|
1 members (EastCatholic),
330
guests, and
113
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,523
Posts417,632
Members6,176
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
My daughter can conjugate Slavonic verbs and decline Slavonic nouns, and can read and write Cyrillic. She's not that demure, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,398 Likes: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,398 Likes: 33 |
I'm wondering if Slavipodvizhnik's post was speaking only to monastics? That a monastic living a celibate life outside the support of the monastic community is a dangerous thing? That the context of the words simply did not include laymen? LOL! I had forgotten about this thread. Allow me to rephrase myself. The Church sanctifies 2 lifestyles, either the Sacrament of Marriage or the Sacrament of Tonsure into Monasticism. There is no Sacrament of "singlehood". Being single is looked upon as preparing either for marriage or monasticism. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out for some people, especially here in the West. ... So both monastics and married people have a Sacrament to protect them, while those of us who are neither, walk around open to attack from the left hand. A dangerous course. In monasticism only those deemed most spiritually mature are allowed to be hermits, and yet, spiritually, that is exactly the position single adults find themselves in, open prey for the fallen ones. Not "speaking only to monastics" then? I hope you both (Slavipodvizhnik & StuartK) are joking but I fear you are not. This ranks [including the parts omitted (...) in the first quote] as some of the most misguided theology as I've read on this forum. Foremost is considering monastic tonsure to be a sacrament as is the (stated) case of marriage or in the (unstated) case of orders. I know monastic tonsure is often considered so but it is, I believe, very, very, very poor theology. The reason is that it would have created a different class of Christians within the baptized in whom there is no division: slave, free, male, female, etc., all being one in Christ Jesus. The monastic is one who seeks to live that common baptismal vocation to the fullest: much to be admired but not a special class of Christian. I dare say some think of the monk as more of a gnostic master than a fellow, especially dedicated, and hopefully exemplary Christian. Consider, when did formal Christian monasticism develop? Was St. Paul a "monastic"? Was he referring to the yet-to-develop Christian monasticism when he recommended that rather than marry, one should remain as he is (1 Cor. 7:8 passim)? Read the words of Scripture: the Lord assigns, God calls. 1 Corinthians 7:17 (ESV) [Live as You Are Called] 17Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
I've always wondered why the Ruthenian Church should have such a strong anti-monastic sentiment. By which I mean an allergy to authentic Eastern monasticism, as opposed to westernized religious orders such as the Basilians, Carmelites and Franciscans.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 335
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 335 |
Our Lord and Savior was neither monastic nor married. He was ... single!
Monastic tonsure is not universal among North American Orthodox bishops. In the Antiochian Archdiocese there is only one, and it is by his choice that he is.
Having said that, there are serious issues with bachelor celibate clergy. The Christian single life is by no means an easy one. However, St. Paul praises it because of the ability to totally devote one's life to the service of Christ and His Church. A married man has his God given and holy obligation of a family that he must attend to. But this also provides household support that a non-monastic single does not have against Satan and the world.
Father Alexander Elchaninov discusses ministering to singles in his "Diary of a Russian Priest" and is clear that he didn't like it. He thought there were only two real Christian ways of life, married and monastic. If singles were too needy and dangerous then at the beginning third of the twentieth century, how much more difficult is dealing with singleness in today's secular, electronic, materialistic and sexually hedonistic society? On page 45, Father Alexander explains,
"There is the monastic life and the state of marriage. The third condition, that of virginity in the world, is extremely dangerous, fraught with temptation, and beyond the strength of most people. Moreover, those who adhere to this condition are also a danger to the persons around them: the aura and beauty of virginity, which, when deprived of direct religious significance, are in sense 'nuptial feathers', exercise powerful attraction and awaken unedifying emotions."
This work is required reading for students in the AHOS (both in the St. Stephen's/Balamand Master's and PTS D.Min. levels) and is a wonderful collection of pastoral reflections complied by Matushka Elchaninov after Father's death in 1934. It is a wonderful work of pastoral theology.
The single state of Our Lord and Savior is the most difficult of the three possible Christian states of life, for all concerned. It is simply the most difficult to both live for the individual Christian, and to have the Christian community pastorally address.
Christ Is Born! Glorify Him!
Just my ... Three Cents!
Last edited by Three Cents; 12/25/11 10:35 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
