Panakhida Question

[Wiffey]

Although I understand it on an intellectual level, it still seems very cold to me. I am struggling with this alot.

I'd probably take it a lot better if I didn't have to deal with so much xenophobia in the first place...given the context it is far too easy to see no memorial prayers for non-Orthodox departed as part of an ongoing pattern of viewing everyone outside of a small, insular ethnic community as a second class citizen.
[edit]

 

[ufonium2]

Wiffey, I understand your frustration, but let me offer the opposite perspective:

I just left a parish that did panakhidas and commemorations at Liturgy for anybody. Orthodox or not. Christian or not. While that may seem harmless in itself, I can tell you that it was born out of a very non-Orthodox belief: that we are one of many denominations and "every church has some bad theology, we just have less." We don't believe in the "invisible Church" idea that some Protestants invented to justify their existence, but by commemorating non-Orthodox as part of our services we would send the message that we do. If we downplay the importance of right belief, we sell ourselves and our faith short. When we commemorate someone in a service, we're not judging that person's salvation one way or the other. We're not saying anything about their life, whether or not they were a good person, or whether they are somehow "deserving" of heaven, which none of us are. But we're acknowledging that someone who is in communion with us, who worshipped and worships corporately with us, needs our prayers especially after their repose.

I realize that you and I have had vastly different, probably polar opposite, experiences with this issue, and perhaps in your place I would feel the same way, but having been there I'm against the idea of liturgical prayers for those outside the "visible" Church.

 

[Julio]

Wow, do you have any idea which of St. Theophan's writings this comes from? Does this fly in the face of the expression "We know where the Church is, but we don't know where it isn't"? It seems this (from St. Theophan) would be saying that the Church is of one Communion, and those with whom we do not share Communion are not of the Church, whether visible or invisible. Are you in agreement with this, Julio? I'm just honestly curious. I've always had a little trouble understanding the "We don't know the boundairies of the invisible Church" concept. Thanks for the quote.

I do not know where that quote is found, but I will ask Mr. Orloff for the information. It might be that it is from one of St Theophan's works not yet available in English.

And the Church is of one communion, as you say, and it is visible. This is what I wrote about this very question elsewhere:

I understand well that, like the wind, the Spirit "bloweth where it listeth", and that there are no boundaries to the mercy of God, who "desires all people to be saved". Yet, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is visible, and those who are saved outside her are saved in spite of being outside her boundaries. This is something that can't be stressed enough. Sometimes, Bishop Kallistos' statement that "We know where the Church is, but we cannot be sure where it is not", one of Western Convert Orthodoxy's favorite soundbites, can be pushed far, far beyond its limits. We often remind Protestants that their teaching of an "invisible true church" is a heresy; maybe we ought to take this to heart ourselves. No one belongs to the Church but visibly and organically, but of course, the Sovereign God is not bound by the visible boundaries of the Church to show mercy.

Wiffey> As others have said, no one has suggested that we cannot pray for the repose of non-Orthodox! Otherwise, I myself couldn't pray for all but four of the departed for whom I pray, mostly family members and close friends. And even though we may not publicly pray for them in Church, we all have at our disposal the more ancient form of prayer for the departed: reading the Psalter for their repose, with prostrations. Actually, I'll try to get that rule translated from the Slavonic Psalter and post here as soon as I have it done. It is a most wonderful thing to do! And of course, as Mr. Orloff says, we should also remember to give alms on their behalf.

 

[twin]

Dear Wiffey,
i'm sorry that you've had such an experience with ethnic problems!
I know it must be very hard not to pray for your family in chuch. My mother's parents are both reposed and non Orthodox and as well as my father's father and several aunts and uncles. Also my baby brother who died at birth before my parents converted. Do you have the akathist for the reposed? There is one in the Book of Akathists, published by Jordanville, for all the dead, and one we just found, for a specific person, published by St. Paisius Orthodox Serbian Monastery in Arizona. My mother said the general one for forty days after her non orthodox sister who reposed recently, and it greatly comforted her.

 

[Fotina]

It makes sense that in the public services of the Church that those who publicly professed Orthodoxy are commemorated, otherwise it could be thought to force Orthodoxy on those who had chosen not to embrace it.

This question reminds me of a Mormon relative who wanted to have my deceased parents baptized by proxy in the LDS. I declined stating that my parents had not chosen to be LDS when they were living so I wasn't going to do anything different now that they were dead.

But as others have said, we can freely pray for anyone in our private prayers. My prayer list (mostly non-Orthodox) is much longer now since I became Orthodox.

Fotina

 

[gzt]

exactly: i don't want mormons to baptize me by proxy after i die and i presume lutherans don't want to be commemorated in the proskomedia or with a panikhida. if they do, why aren't they orthodox? but there's nothing wrong with just praying for them, that simply means we love them.

 

[Monica child of God 1]

And of course, as Mr. Orloff says, we should also remember to give alms on their behalf.

How and why do we give alms on someone else's behalf? Is it like the Latin practice of doing good works to free souls in purgatory? If so how does this fit into our theology?

Monica

 

[Wiffey]

Fotina and gzt, thankyou!!! Your explanations make a lot of sense and I can understand it from the standpoint of respecting the individual's autonomy and honoring the spiritual choices they made in this life. Sometimes it takes me a while to catch on, LOL.

 

[Fotina]

Fotina and gzt, thankyou!!! Your explanations make a lot of sense and I can understand it from the standpoint of respecting the individual's autonomy and honoring the spiritual choices they made in this life. Sometimes it takes me a while to catch on, LOL.

Hi Wiffy,

I'm glad that was helpful. The question helped to clear up my own thinking as well. It is the beauty of Orthodoxy, of God's love really, that respects the freewill of every person. May the rest of Great Lent bear fruit for all of us on the journey.

 

[countrymouse33ad]

Fotina, that makes sense to me, too. Thank you.

 

[Monica child of God 1]

Hey everyone,
Does anyone have an answer to my question in post #27? I am really curious because it sort of sounds like the practice of "offering something up" for someone else which was discussed in a thread weeks ago.

Thanks in advance for any answers,
Monica

 

[Julio]

Dear ones,

The text of the wonderful Akathist for the Repose of Those Who have Fallen Asleep is also avaliable online at:

http://users.sisqtel.net/williams/akathist-repose.html

This could be prayed, with contrition, for the repose of those non-Orthodox departed to whom we are bound through love. Unfortunately, the one published by St Paisius Serbian Orthodox Monastery, entitled Akathist for the Repose of a Loved One Who has Fallen Asleep, is obviously written to pray for reposed Orthodox Christians, as it has mentions of the departed one's reception of the Divine Mysteries, etc. I encourage everyone to obtain a copy, however! The text teaches us how to achieve "a Christian ending for our life: painless, blameless, and a good defense before the dread judgment seat of Christ" as we pray for those who have gone to the rest before us in the Faith, and the Introduction by V. Rev. Stavrofor Milos Vesin of the St Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church in Lansing, IL is a veritable jewel.

I also wanted to call everyone's attention to twin's earlier post containing the "Prayer to the Holy Martyr Varus for the Repose of Non Orthodox", which can be easily included in our morning an evening prayers. The life of this holy martyr, which explains why his intercession is sought for the salvation of non-Orthodox, may be found here:

http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Orthodox_Life/martyr_varus.htm

And concerning the giving of alms in the name of the departed, this is, of course, not at all the Latin practice of applying works of supererogation towards the pardoning of the temporal guilt of those in Purgatory. It is much simpler than that: we give alms (as we should do anyway!) praying for the repose of the departed as we give them. It is just as when we offer wine, oil, or even candles in Church. Nothing more, nothing less.

"Prayer is good with fasting and alms and righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than much with unrighteousness. It is better to give alms than to lay up gold: for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin. Those that exercise alms and righteousness shall be filled with life: but they that sin are enemies to their own life" (Tobit 12:8-10, KJV).

 

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Thanks, Julio! This is awesome:

I understand well that, like the wind, the Spirit "bloweth where it listeth", and that there are no boundaries to the mercy of God, who "desires all people to be saved". Yet, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is visible, and those who are saved outside her are saved in spite of being outside her boundaries. This is something that can't be stressed enough. Sometimes, Bishop Kallistos' statement that "We know where the Church is, but we cannot be sure where it is not", one of Western Convert Orthodoxy's favorite soundbites, can be pushed far, far beyond its limits. We often remind Protestants that their teaching of an "invisible true church" is a heresy; maybe we ought to take this to heart ourselves. No one belongs to the Church but visibly and organically, but of course, the Sovereign God is not bound by the visible boundaries of the Church to show mercy.

This seems (in my humble opinion) to be more in line with Tradition than Bp. Kallistos' one sentence which is quoted way too often. This is also in line with what my priest has taught me. My own little Protestant Heresy Alert Flag (TM) get's raised whenever I see the "invisible church" doctrine sneak on board.

 

[countrymouse33ad]

If Bishop Kallistos' statement is acceptable at all, there must be more than one type of boundary, i.e., both visible/canonical and mystical, as Fr. Georges Florovsky's article seems to say:

http://www.chattablogs.com/aionioszoe/archives/020781.html

However, the idea that the Church's boundaries are invisibile only, an idea that's been gaining popularity among Protestants for some years, cannot possibly be right.

 

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

If Bishop Kallistos' statement is acceptable at all, there must be more than one type of boundary, i.e., both visible/canonical and mystical, as Fr. Georges Florovsky's article seems to say:

http://www.chattablogs.com/aionioszoe/archives/020781.html

However, the idea that the Church's boundaries are invisibile only, an idea that's been gaining popularity among Protestants for some years, cannot possibly be right.

I found this to be pretty interesting, though:

Protopresybter Georges Florovsky:

Third, this new book [i.e., a bioagraphy of Fr. George, Georges Florovsky, SVS 1993, ed. Andrew Blane] very fairly sets forth Father Georges' ecclesiology: that the Orthodox Church is the true Church established by Christ and the Apostles and that the heterodox Churches are not "equal to it" or possessed of its Grace. But it fails to show the extent to which, in his later years, Florovsky was in some sense "anti-ecumenical." Not given to humble admissions of error, he nonetheless once told me that he felt that the ecumenical movement had deviated from its original purposes and that he was perhaps wrong to have been one of its most famous proponents. He was not, as some claim, an advocate of joint communion; did not recognize the validity of non-Orthodox sacraments; and certainly did not concelebrate with non-Orthodox-something which he flatly condemned. Indeed, he even came to disavow a suggestion, in a study which he wrote on the sacramental theology of St. Augustine, that the Orthodox Church might look to the Bishop of Hippo for a model in approaching the sacraments of non-Orthodox Christians: a suggestion which some unscrupulous ecumenists still claim as a "blessing" on their attempts to distort the Church's teachings about non-Orthodox sacraments.​

And from Further Thoughts on the Ecclesiology of Father George Florovsky

As for Mr. _____ references to Protopresbyter George Florovsky's article on the boundaries of the Church, it should be pointed out that this was written at a time when Father Florovsky was not only young in his experience of ecumenism (more than sixty years ago), but represents a view which he later disavowed and which is not, in fact, consistent with his mature understanding of the Church. It was a heuristic piece by a young man who came to far different views later in his career. Not only did he support St. Cyprian's ecclesiology in later works, but he also later expressed critical conclusions about the ecumenical movement and misgivings about a wider view of the Church's boundaries. I should also say that, great though this wonderful theologian was, he is NOT a Father of the Church, and his opinions, while worthy, are not definitive or dogmatic. This is a dangerous error to make: setting the speculation of a theologian against the ecclesiology of a Father whose views were ratified by an Ecumenical Synod​

​

​

​

​

 

[countrymouse33ad]

I found this to be pretty interesting, though:

That is indeed interesting. What do we make of Bishop Kallistos' statement, I wonder, in light of that?

 

[Julio]

That is indeed interesting. What do we make of Bishop Kallistos' statement, I wonder, in light of that?

Quite simple! Let me quote from GDE's quote of Fr John Abraham's remarks:

I should also say that, great though this wonderful theologian was, he is NOT a Father of the Church, and his opinions, while worthy, are not definitive or dogmatic. This is a dangerous error to make: setting the speculation of a theologian against the ecclesiology of a Father whose views were ratified by an Ecumenical Synod.

So, that's that.

 

[countrymouse33ad]

setting the speculation of a theologian against the ecclesiology of a Father whose views were ratified by an Ecumenical Synod.

Okay, that brings me to more questions. Does this question (the limits of the Church) at this point fall under the category of Holy Tradition or under theological opinion? (And is there a particular Father to which Fr. John was referring?)

And, since I have been getting so much conflicting and confusing information, what of the question of salvation outside the Church? Has the Church spoken definitively so that we answer that via Holy Tradition? or not?

[edit] [little rant] And why is it that upon occasion I don't actually get WYSIWIG when I post? Why is this all in italics but only after I hit the post button? [/rant] [/edit]

 

[Julio]

Okay, that brings me to more questions. Does this question (the limits of the Church) at this point fall under the category of Holy Tradition or under theological opinion?

This is Holy Tradition: the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is visible, and only those who are visibly and organically united to her are inside her boundaries. Anything else, such as Fr Georges early article and Khomiakov's essay, belongs to realm of opinion, and of intellectual exercise.

(And is there a particular Father to which Fr. John was referring?)

St Cyprian of Carthage, I believe.

And, since I have been getting so much conflicting and confusing information, what of the question of salvation outside the Church? Has the Church spoken definitively so that we answer that via Holy Tradition? or not?

As I said before:

"No one belongs to the Church but visibly and organically, but of course, the Sovereign God is not bound by the visible boundaries of the Church to show mercy."