Is Modernism a current issue for the Orthodox Church?

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,550
20,063
41
Earth
✟1,464,127.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
It really is, though you folks go off into some idiosyncratic definitions of modernism conflating it with all the evils of the world. Much of what distinguishes modern argumentation about, say, morality from medieval modes of argumentation are present in both people in favor of the modern project and its (modernist) detractors (this is one of MacIntyre's big arguments).

we don't conflate it with all the evils of the world. prostitution has been around for thousands of years, and it's just as evil today as it was back then.

I might use a more modern line of reasoning for certain questions of morality, but I do try to keep my morals Orthodox, which makes them neither ancient nor modern nor medieval. again, I don't think that's what we're talking about when we say modernism.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Site Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,683
8,019
PA
Visit site
✟1,020,160.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Some of the criticisms from that article are not bad things - and it seems very legalistic if they consider all of them to be a slipping away from what the church should be. One example would be the president of the church. I think that is a very good thing to have a lay person be the president of the church. It helps keep the priest focused on the spiritual leading of the body, not the worldly things. Another thing they mentioned is using a nickname. How is that wrong?? It’s not showing a lack of respect. I dare say that trimming hair isn’t a sign that the church is going downhill. Including those things makes the author seem very legalistic imho.

Also, several things mentioned are atypical to many New Calendar churches, or at least aren’t across the board. Some examples of that are pews, electronic carillons, organs, etc. Most in my jurisdiction do not have those (though many do have chairs that can be moved around). Honestly, is having an electronic carillon a sign of the church going downhill? I love the set of bells we have, but I don’t consider a lack of bells to be a sign of “modernism”

It is much more important to be true to the faith than to focus on the external. Liturgics are important, so that point I see. And honestly, I don’t like pews. However, I would much prefer a solid true belief Orthodox Church over a Church that follows the externals but doesn’t have the follow the theological truths and faith of the Church.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,405
5,022
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟434,922.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Some of the criticisms from that article are not bad things - and it seems very legalistic if they consider all of them to be a slipping away from what the church should be. One example would be the president of the church. I think that is a very good thing to have a lay person be the president of the church. It helps keep the priest focused on the spiritual leading of the body, not the worldly things. Another thing they mentioned is using a nickname. How is that wrong?? It’s not showing a lack of respect. I dare say that trimming hair isn’t a sign that the church is going downhill. Including those things makes the author seem very legalistic imho.

Also, several things mentioned are atypical to many New Calendar churches, or at least aren’t across the board. Some examples of that are pews, electronic carillons, organs, etc. Most in my jurisdiction do not have those (though many do have chairs that can be moved around). Honestly, is having an electronic carillon a sign of the church going downhill? I love the set of bells we have, but I don’t consider a lack of bells to be a sign of “modernism”

It is much more important to be true to the faith than to focus on the external. Liturgics are important, so that point I see. And honestly, I don’t like pews. However, I would much prefer a solid true belief Orthodox Church over a Church that follows the externals but doesn’t have the follow the theological truths and faith of the Church.
Agreed.
But there is also an opposite error: thinking the externals altogether unimportant. One can object to an external that does degrade without focusing all of the life of the Church, or even all of his own spiritual life, on it.
Both are bad: thinking the externals to be the primary or only point of the Faith, and thinking them unimportant, and not affecting how we see or understand things.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Site Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,683
8,019
PA
Visit site
✟1,020,160.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Agreed.
But there is also an opposite error: thinking the externals altogether unimportant. One can object to an external that does degrade without focusing all of the life of the Church, or even all of his own spiritual life, on it.
Both are bad: thinking the externals to be the primary or only point of the Faith, and thinking them unimportant, and not affecting how we see or understand things.
Agreed. It’s similar to the concept that St Epiphanius said about the Theotokos. Disrespecting her and not giving her the honor due is one heresy, but giving her the glory and worship due to God is another heresy. It’s a balance, and an important balance.

ETA: There are some externals though that are not critical imho - such as the examples I mentioned earlier (i.e. having a lay president as opposed to being the full authority over spiritual and administrative - or calling a priest by Father plus their nickname - which is not disrespectful in my country at least). It is important identify what externals are important, and what ones are just “small t’s” or personal preference.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Some of the criticisms from that article are not bad things - and it seems very legalistic if they consider all of them to be a slipping away from what the church should be. One example would be the president of the church. I think that is a very good thing to have a lay person be the president of the church. It helps keep the priest focused on the spiritual leading of the body, not the worldly things. Another thing they mentioned is using a nickname. How is that wrong?? It’s not showing a lack of respect. I dare say that trimming hair isn’t a sign that the church is going downhill. Including those things makes the author seem very legalistic imho.

Also, several things mentioned are atypical to many New Calendar churches, or at least aren’t across the board. Some examples of that are pews, electronic carillons, organs, etc. Most in my jurisdiction do not have those (though many do have chairs that can be moved around). Honestly, is having an electronic carillon a sign of the church going downhill? I love the set of bells we have, but I don’t consider a lack of bells to be a sign of “modernism”

It is much more important to be true to the faith than to focus on the external. Liturgics are important, so that point I see. And honestly, I don’t like pews. However, I would much prefer a solid true belief Orthodox Church over a Church that follows the externals but doesn’t have the follow the theological truths and faith of the Church.
I do agree that if they don't follow the theological truths and faith of the Church, those things are wrong.

I have an issue with nicknames for clergy, I don't think a lot of people like calling His All Holiness "Bart" (and I have seen that being corrected here), and pews can define how involved the people get in the liturgy. I have felt like a spectator in churches with pews.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rusmeister
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Site Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,683
8,019
PA
Visit site
✟1,020,160.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I do agree that if they don't follow the theological truths and faith of the Church, those things are wrong.

I have an issue with nicknames for clergy, I don't think a lot of people like calling His All Holiness "Bart" (and I have seen that being corrected here), and pews can define how involved the people get in the liturgy. I have felt like a spectator in churches with pews.
I’m thinking more along the lines of Father Tim or Father Steve - including the honorific. If they prefer the nickname, then it seems to be fine to me. Bartholomew is the monastic name taken by His All Holiness, not his given name. Just calling him Bart - especially without the honorific - isn’t respectful of his station. It makes a difference in my view.

Pews are one of the issues I didn’t mention since they do make a difference and since there is a valid reason for why we don’t use them - though I wouldn’t consider a church to be modernistic or falling away from the Church just because they have pews.

Some things that bother me are the skipping of matins or having vesperal liturgies instead of both Vigil and Divine Liturgy, although I understand the reasoning (maximum attendance due to work in the morning, etc)
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: ArmyMatt
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I’m thinking more along the lines of Father Tim or Father Steve - including the honorific. If they prefer the nickname, then it seems to be fine to me. Bartholomew is the monastic name taken by His All Holiness, not his given name. Just calling him Bart - especially without the honorific - isn’t respectful of his station. It makes a difference in my view.

Pews are one of the issues I didn’t mention since they do make a difference and since there is a valid reason for why we don’t use them - though I wouldn’t consider a church to be a victim of modernism just because they have pews.
All Orthodox receive Christian names, some are just based on their given name.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Site Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,683
8,019
PA
Visit site
✟1,020,160.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
All Orthodox receive Christian names, some are just based on their given name.
The monastics receive a second Christian name upon reception to the monastic orders. They give up last names as well.

It does make sense to me liturgically to use the full name though. When people are communed, they often have their full name used. If a priest’s name is mentioned in the liturgy, it often is with the full name. The context is important.

Do you think it is wrong for anyone to use nicknames if their Christian name is the same as their given name?
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
The monastics receive a second Christian name upon reception to the monastic orders. They give up last names as well.

It does make sense to me liturgically to use the full name though. When people are communed, they often have their full name used. If a priest’s name is mentioned in the liturgy, it often is with the full name. The context is important.

Do you think it is wrong for anyone to use nicknames if their Christian name is the same as their given name?
I'm focusing on the clergy mostly. I'm not sure about the laity, I am open to a better understanding anyway.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Site Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,683
8,019
PA
Visit site
✟1,020,160.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I'm focusing on the clergy mostly. I'm not sure about the laity, I am open to a better understanding anyway.
We can agree to disagree on that.

I believe with clergy that it is similar to how it works with communing laity. In the liturgical context, full names are best. In conversational or more casual contexts (personal interaction), its fine to use nicknames if that is the preference of the priest or layperson.

I believe this is different with monastics since upon tonsuring, they essentially decisively die to the world and forsake all previous names, baptismal, given, and surname, for a monastic name. At that point, the monastic name is the name used across all contexts, liturgical, personal, conversational, etc.

I’m not saying this to argue - just to explain my POV.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Not David
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I think it’s worth pointing out that most Orthodox I see, especially with a Roman Catholic background, point to Pope Pius X’s Condemnation of Modernism as to what “Modernism” means, which you can find here.

Pascendi Dominici Gregis (September 8, 1907) | PIUS X

But basically, what is contained in this Encyclical on what modernism is is the following:

That starting with an Agnostic and Deistic / Atheistic perspective, religion is something that is manifested from within mankind, and therefore,
1. all religions that mankind creates are equally valid, or are all incomplete.
2. That no knowledge from what is not physically observable is possible to be True; therefore, all instances of the Supernatural must be rationally denied;
4. That the religious experiences of an individual are in of themselves more authoritative than the institutional Church, as they come from within man
5. That in the relationship between Science and Religion, Religion must always submit before Science (as science only deals with what is physically observable, and denies Supernatural experience in its studies)
6. In the relationship between Church and State, the Church and State must be separate, with the State ultimately having more authority in guiding the conduct of the individual than the Church, and as such the State ultimately has authority over the Church.
7. The belief that dogma and morality “evolves” and “changes,” even to the point of direct contradiction, insofar as these new dogmas and morality are a product of human experience.

It’s worth hearing what the Orthodox think of what Pope Pius X, a Saint in the Catholic Church, has to say on Modernism.

And generally speaking, most Traditional or Conservative Catholics note the striking similarities between these conclusions and the Liberal Catholic Clergy / Theologians which exist today - particularly those who have or want to integrate Pagan or non-Christian rituals in the Mass, want to remove the liturgical spirit of Catholicism, want to abolish the hierarchy, want the Church’s morality to change to fit the times, want to do away with any traditional cosmological viewpoint, want a reconciliation of religions and want to dismiss converting people or missionary work, and want the Church to stay out of telling people how to live their life - with that role belonging to the government - rather being only a Social Justice organization.

Many Catholic inquirers into Orthodoxy or converts notice many similar individuals in the Orthodox Church trying to do the same thing, especially on certain blogs like Public Orthodoxy or Orthodoxy in Dialogue, and as such, call them “Modernist” with this paradigm in mind.

With my Catholic background, that’s what I think of when I hear Modernist, but of course, it can refer to different things.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rusmeister
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I think it’s worth pointing out that most Orthodox I see, especially with a Roman Catholic background, point to Pope Pius X’s Condemnation of Modernism as to what “Modernism” means, which you can find here.

Pascendi Dominici Gregis (September 8, 1907) | PIUS X

But basically, what is contained in this Encyclical on what modernism is is the following:

That starting with an Agnostic and Deistic / Atheistic perspective, religion is something that is manifested from within mankind, and therefore,
1. all religions that mankind creates are equally valid, or are all incomplete.
2. That no knowledge from what is not physically observable is possible to be True; therefore, all instances of the Supernatural must be rationally denied;
4. That the religious experiences of an individual are in of themselves more authoritative than the institutional Church, as they come from within man
5. That in the relationship between Science and Religion, Religion must always submit before Science (as science only deals with what is physically observable, and denies Supernatural experience in its studies)
6. In the relationship between Church and State, the Church and State must be separate, with the State ultimately having more authority in guiding the conduct of the individual than the Church, and as such the State ultimately has authority over the Church.
7. The belief that dogma and morality “evolves” and “changes,” even to the point of direct contradiction, insofar as these new dogmas and morality are a product of human experience.

It’s worth hearing what the Orthodox think of what Pope Pius X, a Saint in the Catholic Church, has to say on Modernism.

And generally speaking, most Traditional or Conservative Catholics note the striking similarities between these conclusions and the Liberal Catholic Clergy / Theologians which exist today - particularly those who have or want to integrate Pagan or non-Christian rituals in the Mass, want to remove the liturgical spirit of Catholicism, want to abolish the hierarchy, want the Church’s morality to change to fit the times, want to do away with any traditional cosmological viewpoint, want a reconciliation of religions and want to dismiss converting people or missionary work, and want the Church to stay out of telling people how to live their life - with that role belonging to the government - rather being only a Social Justice organization.

Many Catholic inquirers into Orthodoxy or converts notice many similar individuals in the Orthodox Church trying to do the same thing, especially on certain blogs like Public Orthodoxy or Orthodoxy in Dialogue, and as such, call them “Modernist” with this paradigm in mind.
Fr. Peter Alban Heers. The Recognition of the Baptism of the Heterodox as the Basis for a New Ecclesiology (In Step with Vatican II)
With my Catholic background, that’s what I think of when I hear Modernist, but of course, it can refer to different things.
From some posts I read, it means modifying Orthodox practices and ideas to make them compatible with Protestantism or/and Roman Catholicism. One popular issue is the Reform Julian Calendar.

One that got me interested was heterodox baptism. I used to think heterodox baptism was somehow valid but according to something I read, this teaching is based on Aquinas.
Fr. Peter Alban Heers. The Recognition of the Baptism of the Heterodox as the Basis for a New Ecclesiology (In Step with Vatican II)
 
Upvote 0

buzuxi02

Veteran
May 14, 2006
8,608
2,513
New York
✟212,454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Modernism is to change with the times especially conformity with the dominant [non-christian] culture and her intellectuals. Within Christianity this usually means acculturation to western socio-political standards and its fads even though its a departure from the historical ecclesiastical norm. It literally is the Church riding the coattails of its post Christian society as to seem all is well in the direction that society has turned towards.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rusmeister
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,405
5,022
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟434,922.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
From some posts I read, it means modifying Orthodox practices and ideas to make them compatible with Protestantism or/and Roman Catholicism. One popular issue is the Reform Julian Calendar.

One that got me interested was heterodox baptism. I used to think heterodox baptism was somehow valid but according to something I read, this teaching is based on Aquinas.
Fr. Peter Alban Heers. The Recognition of the Baptism of the Heterodox as the Basis for a New Ecclesiology (In Step with Vatican II)
Well, I certainly hope that acceptance into the Church via Chrismation, having once undergone heterodox Baptism, IS valid, otherwise I’m screwed.

If it weren’t, that would turn our Faith into legalism, a kind of magic where you can’t be saved unless you “do it just right”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RobNJ
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,405
5,022
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟434,922.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Thanks, TLC!
I’d add that a modernist in the Church need not necessarily ascribe to all of those points, and usually just some of them.

But do such people exist within the Church? You betcha. And in TAW? I definitely think so. Anyone unwilling to set aside what they think they know based on secular teaching, things they were taught in this world, in the face of clear Church teaching in the form of the consensus of the fathers that contradicts the worldly wisdom fits the bill of “modernist”.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: TheLostCoin
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,550
20,063
41
Earth
✟1,464,127.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Well, I certainly hope that acceptance into the Church via Chrismation, having once undergone heterodox Baptism, IS valid, otherwise I’m screwed.

If it weren’t, that would turn our Faith into legalism, a kind of magic where you can’t be saved unless you “do it just right”.

you needn't worry, rus. Fr Seraphim Rose was chrismated by St John Maximovitch.
 
Upvote 0

RobNJ

So Long, And Thanks For All The Fish!
Aug 22, 2004
12,074
3,310
✟166,532.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
One that got me interested was heterodox baptism. I used to think heterodox baptism was somehow valid but according to something I read, this teaching is based on Aquinas.
Fr. Peter Alban Heers. The Recognition of the Baptism of the Heterodox as the Basis for a New Ecclesiology (In Step with Vatican II)

But, being a post Schism Roman Catholic, Aquinas (and for that matter Pope Pius X), is NOT in a position to make theological decisions for the ORTHODOX Church.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rusmeister
Upvote 0

gzt

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years
Jul 14, 2004
10,598
1,869
Abolish ICE
Visit site
✟117,393.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
From some posts I read, it means modifying Orthodox practices and ideas to make them compatible with Protestantism or/and Roman Catholicism. One popular issue is the Reform Julian Calendar.

One that got me interested was heterodox baptism. I used to think heterodox baptism was somehow valid but according to something I read, this teaching is based on Aquinas.
Fr. Peter Alban Heers. The Recognition of the Baptism of the Heterodox as the Basis for a New Ecclesiology (In Step with Vatican II)
That's oddly wrong.
By the way, there are multiple saints from the 20th century received by Chrismation.
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
But, being a post Schism Roman Catholic, Aquinas (and for that matter Pope Pius X), is NOT in a position to make theological decisions for the ORTHODOX Church.
True, nevertheless a lot of people in the Orthodox Church who believe in his view of baptism.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums