www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Russian AOG church

Dear David, most Greek Catholic eparchies have a Church in Eastern Europe fund of some kind which goes to support activities there.

Also the Catholic Near East Welfare Association provides financial and material support to both Catholics and Orthodox in eastern Europe.

hate the sinner's church too?

It appears some Catholics are quite willing to attack Orthodoxy when it gets int eh way of their agenda.

Axios

Ummm, we're getting a bit off topic.

Might I suggest that we revert to attacking the MP for dispensing sacramentals to Protestant heathen?

And I'd love to know what the AOG people actually think about these 3-bars. Is it actually a "Christian" thing for them, or merely some sort of talismanic trinket. (If I see one more pink plastic rosary hanging from a rear-view mirror, I'm going to commit mayhem!!)

Blessings!!

John,

A teen care-giver at our son's former daycare center was saving money to help finance her trip to Russia to convert them to the AOG since the Russians didn't know Jesus. I asked her if she knew about the Orthodox Church there. She did, which is one of the reasons she was intending to go there: to save the Russians from false Christianity.

Joe

I'm not gay-bashing anyone. I'm only merely reminding others that this Gay Orthodox Church that Axios belong to is in schism from the mainline Orthodox Churches. Therefore, the Orthodox Churches don't recognize his "church." That's from what I was told by someone on this forum in the past.

That's all.

By the way, I forgot to add, I was just a little bit puzzled as to why people on the forum kinda picked on me when I made a gay mention on the forum.

Isn't just kind of funny how Axios is Catholic-bashing some of us and making anti-Catholic sentiments. He even went as far to accuse us Catholics as being herectics ON THIS CATHOLIC forum.

And here you guys are...picking on me for making a comment about a guy from a schismatic Orthodox group for gays.

Hmmmm? Did I miss something here?

Anhelyna,
While I agree with you here there is a point where the sinner continues to act with out repentance, or in this case, refuses to even acknowledge that there is a sin to begin with, that the gloves must come off and we must get tough... Tough love if you must....

Remember Sodom and Gomorrah? There was a point where God said enough is enough.


I apologize for takeing this thread of topic again, but I do agree with spdundas here. Seems we can't call sin, sin with out geting a lecture but Axios can make anti-catholic comments and gets away with it because no one wants to confront him.


David

David,

I think this is where you and I have to agree to differ.
I believe that you gently tell someone ,and keep doing it but eventually you have to accept that they continue with an action knowing it to be wrong, a sin etc.

At this point you have to consider whether carrying on pointing out they are wrong is doing more harm than good - by this I mean that constantly telling them makes them more determined to carry on. A form of obstinacy if you like.

This is the act of using the sledgehammer - it's destructive not constructive.

Having said that I just know that many folk will not agree - sorry - but that's the way I see it.

I prefer the gentle approach.

Anhelyna

In Russia the three-bar cross is the equivalent of the Latin single bar cross in the West. The general public sees the three-bar cross as the ordinary cross of Christianity. It is highly likely that the Protestant evangelists are using it in a purposeful attempt for their sects not to appear as non-Russian (although they certainly do take advantage of the desire Russians have to become like Westerners). It is certainly possible that the three-bar cross is used simply because it is the ordinary cross used in Russia. Either way, they have the freedom to use whatever cross they choose.

We Byzantine Catholics have done little (although we do provide help to our fellow Byzantines in Europe). The Catholic Church has given many millions of dollars to the MP over the last decade. It is still hardly anything but the Protestants do not help the MP at all and limit their generosity to those who join their churches. Theodore rightly states that we all must do more.

Many of Axios� posts on the Forum show that his positions are not those of the Orthodox Church he says he belongs to. I don�t think that anyone who participates here seriously considers his opinions to reflect the teachings of Orthodoxy.

Since we do not personally know the personal lives led by those who participate here we cannot and should not condemn anyone. We can only respond the posts of those who reject or misunderstand the teachings of our respective Churches in the hopes of encouraging them to accept and follow Church teaching on all issues.

I'm wondering about the "liturgical" style of the AOG as it is used in Russia. Here in the U.S., I know that they are very "evangelical", with a more or less focus on the preacher, and lots of contemporary style music. (electric guitars, drumsets, etc.)

Without getting overly sociological on this, this type of activity (handclapping, "Amen-ing", group participatory activities) would seem to appeal to the more blue-collar and less formally educated folks. The systematic liturgical styles (hidebound?) that are practiced by readers of the typikon, constitute an entity unto themselves; it is less participatory and more observed.

I wonder if the AOG and the other a-liturgical groups are finding a receptivity among the Russian people for this type of worship; or is it just their social ministry that the Russians find attractive. (A local AOG church here in Metro DC has an outreach in Ukraine. I saw their posters in the church vestibule while attending a funeral. My main impression was that these were really nice "white-bread" and Campbell Soup kinda folks and that the Ukies would eat them alive.)

Blessings!

Dear Friends,

I know a Pentecostal who has been in Ukraine to convert, er, "preach the Gospel" there.

The Lutherans in Ukraine not only use a three bar Cross, but icons and have recreated the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom in the image of a Lutheran service.

This isn't the first time this has occurred.

In the 1930's in western Canada, the Presbyterians established an "Eastern Rite Presbyterian" mission for Eastern Slavs.

They even had an iconostasis without icons . . . That experiment didn't last long.

There was an Anglican Ukrainian Church in Niagara Falls and I used to have their Ukrainian language Book of Common Prayer - no Eaternization there though.

The Lutheran Ukrainians developed prior to WWII and were former Ukie Catholics who were fed up with their Church for some reason . . .

They brought their icons etc. with them into the German "Kirche" and Lutheran missionaries there today build on that tradition - to bring other Orthodox and Catholics out of their folds.

The three bar Cross itself is really "culturally neutral" although it figures highly in Russian and Ukrainian Churches as a "banner of Orthodoxy" or in the Eastern Catholic case, a "banner of Orthodoxy"

We know that the earliest representations of the "Cross of Calvary" always displayed the extended foot-rest or "subpedalion" (which can even be seen on the ancient walls of Rome in anti-Christian graffiti from those times!).

Even the crosses to which RC missionaries in Japan were fastened in the 19th century and martyred on had footrests and these are displayed in the Crosses on their monument in Nagasaki.

The slanted foot-rest developed in the East and soon took on a spiritual significance as a type of "weigh-scale" or teaching about Grace, the Good Thief's saving confession of Christ etc.

The most ancient depictions of the Crucifixion ALL show Christ leaning toward the Good Thief, toward our left and His Right which is how the foot-rest is pointing.

The papal Cross to this day has three Bars on it.

But someone should perhaps point out to the "missionaries" who are very quick to adopt Orthodox symbols such as this one that it can easily be interpreted by the unchurched as a call to come back to the Orthodox Church . . .

I myself know of people who joined the Protestant churches for the material benefits they offer to get people to join - they then leave after enjoying those benefits.

Personally, such "missionizing" is not according to the Will of Christ in the Gospel.

Enticing people to join your group with money and benefits is not only unChristian - it's anti-Christian.

People like that aren't bringing Christ to the unchurched - they are building up their own organizations with new members, period.

That's not evangelization.

If western Churches really want to help Russia, then assist Orthodox missionaries in the field directly.

If Rome REALLY believed its own rhetoric about the ROC being a sister Church, it would help bring the unChurched into the ROC - not its Latin parishes, as I have seen direct evidence that shows this is occurring, including among members of my extended family.

And if Rome and the Protestants DON'T respect the ROC as an apostolic Church and DON'T wish to assist it in its mission to its OWN people - then the lot of them should just get out of Russia and leave them alone.

Western churches are indeed seen as a gateway to the West by Russians.

They're not interested in preaching. They're interested in the benefits of western capitalism.

Alex

Dr John,
Where did you dig up this nonsense?

As a former attendee of an AOG Church I must say you are way off.

The over whelming majority of members were white-collar very highly educated people. Some would classify them as rich also.


David

Dear David,

They are really into the Prayer of Jabez, are they?

Sorry, I couldn't resist . . .

Alex

http://www.ukrlc.org/eng.htm

Here's the website of the Ukrainian Lutheran Church. They prominently use the 3-Bar Cross, icons, and, as Alex said, a version of the Chrysostom Liturgy and Orthodox liturgical music (which is rather well executed, from the MP3s on their site). I also saw some photos of them doing Easter basket blessings. Old habits die hard, I suppose. ;-)

Dave

Anhelyna you posted:

"I believe that you gently tell someone ,and keep doing it but eventually you have to accept that they continue with an action knowing it to be wrong, a sin etc.

At this point you have to consider whether carrying on pointing out they are wrong is doing more harm than good - by this I mean that constantly telling them makes them more determined to carry on. A form of obstinacy if you like.

This is the act of using the sledgehammer - it's destructive not constructive.

Having said that I just know that many folk will not agree - sorry - but that's the way I see it.

I prefer the gentle approach.

Anhelyna"
**************************************


Dear Anhelyna,

I concur with your gentle approach.

Your comments led me to think about what's happening in this thread. I'd like to share some of the thoughts that they sparked. I speak for me, and do not presume to say that they speak for you. So, here I go.

When an issue is under discussion, it appears to me that it is best to focus on the arguement or comment made by a poster on the issue under discussion. It is difficult for me to understand the value of attacking a person as a sinner in such circumstances. It is even more difficult for me to understand what pointing out the canonical status (or lack of it) of a poster's Church contributes to a discussion on a topic other than one on the canonical status of Churches.

Perhaps I am missing something. But, if a poster makes a point or presents an argument, it is simply a point or an arguement. If someone disagrees with it, he or she should say so and support his or her own opinion.

If someone is posting statements that we find to be anti-Catholic statements, for example, that is not appropriate. However, in my opinion, it is also not appropriate for us to raise other issues rather than deal with the comments that we perceive to be anti-Catholic. Our beliefs and practices are not so weak that they cannot stand on their own merits.

There is no need, in my opinion, to bring negative personal issues about the poster into the discussion. In doing so, things that we say about our beliefs or practices are weakened because it appears that we are dragging in ad hominem elements to support a weak position.

Frankly, over time, if I remember correctly, on many occasions Axios has presented a balanced position on Catholicism in the face of misrepresentation of what Catholics believe by other posters. I think that I have noticed a new view of some Catholics and things Catholic emerging in his postings. Some of the comments seem to be less balanced and it saddens me. I've been trying to understand why this is so.

Overall, though, it seems to me that his contribution to the forum has been positive. One does not have to agree with his points or arguements, but he makes them and supports them. His positions sometimes challenge us to clarify our thinking and to develop and present powerful arguements for our Faith. I think that it is fair to say that they might not be as clear or powerful without his contribution.

Unless I misunderstand the ground rules for posting on the forum, the condition of an individual poster's relationship with God, in other words his or her perceived sinfulness, is not an appropriate issue for a thread. Unless a poster injects his or her sinfulness into a particular thread, it is not pertinent to a discussion of the issues in that thread.

Did I misunderstand?

Otherwise, what topic in any thread could ever be discussed by us who need God's reconciliation and forgiveness? Certainly there is someone who could perform fraternal correction for each of us and point out the sinfulness that each of us must own.

In the light of our God's intimate knowledge of each of us, which of us would be so bold as to throw the first stone? Isn't that what we do when we inject the status of a fellow poster's relationship with God into the discussion of another issue that is the topic of the thread?

Anti Catholicism is continuing to raise its ugly head. We should deal with it within the bounds of Love. We should not demonize those who seem to engage in it.

Otherwise, where is the difference between us and those who engage in it?

I mean no offense by this posting, but like Our Lady's Slave of Love, it's what I think.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve