How much of this is true?

[countrymousenc]

http://www.russianorthodoxautonomouschurchinamerica.com/pdfdocuments/TimelinenewFeb182002.pdf

Can anyone tell me anything about this?

 

[MariaRegina]

Dear Countrymouse,

It's better to stay out of politics -- every church has skeletons in its closet.

It's really not a good idea to look at this website as it is very negative and uses a broad brush.

Focus on Christ who is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Lovingly yours in Christ our God,
Elizabeth

 

[Matrona]

http://www.russianorthodoxautonomouschurchinamerica.com/pdfdocuments/TimelinenewFeb182002.pdf

Can anyone tell me anything about this?

Very little of that document is even based in reality.

Freemasonry is not compatible with Orthodoxy. Therefore, a good way to slander a bishop is to say he is secretly a freemason.

I have avoided most church politics since becoming Orthodox, and really these quibbling arguments aren't anything to be fussed about--these are the kind of people who would be indignant if the pope sneezed and the ecumenical patriarch said "God bless you". Notice that they make a huge deal out of switching from the Old Calendar (Julian) to the New Calendar (mostly Gregorian). The Julian calendar came from Julius Caesar, a pagan--the Gregorian calendar at least came from a Christian patriarch, even if it was one from outside the Orthodox Church.

 

[prodromos]

Be slow to judge, Matrona. Though the article is decidedly slanted, I don't believe they deliberately make any false statements. I don't know if Meletios Metaxakis was a freemason or not but I do know he has caused untold damage to the church with the introduction of the new calendar. My own church is new calendar but our priests would prefer that Greece returned to the old calendar.

John.

 

[Suzannah]

For those of us new converts, would someone please post an explanation/more info about the details of each calendar, why each was used, and why we use the one we do, now?
I'm a little confused about why this was important?

 

[countrymousenc]

I truly appreciate all of your responses, chanter, Matrona, and prodromos. Chanter, I do and will always remain focussed on Christ. I do not, however, believe that the laity should ignore Church politics. That is how the Western churches have become what they are - the ignorance and repression of the laity. Please forgive me, everyone, because I am about to wax longwinded! The Roman church for many centuries kept her laity in great darkness through denying them their right to worship and hear and read the Scriptures in their own native languages. Needless to say, an ignorant laity had little to no voice in the affairs of the church. You know, of course, that the Orthodox Church hasn't behaved in that sad manner. During the early Protestant Reformation, many Christians gave their lives to end this darkness. The last 500 years have been a struggle to return to the Light. It is a shame that experience taught us so much distrust that we spurned parts of the Tradition, but I can understand why that happened. Unfortunately, for the last 150 years or so, Protestantism has increasingly become revisionistic where the Scriptures are concerned as well, picking and choosing what to believe and either ignoring or reinterpreting to suit its fancy. Two polarities dating to the 19th century have contributed to this: "Higher Criticism" and "Form Criticism" vs the other extreme, dispensationalism (the popular theology of Evangelical fundamentalism, and simply a form of 19th century adventism). Both these trends have rendered two responses, (1) a tendency to an extreme form of the sola scriptura principle in which each reader truly becomes his own pope, and (2) replacing reading the Scriptures with reading about the Scriptures. We know too well the results of the first, and I am amazed at the patience of those who have taken the second path, given that no two popular or scholarly writers today agree. In spite of it all, or maybe because of it all, most Protestant churches are inviting disaster by further rejecting ancient Tradition. Faithful Calvinists have held on tight to the Westminster Confession, but their dry rationalism is not something I find to be an acceptable alternative, although I admire them for maintaining high moral standards. Then there's Vatican II, in which the Roman Catholic church decided that it admires two non-Christian traditions (that I will not name for fear of being slapped on the wrist by somebody) as "adoring the same God we adore." Uh-uh. No one who denies the atoning death and resurrection of Christ adores the Father! Not remotely an option.

Guess who's left by process of elimination. I'm at this point on the outside looking in at the fruit, and I need to see a good tree somewhere! Historical Unity and Faithfulness have been preached to me in the past by other Orthodox folks; I don't want to find out that it isn't as true as they claimed.

Your frustrated friend,
countrymouse

 

[Matrona]

For those of us new converts, would someone please post an explanation/more info about the details of each calendar, why each was used, and why we use the one we do, now?
I'm a little confused about why this was important?

Most Orthodox in the United States use the new calendar, but most Orthodox worldwide use the old calendar. If a saint's day falls on October 20th, new calendar people like me will celebrate it on the Gregorian October 20th.

But old calendar people will celebrate that same feast on the Gregorian November 2nd, thirteen days later than the new calendar, because that's the Julian October 20th.

They are about thirteen days behind new calendar on non-moving feast days. New calendar Theophany was in early January, but old calendar Theophany was just a few weeks ago. They are the ones who celebrate the Nativity of our Lord in January, etc. The new calendar celebrates the Nativity on December 25th.

Have I confused you yet?

Pascha and Pascha-based feast days (Ascension, etc) stay the same on both calendars.

My church is New Calendar. I would not mind if today's EP wanted us to switch back to the Old Calendar... but I would not do it on my own. As I said before, the Gregorian calendar, at least, was devised by a Christian. The Julian calendar was devised by a pagan.

The EP switched the calendars in an effort to be more ecumenical, in a time when the Orthodox and Anglican churches were much more similar and were even close to union. (Anglicans were much more conservative in those days, trust me. It didn't work out, though, unfortunately.)

If by this point you're thinking, "It's just a stupid calendar, sheesh!", I am right with you. I think a much bigger deal has been made about it than needs to be. But for some people it is symbolic of something larger--our identity as Orthodox Christians. That's why they push the Old Calendar so hard.

 

[Suzannah]

Matrona: Thank you!!!! My church is "old calendar" and so I've been trying hard to keep up ...it's very confusing. Your post helped alot! Thanks!

 

[Matrona]

Then there's Vatican II, in which the Roman Catholic church decided that it admires two non-Christian traditions (that I will not name for fear of being slapped on the wrist by somebody) as "adoring the same God we adore." Uh-uh. No one who denies the atoning death and resurrection of Christ adores the Father! Not remotely an option.

Hi countrymousenc, (I think that name is so cute!)

If it helps, I agree with you. Newbies to Orthodoxy don't need to be shut out of everything that is painful or confusing. Please understand though, that no church is made up of perfect people. That said, there are several groups that are what we call non-canonical schismatics. They have broken communion with canonical Orthodoxy and are thus, in large part, inconsequential--because of their breaking communion, they are not part of us. They range from being a little odd to disturbingly off-the-wall. I can go into more detail about them later but for now I will leave it at that.

All of that said, it is right to say that the Orthodox Church is in her laity. St. Basil the Great wrote of the laity worshipping in snow-covered fields rather than churches with heretical bishops. St. Vincent of Lerins (sp?) devised the great litmus test--that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.

The laity wields enormous power in our Church, as we always have, we always will.

 

[Matrona]

Matrona: Thank you!!!! My church is "old calendar" and so I've been trying hard to keep up ...it's very confusing. Your post helped alot! Thanks!

Yes, I think most if not all Serbian Orthodox churches are old calendar. I think all ROCOR churches are old calendar as well. I was wondering if someone there would explain the calendars to you or if you would ask here--it can be pretty confusing sometimes.

I say, if the most contentious debate among the Orthodox faithful is what calendar we use, we're doing pretty darn good.

Most churches are having problems with people challenging basic doctrine--the acceptance of homosexuality, denial of the Virgin Birth and Christ's Resurrection, etc. And here are the Orthodox, arguing over what calendar to use! Immature, certainly, but we could be doing worse, if you ask me.

 

[countrymousenc]

Hi countrymousenc, (I think that name is so cute!)

If it helps, I agree with you. Newbies to Orthodoxy don't need to be shut out of everything that is painful or confusing. Please understand though, that no church is made up of perfect people. That said, there are several groups that are what we call non-canonical schismatics. They have broken communion with canonical Orthodoxy and are thus, in large part, inconsequential--because of their breaking communion, they are not part of us. They range from being a little odd to disturbingly off-the-wall. I can go into more detail about them later but for now I will leave it at that.

All of that said, it is right to say that the Orthodox Church is in her laity. St. Basil the Great wrote of the laity worshipping in snow-covered fields rather than churches with heretical bishops. St. Vincent of Lerins (sp?) devised the great litmus test--that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.

The laity wields enormous power in our Church, as we always have, we always will.

Thanks, Matrona.

When I read the quote from St. Basil the Great I though "Wow." You see, lately whenever I close my eyes to pray, I see snow-covered ground. Perhaps that's all that's left between here and that OCA parish.

Of course, if I leave the United Methodist Church, as I did the Southern Baptist convention 20 + years ago, I want to be certain that it is the right move and that I won't look back. My family didn't reject me over that, but if I drive 45-minutes past all these other churches, they're going to want to know why. And I'd best be prepared to be honest. That means that I want to know that the Orthodox Church lives up to her claim to be the body of Christ in the world.

When I read the article, I suspected that it represented an extreme view. I had also read a while back that the Orthodox Church forbids membership in freemasonry, which is good. Freemasonry represents extreme syncretism, and has no place in the Church.

For some balance in the other direction, here's a link to an article (written by a Southern Baptist convert to Orthodoxy) that has much of what pulls me toward the Orthodox Church. I know what he's talking about regarding the whole truth of the Trinity and the whole purpose of salvation. And I hope I haven't upset anyone with my questions and comments.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_carltonfirstbaptist.htm

God's blessings to all,
countrymouse

 

[Lotar]

Ahhhh, the ecumenical movement. There's a lot of controversy over it in every denomination. With the rise of secularism, we now see that Christians need to unite, but we all have differing views on how. Every side has an opposing veiw point, and nobody wants to budge.

 

[ufonium2]

Hi countrymouse!

I left the UMC this past summer and I'm in the process of converting to Orthodoxy. I don't know how much help I could be doctrine-wise, but thought you'd like to know that if you go down this road, you're not alone.

ufonium2

 

[Matrona]

My best friend is United Methodist and her father is a pastor of a church up near Greenville (SC). Her dad loves to read theological books, so I gave him my extra copy of The Illumined Heart by Frederica Mathewes-Green, and so far my friend says that he likes it.

 

[countrymousenc]

Ahhhh, the ecumenical movement. There's a lot of controversy over it in every denomination. With the rise of secularism, we now see that Christians need to unite, but we all have differing views on how. Every side has an opposing veiw point, and nobody wants to budge.

Yes, indeed. At least we see the problem, and that's always the necessary first step. Without orthodoxy, however, we hardly need take the second step, and therein lies the problem. We can't agree on what orthodoxy is. That's at the core of our disunity, and has been from the beginning.

""""""""""""""""""""""

Hi countrymouse!

I left the UMC this past summer and I'm in the process of converting to Orthodoxy. I don't know how much help I could be doctrine-wise, but thought you'd like to know that if you go down this road, you're not alone.

ufonium2

Hi ufonium, and thanks! You know, and maybe this has been done before, but a thread of conversion stories would be nice.

My best friend is United Methodist and her father is a pastor of a church up near Greenville (SC). Her dad loves to read theological books, so I gave him my extra copy of The Illumined Heart by Frederica Mathewes-Green, and so far my friend says that he likes it.

The Illumined Heart - a very inviting title. Maybe I'll put that next on my reading list.

 

[KennySe]

The Roman church for many centuries kept her laity in great darkness through denying them their right to worship and hear and read the Scriptures in their own native languages.

And the Catholic Church wouldn't let them go to school, either.
In fact, the Catholic Church forbade kings from building schools.

Protestantism has increasingly become revisionistic where the Scriptures are concerned as well, picking and choosing what to believe and either ignoring or reinterpreting to suit its fancy.

Revisionistic where history is concerned also.

Then there's Vatican II, in which the Roman Catholic church decided that it admires two non-Christian traditions (that I will not name for fear of being slapped on the wrist by somebody) as "adoring the same God we adore." Uh-uh. No one who denies the atoning death and resurrection of Christ adores the Father! Not remotely an option.

Bad Vatican II, bad.
*swats Vatican II on its nose with a newspaper*

 

[countrymousenc]

And the Catholic Church wouldn't let them go to school, either.
In fact, the Catholic Church forbade kings from building schools.



Revisionistic where history is concerned also.



Bad Vatican II, bad.
*swats Vatican II on its nose with a newspaper*

I know, I know that the truth about the RCC isn't all negative. So, start a thread in the Catholic forum and enlighten us! I guess it would be ok to post an invitation with a link to the thread.

Incidentally, my dear Roman Catholic friends will want to know, too, why I would drive 45 minutes to church when St. Therese is 8 minutes away.

 

[Reader Nilus]

It should be pointed out that the Julian calendar was a secular calendar as well, there was nothing sacred about it. From a practical point of view, being New Calendar makes sense, we do at least still get a paid holiday on the Nativity of Our Lord. But I do not think the calendar is the issue at all, it is how Orthodox interact with other Christians that is. In case one has not noticed, Christendom does not exist anymore, so the political power is gone, and the Church is finding herself back at her roots. True ecumenicalism will take place when being a Christian will land one in the camps, then at that point the Evangelical will share his memory of the Bible, The Catholic and Orthodox and Anglican will share the Liturgy and so forth.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Bastoune]

I truly appreciate all of your responses, chanter, Matrona, and prodromos. Chanter, I do and will always remain focussed on Christ. I do not, however, believe that the laity should ignore Church politics. That is how the Western churches have become what they are - the ignorance and repression of the laity. Please forgive me, everyone, because I am about to wax longwinded! The Roman church for many centuries kept her laity in great darkness through denying them their right to worship and hear and read the Scriptures in their own native languages. Needless to say, an ignorant laity had little to no voice in the affairs of the church. You know, of course, that the Orthodox Church hasn't behaved in that sad manner. During the early Protestant Reformation, many Christians gave their lives to end this darkness. The last 500 years have been a struggle to return to the Light. It is a shame that experience taught us so much distrust that we spurned parts of the Tradition, but I can understand why that happened. Unfortunately, for the last 150 years or so, Protestantism has increasingly become revisionistic where the Scriptures are concerned as well, picking and choosing what to believe and either ignoring or reinterpreting to suit its fancy. Two polarities dating to the 19th century have contributed to this: "Higher Criticism" and "Form Criticism" vs the other extreme, dispensationalism (the popular theology of Evangelical fundamentalism, and simply a form of 19th century adventism). Both these trends have rendered two responses, (1) a tendency to an extreme form of the sola scriptura principle in which each reader truly becomes his own pope, and (2) replacing reading the Scriptures with reading about the Scriptures. We know too well the results of the first, and I am amazed at the patience of those who have taken the second path, given that no two popular or scholarly writers today agree. In spite of it all, or maybe because of it all, most Protestant churches are inviting disaster by further rejecting ancient Tradition. Faithful Calvinists have held on tight to the Westminster Confession, but their dry rationalism is not something I find to be an acceptable alternative, although I admire them for maintaining high moral standards. Then there's Vatican II, in which the Roman Catholic church decided that it admires two non-Christian traditions (that I will not name for fear of being slapped on the wrist by somebody) as "adoring the same God we adore." Uh-uh. No one who denies the atoning death and resurrection of Christ adores the Father! Not remotely an option.

Guess who's left by process of elimination. I'm at this point on the outside looking in at the fruit, and I need to see a good tree somewhere! Historical Unity and Faithfulness have been preached to me in the past by other Orthodox folks; I don't want to find out that it isn't as true as they claimed.

Your frustrated friend,
countrymouse

Countrymouse: You should print that garbage on OBOB... once again another Protestant rewrites history... but it's not your fault, you were fed that **** and bought it as truth. Too bad I can't reply here but come over to OBOB for a reply.

http://www.christianforum.com/showthread.php?p=1691934#post1691934

 

[Photini]

Church history is not pretty.