Looking for answers and questioning

[~Anastasia~]

So doing research on prayer... I am having a hard time grasping how prayer is done personally at the home.

I found this awesome site that offers prayers for the hours and simple morning noon evening etc prayers.

I know the prayers at the Divine Liturgy are ritualistic, and I understand why. Does this carry over into personal prayer though? Like this site, the prayers for the hours are long and repitative. Is this okay to pray or only envouraged at Church or with a group of people, alone is it more personal or recited shorter prayers? Am i making sense? If not Ill restate mu question.


http://www.holyresurrection.us/The Hours/hoursintro.html

Very short answer I'll give ...

Our priest usually starts people with very simple prayer rules. The first one he gave me was to say the Our Father at least three times through the day - preferably on awakening and before going to sleep - so that left only once more.

That's the "rule" part. Of course he encouraged me to pray as often as I felt a tug to do so, or as often as I remembered. And to pray in my own words as much as I liked. The purpose at an early stage, for him, is to get people used to remembering God and praying.

Prayer rules usually evolve with the person, and are tailored to each one. Prayer can accomplish many things, so if you share enough with your spiritual father and he knows how to guide in this, you can get a wide range of specialized advice. It's not a one-size-fits-all.

But it is very typical to pray some kind of morning prayers and evening prayers. And such prayers as before eating, before reading Scripture, and so on. There will usually be some formality to all of these, but any or all can include our own words too. We SHOULD pray in our own words part of the time.

Everything else is very variable.

There is a lot of repetition in some sets of prayers. It's important to pay attention to the prayers and not get to where we merely recite them by rote. If help is needed with that, it's a good thing to mention to one's spiritual father.

Prayer does much to teach us, and to grow us and shape us. It accomplishes much. So the answers here can be very personalized.

 

[Moses Medina]

Very short answer I'll give ...

Our priest usually starts people with very simple prayer rules. The first one he gave me was to say the Our Father at least three times through the day - preferably on awakening and before going to sleep - so that left only once more.

That's the "rule" part. Of course he encouraged me to pray as often as I felt a tug to do so, or as often as I remembered. And to pray in my own words as much as I liked. The purpose at an early stage, for him, is to get people used to remembering God and praying.

Prayer rules usually evolve with the person, and are tailored to each one. Prayer can accomplish many things, so if you share enough with your spiritual father and he knows how to guide in this, you can get a wide range of specialized advice. It's not a one-size-fits-all.

But it is very typical to pray some kind of morning prayers and evening prayers. And such prayers as before eating, before reading Scripture, and so on. There will usually be some formality to all of these, but any or all can include our own words too. We SHOULD pray in our own words part of the time.

Everything else is very variable.

There is a lot of repetition in some sets of prayers. It's important to pay attention to the prayers and not get to where we merely recite them by rote. If help is needed with that, it's a good thing to mention to one's spiritual father.

Prayer does much to teach us, and to grow us and shape us. It accomplishes much. So the answers here can be very personalized.

That makes sense. I was curious about this take and makes complete sense. Of course I would agree, mainly im still bombarding woth questions due to the lack of a priest to talk to.

The local parish is a chapel and the priest is one already retired but provides the eucharist every other Sunday.

I am in talks though wth the subdeacon and will be talking to him face to face (this was who I jad made comtact with via email) as well as a priest from a coty an hour away that we are working through how to meet.

 

[~Anastasia~]

That makes sense. I was curious about this take and makes complete sense. Of course I would agree, mainly im still bombarding woth questions due to the lack of a priest to talk to.

The local parish is a chapel and the priest is one already retired but provides the eucharist every other Sunday.

I am in talks though wth the subdeacon and will be talking to him face to face (this was who I jad made comtact with via email) as well as a priest from a coty an hour away that we are working through how to meet.

No problems with you asking. We all did that. That's partly why my post count is so high.

Even if we have a priest we see every week (actually I had twice-weekly catechesis plus weekly Bible study plus Sundays plus any weekday liturgies ... I had tons of opportunity) ... I still had questions between times.

Ask away. Always good to have all questions answered and eyes wide open.

There's usually someone here who knows the answer. (I'm purposely leaving your last one for someone who knows and can explain better - it was a complex period of time to my understanding).

God bless you.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Another question, along with the prayer one. If the true church is not in the confession but the unaltered ancient church, why the cutoff from the west when the schism happened?

For almost 1000 years that means many people were left to heretodox teachings that is, to the teachings of Rome and later the reformation.

Rome cut us off. and it would be one thing if they only had the Filioque and Papal authority to deal with. but they have continued to innovate and add to their heresy (unfortunately). attempts were made at reunion, but Rome never repented of their innovations.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Their liturgy is so out of whack, their sense of worship hymns/music, their legalism, their catechism, their pedophilia epidemic that is only growing worse, their social justice gospel/liberation theology, the list is endless....

Rome cut us off. and it would be one thing if they only had the Filioque and Papal authority to deal with. but they have continued to innovate and add to their heresy (unfortunately). attempts were made at reunion, but Rome never repented of their innovations.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Their liturgy is so out of whack, their sense of worship hymns/music, their legalism, their catechism, their pedophilia epidemic that is only growing worse, their social justice gospel/liberation theology, the list is endless....

yep

 

[Tigger45]

Their liturgy is so out of whack, their sense of worship hymns/music, their legalism, their catechism, their pedophilia epidemic that is only growing worse, their social justice gospel/liberation theology, the list is endless....

You know that really stings coming from Jerry Stiller!!!

 

[Moses Medina]

I fully agree!

I guess what I meant to ask, this left the west deprived of the true church for quite some time if Orthodoxy holds to be true Apostolic Catholic Holy Church?

I have another question and this one I attach a warning that I am not trying to sound like I am attacking or found an "aha!" Moment, I am inquiring genuinely.

I have found writings of Chrysostom, and Cyrule of Jerusalem to speaking of Gods wrath and Christ calming it down on our behalf being the sinners that we are. What would your reponse be to this? I am off getting a haircut and am taking my wife to a formal event after this but I fully intend to return to cite.

Rome cut us off. and it would be one thing if they only had the Filioque and Papal authority to deal with. but they have continued to innovate and add to their heresy (unfortunately). attempts were made at reunion, but Rome never repented of their innovations.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I fully agree!

I guess what I meant to ask, this left the west deprived of the true church for quite some time if Orthodoxy holds to be true Apostolic Catholic Holy Church?

I have another question and this one I attach a warning that I am not trying to sound like I am attacking or found an "aha!" Moment, I am inquiring genuinely.

I have found writings of Chrysostom, and Cyrule of Jerusalem to speaking of Gods wrath and Christ calming it down on our behalf being the sinners that we are. What would your reponse be to this? I am off getting a haircut and am taking my wife to a formal event after this but I fully intend to return to cite.

to answer the first question, yes, the West has been deprived of the True Church aside from the Orthodox parishes there.

as for the second point, my answer would be Christ did calm it in the sense that He deified humanity, and destroyed sin and death's hold on us. so the love of God we would have experienced as exposure and condemnation, we can experience as illumination and joy.

Christ calms God's wrath by changing us, not Himself.

 

[Moses Medina]

Seems my biggest hurdle is your teachings on the atonement... And veneration of saints. The church fathers definitely practiced infant baptism.

(No question just speaking my thoughts outloud)

 

[~Anastasia~]

Seems my biggest hurdle is your teachings on the atonement... And veneration of saints. The church fathers definitely practiced infant baptism.

(No question just speaking my thoughts outloud)

Most of us who came from Protestant backgrounds have some issues that we struggle with understanding.

Infant baptism was a big one for me, but I had to admit that it was both Sacramental (another thing I didn't like) and for infants. That sort of opened my eyes to many things.

Veneration of the Saints took a while because I misunderstood and was very careful not to go against what I thought might provoke God. And some of the teachings on the Theotokos were the hardest of all. In my case it was that it took time to understand what Orthodoxy actually believes and not to view it through Protestant lenses. Others may of course have different struggles.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Seems my biggest hurdle is your teachings on the atonement... And veneration of saints. The church fathers definitely practiced infant baptism.

(No question just speaking my thoughts outloud)

The atonement can be very nuanced, by the way. Would you care to elaborate on just how you understand what you object to?

One thing I will say is that our understanding is very broad. We sometimes emphasize this aspect or that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we don't believe another aspect. It's often both/and - not either/or.

 

[Moses Medina]

Infant Baptism is regarded as biblical and historical in the Lutheran Church, the Eucharist we do not, though we believe it to be the very body and blood of Christ, we believe we should discern the body and blood as well as our own sins. So to read that babies were indeed given the Eucharist was an eye opener.

Okay, i will focus on tbe veneration of saints. This small excerpt is from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

"...Our Confession approves honors to the saints. For here a threefold honor is to be approved. The first is thanksgiving. For we ought to give thanks to God because He has shown examples of mercy; because He has shown that He wishes to save men; because He has given teachers or other gifts to the Church. And these gifts, as they are the greatest, should be amplified, and the saints themselves should be praised, who have faithfully used these gifts, just as Christ praises faithful business-men, 5] Matt. 25:21, 23. The second service is the strengthening of our faith; when we see the denial forgiven Peter, we also are encouraged to believe the more that grace 6] truly superabounds over sin, Rom. 5:20. The third honor is the imitation, first, of faith, then of the other virtues, which every one should imitate according to his calling. 7]These true honors the adversaries do not require. They dispute only concerning invocation, which, even though it would have no danger, nevertheless is not necessary.

8] Besides, we also grant that the angels pray for us. For there is a testimony in Zech. 1:12, where an angel prays: O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on 9]Jerusalem? Although concerning the saints we concede that, just as, when alive, they pray for the Church universal in general, so in heaven they pray for the Church in general, albeit no testimony concerning the praying of the dead is extant in the Scriptures, except the dream taken from the Second Book of Maccabees"

Theres much more to be said but the bottom line is, though those who have entered rest in the faith do pray for the church, there is no scripture to back up the veneration or prayer to the saints. It also states earlier that the church fathers did not practice or teach this until much later which proves it was heterodox entering the church.

Ill reply in a little bit to what we say about the atonement.

Most of us who came from Protestant backgrounds have some issues that we struggle with understanding.

Infant baptism was a big one for me, but I had to admit that it was both Sacramental (another thing I didn't like) and for infants. That sort of opened my eyes to many things.

Veneration of the Saints took a while because I misunderstood and was very careful not to go against what I thought might provoke God. And some of the teachings on the Theotokos were the hardest of all. In my case it was that it took time to understand what Orthodoxy actually believes and not to view it through Protestant lenses. Others may of course have different struggles.

 

[RobNJ]

My overly simplistic way of dealing with "praying to the Saints":
We don't pray TO them, we ask THEM to PRAY FOR us! Consider it adding some heavy hitters to the "prayer chain"

 

[ArmyMatt]

Infant Baptism is regarded as biblical and historical in the Lutheran Church, the Eucharist we do not, though we believe it to be the very body and blood of Christ, we believe we should discern the body and blood as well as our own sins. So to read that babies were indeed given the Eucharist was an eye opener.

Okay, i will focus on tbe veneration of saints. This small excerpt is from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

"...Our Confession approves honors to the saints. For here a threefold honor is to be approved. The first is thanksgiving. For we ought to give thanks to God because He has shown examples of mercy; because He has shown that He wishes to save men; because He has given teachers or other gifts to the Church. And these gifts, as they are the greatest, should be amplified, and the saints themselves should be praised, who have faithfully used these gifts, just as Christ praises faithful business-men, 5] Matt. 25:21, 23. The second service is the strengthening of our faith; when we see the denial forgiven Peter, we also are encouraged to believe the more that grace 6] truly superabounds over sin, Rom. 5:20. The third honor is the imitation, first, of faith, then of the other virtues, which every one should imitate according to his calling. 7]These true honors the adversaries do not require. They dispute only concerning invocation, which, even though it would have no danger, nevertheless is not necessary.

8] Besides, we also grant that the angels pray for us. For there is a testimony in Zech. 1:12, where an angel prays: O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on 9]Jerusalem? Although concerning the saints we concede that, just as, when alive, they pray for the Church universal in general, so in heaven they pray for the Church in general, albeit no testimony concerning the praying of the dead is extant in the Scriptures, except the dream taken from the Second Book of Maccabees"

Theres much more to be said but the bottom line is, though those who have entered rest in the faith do pray for the church, there is no scripture to back up the veneration or prayer to the saints. It also states earlier that the church fathers did not practice or teach this until much later which proves it was heterodox entering the church.

Ill reply in a little bit to what we say about the atonement.

actually, veneration of the saints is in the Septuagint OT, which was what the earliest Father's considered the OT. plus it's in the Shepherd of Hermas which is from the 100s, St Hippolytus of Rome in the 200s, etc.

 

[Moses Medina]

Here is the atonement (but rather more fully, original sin)

From the Solid Declariation in the Book of Concord

"...even though a person would think, speak, or do nothing evil (which, however, is impossible in this life, since the fall of our first parents), his nature and person are nevertheless sinful, that is, thoroughly and utterly infected and corrupted before God by original sin, as by a spiritual leprosy; and on account of this corruption and because of the fall of the first man the nature or person is accused or condemned by God's Law, so that we are by nature the children of wrath, death, and damnation, unless we are delivered therefrom by the merit of Christ."

And

"Or as though the above-mentioned defect and evil were not properly and truly sin before God, on account of which man without Christ [unless he be grafted into Christ and be delivered through Him] must be a child of wrath and damnation, also in the dominion and beneath the power of Satan."

And finally

"Fifthly, this hereditary evil is so great and horrible that only for the sake of the Lord Christ it can be covered and forgiven before God in the baptized and believing. Moreover, human nature, which is perverted and corrupted thereby, must and can be healed only by the regeneration and renewal of the Holy Ghost, which, however, is only begun in this life, but will not be perfect until in the life to come"

This is what is said on the works of Christ on the cross crucified for us.

 

[Moses Medina]

actually, veneration of the saints is in the Septuagint OT, which was what the earliest Father's considered the OT. plus it's in the Shepherd of Hermas which is from the 100s, St Hippolytus of Rome in the 200s, etc.

Father, I ran into these not to long ago and much like baby communion its been an eye opener. I am processing these revelations with fervent prayer.

 

[Moses Medina]

And heres another question:

When it comes to our salvation, in Orthodoxy can Christians be assured of it?

To the Lutheran one can fall away from the faith. However, with repentence and guilt of sins one goes to confess and receive absolution, the Christian remembers his baptism being affirmed of the promise tied to the blessed sacrament of being adopted and forgiven and thus we can confidently say we are saved.

With that said, what does Orthodoxy hold on this matter? Again thank you for your time.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Confession is a powerful sacrament of the Orthodox Church!! We also believe deeply in it. But we focus more on sin in its original Greek context within Scripture—-hamartia (missing the mark). We receive healing and absolution, and dust ourselves off, get back in the saddle.

We can lose our salvation, sadly, when sin takes us far enough away from God. But with our Divine Liturgy, Confession, the Eucharist (!!!), the prayers of the saints, fasting, and holding fast to the teachings of the Fathers and our faith in God, we hope for salvation and eternal joy.

And heres another question:

When it comes to our salvation, in Orthodoxy can Christians be assured of it?

To the Lutheran one can fall away from the faith. However, with repentence and guilt of sins one goes to confess and receive absolution, the Christian remembers his baptism being affirmed of the promise tied to the blessed sacrament of being adopted and forgiven and thus we can confidently say we are saved.

With that said, what does Orthodoxy hold on this matter? Again thank you for your time.

 

[ArmyMatt]

And heres another question:

When it comes to our salvation, in Orthodoxy can Christians be assured of it?

To the Lutheran one can fall away from the faith. However, with repentence and guilt of sins one goes to confess and receive absolution, the Christian remembers his baptism being affirmed of the promise tied to the blessed sacrament of being adopted and forgiven and thus we can confidently say we are saved.

With that said, what does Orthodoxy hold on this matter? Again thank you for your time.

yes and no. yes in the sense that since Christ is risen, sin and death are powerless and everyone will be getting a glorified and resurrected body in the end. but no in the sense that if I eternally desire sin, the very love God offers becomes the torment, since I don't want it.

to put it a simpler way, heaven and hell are from man's POV, not God's.