.ÂÂ  Now such nostalgia for the Byzantine era is hurting Orthodoxy - serving liturgy entirely in Greek in America is not helping Orthodoxy.ÂÂ  Saying that Christianity can only be understood through the lens of Hellenism isn't helping Orthodoxy.ÂÂ  

Whether the influence of Hellenism is helping or not is irrelevant, because it is there, like it or not. Christianity after St. Constantine is essentially Greek, all the Oecumenical Synods were Greek in Thought and Culture; any attempt to change or alter this fact can lead to the corruption of our dogmas and heresy. Christianity can only properly be understood in the Context that it was established and defined through the Seven Oecumenical Synods, viewing it from any other perspective does the faith a great disservice.

Quote
As a side note - since you believe imperialism is so vital to Orthodoxy you do believe Moscow is the third Rome, right?ÂÂ  Since you believe in Romanity and not just Greek ethnicity, as you have stated.ÂÂ  

Imperialism is central to proselytism, regardless of religion, but I never said we needed to be proselytizing. We have enough of a task set out for us in the maintaining of the flock we already have; for us in the GOA, this is a Greek flock and their specific cultural and religious needs should be our greatest priority.

You just explained it right here. These "exceptions" have BECOME the common conscienceness the old Culture of the Empire is just that - OLD and a relic of the past. Why doesn't it occur to you that the way Christ intends for the Church to spread is by baptizing cultures and having the Church present in His creation in whatever culture that is out there. There is nothing particularly holy or superior about the old Culture of the Empire. The Empire WAS and IS no more. Remenisce all you want, but it is not coming back.

We baptize cultures by infusing them with the Culture of the Church, a Culture that happens to be Hellenic/Greek/Roman; it is this infusing with Christian (that is Greek) culture that you for some reason seem to oppose.

Quote
While you have a valid point of WHY (historically), it is no excuse for what is going on or should be going on NOW. I would hate to have to make my case before the Lord on the Day of Judgement use Canoncial Process/Perogatives like you do as an excuse to not preach the Gospel to all nations. All of this about the "Empire" is completely besides the point when compared to the parable of the Sheep and the Goats.

It's a simple reason to why we were not as successful at spreading our Religion as the west during the era of discovery and colonization; today no Church is growing as radically as Churches did in those days because they lack the national support that is necessary for mass conversion. Our primary concern today should be to missionize our people and focus on the maintaining of our flock in the difficult situation we find ourselves with governments that are apathetic at best and hostile at worst.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2005, 04:17:48 PM »

FWIW, Holy Cross in Linthicum, MD, has two weekday vespers (Tues/Thurs evenings), in addition to weekends and feasts. Not exactly every day, but still nice for someone like me who's exploring Orthodoxy while still maintaining regular attendance with my wife at another church.

I stand corrected and amend my previous statement to say "most other churches" instead of "all other churches."
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.
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #17 on: November 02, 2005, 06:23:56 PM »

Cleveland, you failed to address my main point.  Are those liturgical failings I mentioned worse than loosing a few nuances in translating litrugical texts to English?

What is worse not catching the full nuance of the subjunctive or aorist tenst or not understanding any of the litrugy? 

Slavic languages also present difficulty to translate into from Greek.  The lack of an article immediantly looses the distinction between θεος and ο θεος.  Yet the Church blessed their translation efforts, and obviously the modern Slavs make up the majority of Orthodox Christians.

I think it is signifigant that the protestant reformation really only took off in countries speaking non-romance languages and hence had very little understanding of the daily worship of the Roman Catholic Church. 

Quote
This is where we differ in opinions, as I have said before I don't believe it to be particularly important for everyone to understand every word said, the liturgy isn't about 'personal meaning and edification.' It is a communal act, and not only with the immediate community but with the Church Past, Present, and Future, in Heaven and on Earth.

What a superficial understanding of unity.  Our unity is in eucharistic unity.  The style of unity you describe is that of the Pre-Vatican II Tridentine mass - almost entirely superficial.

It is ironic you call the non imperial Churches a mere footnote, as that is what Greece is to Orthodoxy today.  The vast majority of Orthodox Christians are Slavic.  Even such centers of Orthodoxy as the Holy Mountain are only artificially Greek today - the Patriarchate has set limits on the number of ξενοι allowed at each monastery and worked very hard to destroy the ethnic diversity of a place that was less than half Greek only an hundred years ago.  The ironic part of this discussion is you don't even appreciate the great parts of the Greek Church.  You openly despise  the monastic revival that has happen in Greece and which has produced nurmurous saintly Elders.  Instead your obession with the "Hellenism" is a percied linquistic and cultural supieriorty while rejecting the ethos of the Hellenistic Church.


Logged
Elisha
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,452


« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2005, 07:28:25 PM »

It is true that the Great Church of Christ discourages the Americanization of the Liturgy, and that should be reason enough to avoid such things as english translations.
No, this just demonstrates the Phanar's perogative.  It has nothing to do with how out of touch and pastorally negligent the EP has become. ÂÂ

This is where we differ in opinions, as I have said before I don't believe it to be particularly important for everyone to understand every word said, the liturgy isn't about 'personal meaning and edification.' It is a communal act, and not only with the immediate community but with the Church Past, Present, and Future, in Heaven and on Earth.
While your second point is more important, it does not detract from the importance of the former.  I attended a Presanctified Liturgy last Lent at the OCA Cathedral on Green and Van Ness in SF.  During the opening Kathisma before the 'Lord I Have Cried...", the men and women of their choir alternated singing the verses.  They sang them so fast that they even stumbled over the words themselves, making them unintelligible - nevermind that when they DO get all their words it is extremely difficult to understand because of their breakneck speed.  While the most important concept of the Liturgy is the Communal act, I think every Church Father that precedes us would disagree that the the hymns and texts are not for the edification of the faithful.  I think you are forgetting that we celebrate TWO liturgies: the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Faithful (forgive me if I have the name of the second wrong).  From your POV, we might as well just start the service with the Cherubic Hymn.

The slavs adopted what was essentially Greek Christianity, and they understood the role and significance of the Roman Culture in the Church, this is why many of the Customs of the slavic Aristocracy came to mimic the Empire in addition to the Imperial Culture of the Church. It is also why the Russians tried to claim moscow as the Third Rome, somewhat how Charlemagne tried to claim to be a Roman Emperor, they both realized that this Roman Culture was central to Civilization in general and Christianity in particular.
Yes the Slavs did, but that Russian (or Slavic) Culture is no longer Hellenic as it as organically developed into its own proper Orthodox Cultures.

Whether the influence of Hellenism is helping or not is irrelevant, because it is there, like it or not. Christianity after St. Constantine is essentially Greek, all the Oecumenical Synods were Greek in Thought and Culture; any attempt to change or alter this fact can lead to the corruption of our dogmas and heresy. Christianity can only properly be understood in the Context that it was established and defined through the Seven Oecumenical Synods, viewing it from any other perspective does the faith a great disservice.

Imperialism is central to proselytism, regardless of religion, but I never said we needed to be proselytizing. We have enough of a task set out for us in the maintaining of the flock we already have; for us in the GOA, this is a Greek flock and their specific cultural and religious needs should be our greatest priority.

We baptize cultures by infusing them with the Culture of the Church, a Culture that happens to be Hellenic/Greek/Roman; it is this infusing with Christian (that is Greek) culture that you for some reason seem to oppose.

It's a simple reason to why we were not as successful at spreading our Religion as the west during the era of discovery and colonization; today no Church is growing as radically as Churches did in those days because they lack the national support that is necessary for mass conversion. Our primary concern today should be to missionize our people and focus on the maintaining of our flock in the difficult situation we find ourselves with governments that are apathetic at best and hostile at worst.
As Silouan brought up before, the pagan culture at the time of Constantine (and before) may have been Greek Philosophy/Mythology/whatever.  But the prevailing (pagan if you will) cultures of the lands to be Baptized are not so and thus the Church and Creation must be properly exclaimed within the local culture.  There is nothing inherently unique or special about Hellenic Culture - it was just the prevailing local culture at the time.  To shrug off other examples as "exceptions" is elitism, pride and a denial of reality.

Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2005, 07:36:09 PM »

On the point that (Orthodox) Christianity can only be understood in Hellenistic terms - I'd encourage anyone who feels that way to look closely at Christian missions in China.  Why are thousands converting to Christianity there despite the government of the People's Republic of China?

The basic difference in our approach that leads to two dramatically different Christianities is that I believe the Fathers used the Greek language and Greek philosophical terms because that was way to effectively communicate with the most people.  You believe that they used Greek because it is was a inherintly better than any other language or culture. ÂÂ

The central point of Christianity is that God himself loved his creatures so much that he took the form of a servant, lived among men, was crucified for us and rose from the dead giving us the Holy Spirit until the end of the world.  One doesn't need Hellenism to understand that. ÂÂ
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #20 on: November 02, 2005, 08:20:00 PM »

Cleveland, you failed to address my main point. Are those liturgical failings I mentioned worse than loosing a few nuances in translating litrugical texts to English?

What is worse not catching the full nuance of the subjunctive or aorist tenst or not understanding any of the litrugy?   

I didn't address it because I never intended to at the time: I just wanted to use the time I had in sensitizing you to the implications of your statement, and correcting the suppositions that were either behind it or could be formed from it.

And as a general statement, I don't know if calling those changes "liturgical failings" is correct in this context; while I lament the loss of the various elements listed, we've also got to understand that the Liturgy is an organic thing, and that changes in it, while lamentable, may be for the best; we could lament the change from the Cathedral Rite to the Monastic Rite in Constantinople after the 4th Crusade (a major change that affected most of the Orthodox world at the time) - it was done for no better reason than "the monks were the ones who kept our Liturgy, so we have to do it their way."  But in doing so, we neglect the work of the Spirit inherent in the activity. 

(ASIDE: Who knows, maybe 5 centuries from now people will say "the liturgy is the way it is because the Americans were lazy" - but it may have survived 500 years?  Will they then say the Spirit wasn't working in it?)

So while you and I would like some of these elements to go back into the Liturgy, if the Spirit doesn't want them, who am I to argue?  Only time and prayer can tell.
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.
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2005, 08:40:10 PM »

Quote
I just wanted to use the time I had in sensitizing you to the implications of your statement, and correcting the suppositions that were either behind it or could be formed from it.

I am well aware of the litrugical situation of the GOA from personal experience.ÂÂ  And frankly I find it terrifying that none of the Holy Cross people here can emphatically say that it is better to do Liturgy in English (loosing sutble poetic nuances here and there) than to cut important parts of the liturgy but retain a language few Americans understand.ÂÂ  I've ran across so many just plain bizarre liturgical attitudes in the GOA....

The liturgical abuses present in the GOA are hardly normnative throughout Orthodoxy (even Orthodoxy in America).ÂÂ  To claim divine sanction upon them is absolutely ludicrious.ÂÂ  

Господи Помилуй
« Last Edit: November 02, 2005, 08:41:46 PM by Silouan » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2005, 08:57:48 PM »

I am well aware of the litrugical situation of the GOA from personal experience.  And frankly I find it terrifying that none of the Holy Cross people here can emphatically say that it is better to do Liturgy in English (loosing sutble poetic nuances here and there) than to cut important parts of the liturgy but retain a language few Americans understand.  I've ran across so many just plain bizarre liturgical attitudes in the GOA.... 

Is this Emphatic enough: It would be better in my opinion to see the Liturgy done properly in this country in English than to see it chopped and in Greek

Of course, what we're trying to do here at the Seminary (ahem, Holy Cross) is work up to that point - understand that many in our churches still need/want Greek, but know that the future holds English, and try to get the people to the point where they have a "liturgical consciousness" that is more full.  We're still fighting the nutjobs who want extremes on either sides (this is not directed at GiC) - but it is a long process.

I have also encountered bizzare liturgical attitudes amongst some people and priests in the GOA, but not "in the GOA" per se.

The liturgical abuses present in the GOA are hardly normnative throughout Orthodoxy (even Orthodoxy in America).  To claim divine sanction upon them is absolutely ludicrious.   

I never claimed divine sanction from above - I just stated it is within the realm of possibility.  And they don't need to be normative throughout Orthodoxy - there is no such thing as a Liturgical change throughout the "universal church" - that follows Catholic thinking.  What does need to happen is change within the local Church that the others aren't opposed to.

Of course, I am opposed to the changes... but my opinion doesn't count now, does it.
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.
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2005, 11:08:33 PM »

I see you still know how to use the larger fonts here.

It will be interesting to see if in a few Generations there is a GOA. 
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2005, 11:21:06 PM »

It will be interesting to see if in a few Generations there is a GOA.   

Let's hope and pray that it still exists in one form (GOA) or another (single US jurisdiction) - instead of providing veiled stabs at the viability of a brother Orthodox jurisdiction based on your personal experience or bias - that would be the Christian thing to do now, wouldn't it?  In my experience the GOA has in parts been vibrant and growing, and in parts stagnant, and in parts shrinking (just like every other jurisdiction in this country - go figure).
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.
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #25 on: November 03, 2005, 07:03:40 PM »

Quote
Let's hope and pray that it still exists in one form (GOA) or another (single US jurisdiction) - instead of providing veiled stabs at the viability of a brother Orthodox jurisdiction based on your personal experience or bias - that would be the Christian thing to do now, wouldn't it?

Right so realizing something is wrong with the GOA is un-Christian.  I forgot than only the GOA and the Patriarch in Istanbul are above criticism.  The reality is that the GOA has no idea what it is doing here.  Is it here to simply preserve Greek-American culture?  Is it a missionary presence?  Is it here simply to produce bishops that tell us they love desperate houswives and support gay marriages?  Or is it here to keep the cashflow to Istanbul going...

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

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #26 on: November 03, 2005, 07:47:29 PM »

Right so realizing something is wrong with the GOA is un-Christian. I forgot than only the GOA and the Patriarch in Istanbul are above criticism. 

Is that what I said?  Really, read what I said and what you said.  You said:

It will be interesting to see if in a few Generations there is a GOA.

You didn't say "the GOA has no sense of direction" or "they are risking extinction" - instead you used a phrase that can be commonly associated with someone who expecting and/or hoping for demise.  THAT is what I called un-Christian.  Criticism is necessary in order to force re-evaluation of mission - to keep the Church honest.

And the fact that you've taken another opportunity to stab at the Patriarch is another demonstration of un-Christian behavior.

The reality is that the GOA has no idea what it is doing here. Is it here to simply preserve Greek-American culture? Is it a missionary presence? 

Actually, if you talk to the Archbishop, or to most of Metropolitans, you'll get the answer of "both."

Is it here simply to produce bishops that tell us they love desperate houswives and support gay marriages?

What a riot.  You mean the bishop who says he watches evening TV and says that since the laws of the state permit them, there is no problem with state-sanctioned gay marriage - but you've forgotten to mention the fact that he also said the Church would have no part in allowing the Gay marriages.  All this demonstrates is that he knows exactly what the law is, and knows that he can't do anything about the law - he knows that as a matter of law he can't stop it, and the question that was posed of him was one of a legal nature.  But he made sure to state that spiritually he has a problem with Gay marriage.  If he's asked the same question in 10 years, and if at the time there is some sort of Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, then his answer will be that there are problems with gay marriage legally AND morally.

Or is it here to keep the cashflow to Istanbul going...

Until you can back it up, keep it to yourself.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2005, 07:48:15 PM by cleveland » 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.
Elisha
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,452


« Reply #27 on: November 03, 2005, 08:00:36 PM »

And the fact that you've taken another opportunity to stab at the Patriarch is another demonstration of un-Christian behavior.
Being cynical and disagreeing with him is stabbing him in the back?  So I guess Holy Fathers, Theologians, Clergy, Professors and such just stab each other in the back constantly.

Actually, if you talk to the Archbishop, or to most of Metropolitans, you'll get the answer of "both."
And what pray tell is Greek American Culture?  I have a feeling that it may not really be that Christian or should I say not follow the life of the Church as intended.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #28 on: November 03, 2005, 09:07:41 PM »

Being cynical and disagreeing with him is stabbing him in the back? So I guess Holy Fathers, Theologians, Clergy, Professors and such just stab each other in the back constantly. 

We are called to judge the actions of one another - not the persons or characters.  Making the statements about "the EP" rather than "his decisions" change the face of the criticism.  I have no problems with people criticizing what the EP does; if they want to argue points about that, that is fine - if I disagree, then I'll argue the point.  If I agree, then GiC will still argue the point (okay, I'm his friend, so I take my pokes at him too).

But that's not how things go down on this board when it comes to the EP - instead, we word things so that they become 3rd person ad hominems more than real criticisms of policy and praxis.  So I am just wanting the tone to change a little bit... maybe I'm a bit too sensitive?  I can deal with being criticized of that, too.  But in the end, I think we should tone down the personal rhetoric (or at least the appearance thereof) and keep the criticisms to actions, policies, and the like.

And what pray tell is Greek American Culture? I have a feeling that it may not really be that Christian or should I say not follow the life of the Church as intended.   

And what pray tell is American Culture?  While Greek culture in Greece is becoming less Christian, and American culture is going in God knows what direction, I can understand that the people of Greek heritage/descent in this country may be superficially uncomfortable with the options and may want to try to keep what they think is a better "Greek Christian culture" - and wherever it falls short, we should be right there to correct and to supplement and to perfect.

In truth, "Greek American Culture" at times is mostly Greek, partly Orthodox, minimally American; other times, its half Greek, almost half Orthodox, and minimally American; and at others its partly American, partly Orthodox, and not very Greek.  In short (I know, too late) it is almost as amorphous as "American Culture."

Of course, our observations, criticisms, and the like that go on here are worthless intellectual and academic self-pleasuring if they don't lead to our acting as agents of positive change either here or in the world.  I'd like to see a thread more about that then the quite cyclical threads of complaint and condemnation. 
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.
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #29 on: November 04, 2005, 03:14:28 AM »

Quote
You didn't say "the GOA has no sense of direction" or "they are risking extinction" - instead you used a phrase that can be commonly associated with someone who expecting and/or hoping for demise.ÂÂ  THAT is what I called un-Christian.

I also didn't say I wished for the GOA's demise.ÂÂ  From my perspective the demise of any mainline Christian group (unless they all convert to Orthodoxy!) would be horrible.ÂÂ  My comments more reflect that the GOA is making many of the same mistakes made by other Churches that are crumbling to pieces in Western Europe and America.ÂÂ  Also a primarily ethnic church is not going to last forever in America - despite that Greeks are horrible immigrants and don't assimilate very rapidly.ÂÂ  My feelings though on the matter aren't simply directed at the GOA here - I think all jurisdictions need to work towards having parishes that contain new immigrants, the descendants of immigrants and converts while ministering to all of them with English as the primary liturgical language ( but I am see no problem with the moderate use of another language, so long as English is primary).ÂÂ  

Quote
So I am just wanting the tone to change a little bit... maybe I'm a bit too sensitive?ÂÂ  I can deal with being criticized of that, too.ÂÂ  But in the end, I think we should tone down the personal rhetoric (or at least the appearance thereof) and keep the criticisms to actions, policies, and the like.

My issues with policies of Istanbul and the GOA's approach to Church in America are nothing compared to the blasphemies that GiC uttersÂÂ  (his condemnations of SAINT John).ÂÂ  And most of my point in bringing up all the liturgical and theological problems of the GOA was to ask loosing the nuance of a subjunctive is worse than those.ÂÂ  

Quote
Actually, if you talk to the Archbishop, or to most of Metropolitans, you'll get the answer of "both."

Innuendo regarding Orthodox Seminary deleted.ÂÂ  Please do not make any such statments in the future.   SS99

Quote
Until you can back it up, keep it to yourself.

Istanbul gets no money from the GOA - is that what you are saying?ÂÂ  

Quote
We are called to judge the actions of one another - not the persons or characters.ÂÂ  Making the statements about "the EP" rather than "his decisions" change the face of the criticism.ÂÂ  I have no problems with people criticizing what the EP does; if they want to argue points about that, that is fine - if I disagree, then I'll argue the point.

When I say EP I don't mean the person of Patriarch Bartholomew.ÂÂ  I mean his descision and the ofiice itself.ÂÂ  I could type it out each time, but there is no need since I thought this was the common understanding.

It is the policies of the EP and the GOA that I find disturbing.ÂÂ  My own spiritual father is in the GOA and so are many wonderful and holy priests, monks and laity.ÂÂ  Still tht doesn't mean there aren't serious problems.ÂÂ  As for the EP itself, the expansionist and power hungary policies and novel understranding of the canons of Patr. Bartholomew is indeed troubling.ÂÂ  I don't see anyway to justify what happened to Patriarch Diodoros at the hands of the EP....

And for a painful example of replacing Christ with Constantinople ... http://www.orthodoxa.org/GB/accueil_GB.htm  GiC should pack his bag and learn some Estonian, then he could go and fight those nasty Russians for the glory of Istanbul.  ÃƒÆ’‚  
« Last Edit: November 04, 2005, 09:18:08 AM by SouthSerb99 » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #30 on: November 04, 2005, 06:22:28 AM »

I also didn't say I wished for the GOA's demise. From my perspective the demise of any mainline Christian group (unless they all convert to Orthodoxy!) would be horrible. My comments more reflect that the GOA is making many of the same mistakes made by other Churches that are crumbling to pieces in Western Europe and America. Also a primarily ethnic church is not going to last forever in America - despite that Greeks are horrible immigrants and don't assimilate very rapidly. My feelings though on the matter aren't simply directed at the GOA here - I think all jurisdictions need to work towards having parishes that contain new immigrants, the descendants of immigrants and converts while ministering to all of them with English as the primary liturgical language ( but I am see no problem with the moderate use of another language, so long as English is primary).  ÃƒÆ’‚Â

I figured that you weren't actually wishing for the end of the GOA, but I hope that you understand that the tone of the post left the possibility for that impression...

Otherwise, I agree with much of what you have written here (not all).

My issues with policies of Istanbul and the GOA's approach to Church in America are nothing compared to the blasphemies that GiC utters (his condemnations of SAINT John).

Did I miss something?

Section deleted by moderator in original  ÃƒÆ’‚Â

I don't think it was as much that he wanted to be liked, but I'm not sure if he was ready to handle the political and press situation out there.ÂÂ  I know Metropolitan GERASIMOS fairly well, and I think his comments don't reflect his full views on the matter: he is actually far more conservative than what he came off as, but he is also very understanding of pastoral situations and how to handle things delicately (one of his degrees is in Psychology).

Istanbul gets no money from the GOA - is that what you are saying?  ÃƒÆ’‚Â

Again, I never said that they don't pay money, but the statement that maybe the GOA's only purpose now is to keep the "cash flow" going I think needs some evidence before it's thrown out there, that's all.

When I say EP I don't mean the person of Patriarch Bartholomew. I mean his descision and the ofiice itself. I could type it out each time, but there is no need since I thought this was the common understanding.

It is the policies of the EP and the GOA that I find disturbing. My own spiritual father is in the GOA and so are many wonderful and holy priests, monks and laity. Still tht doesn't mean there aren't serious problems. As for the EP itself, the expansionist and power hungary policies and novel understranding of the canons of Patr. Bartholomew is indeed troubling. I don't see anyway to justify what happened to Patriarch Diodoros at the hands of the EP....  ÃƒÆ’‚Â

Believe it or not, the Patriarchate does not normally put forward novel understandings of the canons - but this is a discussion that will bear no fruit here or anywhere else on the board, since it has already been hashed and re-hashed to no avail.ÂÂ  I will refer you to the final paragraph of my last post:

Of course, our observations, criticisms, and the like that go on here are worthless intellectual and academic self-pleasuring if they don't lead to our acting as agents of positive change either here or in the world. I'd like to see a thread more about that then the quite cyclical threads of complaint and condemnation.

This can apply to so much here and now.

GiC should pack his bag and learn some Estonian, then he could go and fight those nasty Russians for the glory of Istanbul.  ÃƒÆ’‚Â

Maybe I'll ask him this sometime today.ÂÂ  He's always up for learning a new language.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2005, 10:25:10 AM by SouthSerb99 » 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.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #31 on: November 04, 2005, 10:00:03 AM »

My issues with policies of Istanbul and the GOA's approach to Church in America are nothing compared to the blasphemies that GiC uttersÂÂ  (his condemnations of SAINT John).ÂÂ  And most of my point in bringing up all the liturgical and theological problems of the GOA was to ask loosing the nuance of a subjunctive is worse than those.

It seems to me that you're just bitter in general and are growing to hate Hellenism in general, though are still conflicted because you like individual Greeks. Becareful, to hate hellenism is to hate Christianity, but I guess you dont like me because I say such things, but it is the truth as is seen in the history of the Church. Furthermore, regardless of the titular honours bestowed upon one, schism is not something I take lightly; and I fear I will not recant my previous statements on the issue, the more I read about the Karlovtsy Synod in general and Met. Anthony in particular, the less sympathy or understanding I have for any involved, suspicion of the diciples of this schismarch, who mocked and despised the honour of both the Great Sees of Constantinople and Moscow, is certainly warrented.

Quote
And for a painful example of replacing Christ with Constantinople ... http://www.orthodoxa.org/GB/accueil_GB.htm  GiC should pack his bag and learn some Estonian, then he could go and fight those nasty Russians for the glory of Istanbul.  ÃƒÆ’‚  

By the 28th Canon of the Fathers of the Fourth Holy and Oecumenical Synod the Great Church of Christ, which is New Rome, has every right to manage the barbarian nations beyond the boarders of the Empire, as they were established in A.D. 451, in the manner she deems appropriate; therefore, if the Great Church of Christ is to determine that Estonia should be a self governing Church, thus is her right, if at some future date she were to decide Estonia should be under Moscow, then let it be done, if she were to determine that all should come under the direct pastoral supervision of herself, this too is her Right as upheald by the Oecumenical Synods and by the interpretations of the Great Canonists.

As far as learning Estonian, no thank you; though I may have a great interest in the grammer, syntax, and other theoretical elements of the Fino-Urgic languages, I have no desire to attempt learning to speak one.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Elisha
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,452


« Reply #32 on: November 04, 2005, 12:14:37 PM »

It seems to me that you're just bitter in general and are growing to hate Hellenism in general, though are still conflicted because you like individual Greeks. Becareful, to hate hellenism is to hate Christianity, but I guess you dont like me because I say such things, but it is the truth as is seen in the history of the Church.
Ad Hominem removed.

You're wrong - they're not equitable.

By the 28th Canon of the Fathers of the Fourth Holy and Oecumenical Synod the Great Church of Christ, which is New Rome, has every right to manage the barbarian nations beyond the boarders of the Empire, as they were established in A.D. 451, in the manner she deems appropriate; therefore, if the Great Church of Christ is to determine that Estonia should be a self governing Church, thus is her right, if at some future date she were to decide Estonia should be under Moscow, then let it be done, if she were to determine that all should come under the direct pastoral supervision of herself, this too is her Right as upheald by the Oecumenical Synods and by the interpretations of the Great Canonists.

As far as learning Estonian, no thank you; though I may have a great interest in the grammer, syntax, and other theoretical elements of the Fino-Urgic languages, I have no desire to attempt learning to speak one.
Wasn't Estonia part of Russian just 20 or so years ago?ÂÂ  Do you just happen to have a world map in your back pocket that outlines every single Patriarchate's boundaries as they were when they were established in their respective time period?ÂÂ  I think not.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2005, 12:28:57 PM by SouthSerb99 » Logged
SouthSerb99
Archbishop of Shlivo, Patriarch of All Vodkas & Defender Against All Overstepping!
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 2,800


Now Internet Forum Friendly


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 04, 2005, 12:31:46 PM »

Reminder to all... This is a moderated section.  Ad hominems will be removed and this thread will be locked if it continues.
Logged

"Wherever you go, there you are."
 Guy from my office

Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid
Hungry? Click Here
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #34 on: November 04, 2005, 02:25:24 PM »

Ad Hominem removed.

You're wrong - they're not equitable.

awwww, my favourite part was removed, the ad hominem against me, and before I even got a chance to read it...come on SouthSerb99 you could have at least pm'd it to me Wink

In any case, I really dont see how the case for separating Christianity and Hellenism can be made when all of our Oecumenical Synods, the overwhelming majority of our fathers from the first millennium, and the cultural experience of Christianity was either Hellenic or steeped in Hellenic Culture.

Quote
Wasn't Estonia part of Russian just 20 or so years ago?ÂÂ  Do you just happen to have a world map in your back pocket that outlines every single Patriarchate's boundaries as they were when they were established in their respective time period?ÂÂ  I think not.

Not in my back pocket, but I can certainly look it up. And Estonia was not part of Russia c. 1590, the Russian influence really didn't start until the end of the 19th century. But that was not my point, my point was that even if Constantinople wanted to reclaim lands that were lawfully given to Russia (which she doesn't), she has the Right to by the 28th Canon of Chalcedon, so say she wanted to make autonomous or autocephalous a provence within Russia, she could reassert her rights over it and grant it autocephaly if she so desired, for her rights over these lands are the rights given by an Oecumenical Synod, and only revocable by another Oecumenical Synod.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #35 on: November 04, 2005, 02:34:18 PM »

Ad Hominem removed. 

I know my friend GiC can get the blood boiling sometimes, but let's not kill the discussion quite yet, shall we?

You're wrong - they're not equitable. 

I think this all depends on your definition of "Hellenism" - if you're both operating under different presuppositions of "Hellenism," then that would explain the difference of opinion.

I know exactly how GiC defines "Hellenism" (because we've had this discussion 10+ times out here in the lounge on my floor) - he views it as the social/intellectual atmosphere of the Roman Empire, especially during the period between the mid 1st century (St. John's Gospel) and the 10th or 11th century; in this context, the Bishops and Priests and laymen who clarified our faith and doctrines through the decrees of the synods, letters to the churches, and other various writings were operating with a Hellenistic mindset; thus, it was this culture that was present for the explanation of the faith, and was integral in it.  Since that time, we have taken the faith to other different cultues (Asia, Northern Europe, America) and attempted to baptize their cultures; but our decision making as to what was good and holy in their cultures is ultimately dependent on our own understanding of the faith, which was clearly brought forth through a cooperation of the Holy Spirit with the Fathers - who used Hellenistic concepts and frameworks to describe the faith (and discarded the Hellenistic ideas that did not mesh with the faith).  It doesn't mean that the faith is intrinsically Hellenistic, but it does mean that our framework for understanding the faith is.

Of course, if you operate under a different definition of "Hellenic" - then the argument will seem justified.

Wasn't Estonia part of Russian just 20 or so years ago?  Do you just happen to have a world map in your back pocket that outlines every single Patriarchate's boundaries as they were when they were established in their respective time period?  I think not.   

It is for reasons like this that I hate automatically associating the Orthodox Church with nationalistic boundaries; it is getting us into trouble in the Balkans, it has contributed to problems in Greece, and it is causing problems here.  While I hate the "Estonia situation" - one must also point out that the same Fathers of the counsels also placed Constantinople as the seat for all appeals; so if the Estonians had a "beef" with Moscow, the only 3 places they can turn are: the Synod of the Church of Russia, the Ecumenical Patriarch, or an Ecumenical Synod (in rising order of precedence).  Their beef is that they were autonomous before, then when they were conquered by Russia it was removed, and now that they're not conquered, they want it back; this situation saw parallels in the Balkans during the span of the Empire; the Serbs and others had autonomy/autocephaly numerous times, then were re-absorbed numerous times, and finally ended up autocephalous (eventually).
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.
Elisha
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,452


« Reply #36 on: November 04, 2005, 05:55:55 PM »

I know my friend GiC can get the blood boiling sometimes, but let's not kill the discussion quite yet, shall we?
I'm just calling it as it is. 

I think this all depends on your definition of "Hellenism" - if you're both operating under different presuppositions of "Hellenism," then that would explain the difference of opinion.

I know exactly how GiC defines "Hellenism" (because we've had this discussion 10+ times out here in the lounge on my floor) - he views it as the social/intellectual atmosphere of the Roman Empire, especially during the period between the mid 1st century (St. John's Gospel) and the 10th or 11th century; in this context, the Bishops and Priests and laymen who clarified our faith and doctrines through the decrees of the synods, letters to the churches, and other various writings were operating with a Hellenistic mindset; thus, it was this culture that was present for the explanation of the faith, and was integral in it.ÂÂ  Since that time, we have taken the faith to other different cultues (Asia, Northern Europe, America) and attempted to baptize their cultures; but our decision making as to what was good and holy in their cultures is ultimately dependent on our own understanding of the faith, which was clearly brought forth through a cooperation of the Holy Spirit with the Fathers - who used Hellenistic concepts and frameworks to describe the faith (and discarded the Hellenistic ideas that did not mesh with the faith).ÂÂ  It doesn't mean that the faith is intrinsically Hellenistic, but it does mean that our framework for understanding the faith is.

Of course, if you operate under a different definition of "Hellenic" - then the argument will seem justified.
This is ridiculous.  In this case, you (or he) is saying that "Hellinism" is a synonym for Christianity or should I say Orthodoxy.  That doesn't wash in the least.  It either deludes you into thinking every single Orthodox people must transform their society/culture into the 5 or so centuries of Byzantine Empire era or it spits in the face of the "non-Greek" Orthodox and says that they aren't really Orthodox.  It's living in some fantasy world that never was as great as it was cracked up to be in the first place - it still had it's problems with schisms, heresies/heretics, etc.  It really is missing the whole point of being an Orthodox Christian in the first place.


It is for reasons like this that I hate automatically associating the Orthodox Church with nationalistic boundaries; it is getting us into trouble in the Balkans, it has contributed to problems in Greece, and it is causing problems here.ÂÂ  While I hate the "Estonia situation" - one must also point out that the same Fathers of the counsels also placed Constantinople as the seat for all appeals; so if the Estonians had a "beef" with Moscow, the only 3 places they can turn are: the Synod of the Church of Russia, the Ecumenical Patriarch, or an Ecumenical Synod (in rising order of precedence).ÂÂ  Their beef is that they were autonomous before, then when they were conquered by Russia it was removed, and now that they're not conquered, they want it back; this situation saw parallels in the Balkans during the span of the Empire; the Serbs and others had autonomy/autocephaly numerous times, then were re-absorbed numerous times, and finally ended up autocephalous (eventually).
I liken this to the MOC situation - except that the EP has stuck their nose in another local Church's business and "approved" the disobedience. 
Logged
Eugenio
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I love them all
Posts: 460



« Reply #37 on: November 04, 2005, 06:36:33 PM »

Silouan wrote:

"English is a barbaric tongue."

Umm...no.  England has been an officially Christian country since the 800s, at the latest (Although it's very debateable whether England is still a Christian country). Hence, much (though perhaps not all) of the concepts of Orthodox Christianity are readily and easily translatable into English.

"Even more importantly, Greek was the language spoken at the court of the Holy Emperors, who kept the faith shielded from heresy and barbarism."

Umm...not at all! Much of the early heresies of the church (Arianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism), had their origins in the east and found proponents in some of the Patriarchs of Constantinople. In fact, much of the reason why the See of (Old) Rome gained such prestige in the early centuries of the church was that it defended orthodox (small o) Christianity against the heresies expounded by eastern bishops. Even Orthodox (large O) theologians will agree on this...(until about the time of the Photian schism).

GIC wrote...

"So while it may be theoretically possible to translate the liturgy literally into english, it will lose all of it's poetic nature."

Then I say that the solution is better translations of the Liturgy!

Similar arguments were put forth during the counter-reformation against translating the Vulgate out of Latin. The English responded with the King James Bible, a translation so liked that even many Orthodox Christians use a variant of it today.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #38 on: November 04, 2005, 07:43:54 PM »

I'm just calling it as it is.

Well, ad hominems are against all the rules for this board; so if you want to keep the discussion up, don't "call it" at all.

This is ridiculous. In this case, you (or he) is saying that "Hellinism" is a synonym for Christianity or should I say Orthodoxy.  That doesn't wash in the least. 

Well, I never called Hellenism a synonym for Christianity/Orthodoxy.  And as for GiC, he'll probably answer this himself.

It either deludes you into thinking every single Orthodox people must transform their society/culture into the 5 or so centuries of Byzantine Empire era or it spits in the face of the "non-Greek" Orthodox and says that they aren't really Orthodox. It's living in some fantasy world that never was as great as it was cracked up to be in the first place - it still had it's problems with schisms, heresies/heretics, etc. It really is missing the whole point of being an Orthodox Christian in the first place. 

Nope.  No one needs to transform their culture into the 5 or so centuries of the Byzantine Era - we just need to acknowledge that our faith is expounded in the terminology of the era, and the Christian ethos embodies what it truly means to be "Hellenic."  I would argue that at very few points did even the majority Hellenes of the time exhibit true Hellenism; and the modern Greek state has nothing "Hellenic" about it (the name, impetus for independence, modern cultural mindset, and more all came from the French... I should call it Gallia Minor).  If you want the true "Hellenism" that is so integral to Orthodoxy, look at St. John Chrysostom, St. Photios, St. Maximos, St. Nicholas, et al.  Who cares about the way they dressed or the language they spoke; their thoughts and attitudes about God are what the true Hellenism is.

I liken this to the MOC situation - except that the EP has stuck their nose in another local Church's business and "approved" the disobedience.   

Well, all the bishops of Estonia had to do was ask for intervention - the canonical thing to do - and the Patriarch would be obliged to hear the appeal.  So "sticking their nose in" isn't really a correct way of describing it.  Now, if you don't like the final decision, I won't disparage you.  But the canons direct bishops who have problems with their own Metropolitans or Archbishops to appeal to Constantinople.
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.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 04, 2005, 07:48:53 PM »

The English responded with the King James Bible, a translation so liked that even many Orthodox Christians use a variant of it today.

The Septuagint is not readily available in English translation, and the translations which do exists in common circulation do not contain the Deuterocanonicals. Old Testament readings from the KJV are certainly not approved for Orthodox Liturgical use. So I think that English-speaking Orthodox have little choice on this matter, it was simply a choice for the lesser of evils.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #40 on: November 04, 2005, 10:15:05 PM »

Quote
Did I miss something?

Yeah. GiC claimed that Saint John Maximovitch wasn't a saint.  To say that someone who was officially glorified by ROCOR which has been de facto accept by the OCA and other jurisdictions is blasphemy.  To say that he wasn't a saint is to say the Holy Spirit didn't work in St. John. 

Quote
It seems to me that you're just bitter in general and are growing to hate Hellenism in general, though are still conflicted because you like individual Greeks. Becareful, to hate hellenism is to hate Christianity, but I guess you dont like me because I say such things, but it is the truth as is seen in the history of the Church.

Look I have no problem with you having your little Greek fetish.  But this is a daily reality that family members and close friends of mine were driven from Orthodoxy by the operations of the GOA.  When my parents were insulted because they weren't Greek when they attended my old GOA parish - how do you think that made them feel about Orthodoxy?   It has taken years to begin to heal that damage.  I know two friends in particular that had their paths greatly slowed towards Orthodoxy becuase of the GOA.  So you can sit on your duff there at Holy Cross and be a yes man to the powers that be - and I'm sure you'll go far in life.  But I take Orthodoxy a little bit more seriously than that. 

Quote
Furthermore, regardless of the titular honours bestowed upon one, schism is not something I take lightly; and I fear I will not recant my previous statements on the issue, the more I read about the Karlovtsy Synod in general and Met. Anthony in particular, the less sympathy or understanding I have for any involved, suspicion of the diciples of this schismarch, who mocked and despised the honour of both the Great Sees of Constantinople and Moscow, is certainly warrented.

Apparently you didn't actualyl do any research.  ROCOR was in full communion with Istanbul through the 1960s when the Istanbul caused friction because of its ecumenical excesses.  Now ROCOR wasn't blameless and did IMO make some huge mistakes (getting involved with GOC mainly).  But throughout this ROCOR maintained communion with other local Orthodox Churches and is now close to re-uniting with Moscow. 

Quote
who used Hellenistic concepts and frameworks to describe the faith (and discarded the Hellenistic ideas that did not mesh with the faith).  It doesn't mean that the faith is intrinsically Hellenistic, but it does mean that our framework for understanding the faith is.

So if you keep repeating outright lies they become true?  Christianity was always preached in China as the fullfilment of 達 not the Logos.  While the concepts are similar, they still have their uniquness.  Hence why Chinese Bibles always translate "word" in the opening of Saint John's gospel as 道 and not è©ž.  The Chinese were given their own liturgical texts in classical Chinese translated from the Slavonic.  i.e they were never told they should worship in an unknown language.  Even if you look at the iconography in Chinese (ethnically Chinese, not Russian immigrant centers like Harbin) is done in the form of Chinese art.  I don't think GiC even would be so heartless as to question their Orthodoxy when you consider what they have been through from the Boxer Rebellion to now. 

Even if you look at the Church during the so called "golden era" there was plenty of non Greek activity going on.  If you look through some of the lesser known preschsim Western saints you'll see the full spirit Orthodoxy and (gasp) saints that spoke no Greek.

The whole charge that I am anti-Greek or anti - Hellenist or whatever is in itself absurd.  I very nearly stayed to become a novice on the Holy Mountain and once I finish school and get some other bussiness taken care of in the world I may very well end up back there.  We'll see.  I am pro-missionary though.  I will believe with all my heart until my last breath that Orthodox Christianity can be preached to average Americans in English. 
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #41 on: November 04, 2005, 11:18:49 PM »

Yeah. GiC claimed that Saint John Maximovitch wasn't a saint. To say that someone who was officially glorified by ROCOR which has been de facto accept by the OCA and other jurisdictions is blasphemy. To say that he wasn't a saint is to say the Holy Spirit didn't work in St. John.

Well, it is the perogative of each local church to maintain its lists of those saints it commemorates; it doesn't mean that we won't respect the fact that our brother churches have recognized people as saints, but if they're not in your local church's commemoration, then they're not saints in your local church.

Now I think St. John is, duh, a saint.  But then again, I wasn't the one who questioned that in the first place.

So if you keep repeating outright lies they become true? Christianity was always preached in China as the fullfilment of 達 not the Logos. While the concepts are similar, they still have their uniquness. Hence why Chinese Bibles always translate "word" in the opening of Saint John's gospel as 道 and not è©ž. The Chinese were given their own liturgical texts in classical Chinese translated from the Slavonic. i.e they were never told they should worship in an unknown language. Even if you look at the iconography in Chinese (ethnically Chinese, not Russian immigrant centers like Harbin) is done in the form of Chinese art. I don't think GiC even would be so heartless as to question their Orthodoxy when you consider what they have been through from the Boxer Rebellion to now.   

Okay, then you tell me: how did the missionaries, the bishops, and the Church know that the way the Chinese used 達 was acceptable?  They compared its usage and translation in the language that they were using to their existing concepts of the Logos.  Since 達 was close to their concept of the Logos, since the idea was the equivalant idea in the Chinese culture, they were able to use it - if it meant something completely different to the Chinese than what the Logos meant to the Fathers, they wouldn't have used it!  If 達 meant a temporally created demigod to the Chinese, and we didn't correct it, then it wouldn't mean anything close to the Logos of the Fathers, and we could never use it.

So, through the process, they use the existing framework as a rule or guide to determining what they can use in each culture.  And since the rule/framework was dictated in hellenic terms, you have hellenic influence in the Church wherever it goes.

I think maybe you are misunderstanding my position, or confusing it with GiC's - I am not trying to advocate the maitenance of the Greek language in the Liturgy regardless of the culture; I am just reinforcing the truth that the foundation of how we understand the faith was put forth during the hellenic time and in hellenic terms.

"I don't think GiC even would be so heartless" - THIS NEEDS TO STOP NOW.  I don't want this undercurrent to ruin a perfectly good thread.  So stop.
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.
Elisha
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,452


« Reply #42 on: November 04, 2005, 11:50:38 PM »

"I don't think GiC even would be so heartless" - THIS NEEDS TO STOP NOW.  I don't want this undercurrent to ruin a perfectly good thread.  So stop.

Then why don't you tell him personally.  Remember, he enjoys his trollish writing style....and this isn't an ad hominem either - he admits that he enjoys his abrasiveness!
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #43 on: November 05, 2005, 12:33:09 AM »

Then why don't you tell him personally. Remember, he enjoys his trollish writing style....and this isn't an ad hominem either - he admits that he enjoys his abrasiveness! 

Whether or not it is an ad hominem as far as malicious intent or whatnot, the form is still ad hominem, and I would appreciate if it would stop.  Thank you!
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.
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #44 on: November 05, 2005, 12:59:15 AM »

Re: Saint John

Apparently you didn't read what GiC wrote on that topic a few months ago.  It was quite provacative with the implication that Saint John was quite un-Holy.  It is really utterly absurd since of all the GOA priests that I've encountered not a single one has been opposed to venerating St. John.

Quote
Okay, then you tell me: how did the missionaries, the bishops, and the Church know that the way the Chinese used 達 was acceptable?  They compared its usage and translation in the language that they were using to their existing concepts of the Logos.  Since 達 was close to their concept of the Logos, since the idea was the equivalant idea in the Chinese culture, they were able to use it - if it meant something completely different to the Chinese than what the Logos meant to the Fathers, they wouldn't have used it!  If 達 meant a temporally created demigod to the Chinese, and we didn't correct it, then it wouldn't mean anything close to the Logos of the Fathers, and we could never use it.

My precise point all along is that the Fathers used Greek Philosophy because it was the commonly known way of thought throughtout the their world.  But had China been the cradle of Christianity they would have used that language and Philosophy.  If Holy Cross has a copy in its library Christ the Eternal Tao is worth reading on this subject.  Orther than the missionaries that are initially Orthodox and academic theologians there is not a need of knowing Hellenism.  And quite frankly no Chinese (and especially Japanese since we are talking Asian missions) would ever accept saying Hellenism is greater than their own society.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #45 on: November 05, 2005, 05:25:49 PM »

Apparently you didn't read what GiC wrote on that topic a few months ago.  It was quite provacative with the implication that Saint John was quite un-Holy.  It is really utterly absurd since of all the GOA priests that I've encountered not a single one has been opposed to venerating St. John. 

No, I didn't read it... maybe I should be glad about that.

My precise point all along is that the Fathers used Greek Philosophy because it was the commonly known way of thought throughtout the their world.  But had China been the cradle of Christianity they would have used that language and Philosophy. 

No arguments here.  I'm not going to claim that Hellenic thought was necessarily the best thought system at the time or whatnot - I haven't studied them enough to make that call - but I will say that since it was the way that the Fathers used to explain the faith, it is permanently ingraned (one way or another) into the Christian tradition.  We do have to recognize that, despite the presence of other cultures, Hellenism was used; we shouldn't be triumphalistic (or dismissive) of that fact - God chose to use people that operated within Hellenism.  Its fact.  Let's not use that to beat other people/cultures over the head (ahem, GiC). 

If Holy Cross has a copy in its library Christ the Eternal Tao is worth reading on this subject.  Orther than the missionaries that are initially Orthodox and academic theologians there is not a need of knowing Hellenism.  And quite frankly no Chinese (and especially Japanese since we are talking Asian missions) would ever accept saying Hellenism is greater than their own society.   

And I won't force them to claim Hellenism is greater.  As far as not knowing Hellenism - they do!  If they live a Christian life, and believe what has been used within Chinese culture to explain that faith, then they do know Hellenism, just with different terminology.  Real Hellenism, just like real Chinese Culture, is Theocentric, and is Orthodox to its core.  My earlier point was that there wouldn't be "Orthodox Chinese teaching" in their culture if the missionaries didn't have a standard for comparison - which was the faith as we have it.
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.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #46 on: November 05, 2005, 05:53:47 PM »

I'm just calling it as it is.

Perhaps if we spent more time addressing the issues and less attacking my character we might get some where...probably not, but we just might.

Quote
This is ridiculous.ÂÂ  In this case, you (or he) is saying that "Hellinism" is a synonym for Christianity or should I say Orthodoxy.ÂÂ  That doesn't wash in the least.ÂÂ  It either deludes you into thinking every single Orthodox people must transform their society/culture into the 5 or so centuries of Byzantine Empire era or it spits in the face of the "non-Greek" Orthodox and says that they aren't really Orthodox.ÂÂ  It's living in some fantasy world that never was as great as it was cracked up to be in the first place - it still had it's problems with schisms, heresies/heretics, etc.ÂÂ  It really is missing the whole point of being an Orthodox Christian in the first place.

No, I'm not saying Hellenism is a synonym for Christianity, rather I'm saying it's an essential element of Christianity...that Christianity cannot be fully understood outside a hellenistic context.

Quote
I liken this to the MOC situation - except that the EP has stuck their nose in another local Church's business and "approved" the disobedience.ÂÂ  

Appealing to New Rome to solve an ecclesiastical dispute is not obedience, it is perfectly in line with the most holy Canons...the ones who are in disobedience, to the Fathers of the Church and the Oecumenical Synods, are those who object to such a canonical action.

Yeah. GiC claimed that Saint John Maximovitch wasn't a saint. To say that someone who was officially glorified by ROCOR which has been de facto accept by the OCA and other jurisdictions is blasphemy. To say that he wasn't a saint is to say the Holy Spirit didn't work in St. John.

With my opinion (which is supported by many writings that have come out of both Constantinople and Moscow) of the Karlovtsy Synod, such an argument is somewhat less than convincing. Will I next be expected to accept those who are glorified as saints by the GOC? How about the Latins? The Protestants?...Where does it end?

Quote
Look I have no problem with you having your little Greek fetish. But this is a daily reality that family members and close friends of mine were driven from Orthodoxy by the operations of the GOA. When my parents were insulted because they weren't Greek when they attended my old GOA parish - how do you think that made them feel about Orthodoxy? It has taken years to begin to heal that damage. I know two friends in particular that had their paths greatly slowed towards Orthodoxy becuase of the GOA. So you can sit on your duff there at Holy Cross and be a yes man to the powers that be - and I'm sure you'll go far in life. But I take Orthodoxy a little bit more seriously than that.

Ah yes, the sob stories about the evils of the GOA. Unfortunately, I am not inclined to believe them, I have been to some of the more ethnic GOA parishes in this country and have never experienced this problem. I have been asked if I am Greek or even where in Greece I am from, but even when I answer that I am not Greek no one has ever been rude to me, even if a few have been disappointed. So you will forgive me if I am prone to dismiss these malicious stories about the GOA, since in my visiting of many diverse parishes I have never experienced anything even close to what you seem to imply occurs.

Quote
Apparently you didn't actualyl do any research. ROCOR was in full communion with Istanbul through the 1960s when the Istanbul caused friction because of its ecumenical excesses. Now ROCOR wasn't blameless and did IMO make some huge mistakes (getting involved with GOC mainly). But throughout this ROCOR maintained communion with other local Orthodox Churches and is now close to re-uniting with Moscow.

Actually I have researched ROCOR, granted not by Choice but as an assignment for my Canonical Aspects of the Diaspora Class this semester. I read several articles from various Bishops and Metropolitans of the Great Church of Christ on the issue, all of which stated that the Oecumenical Throne had been out of communion with ROCOR since the exiles had rebelled against their Patriarch in Moscow and falsely declared the Church of Moscow to have fallen. Neither Constantinople or Moscow could maintain communion with these radical schismatics after such an absurd statement, and for the preservation of the communion of the Church, especially the Communion between Constantinople and Moscow, the synod of exiles was excommunicated by both Sees.

Quote
So if you keep repeating outright lies they become true? Christianity was always preached in China as the fullfilment of 達 not the Logos. While the concepts are similar, they still have their uniquness. Hence why Chinese Bibles always translate "word" in the opening of Saint John's gospel as 道 and not 詞. The Chinese were given their own liturgical texts in classical Chinese translated from the Slavonic. i.e they were never told they should worship in an unknown language. Even if you look at the iconography in Chinese (ethnically Chinese, not Russian immigrant centers like Harbin) is done in the form of Chinese art. I don't think GiC even would be so heartless as to question their Orthodoxy when you consider what they have been through from the Boxer Rebellion to now.

As cleveland stated, the Chinese culture and understanding is only Christian insofar as it is consonant with the Hellenisitic culture and understanding. This is not a value statement of 'better' or 'worse' about any given culture, it's simply stating the fact that Christian doctrine was developed and defined in a Hellenistic context and that, accordingly, the Hellenistic context must be a standard by which all other Contexts are measured and Hellenism is the only Culture that is essential to our Christian thought. Oh, and btw, having gone through some hardships doesn't automatically make you Orthodox, I mean the Jews have gone through some hardships too; rather, the standard of their Orthodox is how consonant their understanding of the faith is with the faith of the Orthodox, which, as we have been discussing, will ultimately come down to how close their understanding of Christianity is to the Hellenic understanding of Christianity.

Quote
Even if you look at the Church during the so called "golden era" there was plenty of non Greek activity going on. If you look through some of the lesser known preschsim Western saints you'll see the full spirit Orthodoxy and (gasp) saints that spoke no Greek.

But all of our Oecumenical Synods and the overwhelming majority of our patristic theological texts are in Greek, it is the Language and Culture that Christian thought was centred around.

Then why don't you tell him personally. Remember, he enjoys his trollish writing style....and this isn't an ad hominem either - he admits that he enjoys his abrasiveness!

WOW, that sure added alot to the debate, do you have any more gems of wisdom to edify us? I do have a rather agressive writing style and I do enjoy a good controversy (as it seems most people on this board do), but to say I have a 'trollish writing style'...LOL. Pray tell, what, other than not agreeing with you, have I done in my posts that so radically juxtaposes my methodology and that of others in this debate...like yourself, for example?

Re: Saint John

Apparently you didn't read what GiC wrote on that topic a few months ago. Î’ It was quite provacative with the implication that Saint John was quite un-Holy. Î’ It is really utterly absurd since of all the GOA priests that I've encountered not a single one has been opposed to venerating St. John.

Since this is a hot topic, I'll just reiterate what I said then...I'm still waiting for that encyclical from the Great Church of Christ telling me where in my Synaxarion to put him and how he fits in with the others in the Typikon. If you get such an instruction from His All-Holiness, please forward it to me and, after I validate its authenticity, I will happily eat my words.

Quote
My precise point all along is that the Fathers used Greek Philosophy because it was the commonly known way of thought throughtout the their world. Î’ But had China been the cradle of Christianity they would have used that language and Philosophy. Î’ If Holy Cross has a copy in its library Christ the Eternal Tao is worth reading on this subject. Î’ Orther than the missionaries that are initially Orthodox and academic theologians there is not a need of knowing Hellenism. Î’ And quite frankly no Chinese (and especially Japanese since we are talking Asian missions) would ever accept saying Hellenism is greater than their own society.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts...the fact of the matter is that Christianity did not develop in a chinese context, it developed in a Hellenistic context, thus Hellenism and not Chinese culture is the standard of Orthodox Christian thought.

Well...that's probably enought beating people over the head with Hellenism for one post Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #47 on: November 05, 2005, 07:38:19 PM »


[I have been asked if I am Greek or even where in Greece I am from, but even when I answer that I am not Greek no one has ever been rude to me, even if a few have been disappointed. So you will forgive me if I am prone to dismiss these malicious stories about the GOA, since in my visiting of many diverse parishes I have never experienced anything even close to what you seem to imply occurs.]

Oh, so we have a Greek wannabe.  That explains a lot of things!

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #48 on: November 05, 2005, 09:55:27 PM »

Re: Saint John Maximovitch

The OCA and other (unquestionably) Orthodox jurisdictions have churches named in his honor and baptize people after his name.  The fact that every single GOA priest I've met considers him one of the greatest modern saints shows they are mature enough to put politics aside and rejoice in a saint of the Church. 

Really when all is said and done with the ROCOR and by this time next year they are concelebrating again with Moscow you'll just again look like a sack of hot air.  If you look at the documents between ROCOR and Moscow you'll notice they view this as a union of two churches that had an administrative seperation.  The ROCOR is returning because its reason for existence alone is ending, not because the path she walked was wrong.  The sad part is the anti-ROCOR spirit is really an American thing.  The German version of SCOBA already has ROCOR as vital and active member. 

Re: Greeks

You may call me a liar on this, GiC to assuage your own guilty conscience but here are the facts from my experience.  Both of my parents, my sister and three friends that attended the GOA were treated poorly for their lack of Greekness (in two cases by a priest even).  The ultimate feeling though they walked away with was that Orthodoxy is fine for Greeks, but it is just their ethnic expression of Christianity - it is not the universal church.  These are real people whose perception of Orthodoxy has been deeply worsened by it appearing merely as an ethnic thing.  The most ridiculous thing though I've heard is when a GOA priest claimed to me that Greeks are a people of supior intelligence.  At least when the Nazi's made their racial claims they were based on the fact that many of the worlds leading scientists were German, many great athletes were German and Germany was a powerful nation.  Greece can't even make a plumbing system that flushes toilet paper. 

So bask away in your Hellenism while the VAST majority of the Orthodox Church is non Greek in practice and language.  While Orthodox missionaries struggle and die in China and Africa laboring to bring people the True Faith in a form they associate with and understand, keep up your ascesis of Hellenism at Holy Cross.  While priests in the ROCOR, OCA, AOA and other missionary jurisdictions struggle (working long hours at a secular job and being a priest) to reach out to ordinary Americans AND their immigrant communities, please make sure you keep boasting in your hellenism.  I'm sure one judgement day when Christ seperates the Hellenes from the Barbarians you'll do well (oh wait I don't think that is how the parable went...)

Re: Orthodoc

Many Years!  It's nice to see you posting with your usual wit again!   
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #49 on: November 06, 2005, 02:22:41 AM »

SouthSerb: please close the thread... the inability of certain people to actually make rational arguments here is appaling, and the personal attacks and the ones that are borderline sicken me.  I'm sorry it came to this - you guys shouldn't need to take actions like this on a discussion form of adults.
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.
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #50 on: November 06, 2005, 02:54:13 AM »

Typical of course.  Call my synod of bishops schismatics and say St. John isn't a saint and it is OK.  Point out the real faillings and of the GOA and look out. 
Logged
Elisha
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,452


« Reply #51 on: November 06, 2005, 03:28:41 AM »

SouthSerb: please close the thread... the inability of certain people to actually make rational arguments here is appaling, and the personal attacks and the ones that are borderline sicken me.  I'm sorry it came to this - you guys shouldn't need to take actions like this on a discussion form of adults.
Your opinion.  Should the Mod's just close any thread now for which anyone requests?  Sickened?  Whatever.  Get a thicker skin.  As the saying goes, you should be slower to anger and quick to forgive.


No, I'm not saying Hellenism is a synonym for Christianity, rather I'm saying it's an essential element of Christianity...that Christianity cannot be fully understood outside a hellenistic context.
Uhhh...yes you are.  You are redefining the term 'Hellenism' to fit your own Hellenophile tastes.  At any rate shouldn't you just be a Romanophile anyways since that is what the "Byzantine" Empire was - the Roman Empire?  Maybe it should be called Romanism...Romanity!

As cleveland stated, the Chinese culture and understanding is only Christian insofar as it is consonant with the Hellenisitic culture and understanding. This is not a value statement of 'better' or 'worse' about any given culture, it's simply stating the fact that Christian doctrine was developed and defined in a Hellenistic context and that, accordingly, the Hellenistic context must be a standard by which all other Contexts are measured and Hellenism is the only Culture that is essential to our Christian thought. Oh, and btw, having gone through some hardships doesn't automatically make you Orthodox, I mean the Jews have gone through some hardships too; rather, the standard of their Orthodox is how consonant their understanding of the faith is with the faith of the Orthodox, which, as we have been discussing, will ultimately come down to how close their understanding of Christianity is to the Hellenic understanding of Christianity.
Again, nope.  While "the original Christianized Hellenic Culture" of the Roman Empire was the original Christian Culture, it is a thing of the past.  Maybe the new term should be Romaniaism or Russiaism, after all, these two countries are probably more Orthodox in culture than Greece or it's surrounding area.  Christianity or an Orthodox Christian Culture is one that has been baptized and converted to The Way, to Christ and revolves around the life of the Church.  This can be done from the Scriptures and Apostolic (as in PRE-Nicean) Fathers, which have nothing to do with this concept of Hellenism.

WOW, that sure added alot to the debate, do you have any more gems of wisdom to edify us? I do have a rather agressive writing style and I do enjoy a good controversy (as it seems most people on this board do), but to say I have a 'trollish writing style'...LOL. Pray tell, what, other than not agreeing with you, have I done in my posts that so radically juxtaposes my methodology and that of others in this debate...like yourself, for example?
Again, isn't this what defines a "Troll" on internet message boards?  Shall I research your prior posts where you admit as such even more overtly?
Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #52 on: November 06, 2005, 05:38:28 AM »

Another point about the whole Hellenism/Roman thing:  the church only took a small sliver of that culture.  They borrowed the language simply because it was ubiquitous.  They used philisophical terms from then because that was the academic speach of the time.  But lest we forget ancient Rome was primarily hedonistic.  Rampant homosexuality, prostitutes readily available (on the history chanel special recently aired it claimed that a session with a prostitute was the same price as a loaf of bread), rampant infanticide etc.   Really modern America and Western Europe look puritanical compared to this (especially America - could you image the sexual images of Pompei on public display in America?).  It is always convient to remember what we wish rather than seek a bigger picture.  Obviously these peccadillos didn't go away overnight when the empire converted - even in you golden era with your "pure" Hellenism you have a level of debauchery a modern civilized nation would not accept. 

Now for what I have been saying all along.  In order to be missionary today the Church must put forth people who speak the languages important today, understand modern philosophy and can show people the path to Christ even 2000 years removed from the historical Christ-event.  An example of this would be Metr. Amfilohije of Montenegro - he is fluent in German, having studied in Bern.  He is very holy and being near him you can easily sense this.  Despite his own shortcomings with the English language he has supported efforts to create and sustain misionary parishes in America under the Serbian Patriarchate. 

Another prime example of this is Fr. Seraphim Rose.  He was willing to deal with modern philosophy while most other Christians flee from it.  He translated so much Orthodox material into English and is responsible for so much of the missionary parts of the ROCOR today.

In the Greek Church there is Metr. Hierotheos Vlachos.  His writtings are simply awesome.  He can deal with modern philosophy.  He really gets the big picture across about what Orthodoxy is and what is the purpose of the Church - and it isn't an ethnic musuem either!
 
Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #53 on: November 06, 2005, 06:22:00 AM »

I thought I’d quote Coptic Theologian Fr. Tadros Malaty’s book Alexandria and Christian Dogmas, which states in the section Dogma and Renewal:

“The Coptic Orthodox Church is well known for its conservatism, especially with respect to dogma and doctrines. At the same time, it developed not by embracing new doctrines or new “articles of faith”, but by explaining the same faith “once given to all saints” in the language of the contemporary world. Professor Maximos Agioghoussis, Bishop of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania asks: “Is there a possibility of so called 'development of doctrine' in the Orthodox Christian tradition?” He adds: “The west has by and large endorsed a development of doctrine, embracing along with it new doctrines or articles of faith, whilst the east opposes such a proliferation. The depositum fidei is always the same. Faith and truth as revealed to the saints and the faith of the saints in it, is essentially forever the same. The only possibility of change is in the formulation of it. But an interpretation of it is preferable for men of all times... Faith is always “contemporary,” answering the spiritual needs of people of all epochs…Let it not be forgotten, however, that the faith cannot always be fully harmonized with the “experience” of each epoch, notably if this “experience” is completely secularized…The Christian duty does not lie in conforming itself to the 'fallen' world, but in conforming [the world’s] intelligence to the 'mind of Christ' 1 Corn 2:16, and thereby transforming the world and saving it in Christ. The Christian message will always be a “stumbling-block” to the Jews and Judaizers (1 Cor. 1:23) of yesterday, today and tomorrow, just as it will be for all saved, both Greeks and Jews, 'the strength of God and the wisdom of God' (1 Cor. 1:24)"

I believe Bishop Maximos, of whom Fr. Tadros Malaty quotes above, is of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese.

+Irini nem makarismos
« Last Edit: November 06, 2005, 06:32:58 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #54 on: November 06, 2005, 07:16:27 AM »

You are redefining the term 'Hellenism' to fit your own Hellenophile tastes.ÂÂ  At any rate shouldn't you just be a Romanophile anyways since that is what the "Byzantine" Empire was - the Roman Empire?ÂÂ  Maybe it should be called Romanism...Romanity!

huh???

Why is it that you insist on putting words in GiC's mouth......and then berate him for them!!??
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #55 on: November 06, 2005, 08:47:36 AM »

Typical of course. Call my synod of bishops schismatics and say St. John isn't a saint and it is OK. Point out the real faillings and of the GOA and look out.   



The OCA and other (unquestionably) Orthodox jurisdictions have churches named in his honor and baptize people after his name. The fact that every single GOA priest I've met considers him one of the greatest modern saints shows they are mature enough to put politics aside and rejoice in a saint of the Church.

Until a saint shows up on the list for your local Church, he may be an Orthodox saint recognized by some jurisdiction, but he isn't celebrated in your local church.  You can see honor in his celebration, and maybe not disparage his celebration, but you, as a local community, still haven't seen fit to celebrate his feastday.  Well: the Church of Constantinople hasn't said to celebrate his feastday, so obviously the voices here from the GOA aren't as loud as you're making them out to be.  The Patriarchate (once upon a time) added commemoration for St. Nektarios when he wasn't a saint of the local Church; the people called for it.  C'nople still hasn't added St Innocent, even though no one here will debate St. Innocent's saintliness.  Doesn't make him any less of a saint.

You may call me a liar on this, GiC to assuage your own guilty conscience but here are the facts from my experience. Both of my parents, my sister and three friends that attended the GOA were treated poorly for their lack of Greekness (in two cases by a priest even). The ultimate feeling though they walked away with was that Orthodoxy is fine for Greeks, but it is just their ethnic expression of Christianity - it is not the universal church. These are real people whose perception of Orthodoxy has been deeply worsened by it appearing merely as an ethnic thing. The most ridiculous thing though I've heard is when a GOA priest claimed to me that Greeks are a people of supior intelligence. At least when the Nazi's made their racial claims they were based on the fact that many of the worlds leading scientists were German, many great athletes were German and Germany was a powerful nation. Greece can't even make a plumbing system that flushes toilet paper. 

Let me provide you, then, with some facts of our experience: the (I think slight) majority of men studying for the priesthood here are not of Greek ethnic descent, but are rather from diverse backgrounds; similarly, a very high percentage were not even Orthodox as children.  So you have a large number of people who came into Orthodoxy in the GOA and have had great enough experiences that they have decided to indeed pursue Ordained ministry for the GOA.

My suggestion: do a wider statistical analysis than 2 or 3 parishes before making the generalization for the whole GOA.  In my (short) lifetime (24 years) I have traveled to over 50 GOA parishes at least; I can tell you that the attitudes you speak of (regarding rejection of non-Greeks, even by clergy) are in the minority; there are plenty of heavily ethnic parishes that don't display these tendencies.  And the GOA also has many parishes that use 50%+ english in their services (the majority of the parishes outside the NY, Chi metro areas, in fact).  Again, speaking from my personal experience, between the states of my diocese (I have visited the majority of the parishes in my diocese) there are maybe 8-9 of the 49 parishes that fit the description you seem to provide.

Now, the rub: 8-9 out of 49 are too many.  Yes, we need to love and teach our own people so they can have an open mind and an open heart, to fulfill the requests of scripture.  The fact that members of your family were turned away by superGreek parishes is shameful.  Just don't lump the rest of the GOA in with your condemnations, otherwise you lose credibility in your arguments.  I am sickened by the attitudes just as much as you are; ask the people I work with in the diocese house, they are too (Metropolitan Maximos has 3 people of non-Greek descent working for him in his office, and 1 of Greek descent, full-time; it's only when the summer arrives and the two interns show up - like me - that the numbers become 3 - 3, and we still despise the superGreek attitude).

Oh, and comparing the Greeks to the Nazi's might actually help destroy your credibility.  Because, of course, the Greeks are famous for taking their ethnic stereotypes and using them to justify genocide.

Of course, it seems that your post justifies the German racial attitude.  I don't think you personally believe that, but in the heat of pointless and attacking rhetoric, you've just come off that way.

So bask away in your Hellenism while the VAST majority of the Orthodox Church is non Greek in practice and language. While Orthodox missionaries struggle and die in China and Africa laboring to bring people the True Faith in a form they associate with and understand, keep up your ascesis of Hellenism at Holy Cross.   

Am I to glean from your post that you're saying that no Greeks/GOA/Greek-Americans are doing missionary work?  I'll ask Fr. Luke Veronis that question.  Or are you stating that no one who thinks that the Fathers fused their hellenistic/romanistic framework into the Church with the aid of the Holy Spirit does missionary work?  Hmmm.  GiC and I have made our completely rational points as to how, in the present reality, Romanistic/Hellenistic thought became foundational to the past and present formulation of the faith.  And when the missionaries went to CHina, they heard about the Dao, compared it to the Logos (for themselves) to make sure it was Orthodox, saw that it was okay, and spoke of the Dao of God.  No arguments there.

Oh, and the "askesis of hellenism" at Holy Cross, eh?  I'm sure some here would agree with you.  Others won't.  But my suggestion - come and experience it, otherwise don't speak as if you have.

While priests in the ROCOR, OCA, AOA and other missionary jurisdictions struggle (working long hours at a secular job and being a priest) to reach out to ordinary Americans AND their immigrant communities, please make sure you keep boasting in your hellenism.   

So, are you saying the GOA clergy don't struggle?  That's news to my family, my Godfather's family, my dad's godfather's family, most of the priests of the GOA that I know, in fact (I know many, trust me) - since we're using personal experience.  Just because they often don't struggle for money doesn't mean they don't struggle (oh, and they do struggle for money often...).  The solitary priests at Churches with 900 familes are not the rule, just the exception.  Making statements of fact from a position of relative ignorance is dangerous.

Or are you saying that the GOA priests don't reach out to "ordinary Americans?"  Who is an "ordinary American?"  Because, of course, people who have lived in this country for 40, 50, 60+ years, who have fought in wartime for the US Armed Forces, or have served in our Government, who have lived in rural America, or suburbia, or the cities - they're not "ordinary Americans" because they want to teach their kids how to speak Greek. 

And, of course, the majority of our priests must not care about those other non-Greek speaking people, because our parishes don't grow (oh, wait; 3 of the 4 parishes in Cleveland are growing despite the fact that the population is shrinking; and 4 of the 6 Pittsburgh area churches are growing, despite the fact that the population is shrinking.  The Atlanta Metropolis is growing fast enough they have a shortage of Priests.  Same with Denver. 

I'm sure one judgement day when Christ seperates the Hellenes from the Barbarians you'll do well (oh wait I don't think that is how the parable went...) 

I'll respond to this after Liturgy.
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.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #56 on: November 06, 2005, 12:48:18 PM »

Another point about the whole Hellenism/Roman thing: the church only took a small sliver of that culture. They borrowed the language simply because it was ubiquitous. They used philisophical terms from then because that was the academic speach of the time. 

That's right - I'm not saying that Hellenic thought processes were chosen because they were somehow holier; I am saying that you have to admit that the faith was explained, formulated, written in Hellenic terms and pholosophical models.  Since then, we have gone to other cultures (African, Norther European, Indian, Chinese, Hispanic) and taken the best of their cultures (determining this by using the faith as it has already been explained) and showing them how they fit into Christianity.  It is the same process that the Fathers used with Hellenism...

After that point, you have the faith fully present in philosophical terms in Slavic, Asian, African, and Hispanic dialects and cultures; and this is the way it belongs.  But we can't deny that at first it was explained in Hellenic terms, and if there is a serious theological debate that hinges of what our faith specifically says, then we need to trace back to those roots to make sure our translations are okay.

But lest we forget ancient Rome was primarily hedonistic. Rampant homosexuality, prostitutes readily available (on the history chanel special recently aired it claimed that a session with a prostitute was the same price as a loaf of bread), rampant infanticide etc. Really modern America and Western Europe look puritanical compared to this (especially America - could you image the sexual images of Pompei on public display in America?). It is always convient to remember what we wish rather than seek a bigger picture. Obviously these peccadillos didn't go away overnight when the empire converted - even in you golden era with your "pure" Hellenism you have a level of debauchery a modern civilized nation would not accept.

Rome was secondarily hedonistic; don't take the lifestyle of the rich and overgeneralize it to the whole culture.  Roman Culture, like our present American culture, had a dichotomy; for they saw the sexual deviance and hedonism as taboo, and were not to be done/seen/admitted in public.  The poorer classes didn't engage in the same debauchery as the rich ones.  Stating your point in modern terms would be like taking the example of the Hollywood or Professional Athlete lifestyle and stating that it is the "American Way" - when half the nation thinks this lifestyle is repulsive!

Anyway, the "pure Hellenism" that GiC and I speak of only existed in the context of the Church; in society at large it is very difficult to find "pure *insert culture here*."  This is evident throughout time; for Ancient Greece, you hear of how Socrates was probably at least bisexual, and that at the time it was not taboo to use young men as sex objects - but the common people lived a different life - most of the commonoers couldn't vote, and didn't have the resources the wealthy did.  Rome, Egypt, Israel, etc. - none of the cultures at large displayed the pure reality of their true nature!  So when we speak of "pure Hellenism" - we speak of it unpolluted by the "Byzantine Intrigue" and any residual hedonism and all other influences like that.

Now for what I have been saying all along. In order to be missionary today the Church must put forth people who speak the languages important today, understand modern philosophy and can show people the path to Christ even 2000 years removed from the historical Christ-event.

And guess what - we even have that in the GOA!  Who would've thunk it?  Bishop SAVAS is actually quite adept at proclaiming the gospel message to the under 30 crowd; some people who went to his "iPods and Icons" talk that was up here in Boston (St. John Damascus Church) said it was pretty good.  I have professors who emphasize the need to understand the cultural constructs and contexts that exist today, and know how to compare/contrast/purify them through Orthodoxy.  Didn't think it was possible, eh?

An example of this would be Metr. Amfilohije of Montenegro - he is fluent in German, having studied in Bern. He is very holy and being near him you can easily sense this. Despite his own shortcomings with the English language he has supported efforts to create and sustain misionary parishes in America under the Serbian Patriarchate.   

And I can (not again!) bring up my Metropolitan, who not only speaks 5 or 6 languages, but also supports his priests doing missionary work, going abroad, and has even tried to get a mission parish started in Belpre, OH (where the population is stagnant at best).

In the Greek Church there is Metr. Hierotheos Vlachos. His writtings are simply awesome. He can deal with modern philosophy. He really gets the big picture across about what Orthodoxy is and what is the purpose of the Church - and it isn't an ethnic musuem either! 

If GiC and I come across as saying Orthodoxy is an ethnic museum, then we've obviously been read incorrectly or we need to do a better job writing (probably the latter).
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.
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #57 on: November 06, 2005, 02:54:18 PM »

Quote
If GiC and I come across as saying Orthodoxy is an ethnic museum, then we've obviously been read incorrectly or we need to do a better job writing (probably the latter).

That is exactly how GiC comes across - and it is a lot of people reading him that way.  You come across as more moderate and reasonable, and I really have enjoyed your input to this thread.  About the mentality of the GOA we'll just have to agree to disagree.  While I think there are many making some valient efforts in the GOA, they do so in spite of the GOA not because of it. 

Ταις πρεσβειαις του αγιου Ιαωννου της Σαν Φρανγσισκο, Σωτερ σωσον ημας. 
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #58 on: November 06, 2005, 06:15:46 PM »

About the mentality of the GOA we'll just have to agree to disagree. While I think there are many making some valient efforts in the GOA, they do so in spite of the GOA not because of it.   

I guess we will have to do so.  I hope your statement is not true; I know it doesn't apply to the environment that I work in at the Metropolis of Pittsburgh, but then again we may be the exception and not the rule.
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.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #59 on: November 06, 2005, 07:33:39 PM »

I guess we will have to do so.  I hope your statement is not true; I know it doesn't apply to the environment that I work in at the Metropolis of Pittsburgh, but then again we may be the exception and not the rule.

I am in the Metropolis of Pittsburgh as well and agree with cleveland's take here for parishes both large and small. And I don't think it's exceptional to our diocese - the rest of my family is in the NJ metropolis and my experiences there (in about 6 parishes, all large) seem the same as here.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #60 on: November 06, 2005, 07:36:45 PM »

Typical of course.  Call my synod of bishops schismatics and say St. John isn't a saint and it is OK.  Point out the real faillings and of the GOA and look out. 

I am sure St. John will be commemorated in the Church of Constantinople when full communion is restored. Some here just want to argue  Undecided
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #61 on: November 06, 2005, 09:07:17 PM »

(yawn).....zzzzzzz....zzzzzzz
Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #62 on: November 06, 2005, 10:00:44 PM »

[I have been asked if I am Greek or even where in Greece I am from, but even when I answer that I am not Greek no one has ever been rude to me, even if a few have been disappointed. So you will forgive me if I am prone to dismiss these malicious stories about the GOA, since in my visiting of many diverse parishes I have never experienced anything even close to what you seem to imply occurs.]

Oh, so we have a Greek wannabe.ÂÂ  That explains a lot of things!

Orthodoc

What?...How do you come to that conclustion from what you have bolded?

Re: Saint John Maximovitch

The OCA and other (unquestionably) Orthodox jurisdictions have churches named in his honor and baptize people after his name. The fact that every single GOA priest I've met considers him one of the greatest modern saints shows they are mature enough to put politics aside and rejoice in a saint of the Church.

Really when all is said and done with the ROCOR and by this time next year they are concelebrating again with Moscow you'll just again look like a sack of hot air. If you look at the documents between ROCOR and Moscow you'll notice they view this as a union of two churches that had an administrative seperation. The ROCOR is returning because its reason for existence alone is ending, not because the path she walked was wrong. The sad part is the anti-ROCOR spirit is really an American thing. The German version of SCOBA already has ROCOR as vital and active member.

I can, in theory at least, entertain the possibility that one who died outside the Church posessed a saintly grace, but I will refrain from making such a declaration on my own and will await the proclimation of the Synod of the Great Church of Christ. I fervently pray that ROCOR and the MP return to full communion, but even if they do that does not excuse the schism of the past, those who broke communion with their Patriarch, against the expressly stated posistion of Constantinople, the ultimate See of appeal, must still answer for their offences.

Quote
Re: Greeks

You may call me a liar on this, GiC to assuage your own guilty conscience but here are the facts from my experience. Both of my parents, my sister and three friends that attended the GOA were treated poorly for their lack of Greekness (in two cases by a priest even). The ultimate feeling though they walked away with was that Orthodoxy is fine for Greeks, but it is just their ethnic expression of Christianity - it is not the universal church. These are real people whose perception of Orthodoxy has been deeply worsened by it appearing merely as an ethnic thing.

I have had experiences with very ethnic parishes where people would refuse to speak english, even if they knew it, I have encountered people who did not even know that non-greeks could be priests, but never have I experienced what you claim happens. In the very ethnic parishes the people may be cold to non-greeks, but rarely have I heard of, and never have I seen, them go out of their way to be rude...and honest inquisitiveness should most certainly not be mistaken for rudeness.

Quote
The most ridiculous thing though I've heard is when a GOA priest claimed to me that Greeks are a people of supior intelligence. At least when the Nazi's made their racial claims they were based on the fact that many of the worlds leading scientists were German, many great athletes were German and Germany was a powerful nation. Greece can't even make a plumbing system that flushes toilet paper.

Sieg Heil! Roll Eyes ...Stylistic advice for debating in the modern world: try not to glorify National Socialism in your polemics, this isn't the 1930's and it tends not to work (there some big disagreement in 1939, maybe you've heard about it?).

Quote
So bask away in your Hellenism while the VAST majority of the Orthodox Church is non Greek in practice and language. While Orthodox missionaries struggle and die in China and Africa laboring to bring people the True Faith in a form they associate with and understand, keep up your ascesis of Hellenism at Holy Cross. While priests in the ROCOR, OCA, AOA and other missionary jurisdictions struggle (working long hours at a secular job and being a priest) to reach out to ordinary Americans AND their immigrant communities, please make sure you keep boasting in your hellenism. I'm sure one judgement day when Christ seperates the Hellenes from the Barbarians you'll do well (oh wait I don't think that is how the parable went...)

Quite to the contrary, slavic culture was Hellenized, which is why it is a Christian Culture, Hellenistic Thought and Philosophy were infused into the Culture inorder to make it consonant with the Christian Faith. We didn't change our theology and altered very little of our praxis when Christianity was spread to the slavs, rather they learned to understand the world and especially the faith in a very Hellenistic way, an example of a true baptism of a culture.

Your opinion. Should the Mod's just close any thread now for which anyone requests? Sickened? Whatever. Get a thicker skin. As the saying goes, you should be slower to anger and quick to forgive.

Please, let's try to make our points without resorting to ad hominem attacks or you are going to get the thread locked, SouthSerb99 has already posted one warning on this subject.

Quote
Uhhh...yes you are. You are redefining the term 'Hellenism' to fit your own Hellenophile tastes. At any rate shouldn't you just be a Romanophile anyways since that is what the "Byzantine" Empire was - the Roman Empire? Maybe it should be called Romanism...Romanity!

With the merger of Greek and Roman cultures, there comes a point in history when you can use the terms 'Hellenism' and 'Romanity' interchangably, this is probably the case by the reign of Emperor Marcus Aurelius and definately by the time of the reigin of St. Constantine. And no I'm not saying that Hellenism and Christianity are interchangable, Hellenism is a cultural, lingiustic, and philosophical context in which many different religions could, and did, exist from neo-Platonic Pagansim to Mithraism to Christianity. While Hellenism is essential to all these religions, it is not by itself sufficient to be the totality of any of them.

To make it simple: (A => B) !=> (B => A)

Quote
Again, nope. While "the original Christianized Hellenic Culture" of the Roman Empire was the original Christian Culture, it is a thing of the past. Maybe the new term should be Romaniaism or Russiaism, after all, these two countries are probably more Orthodox in culture than Greece or it's surrounding area. Christianity or an Orthodox Christian Culture is one that has been baptized and converted to The Way, to Christ and revolves around the life of the Church. This can be done from the Scriptures and Apostolic (as in PRE-Nicean) Fathers, which have nothing to do with this concept of Hellenism.

And what exactly does modern Greek culture have to do with the definition of Hellenism? Furthermore, if you try to separate the Christian faith from the Cultural and Dogmatic context of the Oecumenical Synods, you do not have Orthodoxy you have some heretical bastardization that does not even diserve to be associated with the Christian faith. However, if you wish to do this I'm sure there are many protestants sects that are more than willing to indulge you. Finally, even if you do begin this endeavour to separate the 'Christian Faith' from the Oecumenical Synods, remember that the Canon of Scripture is in the Greek and that the Pre-Nicene Fathers were culturally hellenistic from St. Paul the Apostle to St. Ignatios of Antioch to St. Clement of Alexandria (who, along with the rest of the Catechical School of Alexandria, was amongst the most hellenized elements of the early Church, even going so far as to say that before Christ both the Law and the Philosophy were equal paths to God).

Quote
Again, isn't this what defines a "Troll" on internet message boards? Shall I research your prior posts where you admit as such even more overtly?

I shall quote myself in response to your initial ad hominem attack against me,

'Pray tell, what, other than not agreeing with you, have I done in my posts that so radically juxtaposes my methodology and that of others in this debate...like yourself, for example?'

Another point about the whole Hellenism/Roman thing: the church only took a small sliver of that culture. They borrowed the language simply because it was ubiquitous. They used philisophical terms from then because that was the academic speach of the time.

They only took the Hellenistic Language, Philosophy, Art, Music, and Mindset...what exactly other than the pagan religion did we leave behind (and it might be argued that even the religion was not entirely left behind, but that's a discussion for another day, and plus that's one of TomS' favourite topics so I'm sure we'll see more of it Wink )

Quote
But lest we forget ancient Rome was primarily hedonistic. Rampant homosexuality, prostitutes readily available (on the history chanel special recently aired it claimed that a session with a prostitute was the same price as a loaf of bread), rampant infanticide etc. Really modern America and Western Europe look puritanical compared to this (especially America - could you image the sexual images of Pompei on public display in America?). It is always convient to remember what we wish rather than seek a bigger picture. Obviously these peccadillos didn't go away overnight when the empire converted - even in you golden era with your "pure" Hellenism you have a level of debauchery a modern civilized nation would not accept.

You must have taken a different Roman Civ class than I did, but from what I can remember is that, despite the decadence of a few select emperors (and not all of them by any means), the Romans were actually very moral people, with a strong sense of agrarian family values, to the extend that their honour, and hence careers, were dependent on thier maintaining of these values.

Quote
Now for what I have been saying all along. In order to be missionary today the Church must put forth people who speak the languages important today, understand modern philosophy and can show people the path to Christ even 2000 years removed from the historical Christ-event. An example of this would be Metr. Amfilohije of Montenegro - he is fluent in German, having studied in Bern. He is very holy and being near him you can easily sense this. Despite his own shortcomings with the English language he has supported efforts to create and sustain misionary parishes in America under the Serbian Patriarchate.

Of course the faith was not developed in the context of the English language and Nietzschean Philosophy, rather it was developed in the context of the Greek language and neo-Platonic philosophy, which makes the latter two essential to the faith, not the former two. Can we translate things for evangelical purposes? Of course, but we cannot replace the significance of the Greek in our Church, it's still the language in which our dogmas and liturgy were developed. And if one wants to analyze the philosophical underlying of Christianity I would recommend they study neo-platonism, rather than rely on moder philosophical thought.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Elisha
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,452


« Reply #63 on: November 06, 2005, 10:35:05 PM »

Please, let's try to make our points without resorting to ad hominem attacks or you are going to get the thread locked, SouthSerb99 has already posted one warning on this subject.
Uhhh (see below)....pot, kettle?

I can, in theory at least, entertain the possibility that one who died outside the Church posessed a saintly grace, but I will refrain from making such a declaration on my own and will await the proclimation of the Synod of the Great Church of Christ. I fervently pray that ROCOR and the MP return to full communion, but even if they do that does not excuse the schism of the past, those who broke communion with their Patriarch, against the expressly stated posistion of Constantinople, the ultimate See of appeal, must still answer for their offences.
(and see above) I believe the first line above would be viewed as 'trolling' by definition.

Quite to the contrary, slavic culture was Hellenized, which is why it is a Christian Culture, Hellenistic Thought and Philosophy were infused into the Culture inorder to make it consonant with the Christian Faith. We didn't change our theology and altered very little of our praxis when Christianity was spread to the slavs, rather they learned to understand the world and especially the faith in a very Hellenistic way, an example of a true baptism of a culture.
It was Christianized, not Hellenized.  Again, to say otherwise is to redefine Hellenism in your own favorable terms.

And what exactly does modern Greek culture have to do with the definition of Hellenism? Furthermore, if you try to separate the Christian faith from the Cultural and Dogmatic context of the Oecumenical Synods, you do not have Orthodoxy you have some heretical bastardization that does not even diserve to be associated with the Christian faith. However, if you wish to do this I'm sure there are many protestants sects that are more than willing to indulge you. Finally, even if you do begin this endeavour to separate the 'Christian Faith' from the Oecumenical Synods, remember that the Canon of Scripture is in the Greek and that the Pre-Nicene Fathers were culturally hellenistic from St. Paul the Apostle to St. Ignatios of Antioch to St. Clement of Alexandria (who, along with the rest of the Catechical School of Alexandria, was amongst the most hellenized elements of the early Church, even going so far as to say that before Christ both the Law and the Philosophy were equal paths to God).
I believe the Orthodox Christian faith started in AD 33 and existed for quite some time before the Oecumenical Synods.

They only took the Hellenistic Language, Philosophy, Art, Music, and Mindset...what exactly other than the pagan religion did we leave behind (and it might be argued that even the religion was not entirely left behind, but that's a discussion for another day, and plus that's one of TomS' favourite topics so I'm sure we'll see more of it Wink )

To make it simple: (A => B) !=> (B => A)
To look at your "simple" logical construct, I believe it is you who has it backwards.

I was unware that the Russian Orthodox Church spoke Greek, performed mostly Byzantine Chant or used Greek instruments (a zither?) or built stone palaces with ornate column and such.

Logged
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #64 on: November 06, 2005, 10:58:13 PM »

After that point, you have the faith fully present in philosophical terms in Slavic, Asian, African, and Hispanic dialects and cultures; and this is the way it belongs.  But we can't deny that at first it was explained in Hellenic terms, and if there is a serious theological debate that hinges of what our faith specifically says, then we need to trace back to those roots to make sure our translations are okay.

Maybe you feel that way, but GiC has pretty clearly said that translations can't ever be "okay", attacking the English-language liturgy on a fairly frequent basis. This rejects the Tradition of the Church--for the liturgy was translated into languages like Old Church Slavonic and Komi which are just as distant from Greek as English--and that's why so many posters (well, I at any rate) take issue with him.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2005, 10:58:37 PM by CRCulver » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #65 on: November 06, 2005, 11:18:47 PM »

Maybe you feel that way, but GiC has pretty clearly said that translations can't ever be "okay", attacking the English-language liturgy on a fairly frequent basis. This rejects the Tradition of the Church--for the liturgy was translated into languages like Old Church Slavonic and Komi which are just as distant from Greek as English--and that's why so many posters (well, I at any rate) take issue with him. 

He takes issue because he doesn't think the translations are okay... which was the point I made in the last sentence of the post you quoted: that we need to use what we already have to make sure what we're making is correct; I have caught it as well, that in many translations there are minor mistakes (and some not-so-minor)...

Now, if you proposed to GiC to take the liturgy and translate it into good 'ol KJV english, I'm sure he'd like that 100000% better than modern English - as long as it's gotten right the first time...  But, of course, as he has noted in some of our discussions on the subject here at school, the Liturgy, when translated, has always been translated into the purest form of the language that could be found in the culture and not the vulgar...
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.
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #66 on: November 07, 2005, 01:05:46 AM »

the Liturgy, when translated, has always been translated into the purest form of the language that could be found in the culture and not the vulgar...

I'm afraid that that is a myth. The earliest Slavonic translations were into what was the normal everyday language of the Slavs of Thessaloniki, not some kind of made-up high language, and this is confirmed by comparison to the reconstruction of Common Slavonic. There is some aping of Greek syntax, but this is just a sign of the rush to provide liturgical materials as fast as possible to the Moravians when the apostles to the Slavs didn't take the time to revise their translation enough.

When St Stephen of Perm ministered to the Zyrians, he did so in their normal, everyday language.

The translation of Russian Orthodox materials into Mari is fairly everyday language.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2005, 01:06:09 AM by CRCulver » Logged
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #67 on: November 07, 2005, 01:18:55 AM »

This thread has a point and is very useful.
Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #68 on: November 07, 2005, 01:31:44 AM »

Uhhh (see below)....pot, kettle?

Though my statement may be construed as an ecumenistic ecclesiological and soteriological statement, I fail too see the ad hominem.

Quote
(and see above) I believe the first line above would be viewed as 'trolling' by definition.

Ecumenism may not be popular with everyone on this board, but it's hardly trolling, it's not like its on the fringes of the Church.

Quote
It was Christianized, not Hellenized.ÂÂ  Again, to say otherwise is to redefine Hellenism in your own favorable terms.

It was more than just Christianized, more than merely the religion changed, various cultural elements changed, including philosophy and mindset which became very hellenistic.

Quote
I believe the Orthodox Christian faith started in AD 33 and existed for quite some time before the Oecumenical Synods.

To try and define the Church outside the context of the Oecumenical Synods is heresy at best.

Quote
To look at your "simple" logical construct, I believe it is you who has it backwards.

I stated a logical axiom...how can it be backwards?

Quote
I was unware that the Russian Orthodox Church spoke Greek, performed mostly Byzantine Chant or used Greek instruments (a zither?) or built stone palaces with ornate column and such.

They may not speak Greek but the use a Greek Liturgy (Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom), their chant was initially Byzantine Chant and their current music is derived from it (with an unfortunate degree of papist influence), and the Architecture and layout of a Russian Church is quite similar to, and clearly derived from, Byzantine Architecture (as can be said of their art). You are trying to bring up accidental differences, yet there is still a similarity in the essence.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Elisha
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,452


« Reply #69 on: November 07, 2005, 03:42:06 AM »

Though my statement may be construed as an ecumenistic ecclesiological and soteriological statement, I fail too see the ad hominem.

Ecumenism may not be popular with everyone on this board, but it's hardly trolling, it's not like its on the fringes of the Church.
I love how you deliberately obfusicate the matter and fail to make an actual point.  It's about respect - something you obviously have a problem showing to those deserving of it.

It was more than just Christianized, more than merely the religion changed, various cultural elements changed, including philosophy and mindset which became very hellenistic.

To try and define the Church outside the context of the Oecumenical Synods is heresy at best.
Considering that the Church had existed for over 300 years prior to an Oecumenical Synods says otherwise.

They may not speak Greek but the use a Greek Liturgy (Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom), their chant was initially Byzantine Chant and their current music is derived from it (with an unfortunate degree of papist influence), and the Architecture and layout of a Russian Church is quite similar to, and clearly derived from, Byzantine Architecture (as can be said of their art). You are trying to bring up accidental differences, yet there is still a similarity in the essence.
Again, having historic roots does equivocate, which you keep trying to do.  Furthermore, give me some concrete examples and show me the prevalence of the above or retract.  That was a clearly provocative statement that we can easily turn back on you.  Are you talking about Kievan chant?  Obikhod?  Valaam?  Kievan Caves?  Carpathian?  Old Russain?  Which areas use which, how prevalent and which has "papist influence"?

Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #70 on: November 07, 2005, 06:11:27 AM »

I'm done with the specific points of this conversation as I fear my overall point was lost in all of this.

I loved my time in Greece and was devastated to not be able to study in Thessaloniki.  The time I spent at Philotheou discerning a monastic vocation was the best time in my life.  Ultimately I decided to leave (obviously) in order to obtain an education.  But I definetly haven't ruled out going back.  So to accuse me of being anti-Greek is simply silly. 

The attitudes of "super-greekness" that I and others have encountered from some in the GOA is not what I found in Greece (except in a few very rare cases).  Greeks simply lover thier heritage, thier culture, their language and ultimately the Orthodox faith.  At the same time they didn't expect anything differently from me.  While at our obediences at the monastery we would sometimes pass the time with little games (keep in mind the two monks I worked with spoke no English).  So I would chant (in the byzantine melody) something in English and they would guess what I was chanting just based off the melody.  On Pascha I sang "Christ is Risen" and a few other hymmns in English.  In general they were very interested to hear about missions in America, St. Herman, St. John, Fr. Seraphim Rose etc.  In fact my gift to a few friends when I left was St. John's life in Greek.  The night before I left one of the priestmonks who spoke not a word of English served paraklesis for me in one of the littler chapels - the catch was that he INSISTED I chant it in English, with just enough Greek so he knew what was going on.  That little gesture meant so much to me. 

The Greece I know is the Greece that has produced such men as Archbishop Anastasios of Albania and Fr. Kosmas of Grigoriou who have been probably the two greatest missionaries of the 20th century.  An Athonite hermit related this to me when I visited him...."You will of course find those who are intensely nationalist even here on the Holy Mountain.  These are the ones that have lost grace* and attempted to replace it with nationalism.  The only way to re-claim grace is repentance."  My frustration isn't with the Greek tradition at all; my frustration is Greek-American nationalism creeping into the Church.  Go ye therefore and baptize all nations.... that is the Greek tradition that I was taught from my contacts with Athonite monastics. 

*this refers to the common withdrawl of grace from a monastic to test him and is spoken of extensively in Elder Joseph's letters.     

Logged
SouthSerb99
Archbishop of Shlivo, Patriarch of All Vodkas & Defender Against All Overstepping!
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 2,800


Now Internet Forum Friendly


WWW
« Reply #71 on: November 07, 2005, 09:34:09 AM »

I'm leaving this open but if there is any more name calling and non-substantive discussion, I'm locking it.

I do not believe GiC  has made an ad hominem as suggested above.  You may disagree with his position and state your reasons for why you disagree, but needless name calling belittles us all.
Logged

"Wherever you go, there you are."
 Guy from my office

Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid
Hungry? Click Here
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #72 on: November 07, 2005, 09:51:46 AM »

To try and define the Church outside the context of the Oecumenical Synods is heresy at best.

You know, this is the single most bizarre thing I hear stated about ecclesiology. How in the heck does one "define" the church? I'm not nearly so interested in what the word means as I am in the confidence that this meaning has something to do with the real church.

Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #73 on: November 07, 2005, 01:54:25 PM »

I love how you deliberately obfusicate the matter and fail to make an actual point.ÂÂ  It's about respect - something you obviously have a problem showing to those deserving of it.

I thought I was being overly generous. I do show respect to those who diserve it, for example I have a great deal of respect for His All-Holiness; however my respect does have limits, one must earn it and there are certain actions (such as schism) that will result in my retracting it. But, of course, if I wasn't at least somewhat selective in who I believed to be diserving of respect, the word and notion would become somewhat meaningless.

Quote
Considering that the Church had existed for over 300 years prior to an Oecumenical Synods says otherwise.

Do you not see that the problems the posistion you have taken leads towards? In defence of your posistion you're even going so far as to try and remove the essential nature of the Oecumenical Councils from the Orthodox Church, which is, essentially, a protestant posistion. When the argument you're making reduces itself to this level of absurdity perhaps it would be wise to reconsider your presuppositions. Furthermore, as I pointed out in my last post, even the Ante-Nicene Church was a Hellenistic Church, so this entire assult against the essentiality of the Oecumenical Synods is still for naught.

Quote
Again, having historic roots does equivocate, which you keep trying to do.ÂÂ  Furthermore, give me some concrete examples and show me the prevalence of the above or retract.ÂÂ  That was a clearly provocative statement that we can easily turn back on you.ÂÂ  Are you talking about Kievan chant?ÂÂ  Obikhod?ÂÂ  Valaam?ÂÂ  Kievan Caves?ÂÂ  Carpathian?ÂÂ  Old Russain?ÂÂ  Which areas use which, how prevalent and which has "papist influence"?

Having the same source does imply a significant degree of essential equivalence; though you seem to be trying to raise the accidents above the essence. Concerning the western or papist influence on Russian music, though I am aware there are preservations of the more ancient forms of the music, my understanding is that the overwhelming majority of music used in the Russian Church is to varying, but notable, degrees influenced by the musical tendencies of the west. As I am not a musicologist I'll post a website that seems to have a moderately good history of Monophonic Chant, which is the least westernized of the Russian Chants, but, as demonstrated by the article, is still, in general, heavily influenced by the west.

http://www.synaxis.info/psalom/research/simmons/chant_history.html
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #74 on: November 07, 2005, 02:20:44 PM »

Considering that the Church had existed for over 300 years prior to an Oecumenical Synods says otherwise. 

There is no argument that the Church existed before the Ecumenical Synods; it is a fact.  But the Synods were the points in the Church's history when she came together and clarified the faith in order to edify the people and build up the body.  It was the same Synods that codified the scripture, which is a product of the tradition of the Church.  It was the same Synods who placed into formal writing and codification some of the principles that were in the consciousness of the Church but were left unsaid in scripture.

So, in the Orthodox perspective, while the Synods are not as essential as Christ (the Head) is to the Church (the Body), we also must believe that, as it has been revealed to us through time, the Spirit worked directly with the Fathers of the Synods to expound the faith, and thus the decisions of those synods have now become part of the foundation of the Church; and any who attempt to remove them (I'm not saying that anyone here is, mind you) will weaken the foundation and the Church will fall about them.
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.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #75 on: November 07, 2005, 03:26:56 PM »

I'm afraid that that is a myth. The earliest Slavonic translations were into what was the normal everyday language of the Slavs of Thessaloniki, not some kind of made-up high language, and this is confirmed by comparison to the reconstruction of Common Slavonic. There is some aping of Greek syntax, but this is just a sign of the rush to provide liturgical materials as fast as possible to the Moravians when the apostles to the Slavs didn't take the time to revise their translation enough.

Also, there is always going to be a tendency of translations to reflect the syntax/vocabulary of the original language.

Some time ago there was some belief that the Greek of the New Testament was somehow special, because it was noticeably a different dialect from that of most serviving Greek texts. Eventually troves of texts were found and it became clear that the Koine of the New Testament was nothing more than the commonplace non-U dialect of the day.
Logged
Elisha
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,452


« Reply #76 on: November 07, 2005, 08:24:20 PM »

I thought I was being overly generous. I do show respect to those who diserve it, for example I have a great deal of respect for His All-Holiness; however my respect does have limits, one must earn it and there are certain actions (such as schism) that will result in my retracting it. But, of course, if I wasn't at least somewhat selective in who I believed to be diserving of respect, the word and notion would become somewhat meaningless.

Removed for personal attack.

Do you not see that the problems the posistion you have taken leads towards? In defence of your posistion you're even going so far as to try and remove the essential nature of the Oecumenical Councils from the Orthodox Church, which is, essentially, a protestant posistion. When the argument you're making reduces itself to this level of absurdity perhaps it would be wise to reconsider your presuppositions. Furthermore, as I pointed out in my last post, even the Ante-Nicene Church was a Hellenistic Church, so this entire assult against the essentiality of the Oecumenical Synods is still for naught.
No there are no problems.ÂÂ  This concept of all true Chiristians being Hellenes is only true in some, academic, narrow sense.ÂÂ  I would further go as to say it is bad terminology that should be jettisoned, as it flies in the face of the Gospel declaring there to be neither Greek, nor Jew, etc. in the Gospel.ÂÂ  Anything else is dangerously close to Nationalism, the worst Heresy of the past century.ÂÂ  The definition of an Orthodox Christian has never been defined in terms relating to Hellenism, but right belief, praxis and worship.

Having the same source does imply a significant degree of essential equivalence; though you seem to be trying to raise the accidents above the essence. Concerning the western or papist influence on Russian music, though I am aware there are preservations of the more ancient forms of the music, my understanding is that the overwhelming majority of music used in the Russian Church is to varying, but notable, degrees influenced by the musical tendencies of the west. As I am not a musicologist I'll post a website that seems to have a moderately good history of Monophonic Chant, which is the least westernized of the Russian Chants, but, as demonstrated by the article, is still, in general, heavily influenced by the west.

http://www.synaxis.info/psalom/research/simmons/chant_history.html
While you have a point relating to the "Uncanonical" music mentioned in the link, it is very superficial and misleading in the actual point.ÂÂ  While it is lamentable the some of this "Uncanonical" music is used a lot, I know my parish rarely uses any as well as other local parishes.ÂÂ  Furthermore, the "Uncanonical" music is still just a small subset of the vast repertoire of Slavic Chant.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2005, 09:14:19 AM by SouthSerb99 » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #77 on: November 07, 2005, 09:02:58 PM »

Anything else is dangerously close to Nationalism, the worst Heresy of the past century.

While I agree that Nationalism has been the worst of the heresies, GiC has never spouted nationalistic ideas; while he has mentioned Hellenism/Romanity, he has also stated that he's not really impressed with the Greek state, etc.  In fact, I think the two of us would go so far as to say that much of what the modern Greek state has been founded on (the ideals and philosophy of the French Revolution/Enlightenment) is actually not Hellenic in the true sense, meaning the Greek state is falsely claiming a continuity with a heritage that they no longer espouse as true nor exhibit in praxis.  Of course, this is not to say all of Greece is un-Christian; I mean, the faith is still strong in areas like Thessaloniki; but in other areas (like Athens) you wouldn't see what either of us calls "true Hellenism" for miles.
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.
Elisha
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,452


« Reply #78 on: November 07, 2005, 09:33:30 PM »

While I agree that Nationalism has been the worst of the heresies, GiC has never spouted nationalistic ideas; while he has mentioned Hellenism/Romanity, he has also stated that he's not really impressed with the Greek state, etc.  In fact, I think the two of us would go so far as to say that much of what the modern Greek state has been founded on (the ideals and philosophy of the French Revolution/Enlightenment) is actually not Hellenic in the true sense, meaning the Greek state is falsely claiming a continuity with a heritage that they no longer espouse as true nor exhibit in praxis.  Of course, this is not to say all of Greece is un-Christian; I mean, the faith is still strong in areas like Thessaloniki; but in other areas (like Athens) you wouldn't see what either of us calls "true Hellenism" for miles.

Still, the idea of taking Hellenism out of it's historical context is either a) trying to transplant some anchronistic society onto the modern era or b) redefine Hellenism to fit some ideal.  It just doesn't work is besides the point of being an Orthodox Christian.  Correct Hellenism was defined by the Church - not the other way around.  In this way, any culture can be baptized and be made part of the Church.

I fail to see how the Western Roman Empire (first Millenium), while entirely Orthodox, was Hellenic.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #79 on: November 07, 2005, 10:48:36 PM »

I fail to see how the Western Roman Empire (first Millenium), while entirely Orthodox, was Hellenic.

Western Roman Empire (first Millenium)?
Yes, there was the Church in the west, and Orthodox, but the Western Roman Empire died in 476 and then only partially recovered by Justinian 75 years later. I don't count that bastard 'empire' Charles "the Great" and the Pope created much, much later.

Prior to 476, there wasn't much in the empire that wasn't Hellenized - the Romans were just better at being Greeks than the Greeks were at being themselves. Religion, pre- and post-Christian, art (sculpture), philosophy, architectural influences.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Elisha
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,452


« Reply #80 on: November 08, 2005, 02:47:34 AM »

[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=7494.msg97843#msg97843 date=1131418116]
Western Roman Empire (first Millenium)?
Yes, there was the Church in the west, and Orthodox, but the Western Roman Empire died in 476 and then only partially recovered by Justinian 75 years later. I don't count that bastard 'empire' Charles "the Great" and the Pope created much, much later.

Prior to 476, there wasn't much in the empire that wasn't Hellenized - the Romans were just better at being Greeks than the Greeks were at being themselves. Religion, pre- and post-Christian, art (sculpture), philosophy, architectural influences.
[/quote]
Gaul?  Whatever France was called (forget which of Spain and France was Gaul if not both)?  British Isles?  They were hardly 'Greek'.  I sure wouldn't call St. Patrick a Hellene.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #81 on: November 08, 2005, 04:32:07 AM »

Gaul?ÂÂ  Whatever France was called (forget which of Spain and France was Gaul if not both)?ÂÂ  British Isles?ÂÂ  They were hardly 'Greek'.ÂÂ  I sure wouldn't call St. Patrick a Hellene.

Personal comment removed.

Neither were Gaul (κελτοι) or the British Isles Roman, for that matter. The Romans held them, sort of -The Isles barely and only partially. The empire in the west was DEAD by 476. Where do you get that 'first milenium' stuff from? The FACT remains that what empire still existed was "Greek" - Hellenistic.

And one saint? Silly.

Hellenistic, not Hellenic, by the way. If you don't know the difference, it's no wonder you're confused (or just wrong).
« Last Edit: November 08, 2005, 09:15:30 AM by SouthSerb99 » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #82 on: November 08, 2005, 05:07:26 AM »

I fail to see how the Western Roman Empire (first Millenium), while entirely Orthodox, was Hellenic.

Huh?

In which language did St. Paul write his Epistle to the Romans? Why didn't he write it in Latin?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #83 on: November 08, 2005, 06:07:45 AM »

I fail to see how the Western Roman Empire (first Millenium), while entirely Orthodox, was Hellenic. 

You have to remember that the Greeks had settled the Italian peninsula before the real "founding" of Rome; Romanity.org has a great article on the subject of the intimate relationship between early Rome and the Greeks that were there on the peninsula.

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.21.en.the_ethnic_cleaning_of_roman_history.01.htm

But as far as Hellenistic thought permeating other areas, we also have to acknowledge that the whole of the East was Hellenistic even before Christ; the West gained Hellenistic thought with the rise of Rome and the spread of the empire.  Gaul, Hispania, and Britannia gained Hellenistic thought through the economy that the Roman garrisons brought with them; when the legions settled in each of these areas, towns and economies sprung up around their garrisons and the locals "got in" on the action; one needed to know how the Romans thought in order to get into their culture.  (This was, of course, later facilitated more readily to the granting of citizenship to all free men within the borders of the empire.)

BUt these "barbarian" peoples were in the end essentially forced to learn the Roman ways, including language, philosophy, and Religion (especially the Christian religion) in order to survive (hence why each of these areas spoke a Romance language - that is, until the conquest of England changed the face of Britannia forever.
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.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #84 on: November 08, 2005, 06:12:43 AM »

[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=7494.msg97851#msg97851 date=1131438727]
Neither were Gaul (κελτοι) or the British Isles Roman, for that matter. The Romans held them, sort of -The Isles barely and only partially. The empire in the west was DEAD by 476. Where do you get that 'first milenium' stuff from? The FACT remains that what empire still existed was "Greek" - Hellenistic.   [/quote]

You can see that Britannia and Ireland were definitely influenced by the East and the Roman system of religion and thought in that, when the Normans invaded the Isles, you had an exodus of the wealthy, aristocratic young men to Constantinople, seeking fame and glory as knights in the armies fighting the Turks and others in the East.  And, of course, the presence of a distinctly Eastern form of Christianity in the 4th and 5th centuries explains how far the influence of the Hellenistic world really was; guys like St. Patrick and such had their praxis and system of thought closer to Constantinople despite their proximity to Rome.
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.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #85 on: November 08, 2005, 08:26:37 AM »

BUt these "barbarian" peoples were in the end essentially forced to learn the Roman ways, including language, philosophy, and Religion (especially the Christian religion) in order to survive (hence why each of these areas spoke a Romance language - that is, until the conquest of England changed the face of Britannia forever.

The Britons didn't speak a romance language (though the educated will have spoken Latin), and certainly not up until the Anglo-Saxon conquest (which is I guess what you're talking about). They did speak a slightly romanised Brythonic (Celtic) language, which is the ancestor of modern Welsh, Cornish and Bretton. I don't know if you're familiar with any of these languages but they are very far from romance.

Might I make a suggestion (sure to be ignored by GiC as he enjoys winding us non-Greek Orthodox up), that you cease to use the word Hellenism to describe what you're talking about? The average person, whether Orthodox or not, would understand you to mean Greek culture by that term and not Orthodox Christian culture. I don't in any way doubt the Hellenistic underpinnings of Orthodox Christian culture but to call it Hellenism is like calling my shoes cows because they're formed from bovine leather. Redefining the term Helenism to mean Orthodox Christian culture is daft and sounds offensive to many of us when we first hear it. I understand that neither of you are arguing in favour of phyletism and that your use of the word Hellenistic is not that of the average person, but it strikes me as counterproductive to even use the term when every time you do it necessitates umpteen pages of heated argument before your meaning is even clear. The purpose of language is, after all, communication, not obfuscation. GiC in particular seems frequently to lose sight of this.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #86 on: November 08, 2005, 09:13:11 AM »

cease to use the word Hellenism to describe what you're talking about?

How ironic that someone from Britain should say this!!!!

It was the British who imposed the name "Greeks" on those who spoke "greek" and lived in the newly liberated country called "Greece", and the same British imposed the name "Hellenes" on those who spoke "greek" but lived outside of "Greece"......
Even more ironically, the "greeks" and "hellenes" both called themselves "Romans" ("Ρωμαίοι") and called their language "Romanish" ("Ρωμαϊκα")
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
SouthSerb99
Archbishop of Shlivo, Patriarch of All Vodkas & Defender Against All Overstepping!
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 2,800


Now Internet Forum Friendly


WWW
« Reply #87 on: November 08, 2005, 09:17:10 AM »

Thread locked for continuous uncharitable posts.  I won't let future threads go this far, please stay on point.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2005, 09:17:26 AM by SouthSerb99 » Logged

"Wherever you go, there you are."
 Guy from my office

Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid
Hungry? Click Here
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   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 0.356 seconds with 115 queries.