www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodoxy and Justification

Greetings, Alex. I wanted to think on your post a bit before responding. Alex, I think the real question is, Are we open to listening to the Scriptures afresh and to allow them to deepen and challenge our theological systems? I realize that this pushes all of us beyond our comfort levels. This is not an East/West issue per se. I am not arguing for the adoption of either a Protestant understanding of justification nor for a Catholic understanding, though I am deeply impressed by the convergence in ecumenical understanding as expressed in the Lutheran/Catholic Joint Declaration.

Over the past two decades Pauline exegetes, both Protestant and Catholic, have creatively begun to transcend the Reformation debates and to hear Paul's voice anew. Everyone has been surprised to discover that the Apostle was neither a Roman Catholic nor a Protestant! What they have discovered instead is that his understanding of salvation, justification, sanctification, and all those other "-ions" is profoundly eschatological. If the eschatological interpretation of Paul is accurate, then it may well well challenge all of our ordo salutis theories. How can there be a real temporaral order of salvation when the future Kingdom is given to us now in Baptism and Eucharist?

What I find troubling, Alex, is your statement that we need to let Orthodoxy be its own standard, which can only mean, Orthodoxy is "Eastern" and its theological formulations and understandings are established and set, thank you very much. Now I know that this attitude is comfortable and comforting, especially when confronted with the theological disarray found in the West; but is it truly catholic and orthodox?

By all means, let us truly listen to St. John Chrysostom and other Eastern writers in their exegesis of the Apostle Paul, but we also need to listen to patristic Western exegetes, as well as contemporary biblical scholars.

Why should we do so? So we may better understand and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

My personal opinion is that the Orthodox understanding of theosis will only be deepened and enriched by a fresh encounter with the Apostle Paul, though there may well be points where it will need to be corrected. I do not know. I suspect that the most profound contacts between the Pauline understanding of salvation and the Orthodox experience of salvation will be found in the Divine Liturgy, rather than in its theological and ascetical formulations.

One other comment on the East/West issue. We are all Westerners here. Anyone who has grown up in the West and been educated in the West is a Westerner, even if, and especially if, he is negatively reacting against his Western heritage and consciousness. This is especially true for anyone who has converted to Orthodoxy from Western Christianity. None of us can step back into the fifth century and be a fifth century Christian.

We must also consider that once the schism became permanently established, and the Eastern and Western churches began defining themselves over against each other, then both churches truly changed and became something that they were not before the schism. Once the East anathematizes the West, it became more "Eastern" than it was ever before--and vice versa. To identify oneself as Eastern or Western in a clearly defined, set, closed way is to be sectarian, not catholic.

Of course, if Orthodoxy is convinced that the Western Church is truly heretical, then it should bring its ecumenical relations to closure, reassert its anathemas, and begin an aggressive evangelization of the West. Of course, when it comes to evangelism, Western evangelicals put all of us to shame!

In Christ,
Fr. Alvin Kimel+

Bless me a sinner, Father Kimel,

And I too wanted to reflect a bit on your post before answering . . .

O.K., now that I've reflected

The idea that Orthodoxy should be its own standard should not be troubling at all and this is why I think so . . .

None of us reads scripture outside of a particular prism of interpretation that is informed by a particular traditiion of spirituality and spiritual culture.

When you state, on a number of occasions, that one should read Scripture "afresh," I already think . . ."Evangelical Protestant" - although I know you aren't.

The Orthodox tradition does indeed read scripture "religiously," no pun intended, in the same way that the monks of the Thebaid read it.

They read it from beginning to end, as they would any liturgical text, pondering it and praying it.

But, as Cassian notes, the monks of the Thebaid knew that the single most deterrent against our fully understanding the Scriptures is our own sinfulness.

They therefore emphasized seeking after the purity of heart and holiness as a way to shake the scales from our spiritual eyes in order to truly read the Scriptures afresh and understand it as it is meant to be understood.

Only within the liturgical and patristic framework in which the Scriptures are situated can we truly bring forth their intended meaning, a meaning that is comprehensive, integrated and balanced.

That is the Orthodox way - it is not exclusively "Eastern" but the East is where you mostly find it today.

Alex

The Orthodox Church, by definition, has nothing to learn regarding the faith from any group outside of the Church.

Ours is a revealed faith. All that needs to be revealed has been revealed. The canon of scripture is closed. All of the canonical dogmatic definitions are explanations of what has been already revealed once and for all, laid as a foundation (parathiki) of the Church by the apostles, and handed down (paradosis) by their bishops and faithful to each successive generation.

Our Church is "kata 'olon" or catholic, meaning according to the whole (faith). We are not willing to call any other Church "kata 'olon." This is our ongoing debate with the Western Church, picking at points where they have (in or view) unneccesarily added to and distorted that paradosis, and thus, the catholicity of the Church.

We unabashedly call our faith the only "unchanging" thing in a constantly changing world. "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever."

Christ is Risen!
Andrew

Dear Reader Andrew,

Don't you think my explanation here was a bit better than yours?

Have a great day, Servant of God!

Alex

Christ is Risen!!!

Andrew,

Apart from dogma, don't you think that we can appreciate the gifts that other faiths have and even that God's grace in a mysterious way, can dwell with others??
Although I enter Orthodoxy, I will ALWAYS appreciate the Eastern Catholic heritage and parts of the Latin Catholic heritage I grew up with. I can see that God was present there. Can't this be valid??

Always refreshing to have a straight, clear, and honest answer.

The following certainly must now follow from Reader Andrew's assertion of exclusive Christian identity.

First, Orthodoxy must stop describing herself as the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Orthodox Church. This is misleading and unhelpful advertising, as it suggests that Orthdoxy is but one brand of Christian flavors. She must boldly assert herself as simply being the Christian Church. Period. Everyone else are heretics and do not deserve the title of "Christian."

Second, it's well overtime for Orthodoxy to begin aggressively evangelizing us poor Western heretics and save us from our heresies and disbelief. This is, after all, a matter of eternal salvation. Indeed, if I was an Orthodox believer (i.e., a Christian), I would be asking my fellow Christians (i.e., Orthodox) why we have been so disobedient to our Lord's command to evangelize the world and particularly the West. It's time we began seeing Orthodox evangelists knocking on doors of heretics and nonbelievers, passing out leaflets at the shopping malls, confidently engaging in friendship evangelism, and so forth. Surely it's insufficient for the Church to maintain a pure liturgical and theological witness in the West while avoiding the Great Commission! And I also hope to soon see Christian evangelists flooding Africa, Asia, and South America!

Third, Orthodoxy needs immediately to stop complaining about Catholicism and her uniate churches. If Catholicism is heretical and outside the Church, then Orthodoxy has absolutely no legitimate reason to complain about Catholic proselytism of Christians. (Proselytism is of course what nonChristians and heretics do. Christians only evangelize!) After all, we should not be surprised that heretics are attempting to subvert the Faithful and to deliver them into the hands of Satan. Heretics have always engaged in such demonic activity. Instead of whining about the uniates, which only suggests that Catholics stand on equal footing with Christians, please start evangelizing the uniates and convert them back to the true Faith!

Fourth, it's time for the East to cleanse her calendar and to stop commemorating Western saints. I know, I know. Orthodoxy already ignores their theological contributions, as minimal as they are. But the fact remains, they are all corrupted by the Western heretical mind. The cancer must have developed very, very early on, no doubt soon after the Apostle Peter's death in Rome. Most of the Western saints really did confess the Filioque, in one form of another; and the Latin rite did not have an Epiclesis for almost two millenia! (Exceptions may of course be made for St. Irenaeus and St. John Cassian, who really were Eastern evangelists in an alien land. And St. Pelagius should finally be rehabilitated and given his overdue honors.) And of course, there is the arch-heretic Augustine, who obviously never experienced deification, nor did he take the time to learn Greek and read the true Fathers of the Church! If any Western heretic needs to be anathematized, it is Augustine of Hippo!

Fifth, please stop ecumenical discussions with the West. We heretics have always suspected that Orthodox ecumenists have always had a secret agenda--namely, our conversion! After all, whenever we try to talk theology, you have always replied, "You can't understand. The Christian faith cannot be rationalistically explained. It can only be experienced within the mystical communion that is the true Church." Don't you think it's time to come clean? Please be honest. Just tell us that we are heretics and that you are interested neither in understanding us nor learning from us. We are all going to hell unless we convert. As the Ecumenical Patriarch announced six years ago, Orthodoxy is "ontologically different" from Catholicism. Of course it is! Orthodoxy is the Church of Jesus Christ, and Catholicism (and her poor step-child Protestantism) are dangerous imposters. If the Jehovah's Witnesses can be honest about their belief that they possess a monopoly on the truth, why can't the Church?!

Sixth, English-speaking Christians should stop relying on non-Christian translations of the "Eastern" Fathers. (Of course, I realize there really are no other Fathers but the "Eastern" Fathers.) It is just too embarrassing, and in fact is destructive to the Church's mission to the West, to have to admit that heretics have had more interest in making the Fathers accessible to the the English-speaking world than the true Christians! Moreover, our present translations are no doubt corrupted by Western misinterpretations of the Greek text. How can a heretic truly understand St Athanasius and St Gregory Nyssen when they do not share in the true and only Eucharist of the Church? The project of translating the Fathers must begin immediately!

I feel so much better now that everything is so clear.

Go to moscow and you'll find that the Old Rite Orthodox simply of the Belayakrinitsa concord call themselves Krestianiny. Everyone else is mirskie and poganie - including other Old Believers .

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Kimel!

I'm happy you aren't angry with me . . .

(At least I hope you aren't!)

I recognized something of the Western Crusader in some of your cutting comments . . .

Although I don't share Reader Andrew's exclusivist vision of the Eastern Church, I feel I must say a few things about what seems to betray your own Western characterization of the East.

Like our RC friends, you are asserting yourself as "universal" and you have a disdain for the "Eastern Ghetto" that is, for the West, the Eastern Church.

In fact, we all live in our spiritual "ghettos" and paradigms. Your own suggestions for what the Eastern Church must do reflects a number of the classic Western characterizations of the East.

As for missionary outreach - the fact that Orthodoxy doesn't "do business" in accordance with Western standards doesn't mean it doesn't "do business."

I remember our Eastern Catholic parish priest explaining the difference between a Western Catholic missionary and an Eastern Orthodox one.

The former, he said, comes into a mission territory and starts a building campaign - he builds churches, rectories, hospitals and other institutions. This is a kind of measure of missionary success for the West.

The West was historically into "mass baptisms" as colonial and imperial powers moved into "pagan territories."

The Eastern Orthodox missionaries, on the other hand, didn't start building things when they came to spread the Gospel.

They lodged in local quarters and began to serve the Divine Liturgy. It was the Liturgy and God acting through it that drew people to the Church and into it.

I still learn so much about my faith through the liturgical tradition which is why "Orthodox" is so correct a name for the Eastern tradition.

I think, Father, that some of your other characterizations were "Eastern overkill" and that you could have simply called Reader Andrew to account for his exclusivist view without judging all Easterners in the same light.

Reader Andrew has a rite to his views. But I, for one, know no Orthodox Christian who would share it or repeat it.

And I know a lot of Orthodox Christians, some of whom I assisted in bringing to Eastern Orthodoxy from "universal" Western Christianity.

Alex

A fascinating study was published a few years ago entitled "Union with Christ", highlighting a new intrerpretation of Luther by a group of Finnish Lutheran theologians led by Mannermaa that is heavily informed by a theological encounter between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy. It's not mainstream Lutheranism by any stretch, but it really is fascinating the bridges that this group seem to have found to some elements of Orthodox theology, and is certainly worth a read.

While Fr. Kimel's post was (maybe) a bit tongue-in-cheek as a response to what he reads as Orthodox triumphalism, I think his suggestions bear an answer. The answers may in fact confirm what he already knew...

1. Orthodoxy DOES describe itself as THE Christian Church. "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic." One, as in, not two. However, the semantics that some Evangelical Protestants play is well, just that, semantics. "I'm a Christian and you're a Catholic [or fill in your favorite flavor here]" If the term heresy, in relation to the wilfull teaching of a doctrine which contradicts historic Christian teaching is bothersome, pick another term.

2. Either Fr. Kimel is completely ignorant of what has been happening in Orthodoxy in the past 30 years, and is also ignorant of the history of Orthodoxy in the last century, and the last 2000 years, or he's just not paying attention. Mass conversions to Orthodoxy, mission churches popping up all over the place (in the world), evangelism in Orthodoxy is back in a very big way. Now, we may not be passing out leaflets (although, my parishioners are... we are having the author of "Thirsting for God in a Land of Shallow Wells" speak at our church, and we've printed 6,000 leaflets, all for the purpose of introducing people to Orthodoxy) but we (at least, many of us) are indeed no longer hiding behind ethnic enclaves. Over 40% of Orthodox clergy in this country are converts. Over half of the bishops of the OCA are converts. Many parishes, especially in the south, are majority converts. Resistence is futile.

3. Give us time. I'll make a prediction right now. You will see more BCs return to Orthodoxy in the next 100 years than you've seen in the last 100 years - which saw probably about 50,000 or so BCs return to Orthodoxy in the early 20th century.

4. The Orthodox church does not just identify only with the East, although the majority of theological debates and development (as well as hersies, at least the first 1000 years) developed in the East. We now leave the development of heresies to the West. The Orthodox Church is a universal Church, and some Western Fathers articulated Orthodox theology.

5. This may be coming also. The Orthodox have had enough of official ecumenical groups like the WCC, NCCC, etc... Several Orthodox Churches have left, and others will surely follow suit. The trend has been so alarming that the WCC just had a special commission to study "Orthodox participation in the Ecumenical Movement." Major changes are supposedly coming. I have no faith in them or these groups. What is it that we are supposed to "understand" about Protestantism? We're not running a group therapy session here.

6. I think you're absolutely right. It is the common shame of Orthodox Christians that we've relied on other's translations of the Fathers. However, this has much more to do about money than desire. But a translation of the Fathers isn't just a trophy on some bookshelf as it most likely is to the non-Orthodox. We actually listen to their message.

Priest Thomas

Fr Kimel --

As Fr Thomas has already provided a fine reply, I will try only to augment it, however poorly.

"She must boldly assert herself as simply being the Christian Church. Period. Everyone else are heretics and do not deserve the title of "Christian."

We are the Orthodox Catholic Church -- that's the way we've been describing ourself for some time, well before the separation with the West. "Eastern Orthodox Church" is simply a shorthand, because we're obviously present in places that aren't the "East" geoculturally.

"Surely it's insufficient for the Church to maintain a pure liturgical and theological witness in the West while avoiding the Great Commission! And I also hope to soon see Christian evangelists flooding Africa, Asia, and South America!"

We actually are present in all of those places, and growing significantly. A lot of our current evangelical projects have to do with bringing those who live in traditional Orthodox countries -- a number of which were ravaged by militant atheist regimes for much of the 20th Century -- back to their traditional faith, and this is a time-consuming and engaging process, but a necessary one as it is only from a strong base that a strong missionary effort can spring. There have been substantial evangelical efforts in North America, as Fr. Thomas points out, but we can always do better.

"Instead of whining about the uniates, which only suggests that Catholics stand on equal footing with Christians, please start evangelizing the uniates and convert them back to the true Faith!"

Actually there is more than one Orthodox priest who has mentioned that the Eastern Catholics are like a trojan horse in a way because it is through the Eastern Catholic churches that many RCs come to know Orthodoxy and eventually become Orthodox. :-)

"Fourth, it's time for the East to cleanse her calendar and to stop commemorating Western saints."

Why would we do such a thing? The pre-schism Western saints and fathers were Orthodox! We've always recognized that, which goes a long way to disproving that we are Eastern exclusivists. The theological reflection of some of them is highly regarded in Orthodoxy (while others like St. Augustine are more cautiously regarded, as he was by the Eastern fathers of his age as well!). Fact is that most of the pre-schism theological formulation took place in the East, but that doesn't mean that the West lacked completely in Orthodox teachers, like Pope St. Leo.

"And of course, there is the arch-heretic Augustine, who obviously never experienced deification, nor did he take the time to learn Greek and read the true Fathers of the Church! If any Western heretic needs to be anathematized, it is Augustine of Hippo!"

No, but some of his ideas leave much to be desired from the Orthodox perspective. He was a saint, but that doesn't mean that his writings are infallible!

"As the Ecumenical Patriarch announced six years ago, Orthodoxy is "ontologically different" from Catholicism. Of course it is!"

A somewhat undiplomatic expression, but what the EP said, when you read the entire Georgetown speech, is essentially what Orthodoxy believes about itself.

"Just tell us that we are heretics and that you are interested neither in understanding us nor learning from us."

Not true, because in order to bring the West back to Orthodoxy much understanding is needed. It is not necessary for the West to become the East. What is Orthodox in the Western tradition must be discerned after many centuries of separation and misunderstanding so that the baby is not thrown out with the bathwater. The Orthodox participants in the ecumenical dialogues -- many of them at least -- have made great pains to do this in the context of the ecumenical movement. But it has always been problematic because the Protestant participants had a different concept of the whole enterprise from the beginning, and the Orthodox always had to act in a way that did not mislead the others into understanding that the Orthodox affirmed the Protestant view of Church (by holding separate liturgies, by issuing separate statements, etc.). At this point, it appears that the Orthodox involvement in the ecumenical movement may be waning - at least it is probably entering something like a pause in many circles.

"Moreover, our present translations are no doubt corrupted by Western misinterpretations of the Greek text."

There is work that needs to be done here, admittedly. :-)

Brendan

I appear to have too much time on my hands today, thanks to this darn cold. But it does allow me to have some fun with these BF conversations. Let me respond to Fr Thomas's post. Let me preface my remarks by saying that my previous post was indeed offered tongue in cheek, but perhaps not completely so, since my view of the Church and the Gospel cannot allow me to identify the Western Church as a terrible aberration and that the true understanding of the Gospel is only to be found in Orthodoxy. I am thus unsympathetic to Orthodox self-presentations that decidedly define themselves over against Western Christianity; but I have elaborated upon that point sufficiently, I think, in earlier posts. I have no problem with you terming me or any of my fellow Protestants as heretics, nor do I mind if you call Catholics heretics. The directness is actually quite refreshing. But if you assume such a position, then your responsibility for the mission of the Gospel is magnified a billion fold! Which leads me to point two. I'm sure I have much to learn about Orthodox world mission, and I'm happy to be so educated. But I do know a little about Orthodoxy in the U.S., and I know that you have overstated your case considerably. Orthodoxy has been in the U.S. for decades, but it still remains a tiny percentage of the U.S. population. According to the Hartford Institute [hirr.hartsem.edu] , there are approximately 1,200,000 Orthodox adherents in the U.S. A much smaller percentage are "full members" (i.e., "persons older than 18, paying regularly annual Church membership fees and officially recorded as the members by the Church").

How much has the OCA, Antiochians, and Greeks grown in the past decade? What percentage of this growth is made up of converts? I am well aware, of course, that a high percentage of OCA clergy are converts. Several of my friends have left the Episcopal priesthood and joined the OCA and the Antiochians, often taking part of their congregations with them! But this hardly represents yet an intentional and zealous evangelistic mission to the United States. In another ten years there won't be many of us Anglo-Catholics left to convert to Orthodoxy! I am not throwing stones here. We Episcopalians are hardly models of evangelism either! But one thing I do know. If the Orthodox claims are true, if Orthodoxy really is the one and exclusive Church of Jesus Christ, then it really should start missionizing like it is the one and exclusive Church. (BTW, Alex, aggressive evangelistic mission is going to require a heck of a lot more than celebrating the Divine Liturgy and waiting for the Spirit to bring the unchurched to you!) There are almost 300,000,000 Americans, and apparently less than .5% have actually heard the Gospel. Perhaps this might happen. I don't know. But I think it would be a great loss to the Gospel. Personally, I find the Byzantine Catholic movement to be a sign of great hope, as I believe that the reunification of East and West to be a moral imperative, and I don't believe this can happen apart from a renewed Petrine ministry. I personally believe that Byzantine Catholicism needs to become much more active force in the reconciliation of East and West. This sounds good in theory and for public relations, but I have read enough Orthodox theology to know that this is not the case. In fact, the Western Fathers are always judged by Eastern standards. The contributions of St. Augustine are almost always ignored, and some/many Orthodox have a hard time even recognizing him as a saint. A good example of this sectarianism is found in Fr Stanley Harakas's articles on just war in the Orthodox tradition. Harakas argues that Orthodoxy has no tradition of just war reflection; but he is able to argue this only because he does not include Ambrose and Augustine within the Orthodox tradition. Interesting that you identify ecumenical dialogue with the WCC. I was actually thinking more of Orthodox dialogue with Catholicism, which does not belong to the WCC. I don't blame Orthodoxy at all for withdrawing from the WCC. But as for what Orthodoxy might be able to learn from Protestants--well, I have already discussed, and will not rehearse, what I consider to be the Reformation's most important contribution to the mission of the Gospel--a clear, vital grasp of the unconditional love and grace of God through Jesus Christ. It is this understanding that energizes evangelical mission to the world and puts Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism all to shame. Once again, this sounds good in theory; but in fact Orthdoxy tends not to listen to the Western Fathers if they contradict the Eastern understanding of whatever, and it very much tends to read the Eastern Fathers through the lens of Photius and Palamas. A good example of both tendencies is found in contemporary Orthodox discussions of the Filioque, which is so often presented as the great Western evil (Vladimir Lossky).

The proceedings of the Council of Florence [praiseofglory.com] make for a good contrast with contemporary debates. No matter what one ultimately thinks of the council, IMHO one has to be impressed by the approach assumed by all the participants--namely, that the Fathers of both the East and West must ultimately be in agreement because they are equally guided by the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the Eastern participants finally had to agree that since so many of the Fathers, East and West, agreed that the eternal procession of the Spirit was in some way mediated through the Son that the Western presentation of the Filioque could not mean, as the West insisted that it could not mean, that the Son was the cause of the Spirit in the same way that the Father is the cause of the Spirit. Thus the agreement that "from the Father and the Son" must be equivalent to "from the Father through the Son." This is, of course, an ahistorical approach to these matters, but it is also wonderfully patristic and catholic, isn't it? After securing this agreement, the West should simply have agreed to suppress the Filioque as a matter of charity. Unfortunately, it did not and the reunion failed.

Respectfully submitted,
Heretic Priest Alvin

Dear Fr. Kimel

Thanks for an expected and deserved riposte. We've certainly livened things up a bit on the old forum!

Other participants have done an excellent job of responding, so I'll be as concise as I can be, adding to their posts while corresponding to your original numbered points.

1. So indeed, our official title is "the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. It is a rather exclusive title. We usually add the word "orthodox," for which we've paid a fair price.

But by asserting that we (Orthodox) are the only Catholic Church doesn't mean in any way to say that the wisdom, goodness, revellation, and love of God aren't present and understood outside of the Church's boundaries, but that within the Church's collective boundaries they are understood completely. If the Spirit blows where it wills, then the Catholic (Orthodox) Church has been hit with an hurricane, others with something less kata 'olon (according to the whole). When we look to our Western Latin brothers, we perhaps perceive a gale force wind (since the split). In other Christian denominations and other religions we see and hear less and less of that fullness.

2. If one looks to Paul's letters to the Thessalonians, one sees a model for Christian evangelization. He asked them to lead quiet lives in the fear of God and love for each other, being a good example for others. Did Paul knock upon anyone's door? The letters of the scriptures are not to the whole world, but to the believers in those places. In some parishes we read the title as "The reading is from the letter of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Church at Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, etc."

Millions of Orthodox Christians did flood Asia, Africa, and South America. Many are still there leading the quiet, faithful, and humble lives that Paul teaches us about.

3. I ask you to reconsider your use of the word "heretic" and "heresy." These may only be properly applied to those who are in the Church. They must:

A. Teach a false doctrine.

B. Be admonished of their error by competent ecclesiastical authority.

C. Lead a schism based upon that false doctrine.

At that point ("C"), one may be considered an heretic and one's doctrine an heresy.

So for example, the Macedonian Orthodox is in schism, but not heretical. They are in schism over a disciplinary/administrative issue of autocephaly from the Church of Serbia.

East and West went into schism, but not over an heresy. The word was bandied about, but never categorically applied to inclusion or exclusion of the filioque in/from the Creed.

Being kata 'olon means being both doctrinally correct and ecclesiologically correct.

We accept catechumens from all denominations, including Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome. The prayers of reception ask them to give up their former delusions, whatever those may have been. They may have been simple delusions that anyone may have had regarding his or sins or his relationship with God or his neighbors. Or they may have been delusions related to teachings that he accepted from his previous denomination.

4. I don't know why you are attaching geography to Catholicity. Leo of Rome (the name I gave to one of my Godsons), Patrick, and Augustine are our saints. We look to aspects of their lives for inspiration. Other aspects we may look to as a warning. As one great Eastern theologian repeated often, (paraphrase) 'much of what John Chrysostom wrote should be burned!' But, of course, some of it is golden!

5. I don't see any problem sending our learned to talk with other Christians who may be in error and are querying our opinion. They may indeed learn something. Remember these folks are not heretics, they are just in errors of varying degrees. Why not speak with them? And I speak to people on the bus with whom I have even less in common.

I wouldn't call other Christian denominations or other religions "dangerous imposters." Satan is the imposter. And he deludes members of the true Church also.

6. You make an excellent point. All translations should be confirmed by the Church. While it is not necessarily true that an outsider missed something in the translation, we are obligated to check the translation. And of course we already do the same for any translation done by a member of the Church, since some of us make errors also. Most of the patristic texts that I've read in English were translated by Orthodox Christians. If not, they were reviewed and approved by knowledgable theologians.

Officially, of course, for scripture there are no canonical Slavonic, English, French, or Sapnish texts. The canonical texts are the Septuagint and Byzantine Era Koine Greek texts. So all translations have their reference in the Koine Greek.

Next year in some of our parishes on Pascha, we'll hear "O Death where is your sting? O Hades where is your victory?" because someone compared the erroneous English with the original Greek and found that "Hell where is your victory?" was incorrect.

What you state as an urgency is only an urgency for the tiny portion of the Church that is English-speaking. We are very new and are doing this work little by little.

I'm glad that you are feeling much better.

Truly Christ is Risen!
Andrew

Regarding world missions, visit Orthodox Christian Missions Center [ocmc.org] online.

Now regarding numbers and statistics, I'm not sure exactly what that proves. Does this mean that those with the biggest numbers win? That those with the biggest numbers are the true church?

Have you considered that several factors actually led to the decline of Orthodoxy in this country? The millions upon millions of potential Orthodox Christians in Russia and the Soviet Union who were killed for their faith in Christ would certainly have had a profound impact on the Orthodox population in this country. They have now received their crowns.

Also, the various Russian jurisdictions in this country were seriously hurt (numerically speaking) by being "associated" (in the name 'Russian') wtih Communists. In the 1940s and 50s the decline began in a very big way. Unless of course you attribute this decline to a mass conversion of Orthodox Christians to Catholicism and Protestantism. People wanted to get ahead and didn't want to be afilliated with a church which others associated with Communists. Language also played an issue, which was the fault of Orthodox leaders in this country. Parishes declined by up to 75 percent, maybe even more. The parish of which I am now Rector, at one time numbered 750 adults. Today, we have 150 adults. But, it should also be noted that that number is up from 65 adults in 1988.

The point is, the tide is turning for Orthodoxy in this country, and around the world.

Regarding evangelism, of course, it is no longer 1794 when St. Herman and later St. Innocent arrived on the shores of Alaska. The model for evangelism to "an untaught people" is much different than for a country which claims a plethora of heterodox religions today. What that model is remains to be seen. But I can tell you that I am attending the first annual Evangelism conference from June 9-11 in Nevada (I am the Pittsburgh Diocesan representative from the Evangelization Department of the OCA) and this is something that our church is taking very seriously.

In our lifetime, Orthodoxy will never see the numbers of the Roman Catholic Church in this country. But time has a way of changing things. Much of the sitaution that Orthodoxy finds itself in all over the world is the accident of history. We can only assume that the same goes for the rest of the world. While the Eastern Church was THE driving force in the Christian world for more than 1000 years, we do not know what the future holds. None of us do.

We have had more conversions to Orthodoxy in our parish in the last three years that in the last 15 years. On Pentecost, we will receive an entire family (5) of Roman Catholics. Two months ago we recieved a Lutheran man. We have a very serious Anglican inquierer. Several former parishioners who married into the Roman Catholic church have returned to Orthodoxy in the past six months. I recived a call today about a woman who is a lapsed Orthodox and wants to return to the Church.

On some things we cannot compete. The very large Presbyterian church in Pittsburgh pays their singers. They have more Russians in their choir than we do in ours. Because they pay. I can't compete with that. That's a soul that is now lost to Orthodoxy. It has nothing to do with theology. Very seldom (if ever?) do people leave Orthodoxy for theological reasons.

PT

Dear Andrew:
In your last post above, under #3, what would be some examples of delusions that catechumens would have to give up? Would a Catholic have to "renouce" belief in the Papacy? Sorry if that is not worded well.
Christ Is Risen!
denise