OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 29, 2014, 12:29:57 PM *
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: Concerns about conversion & Orthodox church - The Ochlophobist comments  (Read 10013 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,390



« Reply #45 on: July 22, 2006, 04:59:58 PM »

Do you attend a WRO parish, if one may ask? 

How many WRO parishes are there that have been in existance since 1870 or shortly there after? Are th

The Old Believers came out of EO and their praxis is not as much different from the EO as the WRO is. 

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #46 on: July 23, 2006, 01:19:03 PM »

Do you attend a WRO parish, if one may ask?

We have a small dependency of a WRO monastery here, and go for the feasts to the chapel of a ROCA Western Rite hermitage. So - yes, though 'parish' isn't exactly the model. We also travel to both Byzantine and Western Rite parishes for the sacraments.ÂÂ  

Quote
How many WRO parishes are there that have been in existance since 1870 or shortly there after?


I believe that this was followed by an incomplete sentence. However, I already covered the above. The 1870 Ukaze was the first for WRO (though not the only one) - it was first implemented twenty years later in the USA, in 1926 in Poland, in 1932 again in the USA (what became the AWRV), and in 1937 in France. The ROCOR Western Rite dates from the Russian implementation in 1965 (continuous.)

By contrast the Old Believers only had their anathema lifted for their liturgical practices in 1974, with implementation in 1983 (9 years later.)

Quote
The Old Believers came out of EO and their praxis is not as much different from the EO as the WRO is.ÂÂ  

Everyone came out of EO - Christianity is Eastern, and even what we call Western is a continuation of that brought from Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and other Eastern places. The fact is that the Old Ritualists (Old Believer is a pejorative) have an ethos and praxis which is much more like the Western Rite (consider expected behavior in their Temple), or even the dress of their clergy. The Russian Old Rite, in fact, has *very* much in common with old Western liturgy. The Western liturgy itself has had use in the East (as Fr. John R. Shaw of ROCA has documented as regards the Roman Canon's use by some Old Ritualists up until the 1960's.) Orthodoxy is not a schism or splinter of Christianity - it is Christianity in the main. It is only consistent with those claims to see the restoration of not only the Russian Old Ritualists, but Western Old Ritualists (WRO) from schism - just as Donatists, Novationists, Monophysites and others returned from Schism. Sadly, the bulk of Western Christianity or most of the hierarchy has no real interest in doing what is necessary to heal their schism from Orthodoxy. But, we who do have a responsibility - just as JJ Overbeck wrote nearly a century and a half ago. Its another vision of Christian Unity than what has been proposed from the Western side - and that is what makes some uncomfortable (they would rather Orthodoxy be the Unia, or lose its strictness as regards dogma and practice.) So - Western Rite Orthodoxy is simply a different response to the claims of the Orthodox to be the Church - probably the only response that doesn't include triumphalism on the part of either East or West.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #47 on: July 23, 2006, 01:44:19 PM »

Quote
I believe that this was followed by an incomplete sentence. However, I already covered the above. The 1870 Ukaze was the first for WRO (though not the only one) - it was first implemented twenty years later in the USA, in 1926 in Poland, in 1932 again in the USA (what became the AWRV), and in 1937 in France. The ROCOR Western Rite dates from the Russian implementation in 1965 (continuous.)

By contrast the Old Believers only had their anathema lifted for their liturgical practices in 1974, with implementation in 1983 (9 years later.)

I don't believe that is what Ebor asked.

Ebor said, "How many WRO parishes are there that have been in existance since 1870 or shortly there after?"  That doesn't mean what ukases allowed their existence at which dates - it means how many actually communities of the WRO have been around any length of time, having had families with multiple generations in them?

You are playing games with the Old Believers here.  They have existed for hundreds of years - people are BORN Old Believers etc. 
Logged
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #48 on: July 23, 2006, 02:17:49 PM »

Quote
I don't believe that is what Ebor asked.

Ebor said, "How many WRO parishes are there that have been in existance since 1870 or shortly there after?"ÂÂ  That doesn't mean what ukases allowed their existence at which dates - it means how many actually communities of the WRO have been around any length of time, having had families with multiple generations in them?

You are playing games with the Old Believers here.ÂÂ  They have existed for hundreds of years - people are BORN Old Believers etc.

He asked the wrong question. Implementation of the WRO Ukaze was delayed because of political-diplomatic action taken out of fear what Overbeck's fellow converts could mean. Much exists since the 1890 conversions - everything Villatte produced - though it is outside the Church. The seed planted with Overbeck continued, and one cannot often find names of those influenced by the predecessors (like Overbeck) who reappear in later attempts. The AWRV is the inheritor of the SSB - which has existed since 1932 (under Antioch since 1958, made canonical in 1961.) The Polish Western Rite still exists though tentatively (same with the French Western Rite - though I think both are reduced to a single parish at this point, the rest being made convert Byzantine.) There are still those living, and generational in Western Rite, though not all exists from that time. The important thing - what the Western Rite is, is a tradition also passed down but rejected by almost all Western confessions (one won't find any Anglicans/Episcopalians or Roman Catholics doing what we WRO do, though who do something similar are minorities in their own confessions - and the majority of their fellow Anglicans or Catholics are against it.) Sure, most of WRO has an Old Catholic background - but shares little with modern Old Catholicism. All of us Western Rite Orthodox though have a tradition that *has* been passed down since Overbeck's time. (For the Indian Orthodox, their parishes in Sri Lanka of Western Rite continue since the 19th c. as well - and have a nascent presence here in the West - more continuity and generational Western Rite Orthodoxy.)

And no - no game playing with the "Old Believers". Those in schism aren't Orthodox. There have only been *Orthodox Old Ritualists* since 1983. They were anathematized and excommunicated before 1974. It would only be game playing to suggest otherwise. They spent over 300 years as both anathematized and excommunicated - Old Believers then are as generational in Orthodox terms are as Old Catholics, etc. The WRO I'm involved with are 3+ generations - about the same or little more than Old Ritualists who became Orthodox in 1983. Another example would be the Greek Old Calendarists restored from Schism in 1998 to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (St. Irene in Astoria, NY and their attached metochia.)

As if that proves anything - there are generational members of the Assyrian Orthodox now - but from 431 til 1898 they were not Orthodox either. But, they continued a liturgical tradition that was correctable - just as WRO and Old Ritualists have. All three were outside the Church for a period of time, all three were allowed by the decision of the Church to reenter the communion without loss of their core tradition, but with accepting the full faith. And - all (whether Western Rite Orthodox, Assyrian Orthodox, or Russian Old Ritualist Orthodox) hold to the Orthodox faith, and not something other. They couldn't be anything else (whatever it is people think we should really be - I don't know a single WRO that the CoE communion, RCC, Utrecht union, or any other Protestant body would want with their theology, liturgy and praxis intact.)

Again - what makes folk uncomfortable is the existence of Western Rite Orthodoxy is the dual horror of a *Westerner* saying "Eastern Orthodox are right, and are the true Church" and that of internal criticism of Western Christianity (the real issue - "How dare you criticize *my* church!" - considered traitors from bodies we were never part of, because we cannot accept their errors.) What do those Old Calendarists, Old Ritualists, and Nestorian Assyrians think about those who are now in Orthodoxy? Probably the same as those Westerners complaining about the existence of us Western Rite Orthodox (hypothetically - if they did 'get us back', it would only be so long as to kick us back out - Orthodoxy is our only possible home.)
« Last Edit: July 23, 2006, 02:20:39 PM by Aristibule » Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #49 on: July 23, 2006, 02:40:50 PM »

And to get this back on track from WRO-bashing:

Ochlophobist's essay referred on a post by Ben Johnson of Western Orthodox blog on 'spooky religion' : http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/07/thirst-for-spooky-religion.html in reference to a post by Huw Raphael of Doxos blog on trends in Orthodox blogging: http://raphael.doxos.com/more.php?id=3602_0_1_0_M

The original post refers back to this post of Ben Johnson's http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/03/most-unique-orthodoxy-and-spiritual.html - all which have bearing on the validity of the same (I had a long blog post saying many of the same things, though probably more optimistic like Ben, in reference to a debate with Perennial Rambler - that post is gone due to blog reorganization.)

« Last Edit: July 23, 2006, 02:45:25 PM by Aristibule » Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #50 on: July 23, 2006, 03:02:38 PM »

Quote
Another example would be the Greek Old Calendarists restored from Schism in 1998 to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (St. Irene in Astoria, NY and their attached metochia.)

From the ROCOR point of view, they were not in schism in the first place.  But yes, I am butting in. Sorry. Continue on... Smiley

Anastasios
« Last Edit: July 23, 2006, 03:03:15 PM by Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #51 on: July 23, 2006, 03:09:09 PM »

Quote
From the ROCOR point of view, they were not in schism in the first place.

That depends - not all in ROCOR shared that view, and not a few of their bishops and priests weren't happy with the HTM Boston incident, nor with the agreement made in 1994 with Fili & Oropos. At this point, none of the Old Calendarist Greeks are in communion with ROCOR, and feeling towards them seems to run the gamut (from 'good riddance' to those who will commune their members without chrismation.) I should point out - the extreme views some associate with ROCOR are *not* ROCOR's views historically, nor officially. There is enough there to illustrate that point on the official Synodal website that I won't get into it. Fr. Hieromonk Ambrose (Young) had traced the more extreme positions to the influence of HTM Boston (now HOCNA) - ROCOR itself was not an 'Old Calendarist' jurisdiction, though the Old Calendar is the norm (as it is with the rest of the Russian Church.)
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #52 on: July 23, 2006, 03:32:30 PM »

While some bishops disagreed, all the ROCOR bishops signed the Tomos of Union in 1969 with the Greek Old Calendarists so said union was the official position of ROCOR.  The union in 1994 was a strange set up, I would say, and didn't work out for obvious reasons, although ROCOR is still in communion with the Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarists.  HTM was never a Greek Old Calendarist body so it would not be fair to equate them with the Greek Old Calendarists, whom they derided up until the year they suddenly joined the deposed Archbishop Auxentios for obvious reasons (he looked past their homosexual allegations).  I'm surprised you mentioned "communion without chrismation"--any ROCOR priest chrismating an Old Calendarist would surely be acting on his own accord as I have never seen the bishops issue such a statement, which would go against their usual practice.  Have you actually seen this occur?*

Any change in official practice would have to be very recent, given that they were in communion with the Cyprianite Greek Old Calenarists until February 2006 and given that Bishop Gabriel, Archbishop Hilarion, and Metropolitan Laurus are all on very good relations with my Metropolitan Pavlos, who was in the altar at the installation of Met Laurus in 2001 and who has celebrated non Eucharistic services with Bp Gabriel and Bp Agafangel as recently as 2004.  Of course, that does not also account for the canonical transfers that have occurred between ROCOR and the GOC even recently, etc., all of which suggest that while ROCOR may not support the GOC anymore, it still does not consider it schismatic and unOrthodox or "uncanonical."

ROCOR's support for extreme positions and ROCOR's support for the Greek Old Calendarists are actually different animals.  HTM did everything in its power to undermine ROCOR's communion with the GOC, because HTM wanted to be the only Greeks on the Old Calendar ("the only game in town.")  ROCOR was able to continue its official synodal stance of 1971--"the New Calendar is a grave error but only an ecumenical council can determine who has grace" while still supporting Greek Old Calenadrists.

I do not have anything positive to say about Fr Ambrose or his work so I will leave that one alone.  Needless to say, I am not someone who finds delight in extremist positions, but to trace it all to HTM is a bit extreme in and of itself. Let us recall that St John Maximovitch was a great supporter of the GOC, as was the Blessed Archbishop Leonty, neither of whom were extreme at all.

In case you are wondering (as would be your right) where I get my information, my thesis in seminary was on Met Petros of Astoria, the bridge between the GOC and the ROCOR in America, and as part of my thesis I entered the ROCOR Synodal Archives (with a blessing of course) and photocopied over 350 pages of archival materials pertaining to this issue.  Of course my work required interpretation, but I believe I have stuck faithfully to the sources in my analysis.  I realize your mentioning of the Greek Old Calendarists was anecdotal, but given that this issue is my pet issue I just had to butt in. Sorry if I annoyed you.

Anastasios

(*unless you are talking about the so-called Milan Synod and the case of Fr Aidan, but that is an entirely different animal since the Milan Synod is considered schismatic by ROCOR and the GOC alike, and Fr Aidan's "bishops" were Old Catholics whom the deposed Metropolitan Eulogios of Milan accepted into communion without reordination!)
« Last Edit: July 23, 2006, 03:34:34 PM by Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
AncientFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 85


« Reply #53 on: July 23, 2006, 04:50:41 PM »

Well, you can simply not pray all the prayers, that's what I do! (with my bishop's blessing!).  I think we seem to think these things develop willy nilly. I'd say they developed because they work. Hesychasm, the mixed monastic/cathedral typikon we now use, these things simply work, and that's why they are here today. I know, I have a simplistic notion of things and betray all that wonderful liturgical theology I learned in seminary Wink

I don't know, as I've said before I think the WR and other varieties are ok, I just don't like the idea that there should be "monastic" and "secular" ways of doing things. The typikon now used by the Orthodox Church combines both together--laypeople never read long amounts of psalms in the Cathedral rite--that was what monks did. Monks just didn't have hymns.  Now monks have hymns and laypeple have psalms. It's balanced.  If someone can't pray all of it,t hen just cut stuff out as needed and blessed. I'm sorry if I am offending anyone who has struggled with this. I just don't see what the solution would be other than to keep things stable and allow variation on a person by person basis.

Anastasios

If I might add, the huge difference is that an Orthodox lay person is to look to a Spiritual Father to help develop a prayer rule (which I admittedly have not, as I don't have a Spiritual Father yet), but in the RC and elsewhere in the West, you do it yourself.
Logged

---
Patrick
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #54 on: July 23, 2006, 05:54:33 PM »

Quote
And no - no game playing with the "Old Believers". Those in schism aren't Orthodox. There have only been *Orthodox Old Ritualists* since 1983. They were anathematized and excommunicated before 1974

I'm assuming you're talking about Old Believers and this historical error repeated often in this thread has got my annoyance.  As I believe that you are talking about the Edinovertsy, they have actually been in communion with Moscow since the 19th Century.  Tsar Saint Nicholas II gave them the right for non-Edinovertsy to worship in 1905, along with the other freedoms.  Then the anathemas were lifted actually in 1971 from all Old Believers.  However, I believe it would be incorrect to call Old Believers non-Orthodox before 1971.  For that matter, I believe it would be incorrect to do so even before the 19th century with the introduction of Edinovertsy.  The Old-Believer Schism had more to do with politics and other matter than heresies in dogma, a difference not exactly reflected in much Western documents (in general).  Now it is true that many Bespopovtsy (priestless) groups  have and do come up with some very wierd and heretical things, this cannot be equivicated to the Old Believer movement as a whole.  Furthermore, the Old Believer Schism and modern usage is very different than the WRO, imho and it would be inaccurate to make comparisons.  Personally, the only example I can think of comparing them with would be modern Catholics and SSPX, obviously which is not occuring.
Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #55 on: July 23, 2006, 08:05:24 PM »

Anastasios - no annoyance on my part, just detail I didn't want to get into myself.ÂÂ  Of course, I was referring to all the bodies altogether who refer to themselves as Greek Old Calendarists, and not just Cyprianites (some of those multitudinous groups have gotten into some odd theological corners).ÂÂ  The point being - the schism with the Western Catholics was not all that extreme to begin with either. We Westerners were only wrong on a few details (though, as time went on, some error was added to error.) Our position as Western Orthodox is that if anyone else can be corrected from heresy, and heal schism - we may as well. Obviously some Orthodox bishops have thought just so.

Re: so-called "Old Believers" and Old Ritualists - there are still bodies that are in schism from the Church, and yes, even some bodies believing heretical things (such as those Bespopovtsy who reject marriage and believe Christ's Church has failed, self-baptists, or even the dyrniki .)ÂÂ  For that matter, the schism with the West had much to do politics and other matters than heresies in dogma (to begin with) - and even for those things later identified as heresies in the West, they were not things universally held in the West. The analogy still stands. The 1971 date is from Moscow. The 1974 date I have is from ROCOR, with 1983 being the date of the reception of Vladyka Daniel of Erie's flock.ÂÂ  The 1905 date, however, is simply that of emancipation - basically the rights to practice their faith in the Empire, and to no longer be called raskolniki. Otherwise, the 1905 edict did not give Old Believers.

All the more since comparison has been made by Russian Orthodox clergy and hierarchs to our WRO position as being "Old Believers" of the West as well. RE: the Edinovertsy - still, over a hundred year schism of separation. (Much like the Georgian Church, which was monophysite for generations) - the ROCOR Old Ritualists, IIRC, were not continuity with the Edinovertsy who had communion with the Russian Orthodox Church in the 19th c. The term 'Old Ritualist' or 'Old Believer' does have a long use of referring to all groups (priestist or non-priestest.)

Also;

The idea that one just 'does what they want' in the West is mistaken. There was (and is) as much a tradition of having a spiritual father in Western Catholicism as in Orthodoxy. For that matter, many Eastern Orthodox have no spiritual father beyond their parish priest. And, many Westerners do have spiritual direction as to the formation of a prayer rule (us WRO especially, in particular Oblates.)

Also - the separation of rites into Cathedral, Parish, Monastic and Urban Monastic originated with the Byzantine rite. We have all four in use again as well in the Byzantine rite. In the Western churches, the Cathedral and parish uses were also used by monks or canons regular. So much so that 'secular' rite in the West does not denote 'non-monastic', simply that it wasn't the Benedictine use (the term 'Monastic use' in the West refers to the Benedictine use.) This was often the case with eremitic monks (hermits) who used the local use of the diocese rather than a special use.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2006, 08:14:15 PM by Aristibule » Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,390



« Reply #56 on: July 27, 2006, 09:16:02 AM »

We have a small dependency of a WRO monastery here, and go for the feasts to the chapel of a ROCA Western Rite hermitage. So - yes, though 'parish' isn't exactly the model. We also travel to both Byzantine and Western Rite parishes for the sacraments.ÂÂ  

Would you explain what you mean by "small dependency of a WRO monastery" please?  Perhaps I was not totally clear in my question.  Are you saying that on Sundays and feasts you do not have one parish or congregation to attend?
 
Quote
I believe that this was followed by an incomplete sentence.

Again, it seems that my writing is not clear.  I apolgize.  It was not an incomplete sentence. Nor was it the "Wrong Question" as you write in a later post.  It is the question that I asked, that I meant to ask.  It is the point that I would like to have some information on. 

It was my intention to ask what parishes, what congregations, if any, have been in existence since shortly after the WRO was permitted or perhaps dating from the earlier 20th century.  For example, I can find out that St. Mark's Denver has been part of an Orthodox jurisdiction since 1991.  While the congregation/parish existed before that time, they were part of the Anglican Communion.   My own parish (Anglican) has a history of over 140 years.  If you do not have this information, I understand.

Quote
The 1870 Ukaze was the first for WRO (though not the only one) - it was first implemented twenty years later in the USA, in 1926 in Poland, in 1932 again in the USA (what became the AWRV), and in 1937 in France.

By "implemented' do you mean parishes were established?  If so, are any of them still functioning without a break?

Quote
The ROCOR Western Rite dates from the Russian implementation in 1965 (continuous.)

I know of the ROCOR WR monastery, though the details I would have to look up again.  Are there any other ROCOR WR? 

Thank you

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,390



« Reply #57 on: July 27, 2006, 09:20:08 AM »

If I might add, the huge difference is that an Orthodox lay person is to look to a Spiritual Father to help develop a prayer rule (which I admittedly have not, as I don't have a Spiritual Father yet), but in the RC and elsewhere in the West, you do it yourself.

Speaking as one (and knowing other Anglicans who have done the same) who has had one this is not accurate.  Often the term is "spiritual director" but it means a priest or monastic person who helps and guides someone in developing a prayer rule and other aspects.

With respect,

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,390



« Reply #58 on: July 27, 2006, 09:25:05 AM »

(one won't find any Anglicans/Episcopalians or Roman Catholics doing what we WRO do,

I have been to a WRO parish.  It was very familiar and like what Anglicans (or a least what some ANglicans) do and have done.

What things are done by WRO that aren't RC/Anglican please? 

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #59 on: July 27, 2006, 05:02:45 PM »

Quote
I have been to a WRO parish.  It was very familiar and like what Anglicans (or a least what some ANglicans) do and have done.
 What things are done by WRO that aren't RC/Anglican please? 

Which one, if I may ask?

What is different from Roman Catholicism? To begin with - the normative majority Revised Roman rite is not used amongst the WRO. Neither are the current Traditional Indult rites, nor the revised Mozarabic or Ambrosian rites (nor the Anglican Use). What Rome follows according to its Sacred Congregation of Rites, and Canon law is not what WRO do. There are differing matters of praxis, liturgy, ceremonial, ornamentation, and music.

For Anglicanism, the normative use of the majority (by the Canon law of each particular church) are the current Books of Common Prayer - Common Worship/1662 English, 1979 BCP, and those of Scotland, Canada, South Africa, etc. None of these are in use in Western Rite Orthodoxy. The Missal parishes (a very small minority in Anglicanism, not only liturgically but theologically) are also not identical with the use of Western Rite Orthodoxy, though similar (founded for the most part to make their worship more like the present Roman Catholic Church, or that of the 19th c./early 20th c., or in the smallest part - like Pre-Reformation or Pre-Schism Catholicism.) Again - not identical. Those who have the liturgy 'close' to WRO have unleavened bread (no WRO use unleavened bread), no WRO use the filioque, all WRO have the practice of the Pain Benit (consecrated bread after Medieval Monastic and Cathedral rites.) Where some Anglicans (outside of their own normative liturgical praxis) find WRO similar is in the same places where Anglicans have adopted the externals of Roman Catholicism (of whatever era or region.) Particular to Anglicanism is 'comprehensiveness' in the sense that one won't find in WRO forms or theology more like Anglican Evangelicals, Puritans, Broad Church, High Church, Aff Cath/Liberal, etc. WRO are all Orthodox - though how that might play out is similar to the 'diversity' one finds amongst the Byzantine rite (comparing liturgy, praxis, and ethos - of a East Coast GOA parish, a West Coast OCA parish, a Texas ROCOR parish, a Midwestern Antiochian parish, etc.)

Quote
Would you explain what you mean by "small dependency of a WRO monastery" please?  Perhaps I was not totally clear in my question.  Are you saying that on Sundays and feasts you do not have one parish or congregation to attend?

Exactly what I said - there is no established Orthodox parish within an hours drive of where we temporarily live. The AWRV model has been that of parishes for the most part, the ROCOR Western Rite towards monasteries with associated parishes, missions, oblates and families. We fall in the latter category - traveling for the sacraments to missions, parishes, monasteries - and otherwise gather to pray the Office as directed on Sundays when we neither have a priest nor can travel. Not uncommon - either to have groups of individuals attached as Oblates (whether a Chapter, a family, or a few here and there), or even missions or families as 'paruchia' of the 'paruchiae' - the Western analogue of metochia/podvorje. 'Paruchia(e)' is a medieval Irish Latin term derived from Latin parochia(e) - the latter meaning 'parish', the former a derivation particular to Insular Medieval Latin referring to a monastic family - a head monastery, associated monasteries, hermits, clergy, parishes, missions, etc.

Quote
Again, it seems that my writing is not clear.  I apolgize.  It was not an incomplete sentence.

Your second question was followed by the cryptic phrase "And ther".

Quote
It was my intention to ask what parishes, what congregations, if any, have been in existence since shortly after the WRO was permitted or perhaps dating from the earlier 20th century.

Which I answered - first the canonical basis was established, then the implementation (foundation of parishes, monasteries, missions - reception of groups or individuals.) Not all of the *institutions* are continuous, though the tradition is - as people have relocated, things passed on from clergy to clergy, clergy to laity, laity to laity - that there are many new works indicates that WRO is growing (a healthy sign.) Do some of the institutions survive? A very few, though I'm lacking in exact details on some of them - my point, "the Wrong Question" - what one thinks such evidence might illustrate is likely not what it actually signifies. IOW, it sure looks like a leading question ... especially when the answer given is dismissed as 'not the answer...', which usually means 'not the one the questioner intended to extract'.

Quote
By "implemented' do you mean parishes were established?  If so, are any of them still functioning without a break?

Yes, and yes. The continuity is mainly of a tradition - and of relationships (such as the relic we have care of - a fragment of a prayer rope. The prayer rope was St. Tikhon of Moscow's, then passed through the hands of ROCOR Metropolitans to St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco - twice blessed by contact with modern saints - then to Abbot Augustine (Whitfield), Abbot of Our Lady of Mount Royal (retired at the Chapel of the Holy Virgin), and on to his spiritual children (Christminster, Holyrood, etc. - including our family.) The chain of relationships illustrates a continuity of networks: Irenee Winnaert,  Bp. Jean-Nectaire (Kovalevsky), Fr. Luc Denis Chambault, Abbot Augustine, St. John the Wonderworker, etc. - something that crosses mere ritual.

The AWRV can look for continuity back to the same decade (the 1930's) for implementation or their specific works (the SSB, founded 1933, back under the Antiochians in 1961 with some encouragement and connection with the Russian WRO in Europe. The 1937 date for the Russian Orthodox WRO in Europe extends through to the same period to the USA (1960s) where we have local continuity to the present (though for WRO, like the Roman Catholic Church, there have been/are a few priests 'licensed' (blessed as we say) to celebrate in both rites.)

Quote
I know of the ROCOR WR monastery, though the details I would have to look up again.  Are there any other ROCOR WR?

Which one? Our Lady of Mount Royal? Christ the Saviour? Saint Petroc? I'd be interested to see where you were 'looking up the details'. And to the last - yes.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Apostlos2
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Mesogaea-Church of Greece
Posts: 12

leiton = big public place with roof, ergon = work


« Reply #60 on: July 31, 2006, 02:43:59 PM »

Well, my thoughts:

Quote
the überfromm snuggling up to the gates of hell,part I: The Greek Church is a cultural museum
-Throughout Greece, the Church maintains nearly 2,750 philanthropic institutions including 2,452 funds for daily needs of the poor, 42 orphanages, 123 boarding homes for poor students; 66 homes for the aged; 7 hospitals, and 50 summer camps. The philanthropic work of several dioceses is very impressive. For example, the diocese of Demetrias, with 124 parishes, maintains twelve charitable institutions. The diocese of Messenia, with a population of perhaps 100,000, supports fourteen philanthropic establishments. The diocese of Lesbos, with 60 parishes, supports twelve welfare institutions
-Even McDonalds here in Greece, during Great Lent, offer fasting dishes (talk about real fast-food)  Grin

Quote
the überfromm snuggling up to the gates of hell, part IV: The Greek Orthodox Church in Greece is rocked by sex and fraud scandals. Bishops sleep with young men, bishops sleep with young women (and get photographed in the act), bishops embezzle millions of Euros
First allow me to share an assortment of details about the real issue concerning the so called 'scandals' of the Church in Greece. One must have a strong historical component: In 2000, the 'socialist' government, arbitrarily, decided to drop any reference to religion from state identity cards. I'm not here to judge whether this is wrong or right, I'm just presenting the facts. The church careered towards a head-on collision with the government, asking for a referendum. Whithin the next year (2001) the Holy Synod presented a petition with 3m signatures (over half of the country's active population). And that was followed by a declaration of war from the left. From the very beginning, leftist journalists (and when I'm talking about the Greek left, I'm talking about hardcored disciples of the 'État laïque'-if you're interested, read the 'La laicite' by Pierre Kahn-without taking under consideration the idiosyncrasy or distinctiveness of our being. Our left is ruthless, is like iron wrought in a bloody civil war & countless adversities-exiles & persecutions). One prominent journalist, stated: 'the collapse of neo-liberalism & marxism, compel some people by necessity, to find a new adversary in order to survive ideologically'. The easier opponent was the Church. Thus a harsh ideological war started, a war which according to our greatest modern philosopher Cornelios Kastoriades 'is led by people who act undemocratically, who aim to dictate their way of thinking, as if they are the enlightened autocrats who must englighten the poor people, whom they contemn and disdain to associate with'. Sexual 'scandals' were spread by the 'press' (that rest yet unproved), old-aged bishops, handicapped, unable to move without the aid of a nurse (who was approached by scandalmongers, who photographed her helping a poor old man,'on the act'). TV channels provided 'reality-based entertainment', with biased journalists exposing 'young men harrassed by priests' around the clock (without revealing names, accusations yet unconfirmed). And here I am, a Greek guy, a few thousand miles away from America, arguing against an 'Argumentum ad nauseam'...the 'scandals' of the Church of Greece...or as we say down here: 'It's better to lose an eye than to lose your reputation'
 
Logged

And Paul standing in the midst of Areopagus said, Athenians, in every way I see you given up to the worship of God; for, passing through and beholding your shrines, I found also an altar on which was inscribed, To the unknown God. Whom therefore ye reverence, not knowing him, him I announce to you
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,390



« Reply #61 on: August 04, 2006, 12:32:32 PM »

Which one, if I may ask?

The one in the DC area, St. Gregory the Great.ÂÂ  It was some time ago.

Quote
Exactly what I said - there is no established Orthodox parish within an hours drive of where we temporarily live.

Thank you. I was not sure if the phrase you used was some specific term such as someone being an oblate of a certain order in RC or the like.

Quote
Not all of the *institutions* are continuous, though the tradition is - as people have relocated, things passed on from clergy to clergy, clergy to laity, laity to laity - that there are many new works indicates that WRO is growing (a healthy sign.) Do some of the institutions survive?

Well, so far, the WR parishes that I have found on like do not date much beyond 1990 and some are much newer.ÂÂ  

Quote
my point, "the Wrong Question" - what one thinks such evidence might illustrate is likely not what it actually signifies. IOW, it sure looks like a leading question

You read it as that.ÂÂ  Yet it was my question and one asking for historical factual data.ÂÂ  I wanted to know if any WR parishs, bodies of people over a length of time, not some tradition, had existed for more then a couple of decades and a number of them come from former Anglican parishes.ÂÂ  

Quote
Which one? Our Lady of Mount Royal? Christ the Saviour? Saint Petroc? I'd be interested to see where you were 'looking up the details'.

I know of the one in Rhode Island, though I have never been there.ÂÂ  I am also aware of Fr. M in Tasmania from the York Forum.

Ebor

edited to clean up a quote
« Last Edit: August 04, 2006, 12:33:15 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
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 0.102 seconds with 44 queries.