When I first converted 8 years ago, I was really big on Americanizing Orthodox Churches because I believed that each nation should have its own unique cultural expression of the Orthodox faith. I even wanted all Orthodox churches to become western rite. I have since realized that this was childish. As I became more familiar with Slavic and Greek Christianity and especially Church tradition and the Fathers, I realized that the Liturgy of John Chrysostom is universal and the cultures associated with the Orthodox in the west are added blessings and have so much to teach us. I also highly doubt that anyone alive in the pre-schism East would prefer to replace their liturgy with a western one (let's remember how St. Vladimir did not prefer Roman Christianity to Byzantine.) But more importantly to me, the Orthodox preserved the early Christian faith and practice in incredible detail. I have seen so many times when "eastern tradition" and "western tradition" are said to distinguish traditions but always the "eastern tradition" is simply a continuation of the early Christian universal practice. Ex. free standing altars, the templon, the iconographic style and the way saints and events are depicted, chanting style, the home prayers, domes, prayer rope, confession practices, services, etc. etc. etc. If the Catholic Church removed all obstacles from communion with the Orthodox, still the Orthodox would be a better representative of universal historical Christianity. Western Saints like Augustine, Jerome, Hilary, Patrick, etc. would all feel much more at home in a Greek Orthodox Church than in the average Catholic Church, even if all the heterodoxies were removed. One needs to look no further than the ancient western Churches to confirm this and trace the history of differences between eastern and western traditions. I have begun to see eastern Orthodoxy not as Greek, Slavic, etc. but as simply Christian. I am believing, seeing, smelling, praying and worshiping like John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, etc. I think we should be content with a liturgy in our own language and let Orthodoxy cultivate brotherhoods between cultures, not pit them against each other.
America will gain her own Peculiar Expression of Orthodoxy in her own time. Right now what has been given to us by our Greek, Arab and Slavic Brothers is sufficient.
Hey. I am somebody who went from Orthodox to Catholicism back to Orthodox my question is does the orthodox church actually do missionary work in other countries? When it comes to reaching out to Orthodox parishes is it as simple as just starting conversations with people at coffee hour or something like that? I am simply just trying to find ways to stay Orthodox. Because when I was in Catholicism, it didn’t feel right, but it was a completely different situation at the time I was in it.
Hello, Eric. Yes, the Orthodox Church does missionary work in other countries. The main thing is to find a good Orthodox priest and discuss your situation with him.
Ethnic Orthodox Cultures: I have observed that in the world, the Russians tend to mitigate the fast for the entire period and the Greeks ignore the fast altogether until Holy Week, upon which time they go crazy and eat nothing. The Russian way is probably better. Additionally, it seems to me that the practices of Russian parishes and Russian monasteries are not that far apart, but the Greeks have the most liberal, assimilated parishes (with pews and even organs from time to time) but they also have the most extreme right-wing monks. Greeks are weird 😜 Nevertheless, either is better than the Antiochenes in America, which do not have any monasticism to speak of at all. To my knowledge, there is new-ish (2013) a Western-rite monastery in Colorado, and a small skete of nuns in Tennessee. Where is this jurisdiction getting its bishops? Incidentally, why is Colorado the Mecca of Orthodox Western rite (3 parishes in Denver)? With regard to an "American" Orthodox Church, note that Russian Orthodox culture would not have developed had the Byzantine missionaries bringing the Faith to the Slavs stubbornly maintained Greek culture. The difficulty for us is that unlike in the case of the Old World, in the US (with the exception of Alaska) Orthodoxy wasn't brought to this land via missionary activity, but rather Orthodox Christians immigrated to America and brought Orthodoxy with them - it was transplantation rather than conversion. It is a novel situation, it encourages semi-phyletism, and it discourages evangelism. The trick, it seems to me, is to find a way to preserve the spirit of the various ethnic recensions to maintain continuity with the past within an authentically American Church that carries Orthodoxy into the future. Regarding Protestants, I like telling them that we are kind of like the Catholics, but worship Mary more and kiss more stuff. I suspect that my apostolate of scandal probably isn't the best method of spreading the faith. RE: Afterlife. Your description isn't wrong, but it also isn't complete. For all our complaining about Purgatory, we do have a similar strain of thought that posits the existence of "aerial tollhouses" and a 40-day period after death in which prayers for the dead are most effective (see, e.g., "How God Judges People" by Elder Cleopa, available as an e-book from Amazon for $4). Nevertheless, the aerial tollhouses are not something that the Church has needed to define as dogma or condemn as heresy. This is, however, illustrative of the difference between Orthodox "dogmatics" and Catholic "dogmatics." We define when necessary to counter a particular heresy that has taken root, not because we believe it necessary to construct a consistent theological/philosophical system to describe the Faith. In the Latin West, was there some heresy that denied the efficacy of prayers for the dead that prompted them to define how or why such prayers are not in vain? No. Rather, Scholastics felt the need to rationalize a pre-existing practice about which nobody had a problem. Does Purgatory exist? Who knows? What we do know is that it is both proper and useful to pray for the dead, that we have been doing it from the beginning, and that we do not need to (or even are truly able to) explain the mechanism by which God operates the afterlife. RE: Orthodox worship - the relatively freeform aspect of it is why pews are an abomination.
@@hanng1242 Antioch's Monastic Woes are due to a line of 3 Metropolitans who were either explicitly or covertly anti-Monastic. Met. Philip(BM+) was not a proponent of the Monastic life due to perceived abuses that he had seen in his time in Lebanon. He begrudgingly let Bishop Basil found Ladyminster. Joseph, who had his own issues, was vocal about having Monastics in America but never did anything to move it forward. The new Met. Saba is actually taking steps to have Athonite Monasteries in the Archdiocese, they are founding one in Memphis and are buying adjoining land near the Antiochian Village for a Women's Monastery. And as to where our Bishops come from. Mostly Widowed Priests and overseas candidates. Which isn't Ideal but is allowed.
If Orthodoxy began with speaking Greek, then why when it moved to Russia did the language change to Russian? Why when it moved to Serbia did it change to Serbian? However when it came to America it didn't assume English.
Well, in both of those cases, it actually did not change to Russian or Serbian but to Slavonic, which is a sort of "literary happy medium" between the Slavic languages. I think the process was different. There was a migration of peoples rather than just of religion. But more to the point, it's important to see how the Orthodox countries of the world (Russia, Greece, Serbia, etc.) all fit within the overall Byzantine world. They are not separate entities but variations on the same theme, albeit affected by the cultural history of each nation.
@@TheRomanOrthodox That's all fine and dandy, but to sit for hours listening to a language you don't understand is ludicrous. Orthodoxy has to come to grips with the fact that Byzantium is long gone. Keep the tenants of Orthodoxy by all means, but do it in the language of the place Orthodoxy now resides wherever that may be.
My story about Orthodoxy is a long one so I will spare you the details, but suffice it to say that Orthodxy would be far more viable in America if the language used was English. It's rediculous to attend liturgy and not understand a word.
I dont know where you attend, but almost everywhere I have been either has the liturgy in English or in both English and a second language. And translations are readily available in any case.
@@TheRomanOrthodoxTo my surprise a Ukrainian Orthodox church opened in my town. No seating. All the women wore babushkas and only "sputnick" was spoken. The Priest doesn't know one word of English and only speaks to English speakers through a translater.
@@paulmelonas7263 No pews is pretty usual. Quit being so grumpy and discontent. There are Spanish-speaking churches, English-speaking churches, heck, Swahili-speaking churches in the US, all trying to bring God to their respective congregations. Would you have the babusias sitting in church not understanding what was being said for your own convenience? Find a translation, bring it with you (or don't), and worship God.
@@TheRomanOrthodox Don't mistake factual for grumpy. All I'm saying is I believe that Orthodoxy is truth and the way to expose truth isn't by speaking a foreign language. English is the American tongue. Speak it...
@@paulmelonas7263 I mean, not really. Spanish was spoken in parts of the U.S. before there was a U.S. Russian and indigenous languages were common in Alaska. Immigrants generally kept their own language. I don't think it is too much to ask, on occasion, for us to have to hear another language on our multi-ethnic soil. And the light of God shines through any language.
When I first converted 8 years ago, I was really big on Americanizing Orthodox Churches because I believed that each nation should have its own unique cultural expression of the Orthodox faith. I even wanted all Orthodox churches to become western rite.
I have since realized that this was childish. As I became more familiar with Slavic and Greek Christianity and especially Church tradition and the Fathers, I realized that the Liturgy of John Chrysostom is universal and the cultures associated with the Orthodox in the west are added blessings and have so much to teach us. I also highly doubt that anyone alive in the pre-schism East would prefer to replace their liturgy with a western one (let's remember how St. Vladimir did not prefer Roman Christianity to Byzantine.)
But more importantly to me, the Orthodox preserved the early Christian faith and practice in incredible detail. I have seen so many times when "eastern tradition" and "western tradition" are said to distinguish traditions but always the "eastern tradition" is simply a continuation of the early Christian universal practice. Ex. free standing altars, the templon, the iconographic style and the way saints and events are depicted, chanting style, the home prayers, domes, prayer rope, confession practices, services, etc. etc. etc.
If the Catholic Church removed all obstacles from communion with the Orthodox, still the Orthodox would be a better representative of universal historical Christianity. Western Saints like Augustine, Jerome, Hilary, Patrick, etc. would all feel much more at home in a Greek Orthodox Church than in the average Catholic Church, even if all the heterodoxies were removed. One needs to look no further than the ancient western Churches to confirm this and trace the history of differences between eastern and western traditions.
I have begun to see eastern Orthodoxy not as Greek, Slavic, etc. but as simply Christian. I am believing, seeing, smelling, praying and worshiping like John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, etc.
I think we should be content with a liturgy in our own language and let Orthodoxy cultivate brotherhoods between cultures, not pit them against each other.
America will gain her own Peculiar Expression of Orthodoxy in her own time. Right now what has been given to us by our Greek, Arab and Slavic Brothers is sufficient.
I think your comments on converts having a problem kids leaving the faith were very perceptive and a good reminder.
Hey. I am somebody who went from Orthodox to Catholicism back to Orthodox my question is does the orthodox church actually do missionary work in other countries? When it comes to reaching out to Orthodox parishes is it as simple as just starting conversations with people at coffee hour or something like that? I am simply just trying to find ways to stay Orthodox. Because when I was in Catholicism, it didn’t feel right, but it was a completely different situation at the time I was in it.
Hello, Eric. Yes, the Orthodox Church does missionary work in other countries. The main thing is to find a good Orthodox priest and discuss your situation with him.
I pray to God that you return to the One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
I'm in it now.
Ethnic Orthodox Cultures: I have observed that in the world, the Russians tend to mitigate the fast for the entire period and the Greeks ignore the fast altogether until Holy Week, upon which time they go crazy and eat nothing. The Russian way is probably better. Additionally, it seems to me that the practices of Russian parishes and Russian monasteries are not that far apart, but the Greeks have the most liberal, assimilated parishes (with pews and even organs from time to time) but they also have the most extreme right-wing monks. Greeks are weird 😜 Nevertheless, either is better than the Antiochenes in America, which do not have any monasticism to speak of at all. To my knowledge, there is new-ish (2013) a Western-rite monastery in Colorado, and a small skete of nuns in Tennessee. Where is this jurisdiction getting its bishops? Incidentally, why is Colorado the Mecca of Orthodox Western rite (3 parishes in Denver)?
With regard to an "American" Orthodox Church, note that Russian Orthodox culture would not have developed had the Byzantine missionaries bringing the Faith to the Slavs stubbornly maintained Greek culture. The difficulty for us is that unlike in the case of the Old World, in the US (with the exception of Alaska) Orthodoxy wasn't brought to this land via missionary activity, but rather Orthodox Christians immigrated to America and brought Orthodoxy with them - it was transplantation rather than conversion. It is a novel situation, it encourages semi-phyletism, and it discourages evangelism. The trick, it seems to me, is to find a way to preserve the spirit of the various ethnic recensions to maintain continuity with the past within an authentically American Church that carries Orthodoxy into the future.
Regarding Protestants, I like telling them that we are kind of like the Catholics, but worship Mary more and kiss more stuff. I suspect that my apostolate of scandal probably isn't the best method of spreading the faith.
RE: Afterlife. Your description isn't wrong, but it also isn't complete. For all our complaining about Purgatory, we do have a similar strain of thought that posits the existence of "aerial tollhouses" and a 40-day period after death in which prayers for the dead are most effective (see, e.g., "How God Judges People" by Elder Cleopa, available as an e-book from Amazon for $4). Nevertheless, the aerial tollhouses are not something that the Church has needed to define as dogma or condemn as heresy. This is, however, illustrative of the difference between Orthodox "dogmatics" and Catholic "dogmatics." We define when necessary to counter a particular heresy that has taken root, not because we believe it necessary to construct a consistent theological/philosophical system to describe the Faith. In the Latin West, was there some heresy that denied the efficacy of prayers for the dead that prompted them to define how or why such prayers are not in vain? No. Rather, Scholastics felt the need to rationalize a pre-existing practice about which nobody had a problem. Does Purgatory exist? Who knows? What we do know is that it is both proper and useful to pray for the dead, that we have been doing it from the beginning, and that we do not need to (or even are truly able to) explain the mechanism by which God operates the afterlife.
RE: Orthodox worship - the relatively freeform aspect of it is why pews are an abomination.
@@hanng1242
Antioch's Monastic Woes are due to a line of 3 Metropolitans who were either explicitly or covertly anti-Monastic.
Met. Philip(BM+) was not a proponent of the Monastic life due to perceived abuses that he had seen in his time in Lebanon. He begrudgingly let Bishop Basil found Ladyminster.
Joseph, who had his own issues, was vocal about having Monastics in America but never did anything to move it forward.
The new Met. Saba is actually taking steps to have Athonite Monasteries in the Archdiocese, they are founding one in Memphis and are buying adjoining land near the Antiochian Village for a Women's Monastery.
And as to where our Bishops come from. Mostly Widowed Priests and overseas candidates. Which isn't Ideal but is allowed.
If Orthodoxy began with speaking Greek, then why when it moved to Russia did the language change to Russian? Why when it moved to Serbia did it change to Serbian? However when it came to America it didn't assume English.
Well, in both of those cases, it actually did not change to Russian or Serbian but to Slavonic, which is a sort of "literary happy medium" between the Slavic languages. I think the process was different. There was a migration of peoples rather than just of religion.
But more to the point, it's important to see how the Orthodox countries of the world (Russia, Greece, Serbia, etc.) all fit within the overall Byzantine world. They are not separate entities but variations on the same theme, albeit affected by the cultural history of each nation.
@@TheRomanOrthodox That's all fine and dandy, but to sit for hours listening to a language you don't understand is ludicrous.
Orthodoxy has to come to grips with the fact that Byzantium is long gone. Keep the tenants of Orthodoxy by all means, but do it in the language of the place Orthodoxy now resides wherever that may be.
@@paulmelonas7263 I think you are misreading my comment.
We usually go to our spriritual fathers for indo because everyone has a different path- gross generalizations are absolute wrong about orthodoxy!
My story about Orthodoxy is a long one so I will spare you the details, but suffice it to say that Orthodxy would be far more viable in America if the language used was English. It's rediculous to attend liturgy and not understand a word.
I dont know where you attend, but almost everywhere I have been either has the liturgy in English or in both English and a second language. And translations are readily available in any case.
@@TheRomanOrthodoxTo my surprise a Ukrainian Orthodox church opened in my town. No seating. All the women wore babushkas and only "sputnick" was spoken. The Priest doesn't know one word of English and only speaks to English speakers through a translater.
@@paulmelonas7263 No pews is pretty usual. Quit being so grumpy and discontent. There are Spanish-speaking churches, English-speaking churches, heck, Swahili-speaking churches in the US, all trying to bring God to their respective congregations. Would you have the babusias sitting in church not understanding what was being said for your own convenience? Find a translation, bring it with you (or don't), and worship God.
@@TheRomanOrthodox Don't mistake factual for grumpy. All I'm saying is I believe that Orthodoxy is truth and the way to expose truth isn't by speaking a foreign language. English is the American tongue. Speak it...
@@paulmelonas7263 I mean, not really. Spanish was spoken in parts of the U.S. before there was a U.S. Russian and indigenous languages were common in Alaska. Immigrants generally kept their own language. I don't think it is too much to ask, on occasion, for us to have to hear another language on our multi-ethnic soil. And the light of God shines through any language.