Topic: Comments of Dr. Constantine Cavarnos

[serb1389]

I went to a retreat recently where Dr. Cavarnos spoke on several different topics.  

One of the topics was speaking in tounges where he mentioned Apostolic understanding of this as being "God given" and therefore scriptural.  He also said that if the speaking in tounges persists and is a regular part of worship, that this is problematic because it has no biblical foundation, or apostolic.  

Would converts see this as a problem?  How important is speaking in tounges?  Just curious!  Thanks for any responses.  

The other topic he brought up was the idea that many words cannot be translated from Greek to English.  For example, there are many extremists who would say that there should be NO Greek at ALL in church and it should be ALL in English.  

Example:  Theotokos = Mother of God

His example, however, was that even these extremists are using Greek and don't even know about it.  Jesus CHRIST was the example he used.  Christ comes from the Greek word "christos" yet everyone uses it b/c it is in the Bible.  

Is this a problem for converts?  Is this extremist point of view prevalent?  Comments...

[augustin717]

But how come that "Theotokos" has been translated into Slavonic as "Bogoroditsa" or Romanian as "Nascatoarea de Dumnezeu", but that can't be done in English?

[Pravoslavbob]

It can be done in English, it's just very awkward and clumsy to say "Godbirthgiver" or something similar in the English language.  In French (at least in Canada) they only use "Mere de Dieu" (Mother of God) because of the clumsiness of using "Theotokos" liturgically in that language, and I think perhaps because it's very hard for French people to pronounce "Th" very quickly!

[serb1389]

I've heard the same argument with "Bogoroditsa" before...

The thing is, Cavarnos only talked about Greek to English

The funniest part is, later he said that things SHOULD be translated into other languages, and mentioned that his works have been translated into many other languages, so why not liturgical things.  

he also said that Enliglish is a standardized language???  

I thought that it was a fluid language WITH standardization??  If it were standardized, then why are there so many translations?  

He was very unspecific on this...

Do converts really care about translations???

[Thomas]

Christ is Risen!

As a convert of many years, I can note something that I have seen in myself and other converts.  There is a tendency to try and become the "super-correct" convert or  what I call the "super-dox".  When one does this we are generally more impacted by the black and white presentations of the most conservative presenters.  It is only as we live the faith that we learn the richness and yes, at time diverse opinions  even among the Saints of what one should be believe and do. Experience has shown those who try to be the "Super-dox" usually burn out and fall away unless someone with a more full world view of Orthodoxy brings them into reality and opens them to the fullness of orthodox teachings and beliefs---these converts then become wonderful teachers and practitioners of the Orthodox Christian Life.

In Christ,
Thomas

[Asteriktos]

I always cringed when I attended a parish that used something other than Theotokos. Now, admittedly, it might just be because I was used to the word, and the service seemed disjointed because it wasn't what I was used to hearing. Nonetheless, I think Theotokos sounds much nicer than the alternatives. Besides, it is not uncommon to keep a term from an original language when speaking in English, as this is commonly done with various Latin words used in theological/philosophical discussion, and with words from other languages as well (e.g., zeitgeist)

[serb1389]

Yah but what about those "ultra-extremists" who would say all english or nothing?  

Personally, this is a very scary position.  I look at it as an extreme, but these people usually have all the "right answers" in terms of theological points.  Maybe its because I don't know theology very well, or i'm not good on the spot, but i've never been able to argue against these people...

Is it even worth arguing?  Many converts have said that you should just wait until the person is ready to hear the right message....i'm not the most patient of people, so i'm not sure if this would work for me.  

Any other suggestions??  Thoughts?

[Elisha]

Yah but what about those "ultra-extremists" who would say all english or nothing?  

My my experience, those fall under the evangelical convert Antiochian camp.  I find it ironic in that they're willing to submit to a Arab (Lebanese) Bishop but yet unwilling to respect that tradition by at least learning a few words of that language...for fear that they won't be "evangelizing America".

[serb1389]

Yah too bad they only have 1 bishop left who really has any of that "Arabic" flavor (this is personal opinion).  

If you're talking about Met. Phillip, you should read some of the things he's said.  He's the vanguard for the ultra-extremists.  Also half their bishops are converts now   (j/k)

[OrthodoxAndrew]

Now I like trying to see words translated into English as much as possible. But somebody finding the word Theotokos to be a stumbling block, I find to be a bit much.

[serb1389]

Aparantly christ wanted us to be as literal as possible...according to the reasoning of their theology.  Christ, when speaking about talking to other people in their language, wanted us to be as literal as possible....i guess...

[Elisha]

Yah too bad they only have 1 bishop left who really has any of that "Arabic" flavor (this is personal opinion).  

If you're talking about Met. Phillip, you should read some of the things he's said.  He's the vanguard for the ultra-extremists.  Also half their bishops are converts now   (j/k)

Really?  I heard a convert deacon whine about Bp. Joseph wanting him to learn a tad bit of Arabic and basically acting offended at using non-english.

[Sleepyhead]

"One of the topics was speaking in tounges where he mentioned Apostolic understanding of this as being "God given" and therefore scriptural.  He also said that if the speaking in tounges persists and is a regular part of worship, that this is problematic because it has no biblical foundation, or apostolic.  

Would converts see this as a problem?  How important is speaking in tounges?  Just curious!  Thanks for any responses."  

I agree with Dr. Cavarnos. In my country, where most people are nominal Lutherans, speaking in tongues is associated with charismatic churches run by the Pentecostalists. Now, I might have given you a different answer had I been a former Pentecostalist. One of the reasons I feel drawn to Orthodoxy (I am not even a catechumen yet, mind you) is what I for want of a better word would like to call the seriousness of worship. I can't quite explain it, but I am sure that you people understand what I mean.  

[serb1389]

Really?  I heard a convert deacon whine about Bp. Joseph wanting him to learn a tad bit of Arabic and basically acting offended at using non-english.

yah i've heard some convert students at my school say "if its not in english i don't want to hear about it"  which was pretty hard-core, IMO.  

so the seriousness of church is not a stumbling block?  Its actually a bonus?  

[Sleepyhead]

"so the seriousness of church is not a stumbling block?  Its actually a bonus?"

You can call it a bonus if you like. It certainly is to me.

[Timos]

English is definitely not standardised. Do you ever notice that like 99% of our liturgical texts use old english or soemthign else weird:

"Hell was vexed"

"Of the vault of the heavens art thou o lord fashioner ,so too, of the church, art  thou founder. Do thou establish me in unfegined love for you...." Ode 3 from the Paraklesis.

OK Eikona's translation is a little better, but not that much.

It sucks because I bought my sister a children's orthodox prayer book  (that one published by the Traditional Russian parish Mother of God) and ALL the prayers were in old english- totally defeats the purpose.

Its kind of like being in greece or russia where all the prayers which are in ancient greek/Slavonic kind of go over your head because you get the main words but the overall meaning doesn't stick.

My theory is this: if the language (not necessarily the meaning since that depends on the person's own understanding of what is being said) in church is not understood by the vast majority of people including grade school children, then it should not be there.

I should probably start another thread somewhere else on this...

[Elisha]

English is definitely not standardised. Do you ever notice that like 99% of our liturgical texts use old english or soemthign else weird:

"Hell was vexed"

"Of the vault of the heavens art thou o lord fashioner ,so too, of the church, art  thou founder. Do thou establish me in unfegined love for you...." Ode 3 from the Paraklesis.

OK Eikona's translation is a little better, but not that much.

It sucks because I bought my sister a children's orthodox prayer book  (that one published by the Traditional Russian parish Mother of God) and ALL the prayers were in old english- totally defeats the purpose.

From what I know, the comparison between "modern" or colloquial English and this "old" English you talk of in prayer books to Modern Greek vs Koine or Modern Russian vs Church Slavonic are not even valid comparisons.  The analogy I heard would be like comparing modern English to Chaucer - which is barely intelligible compared to modern English.

[Timos]

fine but you get my point. The comparison may be off some, but the point remains that if church is gonna be in the vernacular, we might as well understand it.

[Νεκτάριος]

The analogy I heard would be like comparing modern English to Chaucer - which is barely intelligible compared to modern English.

I don't know how correct any analogy with English can really be in this case as the  changes that occured between Middle English and Modern English are different than between Koine and Demotic Greek.  A Greek person with a standard Greek education ought to be able to understand at least a fair amount of ecclesiastical Greek.  Although it will take some effort to compose in ecclesiastical Greek or to perfectly understand every work of a text.  

Here is the example I would use for native English speakers - you can read this, but not compose in it and will not be familar with every word:

For who euere han synned without the lawe, schulen perische withouten the lawe; and who euere han synned in the lawe, thei schulen be demyd bi the lawe. For the hereris of lawe ben not iust anentis God, but the doeris of the lawe schulen be maad iust. For whanne hethene men that han not lawe, don kyndli tho thingis that ben of the lawe, thei not hauynge suche manere lawe, ben lawe to hem silf, that schewen the werk of the lawe writun in her hertis. For the conscience of hem yeldith to hem a witnessyng bytwixe hem silf of thouytis that ben accusynge or defendynge, in the dai whanne God schal deme the priuy thingis of men aftir my gospel, bi Jhesu Crist.

If you were to deal with this type of English on a weekly liturgical basis, you would be familar with it and develop at least a passive understanding.  


On the issue of translations, I think it is very arbitrary to insist that the KJV style of English be used (although personally, I use and prefer this).  If we are going to use something other than modern English, why use that era opposed to the English that I posted above?  Also using modern English has the benefit of being much more accessible to non-native speakers...    It is a vexing (sorry Timos, I just couldn't resist!) issue, that I wish the Anglophone Orthodox Churches could work together on.  

[Timos]

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8957.msg119398#msg119398 date=1146906595]
 It is a vexing (sorry Timos, I just couldn't resist!) issue, that I wish the Anglophone Orthodox Churches could work together on.  
[/quote]

Alas, you vex me not with your insight

[ozgeorge]

How important is speaking in tounges?  

As one Pentecostal put it:
"Asklom punc hin huet folopimedu lacvedi slabjub nikxue."  
I wonder if we should have a section for typing in tongues?

[Thomas]

Christ is Risen!

Thanks Nectorios for the ÂÂ Middle English, which ÂÂ I was able to read--- they actually taught that in both my High School English Class and my College ÂÂ English Literature History Class. I do however prefer the use of the King James which is easier to read by the modern English speaker.  My preference for King James when used in translation is that it has a specific ÂÂ "you familiar" tenses of ÂÂ Thee and Thou that are missing in modern English, an important translation issue when one is translating meaning from other languages that do have a "you familiar" . Sadly in the US this tense has developed into an archaic tense and evolved to being a formal rather than familiar use in modern English prayer language---the familiar tense is used in most languages only among those whom you are ÂÂ most familar---i.e. family and very close friends, thus the use of Thee and Thou in prayer is meant to be familiar , not formal.

In Christ,
Thomas

[Mother Anastasia]

One of the topics was speaking in tongues where he mentioned Apostolic understanding of this as being "God given" and therefore scriptural.  He also said that if the speaking in tongues persists and is a regular part of worship, that this is problematic because it has no biblical foundation, or apostolic. 

Would converts see this as a problem?  How important is speaking in tongues?  Just curious! 

From my own personal experience,  speaking in tongues and the beauty and order of the Liturgy seem to be contradictory.   

What we have settled on here,  is an hour and fifteen minutes before Liturgy, we play rousing Celtic worship music, use our tambourines, shakers, Celtic drums and enter in to a dimension of worship that is very suitable for worshiping in tongues, which we do. As this music is coming to a close, we use very quiet contemplative music, chant, etc.  till just before the Liturgy.

Entering into the Liturgy seems to us like another dimension,  and we are much more prepared to be in the presence of the Lord, really there with Him, after worship.  There is also a spiritual warfare  dimension to this worship which just happens naturally, a real sense of liberty.

When people ask us what time our Liturgy begins, we tell them that time, not the time for worship in the Spirit.  We keep that rather private, for those who we know will be comfortable with it.
And also for very serious intercession occasions.

I would not be comfortable giving up this form of worship to join a Church, in fact some criticism about this form of prayer turned us off quickly to a Russion Orthodox Church.  We are in the position where we don't have to give it up, thank God.

Having come from an Evangelical/Charismatic/Non-denominational background, where this type of worship was a part of the service, it was beautiful and heart expanding in a large gathering.  After my conversion to Catholocism,  it seemed out of place and awkward in the Mass proper,  and it kind of fell by the wayside as I enterred a more contemplative time of my life.  But now it has returned in the context of  high praise and spiritual warfare, and as such is very effective.  A lot of inner healing and release of burdens takes place.

We are very cautious though, the people who come for this worship are seasoned Christians and are there for serious praise, so we haven't been exposed to the complicated situations that I have seen arise in Churches.  We are more monastic.

[Mother Anastasia]

My theory is this: if the language (not necessarily the meaning since that depends on the person's own understanding of what is being said) in church is not understood by the vast majority of people including grade school children, then it should not be there.
I should probably start another thread somewhere else on this...

I wish you would.  I would love to hear other opinions.  I totally agree with you.  The Lord made the truth accessable.  I have a very hard time in a staunchly traditional Latin Mass where the reading is taken from the same place every single Sunday. And although the Old English can be very poetic, the NAM and NIV are favorites.  Although I've found a pretty serious error in the NAM Study Version, (I hope it was a typo.)

Our Children had all the very simple Bibles that are available for kids, until they grew out of it.  Regretably they were missing a few of the books, but I felt it was more important for them to understand what they were reading and to find it exciting and interesting.

I would really like to understand why the St. Jerome version is not more popular among Orthodox.
Can anyone tell me?

[serb1389]

I would really like to understand why the St. Jerome version is not more popular among Orthodox.
Can anyone tell me?

In short, because we have Greek.  And Jerome wasn't the most popular guy in the neighborhood...

[serb1389]

From my own personal experience,  speaking in tongues and the beauty and order of the Liturgy seem to be contradictory.   

What we have settled on here,  is an hour and fifteen minutes before Liturgy, we play rousing Celtic worship music, use our tambourines, shakers, Celtic drums and enter in to a dimension of worship that is very suitable for worshiping in tongues, which we do. As this music is coming to a close, we use very quiet contemplative music, chant, etc.  till just before the Liturgy.

So if it is contradictory then why do you do it? 

Also, your system of speaking in tounges is semi-heretical according to what Dr. Cavarnos said.  Don't you find this problematic?  Just curious. 

When people ask us what time our Liturgy begins, we tell them that time, not the time for worship in the Spirit.  We keep that rather private, for those who we know will be comfortable with it.

So you keep your worship services private?  You know, Gnostics also believed in church being accessible to only those who were "worthy" or had the proper "knowledge"...that was condemned as a heresy...

We are very cautious though, the people who come for this worship are seasoned Christians and are there for serious praise, so we haven't been exposed to the complicated situations that I have seen arise in Churches.  We are more monastic.

So you have to be a seasoned Christian to join your church?  What about converts? 

Again...this reminds me of Gnosticism with accesibility only to a few...

[Elisha]

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8957.msg119398#msg119398 date=1146906595]
Here is the example I would use for native English speakers - you can read this, but not compose in it and will not be familar with every word:

For who euere han synned without the lawe, schulen perische withouten the lawe; and who euere han synned in the lawe, thei schulen be demyd bi the lawe. For the hereris of lawe ben not iust anentis God, but the doeris of the lawe schulen be maad iust. For whanne hethene men that han not lawe, don kyndli tho thingis that ben of the lawe, thei not hauynge suche manere lawe, ben lawe to hem silf, that schewen the werk of the lawe writun in her hertis. For the conscience of hem yeldith to hem a witnessyng bytwixe hem silf of thouytis that ben accusynge or defendynge, in the dai whanne God schal deme the priuy thingis of men aftir my gospel, bi Jhesu Crist.
[/quote]

That looks like a hybrid between English and German...interesting.

[Mother Anastasia]

author=serb1389
1.  So if it is contradictory then why do you do it?

1.  I'm sorry serb, you have misquoted me, what I did say was,

From my own personal experience,  speaking in tongues and the beauty and order of the Liturgy seem to be contradictory.  I go onto explain:

 "What we have settled on here,  is an hour and fifteen minutes before Liturgy.."

To clarify further, we do not  worship in tongues during the Liturgy.


2. Also, your system of speaking in tounges is semi-heretical according to what Dr. Cavarnos said.  Don't you find this problematic?  Just curious.

2. I don't know Dr. Cavarnos, and even if I did,  I do not serve him.  I worship God in the way He has shown me to worship Him.  I know His voice, and I will not follow the voice of another.


3.  So you keep your worship services private?  You know, Gnostics also believed in church being accessible to only those who were "worthy" or had the proper "knowledge"...that was condemned as a heresy..

3.  As I have mentioned before serb, we are a monastic community, anyone who wants to come to our public Saturday night Liturgy is welcome.  Common sense would dictate propriety in inviting people who have no experience with the Holy Spirit in worship, to the intercession before hand.  Its rather like a ministry team getting together before ministry to pray. 


                                                                   
+I think that sometimes in our zeal to defend the truth (as we know it) we can come across as though we are worthy and others are not, because we have so much more true knowledge than they.+
                           


4.  So you have to be a seasoned Christian to join your church?  What about converts?


4. Again, we are not a Church, we are monastic. 
Anyone who feels drawn to our Liturgy, is most welcome.

[serb1389]

author=serb1389
1.  So if it is contradictory then why do you do it?

1.  I'm sorry serb, you have misquoted me, what I did say was,

From my own personal experience,  speaking in tongues and the beauty and order of the Liturgy seem to be contradictory.  I go onto explain:

 "What we have settled on here,  is an hour and fifteen minutes before Liturgy.."

To clarify further, we do not  worship in tongues during the Liturgy.

Sorry about the misunderstanding.  I was just trying to understand better what you were saying, since it was problematic for me.  Thank you for the clarification!   

So you do speak tounges though right?  Just before the liturgy??  Curious again...

2. I don't know Dr. Cavarnos, and even if I did,  I do not serve him.  I worship God in the way He has shown me to worship Him.  I know His voice, and I will not follow the voice of another.

So let me ask you this, if your way of worship were to be found heretical would you stop?  Or would you continue worshiping god "in the way He has shown me to worship Him" ?? 

3.  As I have mentioned before serb, we are a monastic community, anyone who wants to come to our public Saturday night Liturgy is welcome.  Common sense would dictate propriety in inviting people who have no experience with the Holy Spirit in worship, to the intercession before hand.  Its rather like a ministry team getting together before ministry to pray.

Sure, common sense would dictate propriety.  The problem is, how do YOU know who has experience with the Holy Spirit in worship?  Do you know the heart of man?  This seams rather bold...

I like the ministry team analogy.  However, a ministry team is VERY different from a viable church.  A ministry team would only accept people who are qualified for the job and have experience.  Church is not so stringent...I could be wrong though...

+I think that sometimes in our zeal to defend the truth (as we know it) we can come across as though we are worthy and others are not, because we have so much more true knowledge than they.+

Is this a quote?  Where is it from?  Thanks for the info...

[Mother Anastasia]

[quote author=serb1389

1.  So you do speak tounges though right?  Just before the liturgy??

No, we play Gregorian chant before liturgy.


2.  So let me ask you this, if your way of worship were to be found heretical would you stop?  Or would you continue worshiping god "in the way He has shown me to worship Him" ?? 

From your intellect you are suggesting to me that this is a heretical practice,
from my heart, I am worshiping my God,  Who is my Spouse. If this is displeasing to Him, please pray for me that He will reveal that.  But  I cannot exchange the pronouncements of men for the workings of God in my conscience and heart. It has taken Him 28 years to get me to this point, and I cannot substitute this discernment for another's theology, no matter how well respected they might be, they do not live in my heart.  "My sheep hear My voice, another they will not follow."

3.  Sure, common sense would dictate propriety.  The problem is, how do YOU know who has experience with the Holy Spirit in worship?  Do you know the heart of man?  This seams rather bold...

We spend lots of time with our people Serb,  they share a lot, we listen a lot.


4.  I like the ministry team analogy.  However, a ministry team is VERY different from a viable church. 

Your not hearing me brother,  we are not a Church, we are monastic.


5.  A ministry team would only accept people who are qualified for the job and have experience.

It's not about a job,  it's simply worship and warfare,  some folks aren't drawn to that so they don't come.  Others do.  I used the ministry team analogy because in that situation people are seasoned, coming with one heart,  one agenda,  to worship God.  They aren't nervous or undecided about what to do, they've already gone through that process years ago and so they are free to enter into worship, one heart, one mind, one Body.

[Mother Anastasia]

Is this a quote?  Where is it from?  Thanks for the info...

+I think that sometimes in our zeal to defend the truth (as we know it) we can come across as though we are worthy and others are not, because we have so much more true knowledge than they.+

I was commenting on the the Gnostic practice of being exclusive and worthy, before one can be initiated into the truth.  There is a dynamic here that we as Christians can also fall into.

If we in defense of our faith, overwhelm people with the letter of the law,  citing theological and canonical works that are way over their heads,  presenting ourselves as worthy to speak difinitively on God, because of our humanly acquired wisdom; 

exclude those who are coming from a place of prayer and meditation and are sharing infused wisdom received  from the Holy Spirit in prayer,* by telling them they are not "worthy" because they do not have the "proper knowledge" we are falling into a similar trap.
 
You said, "Gnostics also believed in church being accessible to only those who were "worthy" or had the proper "knowledge"...that was condemned as a heresy..."

Here what I see is that "Eucharist is only accessible to those who are "worthy" or have the proper "Orthodox knowledge".

I believe that some day, this exclusivity will be condemned as heresy.  I am not trying to attack you, I am simply sharing my opinion.

The fruits of heresy are division, and that is the condition of the Body of Christ right now.

What we are doing is not working, it is not bringing us closer together, but driving us further apart.  So in childlike logic, it follows that something is out of God's order. 

In all humility, both sides need to look at that.




*And in all  faith and morals issues, are in union with the church.

[Gregory1958]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this already (I haven't read each post.), but the book, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by the late Fr. Seraphim Rose has a whole chapter on the so-called "Charismatic Movement".  His explanation cannot be ignored in a serious discussion of the subject.

[Mother Anastasia]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this already (I haven't read each post.), but the book, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by the late Fr. Seraphim Rose has a whole chapter on the so-called "Charismatic Movement".  His explanation cannot be ignored in a serious discussion of the subject.

Perhaps you could quote some things for us.

Thank you.

[serb1389]

If we in defense of our faith, overwhelm people with the letter of the law,ÂÂ  citing theological and canonical works that are way over their heads,ÂÂ  presenting ourselves as worthy to speak difinitively on God, because of our humanly acquired wisdom;ÂÂ  

Thank you for telling me where you got that quote from.  Please don't take my questions as condemnation.  I just don't particularly agree with what you are saying, so i'm trying to be clear about exactly what you are saying before I make any kind of remark or retort.  That would only be fair. 

I wanted to mention that doing things according to the LETTER of the law, and citing canonical works and high theology are 2 very different things. They should not be grouped together as you did. 

Also, if we keep "dumming" things down for people then we will have the situation that is prevalent today where people do not even know why they are crossing themselves.  Higher levels of theology SHOULD be explored by the common person. Otherwise, why care, if we can just walk in and not have to put or whole self into the church (body, soul AND mind). 

exclude those who are coming from a place of prayer and meditation and are sharing infused wisdom received  from the Holy Spirit in prayer,* by telling them they are not "worthy" because they do not have the "proper knowledge" we are falling into a similar trap.

Right.  You were saying that we need to have discernment about who is comming to these "prayer" services before your "Liturgy", so is this not the same thing?  Picking and chosing? 

Here what I see is that "Eucharist is only accessible to those who are "worthy" or have the proper "Orthodox knowledge".

I believe that some day, this exclusivity will be condemned as heresy.  I am not trying to attack you, I am simply sharing my opinion.

The fruits of heresy are division, and that is the condition of the Body of Christ right now.

What we are doing is not working, it is not bringing us closer together, but driving us further apart.  So in childlike logic, it follows that something is out of God's order. 

In all humility, both sides need to look at that.

Where do you see Eucharist as only for those who are worthy?  Church Father?  Scripture, etc.? 

Eucharist is exclusive only in the sense that you must understand what the eucharist is.  In order to FULLY understand the Eucharist you must mystically (and really) be connected to the church.  How do you become part of the church?  Baptism/Chrismation. Once that is settled, then you can technically take communion whenever you want. 

So where is the exclusiveness? 

[Mother Anastasia]

  Right.  You were saying that we need to have discernment about who is comming to these "prayer" services before your "Liturgy", so is this not the same thing?  Picking and choosing?

No brother, this again is like a ministry team,  people come with some very personal and heavy burdens that would be inappropriate in a corporate worship setting, they have been Baptised in the Holy Spirit and are familiar and comfortable with it.  We usually mention the worship to everyone, if they sound interested we tell them more, they make their own decision.

[Mother Anastasia]

Where do you see Eucharist as only for those who are worthy?  Church Father?  Scripture, etc.? Eucharist is exclusive only in the sense that you must understand what the eucharist is.  In order to FULLY understand the Eucharist you must mystically (and really) be connected to the church.  How do you become part of the church?  Baptism/Chrismation. Once that is settled, then you can technically take communion whenever you want. 
So where is the exclusiveness? 

I see exclusivity in the staunch position that everyone has to conform to the Orthodox Church's canonical standards otherwise they may not receive the Eucharist, they are not considered as part of the mystical church.
 
According to most Orthodox posters on this forum,  Baptism must take place in their church, or one their heirarchs agree on.  For instance, in most Orthodox Churches, Mother Theresa would be denied communion.

This is what I mean by exclusivity.

[serb1389]

No brother, this again is like a ministry team,ÂÂ  people come with some very personal and heavy burdens that would be inappropriate in a corporate worship setting, they have been Baptised in the Holy Spirit and are familiar and comfortable with it.ÂÂ  We usually mention the worship to everyone, if they sound interested we tell them more, they make their own decision.

Thanks for that clarification.  This is definately not how I understood it before. 

[serb1389]

I see exclusivity in the staunch position that everyone has to conform to the Orthodox Church's canonical standards otherwise they may not receive the Eucharist, they are not considered as part of the mystical church.
ÂÂ  

If you are not a part of the canonical standards, then you are not a part of the church.  If you are not a part of the church then you can never be fully connected to Christ.  That's the crux of it my friend. 

What do you consider being a "part of the mystical church"?? 

According to most Orthodox posters on this forum,  Baptism must take place in their church, or one their heirarchs agree on.

That's because most of us still have inter-jurisdictional issues to work out.  like the fact that the Serbian Patriarchate is the best and most correct         

For instance, in most Orthodox Churches, Mother Theresa would be denied communion.

This is what I mean by exclusivity.

Giving communion to a heretic is wrong, I don't personally care who the heretic is.  My issue isn't with Mother Theresa and what she did.  My issue is her following Dogmas that most Orthodox Priests would consider wrong or even heretical.  Now we can argue semantics and try to prove how close Catholics are with Orthodox, but the bottomn line is that we are NOT in communion.  (In my opinion). 

If that means that we are being exclusive, by holding fast to the canons and showing meaning to truth and Dogma...then maybe we are exclusive.  Some of us feel that we should not be throwing the body and blood of Christ around like a toy. 

[Mother Anastasia]

If you are not a part of the canonical standards, then you are not a part of the church.  If you are not a part of the church then you can never be fully connected to Christ.  That's the crux of it my friend.   

like the fact that the Serbian Patriarchate is the best and most correct         

Giving communion to a heretic is wrong, I don't personally care who the heretic is.  My issue isn't with Mother Theresa and what she did.  My issue is her following Dogmas that most Orthodox Priests would consider wrong or even heretical. 
 

I believe that some day, this exclusivity will be condemned as heresy.

[serb1389]

And I believe that someday your opinion will be condemned as a heresy.  We could go on like this all day, but the issue is that exclusion is NOT a heresy. 

Even Jesus Christ did not give his blessing to the Samaritan woman (was she Samaritan?)

You know....the one who said that even the dogs eat the scraps off the master's table?  Even then Jesus refused to give EVERYTHING to her.  Remember, scraps are NOT the full meal.  So when we do not give communion, but give scraps, it is my opinion that we are in line with the teachings of Christ (according to this parable). 

Maybe i'm taking it too far, but this is what makes sense to me.  So how is that a heresy?? 

[Thomas]

Both the Orthodox and indeed Roman Catholic have closed communion. Open Communion is a protestant innovation of recent origin, and is not Historic Christianity dating back to the earliest Church Practices. This makes sense as most protestants see communion as only a memorial and not the very Body and Blood of Christ. Communion is only given when full agreement has been made as to what it respresents and those taking the communion are in co-union or agreement on doctrinal issues with each other. This is the Historic teaching and Practice of the Church from the earliest days of the church. When there is disagreement there can be no co-union and thus no communion.

In Christ,
Thomas

[Mother Anastasia]

author=Thomas
1.  Both the Orthodox and indeed Roman Catholic have closed communion.

But the Romans allow intercommunion with the Orthodox, that is why I gave Mother Theresa as an example.

2.  Open Communion is a protestant innovation of recent origin, and is not Historic Christianity dating back to the earliest Church Practices. This makes sense as most protestants see communion as only a memorial and not the very Body and Blood of Christ.

I was not talking about intercommunion with those who do not believe He is truly present under the appearance of the sacred species.

3.  Communion is only given when full agreement has been made as to what it respresents and those taking the communion are in co-union or agreement on doctrinal issues with each other. This is the Historic teaching and Practice of the Church from the earliest days of the church. When there is disagreement there can be no co-union and thus no communion.

The degree of agreement that is being called for exceeds the bounds of Christian charity.

It puts an unecessary legalistic burden on the shoulders of your brothers and sisters,  to conform to your standards,  not Christ's. 

Jesus would not turn Mother Theresa or any sincere believer away from His table to be nourished on His Body, because He is looking at their heart, not their canonical status. 

[Elisha]

The degree of agreement that is being called for exceeds the bounds of Christian charity.

It puts an unecessary legalistic burden on the shoulders of your brothers and sisters,  to conform to your standards,  not Christ's. 

Jesus would not turn Mother Theresa or any sincere believer away from His table to be nourished on His Body, because He is looking at their heart, not their canonical status. 

And YOU are sure of this?  Sounds rather presumptuous to me.

[ozgeorge]

Sounds rather presumptuous to me.

If put some flowers in your hair and dance around to the music of Jefferson Airplane for a while then it won't seem so presumptous.

[Timos]

Mother Anastasia, I don't want to put you on the spot or dissapoint you, but if I may ask, what church do you belong to? The Eastern Orthdoox Church? The Roman Catholic Church? A church which practices a bit of both? I'm just confused because your faith says "pre-schism" and I'm not quite sure what that means since we're definitely after the schism.

Thanks,
           Timos