www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization secular orders

Studite secular associates? Tell me more, please!

Andrij

Annie:

Thank you for your post, it has helped me. I spoke with my pastor, and he recommended I contact the monastery in PA (I'm in that process now).

Pax et bonum! (I wonder how to say that in Greek....I better find out! lol).

Glenn

Dear Andrij,

I will find out more when I visit their new icon shop here in Toronto.

I wanted to buy one of their beautiful chotkis (our Diak has a pair - just magnificent) but they are in hiatus and they are making more over this next little while.

I'll let you know.

Alex

Alex,

They have a shop in Toronto? Lucky you. Where? (Unfortunately I won't be in your fair city any time soon, but one of these days . . .) I have to settle for having people bring me books and such from Ukraina, or just going there myself

Andrij

Dear Andrij,

Yes, on the lakeshore in Toronto, but I have yet to visit it.

My wife keeps me busy with our new home and now it's time for Christmas decorations.

When I'm out there on a ladder, I hum to myself, "you light up my life . . ."

Alex

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Glad to be of help.

First of all, I don't understand what all this "order" business is all about. There is no such thing as orders in the east. This is most evident by the fact that most, if not all of the orders we see identifying themselves as "byzantine" are of Latin origin. Do we hear of orders in the Orthodox church? Another thread was talking about how we had no distinctions between Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox. This seems to be one, no?
In my humble opinion, orders have gained popularity in the U.S. Greek Catholic churches due to the rise of celebite, "secular" priests. The original way our clergy functioned were as married priest who had the domestic church as their community and the parish as an extension of that or we had idiorhythmic monks who were attached to a "community" of monks. Orders are a compromised latinization to compensate.
What do you all think?

In peace,
Athanasius

Athanasius, you are right about there not being various religious orders in the orthodox east as opposed to the latin west. And Byzantines (especially in the U.S.) are more sensitive to lost traditions than they used to be. However, I am less certain of the value of the difference when it comes to religious orders. It does not necessarily follow that folks who participate in a religious order as opposed to an orthodox monastery are any less orthodox in their theology amd faithfulness to traditions of the east. There are no dogmatic mandates regarding one path over the other as far as I know. Comments?

Jim,
it has nothing to do with dogmatic mandates. It does have to do with faithfulness to tradition however. The Orthodox church historically has been less inclined to divide itself into sub-factions within the same ritual church, claiming that they have a "unique" charism that distinguishes it from the "body" of Christ in its entirety. My point about religious orders is that they are intriniscally western and vaguly Nestorian. I say this because Eastern saints always point us to the mystical reality of the Master Himself. They clarify and vivify that mystery in some way. In the west, it seems people have been far more incline to focus on the humanity of Christ, His sufferings and hence, the sufferings of his followers. So, the West tends to venerate the persons who were saints to a degree that perhaps inadvertantly leads us to venerate the holy person, and not the One whom that holy person is Emulating. In otherwords, the West adds an additional step. Follow the follower, emulate the holy person who emuated Christ rather than simply emulate Christ. Charisms within the church are for the whole church and not to be divided into subcatagories. Furthermore, my original point was that holy orders meet a need in the east that should never have been a need, e.g. community. Traditionally we had married priests and monks. With the onset of mandatory celebacy came the proliferation of secular priests who were not attached to a community. The resulting isolation has often had profound spiritual and psychological consequences on our clergy. Religious orders seek to put a bandaid on this problem by provideing a sense of community for our clergy. The problem is this is an imported and artificial cure. We need to return to our roots. Then we would have no need for religious orders in the east.

Dear Athanasius,

You are right, of course.

I just took the "orders" thing to be a reference to monasticism in general, used by someone not as Eastern as you and I!

The Orthodox Church does have several Rules of monastic life that could resemble "Orders" as that in the West.

Most follow the Asketicon of St Basil, as you know, with some Antonians. The Rule of St Pachomius was popular in the Thebaid.

St Paissy Velichkovsky introduce his own reformed Rule based on 18 principles, including the practice of the Jesus Prayer. This rule spread throughout Eastern Europe.

Since his followers were attacked as being neglectful of the Divine Office, Paissy insisted on the full Office recited slowly and grandly.

His monks recited a Canon to the Mother of God after each Hour, in addition to spending hours praying the Jesus Prayer. All in all, his Rule provided for monks to be engaged in prayer for 14 hours daily.

I personally think a number of the imported Latin Orders into the Catholic East have outlived their usefulness, (especially the Basilians ).

It is time for our religious life to return to its Eastern roots - and it is returning, with the Studites leading the way.

(Yes, Lauro, we know - try and send some Studites down to Brazil! ).

Alex

Dear Athanasius:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I tend to agree with you as a general matter and observation, but I must observe as follows ....

In my own case, I grew up in a family half Russian Orthodox, half Irish Catholics, and all quite devout and fond of their own traditions. I was spiritually influenced by both traditions my whole life. In my mind, there is separation - but I see that separation as being somehow outside of myself. The Franciscan charism is something I feel deeply in my soul, even though every other aspect of my worship and spirituality looked Eastward.

I can't help it - it's who I am. But, generally, I'd conclude by saying that I am an individual - not a church. I don't like to see Eastern churches Latinized or Latin churches Easternized. Vive la difference.

Annie
Rusmick, sinner, Franciscan, etc. etc.

Dear Annie,

Yes, and St Francis' idea of the monastic life is very similar to the Eastern perspective here!

The formalization of the "Franciscan Order" is hardly what St Francis truly wanted for his religious family.

As you know, he opposed strenuously the move by his monastics to seek ordination (he himself was never ordained priest).

This was because to become a priest in his time was to become a part of the power structure of the Church he believed needed reforming.

And St Francis, with his icon Cross of St Damiano (Serbian in origin in fact), his other icons, his three-fingered Sign of the Cross et al. was already truly "at home in the East."

Alex

Oops - I somehow posted before responding. Sorry!

I agree. Francis did become a deacon, but did not become a priest. He did pen a Rule, but it was pretty simple. I think the Roman Catholic Church is going through crises not that unlike those of the time of Francis. His life is a great example - go and be a simple follower of Christ. Embrace the lepers. Rebuild the church. Live a simple life of penance and daily conversion. And pray constantly.

I have some friends from Serbia. The first thing they said when they heard I was a Franciscan was, hey, did you know that Francis' cross was from Serbia? I bought them one for their Slava one year. :-)

Having been "raised" in an RC church and being around RC'S until recently, I can say that Athanasius is absolutely right: the saints are venerated more at times than The One who "worked through them". RC theology and practice has indeed taken it "a step further" and puts them on pedestals they don't belong.

But is it wrong for an individual with a calling who cannot be a priest or deacon (like Annie, for example), who has a special desire from the Lord to serve the poor, to join a Franciscan order?

Isn't it better for that person spiritually if they are with a group of people who share that calling, so as to support and share the journey?

Not all of us are called to be Priests, Deacons, etc., are not the orders a way for us to be in a formal ministry?

Not all women are called to be Sisters or have the desire to raise money by their baking and pierogi-making efforts; is it wrong for them to join a secular order? Does not Scripture teach that ALL of have a priestly ministry? And are not we ALL to use them to serve the church and those around us?

And are there not minor orders for those with special gifts and/or ministries? So the East does recognize the need for this in their own way.

I'm not bucking tradition, but it seems that we can put the Holy Spirit in a box by not allowing them people to use their gifts in the church setting if God is leading them to. Many people and their unique spiritual gifts may become oppressed.

I'm just posing all of these things in a questioning manner. I'm not trying to upset anyone's traditional beliefs, please do not take offense.

+ Peace,
V