Ask the Orthodox Christian

In My Humble Opinion
61

dogface you have the right of it. there was one instance on a question of theology quite a while back where debate in the council was getting quite heated. at this point a nun stood and gave her side of it and an explanation. after a bit of silence, all saw the wisdom of her thought.

i can’t remember what the stumbling block was, but i remembered that one woman’s voice carried the day. nuns don’t say much, but when they do all listen.

the question of women in the clergy tends to be mostly an american one. friends from russia say they never even think of it there.

62

Furthermore, one must remember that there were deaconesses at one time, and theoretically the female diaconate could be revived. They did not serve in liturgical functions, but rather helped with social service and performing baptism of women.

Also, the abbess of a convent is treated exactly like an abbot is. Namely, when visiting the convent, one gets her blessing before anything else; clergy must have her blessing to perform any function; she can bless nuns to serve in the altar; she is censed during the liturgy in the same manner a bishop is; she wears a pectoral cross in the same manner as a priest or bishop. In fact, the only difference between an abbess and a member of the clergy per se is that she cannot dispense sacraments, nor lead liturgical services.

In addition, a key concept to keep in mind when talking about this is that nobody inherently has the right to be a member of the clergy; men are just as unworthy to be priests as women are. It’s just that certain men, who are called to the clergy, have received a blessing to serve the church in that particular manner. This hearkens back to the idea of Apostolic Succession: Christ ordained men as bishops, and those bishops ordained men as bishops. Until the influence of the modern West, the idea of having female clergy just didn’t occur to the Church. It was truly a non-issue, and asking why women couldn’t be clergy was equivalent to asking why men couldn’t give birth: it’s just how things are. Men are not less because they cannot give birth, and women are not less because they cannot be priests.

63

I didn’t see this answered but there’s lots here so if someone answered it, I apologize for the duplication.

The heads of Orthodox churchs are called Patriarchs. At one time the Pope of Rome was “First among equals” and participated in synods with the other Patriarchs. When the great schism of 1053 occurred this obviously changed as now the “Pope” and his followers considered his role to be different than the other churches believed.

Orthodox people as a general rule will not give you a “verse” to prove or explain any point of theology. We believe you must take the entire history of the church in context. We are equally based in both Word and Tradition as has been mentioned. The two together are like your right and left hands. It’s like playing guitar, you can’t play without using both hands.

We do believe the wine and bread become the body and blood and this is what we take at communion. We don’t believe they literally become body and blood so, no, you won’t see clots and flesh in the cup. This is one of the mysteries of the church.

We use the word mystery a lot. There are things we don’t pretend to understand. How can mere men understand God?

And as a general rule we are not presumptuous enough to think we are the judge of any one. We know that God is the final judge and you will not be judged until you are in his kingdom, so we would never ever presume to tell another being that they were damned.

We also don’t believe you die and immediately meet God. We believe when people die they are ‘asleep in the Lord’ and that we will all be judged when the time of the kingdom is at hand.

We’ve had a few home schoolers at our church but most folks wouldn’t think of it. Most of the folks in our church who have home schooled were converts, not cradle orthodox. There is one cradle orthodox family that I know of that’s home schooling, and at this moment they are the only ones.

Things to know when you come to our churches: We are pretty conservative in our dress. We expect you to dress appropriately. No tight pants, halter tops, deep necklines, etc. Women generally wear dresses. Don’t worry about head coverings as the folks will generally recognize you’re a visitor. We do cross ourselves at appropriate moments, but don’t expect you to. If you’re in a church with pews just stand and sit when everyone else does. When in doubt about what to do, stand. It is never inappropriate to stand in an orthodox church. Don’t cross your legs. Do not attempt to take communion, but you may approach the chalice and ask the priest for a blessing. At the end of services everyone is welcome to approach the cross the priest is holding and kiss it, and take holy bread. However, we are not offended if you choose not to do this.

While the Catholics have welcomed orthodox to take communion at their churches for several years, we do not reciprocate in this practice. We also as a general rule don’t take the Catholics up on their offer. We may not take communion any where other than an Orthodox church except in most dire circumstances. The reason for this is very simple: we are not in communion with each other. Note that we are not in communion with all other churches that call themselves Orthodox, either.

The Antiochian church has eastern rite churches and western rite churches. The western rite churches are primarily parishes that were formerly episcopalian, catholic, or others that have converted to our canon law and theology but are still using their same services. Sometimes this gets confusing, even to us.

64

Minor nit: we do not believe in “soul sleep,” or that souls are in some sort of inert state, just waiting around for the resurrection. Otherwise, it would be pointless to ask for the intercession of the Saints! We believe that after death, the soul, having been separated from the body, experiences a foretaste of its ultimate destination. At the resurrection, the soul is rejoined to the body, and goes to its final state.

65

They are also called Archbishops and Metropolitans. It varies depending upon the individual autocephalous jurisdiction.

This is quite a simplification. The event of Umberto’s bull in 1053 was far more complicated. Umberto, the Papal legate, had been sent in order to begin talks at dealing with some issues that had been building up between the East and the West. There could not have been a worse choice. He had a long-standing personal feud with the Patriarch of Constantinople over several issues of praxis. To rankle Umberto further, Church councils to which Rome assented kept ruling against Umberto’s claims (that yeast could not be used in Communion bread, for example).

So, Umberto took it upon himself to invent an excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople. This was never even sent to any Pope for approval. He presented it and then took off. Unfortunately, the current Pope soon died and the matter sort of festered.

Even then, rapproachment might have theoretically been possible for a time. All hope ended when the Ferengi (that’s Greek for “Franks”–what the smelly barbarians of Western Europe were called in general) had one of their little “crusades” and decided to “crusade” against Constantinople. That was it. The next attempt at unification was done essentially at gunpoint in the 15th century and it was roundly and soundly rejected by the Orthodox faithful.

You seem to contradict yourself here. Be very careful. You are treading a thin line that borders on denying the reality of Communion. What I have been taught is that they become the Body and Blood in a way that is to be accepted but is beyond our understanding. To deny that they are “literally” the Flesh and Blood verges either on requiring that one accept transubstantiation (not an Orthodox doctrine) or slide into the “symbolic” paradigm.

To simplify: Ordinary American “church clothes” are very appropriate. It’s not a barbecue or a disco, after all.

Head covering (for women–men are bare-headed) is a matter of great local variation.

“Roman Catholics”, please. We are also Catholic. We are Orthodox Catholic.

I am very uncomfortable with using the juridicial and Western term “canon law” in reference to Orthodoxy. The canons are not meant to be “laws”, as far as I have been taught. They are meant to be “measures”.

66

I don’t want to argue much, but as you yourself point out, the Apostles didn’t call themselves Episkopoi or bishops. (Wasn’t Paul the first major figure with training in Greek?) On a related note, though, what is the meaning of Presbyter?

So, would the Patriarch of Alexandria have lost the right to the title of pope after the debates over the nature of Christ? (I know that Alexandria’s positions differed from the Contantinople and Roman positions by one iota, but I won’t claim I can spell either word!)

(with reference to the schism of 1053.

In the course on Byzantine history I listened to, (books on tape are cover amazing things!) the prof made a couple of relevant points. One was that the Roman church either revoked or rescinded the excommunication, some decades later, but that the Patriarch of Constantinople did not rescind his retaliatory action, which I can’t remember. What was that action?

Another point was that the first Crusade was actually at the invite of the Byzantine emperor in an attempt to retake Anatolia from the Seljuk Turks. (That land having been squandared by a few inept emporers.) The Crusaders, of course, set their own agenda and took Jerusalem. Finally, even the taking of Constantinople was at the behest of a claimant to the Byzantine throne. The sacking occured when he couldn’t pay, which they presumably figured out ahead of time.

67

“Presbyter” means “elder”. In the Greek Orthodox Church, the men whose title is translated as “priest” in English are known as “Presbyter” in Greek. Indeed, the English word “priest” is just a contraction from “presbyter”. Likewise, while the Apostles did not call themselves Episkopoi, they did call the Overseers they appointed by that name! You managed to not notice that. The modern Bishops (Episkopoi) are the continuance of these Overseers appointed by the Apostles. Any claim that the Episcopate was invented by some Roman Emperor is an outright lie.
The Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria retains the title of Pope to this day. Not all Alexandrians adhered to the Monophysite heresy.

Regarding the First Crusade. It was NOT “at the invite of the Byzantine Emperor”. The Roman Emperor (there never was and never has been a Byzantine Empire) sent a request Westwards for individual mercenaries. He was not seeking to launch any sort of “Crusade”. As far as he saw the matter, it was a continuation of the old wars against the Turks. The Ferengi put their own spin on it. The Emperor did not request a “Crusade”. He had no interest in eradicating Islam nor in reconquering the Levant.

And attempting to justify the Ferengi assault upon Constantinople by claiming that it was “at the behest of a claimant to the Byzantine [sic] throne” is as ethical as intimating that the imposition of a military dictatorship/banana republic in the 20th century was justified since it was “at the behest of local officials”.

68

I’ve been trying to remember this, and I am quite willing to concede that my memory might be backwards and the empire adopted some of the Christian organization. Whatever the original Apostles designated their immediate successors is more or less irrelevant. There is very little independent evidence of the early church; I think it unlikely that the original, Jewish Apostles would have adopted a Greek word. You clearly believe otherwise.

It seems to me a more important point is whether, say Paul, appointed the leaders of a newly founded Church or whether the members appointed their leaders. Since I can’t imagine any church founder selecting someone who the local membership strongly opposed, it might any arguement is an theoretical argument in political science. At any rate, you have answered my question.

This is correct. However, the Western peoples did not perceive many reasons for hiring themselves out. Thus, while the emperor (Alexius I Comenus?) may have thought he was hiring mercenaries, he got minor nobility seeking to carve out principalities of their own, and fanatics seeking to regain Jerusaleem for “Christendom”. Still, he asked for knights, he got knights, he put them up, helped them considerably with his Navy, and got Antioch back. I call that at his invite. That is all I meant. (And I use the term “Byzantine Emperor”, because that is the common term in this country. I know they called themselves Romans, even if they spoke Greek. Heck, the Turks referred to the Sultanate of Rome, but those aren’t our terms.)

But, the Patriarch did. That is why I asked.

I’ll come up with a cite and names, if you like. I just don’t have it handy. I’m certainly not trying to offend anyone. The words I paraphrased were uttered by Prof. Kenneth W. Harl of Tulane, unless I my memory has become really faulty. He also claims that the Turks crossed into Europe at an invitation, also.

I am just relaying what I have remembered from history classes and reading. I’m certainly not trying to denigrate either Orthodoxy or the Roman Empire. If I have done so, I apologize.

If I might get back to the op, does the Orthodox bible include the books of the Protestant bible, the Roman Catholic bible, or are their other additions and deletions? (I have a vague memory that the Methodists do not include Revelations, but most Protestants do.)

69

From the Biographical Notes of the prof and course I mentioned earlier:

70

The official, canonical Old Testament for the Orthodox Church, against which all other versions must be compared, is the Septuagint. Thus, we have all the books the Catholics do, as well as a few others.

In common with the Catholics, but not the Protestants, we have the books of 3 Esdras (In Orthodox Bibles, 3 Esdras is 1 Esdras, Ezra is 2 Esdras, and Nehemiah is 3 Esdras), Judith, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach (aka Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, the Espitle of Jeremiah, and certain expansions of Esther and Daniel (including Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Azarias, and the Song of the Three Holy Children). We also have 3 Maccabees (with 4 Maccabees being in an appendix), the Prayer of Manasses, Psalm 151, and in Slavonic Bibles, 4 Esdras.

Our canon of the New Testament is the same as the Catholics and traditional Protestants.

71

If you have that as a memory, then I suggest you stop trusting your memory completely. Methodists have that book in Scripture.

As for the use of “a Greek word”, can you point me to a manuscript of Scripture that is not in Greek and is older than the oldest known Greek versions?

Furthermore, St. Paul certainly spoke Greek. Any “Overseers” he appointed would have been known as “Overseers” in the language of the community, which outside of the Levant would have been Greek. You are straining at a gnat.

I would like to see the evidence that the Apostles did NOT appoint “Overseers”. “Episkopos” is simply the Greek word for “Overseer” and since the New Testament was written in Greek, the Greek word would be used.

72

And this then utterly absolves the Ferengi of the atrocities they committed? As I said before, this is like rationalizing and approving of the establishment of a banana republic because it was “at the behest of local officials”.

73

When I wrote “Scripture” here, I meant to write “New Testament Scripture”, although I think that the oldest fragments had of Septuagint might be older than the Dead Sea Scrolls.

74

Thank you, yBeaf. I’ll admit to complete ignorance of the Roman Catholic bible, also. The Epistle of Jeremiah is different from the Protestant book of Jeremiah?

Can one just buy a study version of the Orthodox bible, i.e., one with explanatory notes? I’m particularly interested in reading about “Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Azarias, and the Song of the Three Holy Children”.

75

What are you talking about? I don’t recall ever talking about absolving anyone. I’ll tell you what, though. I’ll not worry about the Romans and the Vikings for destroying the ancient cultures of my ancestors, the Macedonians for destroying a Persian Empire and replacing the regions culture with the Greek, the Romans for discontinueing the Jewish state for 2000 years, if you forgive the Ferengi for effectively ending the Byzantine Empire 800 years ago. Naah, tell you what. I’ll do it anyway. Heck, I wouldn’t be almost blonde without them Vikings.

76

There is a study New Testament currently available in English. A study Old Testament is in the works. Progress reports can be found at http://www.LXX.org/ (yup, that’s LXX).

The Prayer of Azarias is the Song of the Three Holy Children. It’s essentially a non-Davidic Psalm of praise, suitable for use in its terms and doctrine in the majority of Christian services. It is held to be a prayer of thanksgiving commemorating the miracle of the fiery furnace in Daniel.

In general, you will find little doctrine in the Longer Canon (the so-called “Apocrypha”) that you won’t find elsewhere in Scripture. Much of their material is more narrative in nature than specifically doctrinal.

77

I went to the United Methodist website (ums.org) and asked about their understanding of the Book of Revelations. Their answer, in short, it was a message of hope, couched in language that would appear to the Romans to be gibberish, to the Christians of the first and second century that God will prevail over all earthly powers (and all the powers of Hell). It is not directly a prediction a second coming in the sense that fundamentalist seem to view it.

So, far from perfect recall, but not too bad for a memory of a conversation from 20+ years ago.

78

just a quick note, the song of the three holy children is read at the liturgy on great and holy saturday. it is one of fifteen, yep, 15 old testament readings in that service. it is one of my favourite services in the church.