I might as well start an “ask the” thread. Now, I should warn folks that I am not clergy, I am not an Orthodox theologian. I’m just another Orthodox Christian (of at least two on these boards). I don’t even attend Liturgy as much as I should, and I shudder at the infrequency of my Confession and Communion. But here I am if anybody wants to ask something.
Do you believe it’s a sin to be gay?
Do you believe people who aren’t Christian are all going to burn in hell?
Do you believe you’re actually drinking the blood of Christ at communion?
Doesn’t it say these things in the Bible?
Thanks.
Why did Jesus need to be killed in order for our sins to be forgiven? Couldn’t an omnipotent God forgive our sins without anybody being ‘sacrificed’??
Do we have free will in heaven? If we still do, what’s to stop someone from acting like a jerk toward others there??
Thanks.
I just thought of another hypothetical question-
If Adolf Hitler was baptized, accepted Jesus as his savior, and he repented for his sins which he was truely sorry for right before he died, would he get into Heaven?
If all of the Jews that he killed weren’t baptized and didn’t believe in Jesus, would they all go to Hell, to burn for eternity- even if they were otherwise good people?
Thanks.
Just out of curiosity, which branch of the Orthodox Church do you belong to, as in Greek, Russian, Antiochian, Serbian, or … ?
Surreal, the questions that you asked would apply to all Christianity, not just Orthodox Christianity. I get the feeling you don’t really know what Orthodox Christianity is, and are using Dogface as a sounding board for your frustrations with Christianity in general, which I think is Not Cool. A thousand apologies if that is not the case.
Anyway…Dogface…are you any specific flavor of Orthodox Christianity? Part of my family’s Greek Orthodox, and it was cool. I got two Easters every year, and sometimes my grandma let me go to the midnight Easter service, which I really, really loved.
My Church teaches that it is not a sin merely to be gay. However, sex outside of marriage is a sin, be it “gay” or “straight” sex. While individual Orthodox Christians might be more personally offended, my priest assured me that either are considered to be equally as grave. I was also taught that going around and judging people is also a sin. If somebody is homosexual without choosing to be so, then that person will be judged by God accordingly. Less responsibility will be meted out upon that person than would be laid upon somebody who has the freedom to condemn or not condemn and chooses to condemn. In other words, the souls of those who run around claiming to consign their fellow men to damnation may be in far greater danger than the souls of homosexuals.
My Church teaches that nobody will “burn in hell” because Hell is not a place, it is a condition. That being said, we do accept that some will be damned, but the idea that only Christians can be saved is alien to Orthodoxy (except for a few fringe elements). God will save whom He chooses. The Church offers a more secure path to salvation, that is all. Indeed, the Church does not even claim the power to explicitly damn somebody. The worst that Orthodoxy can do is “anathemize” somebody, which means that their fate is handed over to God without the intercession of the Church.
As St. Theophan the Recluse once wrote: “Why do you ask about the fate of the heterodox? Do they not have a savior who fervently desires their salvation? Look to your own soul.”
We do believe that we drink the blood of Christ, but let us not forget that Christ is God as much as He is human, so this blood need not necessarily be the exact same thing we think of when we think of mere mortal, human blood.
As for the Bible, can you provide a quote from the Bible that says that the Bible is the only possible source for Christian doctrine? For that matter, can you provide somewhere in the text of the Bible where is states what the books of the Bible are? I’m not being a smartass, this is a point that is vital to understanding Orthodox theology. Scripture is extremely important, but we always remember that the Church existed before the Bible. Before there was Genesis, there were the Hebrews as a people. Before there was a New Testament, there were Christ, the Apostles and their activities. The Church made the Bible, the Bible did not make the Church. Thus, we see Scripture as the fundamental touchstone. It is necessary but it is not sufficient.
As for the “sacrifice” thing–that’s a Western obsession. We are not Western Christians, so do not automatically impute the traits of Western theology to us. Christ’s death was necessary not for our sins to be forgiven but for us to obtain immortality and theosis (aka sanctification, aka “deification”). His death, His complete and full partaking of the human condition, was a necessary “first event” that bridged the ontological gap between the human and the Divine, but the death was not enough. Christ’s death is ONLY meaningful when it is followed by His Resurrection.
The reason that Christ’s sacrifice was efficacious was NOT because it was the shedding of blood necessary for “forgiveness”. The idea that the “original sin” somehow offended the “honor of God” as if God were some kind of medieval bully-boy in a castle is a Western invention. It was efficacious because Christ is both God and human. God accepted the ultimate humiliation for our sake–He voluntarily partook of the worst things we could experience. By so doing He destroyed the hold that death had upon us. We still die, but that death can now be temporary and reversed.
There is no “in heaven” in Orthodoxy. “Paradise” is seen as a state of being, a state of immortality and perfection. “Heaven” as a location “out there somewhere” is not the way that Orthodox sees things. Another way of looking at it is that “heaven” does not yet exist. It will be the New Creation that will occur after the end of this creation. The saved will perceive this creation as bliss. The damned will perceive it as agony, but it will be the same situation for both. A book called “The River of Fire” gets into this in more detail.
That being said, we will have free will, but we will also have perfected wisdom and empathy.
I entered Orthodoxy in the Greek Archdiocese of the USA. That being said, Orthodox is Orthodox. Serbian, Russian, Greek, they’re all Orthodox (although there are some fringe groups that try to be more Orthodox than the Orthodox).
I do hope that you did not attempt to take Communion at the Paschal Liturgy if you were not, yourself, Orthodox. The Church considers this to be a sin (although if you were a child, the responsibility would be your grandmother’s and not yours).
The Orthodox are not Protestants. Will you please stop presuming that the Orthodox are Protestants and have Protestant theology?
That being said, the Hitler question is a non-issue in Orthodoxy because he never did so. Hypothetical speculation is considered to be idleness, foolishness, and counter-productive. An old Orthodox monk would likely answer that question with “And what are you planning to do that you would want such a question answered?” Likewise, the Church does not teach any sort of automatic “ticket to heaven”. We just don’t have it.
We also do not have an automatic “ticket to hell”. The status of those who are not in the Church is up to God. The Church only offers a “safer path” to salvation, not a sure ticket and not the only possible ticket.
We are not Protestants.
Angel of the Lord- “I get the feeling you don’t really know what Orthodox Christianity is, and are using Dogface as a sounding board for your frustrations with Christianity in general, which I think is Not Cool.”
Of course I don’t know what Orthodox Christianity is all about. Why would I be asking questions about it here if I already knew everything?
I thought asking people questions so that they could respond and you could learn was the whole point of the ‘Ask The (blank) Guy’ threads.
And I don’t have any ‘frustrations’ with Christianity, either.
Why did the Orthodox Church not switch to the Gregorian calendar at some point, especially considering that it is more accurate than the Julian*?
Zev Steinhardt
Easy on him, Dogface, he just doesn’t know that much about it (yet anyway). For many athiests and agnostics, Christianity is one big ball of conflicting messages and all Christian denominations seem to be one and the same. The fact that Christians are all human beings prone to hypocrisy and general sinnin’ is also an idea that can be hard to tally up with the faith itself if you haven’t looked into it too deeply.
Also, particularly in the states I think (Bible belt I’m thinking of), there are a lot of Christians ‘damming’ other people and it’s nigh impossible not to be very, very angry about it. Either with the Christians, the faith itself, or with God. Before I gave myself over to God, I spent most of my time hurling abuse at him - at the same time as I was professing not to believe in him. It seems to be a fairly common condition.
I’m very impressed with your answers so far. Every now and then I get it into my head that I’m getting a good grasp on my own theology and then someone like you comes along to remind me that I’m still toddling along in the newbie lane. =)
Dogface, I did not take communion. Though, as a little kid, I wanted to know why I couldn’t get a cookie, too.’ But, then, afterwards, we’d go back to Grandma and Grandpa’s, and my grandma would let me have one of the powdered sugar cookies whose name I can’t spell. So it all turned out okay.
Does your church do the service in Greek?
Surreal, I’m sorry; I completely misinterpreted your post. I took a few of your questions to be a little bit confrontational (most notably this one: “Why did Jesus need to be killed in order for our sins to be forgiven? Couldn’t an omnipotent God forgive our sins without anybody being ‘sacrificed’??”). That, however, was my mistake in interpretation. Friends? 
No problem, Angel of the Lord.
Dogface, apart from the obvious differences – authority of the Pope, calendar, liturgy – what do you see as the major differences between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches?
For example, one of your earlier posts referred to something (“sacrifice,” I think) as being a “Western” idea. What do you see as the principal “Western” religious traits?
What are you eating these days?
I read (a few weeks ago) a list of foods that were not allowed as part of the lenten fast, and remember that I thought “what’s left?” as I think it eliminated very nearly all of my diet.
What is left?
I also an am Orthodox Christian (in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad), and will try to tackle Zev’s question, which (sadly) is a point of extreme contention among Orthodox today.
The Julian calendar is what was adopted by the Ecumenical councils to calculate the feasts, etc. Until the calendar reforms in the West, it was the universal calendar of Christianity. When the Gregorian calendar first made its appearance, a number of Orthodox synods were convened that condemned it, primarily because it was an innovation in worship, and since it had been established by an Ecumenical synod, nothing less than a synod of equal standing could change it.
Things stood thus until 1923, when Patriarch Meletios, who wished to modernize the church, convened a council attended by representatives of a few of the local Orthodox churches, and instituted what is now known as the “Revised Julian calendar,” which is essentially the Gregorian calendar with a few minor adjustments, and following the Julian Paschalion. This provoked wide outrage across the Orthodox world, with riots, civil unrest, etc. Several factions broke off from the Greek Church, and they continue today as the various Old Calendarist sects. Recounting the history of this would be quite a lengthy process, and I don’t think I’m qualified to do so.
What this all boils down to is that the majority of local Orthodox Churches follow the New Calendar, but the majority of Orthodox Christians follow the old. The most notable Churches following the New Calendar are the Churches of Greece, Antioch, and Constantinople. The Russian Church, the Russian Church Abroad, and the Churches of Serbia, Jerusalem, and Mt. Athos use the Old Calendar. The Orthodox Church in America, an offshoot of the Russian Church, uses both, and I am not sure of the status of the rest of the local Churches.
The most important reason why those Orthodox who follow the Julian calendar still do so is because they’ve always done it that way, which in Orthodoxy is as good a reason as any. Two principles to keep in mind wrt Orthodoxy are the ideas of “We’ve never done it that way!” and “This is the way we’ve always done it.”
Dogface, this is shaping up to be quite an interesting thread. Thank you for starting it.
A tiny variation on Zev’s question: I’ve heard the terms “Old Calendar” and “New Calendar” used in an Orthodox Christian context, and gathered that some parts of the Orthodox Church adhered to the one while others adhered to the other. Is this impression correct? And if so, do these terms refer to the Julian and Gregorian calendars, respectively, or to some other distinction?
Another question, and admittedly a rather trivial one: I do understand that it’s “Orthodox Church”, rather than “Orthodox Churches”–i.e., that national prefixes (Russian, Greek, etc.) do not imply fundamental theological differences. That said, are the different ethnic branches of Orthodoxy referred to as Rites, or Patriarchates, or what?
(Man, I hope that’s coherent enough.)
Are you familiar with the writings of of Timothy (Kallistos) Ware? If so, would you say his history of Orthodoxy is a good introduction to the topic?
While I’m asking about authors, what about Fr. Seraphim Rose? I’ve read some of his material on the Web. It was generally very well written and highly informative, but I saw a few things that make me wonder if he might tend towards the “more Orthodox than the Orthodox” end of the spectrum.
amarinth, one’s fasting regimen is highly individualized, to be worked out with one’s spiritual father.
There are general fasting guidelines, with different levels of severity, that vary according to the fasting season. The Lenten guidelines are: on weekdays, no meat, dairy, fish, wine, or olive oil. Everything else is permitted, and shellfish are not considered fish. On weekends in lent, we can have wine and oil. For the feast of the Annunciation and for Palm Sunday, fish are allowed.
Even having eliminated all of this from one’s diet, there is still plenty to be eaten. Breads, pastas, vegetables, shrimp… East Asian cuisine is very good for this
Waa… I had a long and detailed post in reply to Boomvark, but the hamsters chewed it up.
Synopsis of what I was going to say:
Regarding names of various jurisdictions: The Orthodox love acronyms. Various jurisdictions / local Churches have different naming conventions, but the “big players” in America are: OCA (Orthodox Church in America, composed of the Russian bishops who returned to communion with the MP (Moscow Patriarchate) during the 50s. Consider themselves to be independent.); GOA (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, under the Patriarch of Constantinople), Antiochian Archdiocese (recently granted autonomy), ROCA / ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Abroad / Outside of Russia, composed of those Russian bishops who maintained their independence from the Soviet-oppressed Russian Church), and a few smaller jurisdictions such as the Serbians, Carpatho-Russians, and Greek Old Calendarists. Work is currently being done to unify all these competing jurisdictions into one American Orthodox Church, but nothing in Orthodoxy happens quickly.
Regarding Abp. Kallistos Ware, as I’ve said in another thread, he is a bit liberal in areas, but his book The Orthodox Church is the best English-language introduction to Orthodoxy, period.
I personally am a great admirer of Blessed Seraphim Rose, and like many others, consider him to be a saint. Although many of the individuals associated with him and the monastery he founded tend towards the heavily conservative, (including, sadly, a few certifiable wingnuts), Fr. Seraphim was actually quite moderate, while still resisting the modernizing tendencies that were so popular at the time. The best thing to do, IMO, is to let his writing speak for themselves, and to take anything anyone says about him with a decently-sized grain of salt.