www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Converts & Their effect on the Church

Wow, what an interesting topic! As a convert member of the OCA, this seems like a pretty ripe topic.

I don't see what the problem with a convert metropolitan is. The fact is that the OCA is not an ethnic Church tied to Europe-we are American, and that means that unless converts become bishops, we would run out of bishops, or have a much smaller, less viable pool to choose from.

Bishop Tikhon (former Lutheran) has been Orthodox for 40 years, Abp. Peter (former RC) and Abp. Dimitri (former Baptist) probably for about as long, and Bp. Seraphim (former Anglican)for at least 20-I really don't know. Who else is a convert?

If by "Americanising" you mean using English, what's wrong with that? It seems obvious to use, and was recommended by SS Innocent and Tikhon.
As long as its not a banal, modern translation, it should be ok-Obikhod Tone 6 sounds the same in English or Slavonic!

I think there are two problems-ethinic parishes that can go too mainstream and watered down, and over zealous converts who bring their baggage with them, and act like Protestants. I've been to Liturgies conducted by the latter, and its really a struggle. Sure, everything is done right, but there is no spirit-its a grind to get through.

Besides, on the West Coast, what type of ethnicicy should the OCA follow? Great Russian, or Ukrainian/Carpatho Russian like back east, which is what most people in the OCA are, but is a minority out here? For better or worse, (I think for worse) the current Orthodox ecclesiological model is that of the National Church, and I don't want to have to adopt an
ethnic background to worship the way I want toin American we speak English, so lets do that.

Lets face it-didnt St. Tikhon himself envision an independent American Church before the Revolution, and before Antioch and Constantinople came in?

One thing, though, is that convert priests should have to attend an Orthodox seminary (unless they attended an Eastern Catholic one). All too often, because of a shortage of priests, convert clergy are ordained with a meager knoweledge of important stuff like history and theology.
Unfortunately, all the Orthodox seminaries are back East, and are not easy to go for West Coasties. St. Tikhons isn't even fully accredited, so Federal Financial Aid isn't available. IF there was a single Orthodox Church OF America, I think the West Coast could afford a seminary.

MK

[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: Michael King ]

Moose,

I agree that we shouldn't be opposed to ecumenical dialogue in it self, we have to remember that St.Mark of Ephesus at least went to Florence...

However, we have to ask ourselves, what has the ecumenical dialogue accomplished so far.
Has it brought the heterodox back to Orthodoxy?
Or has it brought the Orthodox closer to heterodoxy?

Concerning the Calendar issue, if you carefully read the litterature and statements of the Old Calendarists you'll see that the calendar in it self isn't really the issue for, ecumenism is the real issue...

Alex,

yes, a Greek Metropolitan may have stated that they our outside the Church, but some Old Calendarists claim that the New Calendarists are outside the Church. Shouldn't we rather ignore the extremists on both sides?

Robert,

exactely what article stated that we are not to watch tv or read novels?

I know several Old Calendarists, and none of them hold this position!

This is exactely what I mean when I say that the old Calendarists are treated unfair. Views are subscribed to them without documentation, based on rumors, discrediting them by making them out to be more extreme than they really are.

And Robert, keep in mind that your own jurisdiction (you are with ROCOR, right?) are in communion with the Old Calendarists and to a large extent hold the same views which are on the website in question!

The ROCOR was formed not because of resistance to ecumenism or the new calender, but because of
political events inside Russia. Of course, ROCOR is in communion with some old calendarists, and many within it hold the same views. But that was not the original reason for its existence.
I'm certainly going out on a limb here, but I think the same problem is in the ROCOR, i.e. converts vs. cradles, especially when a decision is made about reunion with the MP and the rest of Orthodoxy.

MK

[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: Michael King ]

I don't think that an ethnic feeling has to do with conversion (I know there's a relation of course, but not completely). A strong nationalist feeling can be found in an Orthodox parish, in a Ukrainian catholic parish and also in a Roman parish (remember these German, Italian or Hispanic parishes that are not very welcoming).

I did never attack the Orthodox Information Centre and I'm not Roman Catholic. I just said that some articles there are anti-catholic. We can reject ecumenist possitions but... why they don0't say anything about protestantism?

"I don't see Mexicans walking around on American streets with big sombreros on their heads"
-Go to London or Amsterdam and you'll see lots of them!!!

bye

The site does indee say something about protestantism:

www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_protestants.htm [orthodoxinfo.com]

Michael,

I am not suggesting that converts to Orthodoxy should never become bishops or someday Metropolitans. I am suggesting that I do not yet believe the time is ripe and I have formed my opinions based upon many discussions over the years with Orthodox priests and layfolk who hold similar opinions.

Orthodoxy in America still has lot of work to do to grow its own roots in the New World. The jurisdictional issues are divisive, the ethnic issues need to be addressed and Orthodoxy itself needs to begin to deal with the modern world. It is my opinion that Orthodoxy itself is still pretty fragile here in the Americas. A good indication of this is that most converts to Orthodoxy actually feel a need to take on the ethnicity of the particular Orthodox jurisdiction that he or she joins. These are issues that cradle Orthodox need to resolve themselves for obvious reasons. Only when Orthodoxy has resolved these issues and can welcome converts without an expectation that they also embrace a particular ethnicity will it be strong enough to embrace leadership from those who were not born into the Faith.

I highly respect the hierarchs you have named. I would humbly submit that if you compare their oral and written expressions of Orthodoxy they will differ greatly than those of the hierarchs who are lifetime Orthodox. One of my biggest concerns is that many converts bring into Orthodoxy elements of their former denomination and pass these on as if they were truly Orthodox.

What I am suggesting is that Orthodoxy (including us Byzantine Catholics) needs to find a way to express Orthodoxy as Orthodox Americans rather than as Orthodox Rusyn-Americans or as Orthodox Greek-Americans. I think that until it does the idea of a non-cradle hierarchical leadership could do much damage to our Churches.

Your thoughts that clergy attend an Orthodox seminary in order to obtain a proper education reflect my own thoughts. You simply can't take an ex-Methodist minister and put him into an Eastern Christian seminary for a couple of semesters and consider him to have absorbed Orthodoxy and ready for duty as a priest. Hence my earlier suggestion to put such wonderful people in a parish of cradles so that they can get an authentic experience of Orthodoxy. The ethnic baggage they should be able to deal with because they don't have it. The baggage from Protestantism they will have and need to see the ongoing witness of Orthodox believers who don't have the same baggage.

--

OrthodoxSWE,

The purpose of ecumenical dialogue is primarily to witness. It offers the opportunity of putting lamp on the lampstand for all to see. It is only in the early stages and I think that Orthodoxy has not yet found its voice.

Moose

What does Orthodoxy have to offer to non-Christians?

Of course, you are going to say Jesus and that is a given.

But how does being an Orthodox Christian--a believer in Jesus-- make one a better person?

Is your average Orthodox Christian a better person than your average Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic or atheist?

What does the Christian world have to offer the non-Christian world--about 65% of the world's population--that they can't find within their own religious traditions?

If Orthodox Christians are sincere about evangelism, these are the types of questions they will be forced by circumstances to answer.

Are you ready for the challenge?

Abdur

Two and a half cents ...

This past Easter I attended Roman Mass with my daughter and her husband at their parish. After attending Byzantine Liturgy for the past few months I was stunned to realize/remember the strong differences between these two rites.

Last Sunday I arrived early for Divine Liturgy. The cantor was leading those in attendance in the recitation of the rosary. How absolutely beautiful were the Easter phrases added ... "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus who has risen from the dead....".

Guess I'm just one of those converts whose absolutely enthralled with the beauty of this rite!

Loretta

Yeah, I know what you mean. Rumor has it that the current Bishop of the Roman Catholic diocese of Arlington may give permission for an indult mass. Makes me wonder how many of our refugees from the NO will be moving on if this turns out to be true. Sometimes their attitudes rub me the wrong way, but I have to say I would miss most of them a LOT of they left.

Vicki

Our "Irish" were not at Divine Liturgy on Pascha. They found out that there was a Traditional Latin Mass at another church and went there

I still think that the ecclesiologies of East and West are quite different. Indeed, the commitment to sacramentality, including episcopal structures, are the same in both churches. However, the actual realities of the lives of the churches demonstrate a different perspective. Perhaps it is because the Eastern communities have been persecuted by most of the civil authorities over the past centuries, but the mindset has evolved into a psychological 'fortress' mentality: watch out for the 'outsiders'. In the West, this has not been the case since many of the civil governments have been willing co-operators with the church. And some governments have even established a 'state church' relationship with the ecclesiastical structure.

Thus, the East approaches church membership in a very different way than the Western mindset would permit.

Apropos the current OCA bishops, I am sure that by their long service they are integrated into Orthodoxy (broadly speaking) and are more than capable of becoming Metropolitan. However, I still maintain that the individual communities subject to the bishops MUST be the result of organic development and not just created 'ex nihilo'. Taking a group of Easterns who, perforce of jobs or whatever, have moved to a new community, then it would be OK to establish a mission and to include in it any converts who may come to the door. But to go to an area, and take a group of converts who have found Orthodoxy, and build a parish based upon this --- well, I think there will be problems. Especially if the pastor is himself a relative 'newbie'. Why? Because there aren't any 'babas' or 'baba-equivalents' available to keep the community on course.

While many folks will focus on the legitimacy of the 'orthodoxy' of a parish, I am still convinced that the organic-development model is the true and viable model for the understanding of how Eastern churches have traditionally conducted themselves. I also truly believe that cradle-Easterns can sense this in their bones because they recognize the 'dukh' that should be present when one is worshipping in an Eastern/Byzantine parish. (My Mom, a dyed in the wool absolute "Greek is Best" Orthodox, attended a liturgy at our local Carpatho-Ruthenian parish. She said: "I've been to Church here." She caught the 'dukh' of the people. In her mind, somehow these crazy Western Slavs have the same sense of 'being church' that she was expecting. And, since the service was 95% English, she noted: "for the first time in my life I've actually understood everything that was going on." I got the same feeling when I first attended Epiphany 27 years ago; the folks introduced themselves to me, found out I was a GREEK Greek-Catholic, and I was in like Flynn. Too bad I wasn't a 'nash', but "since you're Greek, then you're OK" and I didn't need the background check. I pulled the priest's ear on his birthday -- with 'many years', and they just 'knew'. Organic membership.)

Christ is Risen!!

If its any consulation, I am quit happy in the Eastern Church and would not go back to the Roman Rite even if they suddenly went to a pre-Vatican 2 setting again. I am truly happy with the venerable customs and traditions we in the East hold as our own expression of the Holy Church universal. The beautiful chanting, great clouds of incense, the warm piety of the Slavic peoples unveiling itself around you as the Liturgy takes place, and last (But not least) the greatest tradition of the east, the food!

THe Latin mass may be transcendant and touchingly mystic but to me it lacks the beauty and familiarity of the Eastern Liturgy to which my soul is warmed to tears of joy. I hope that many of our transfers will not go back to the Latin west with its rigid formalities and instead remain on the golden way to Byzantium. Besides, when your Catholic, all roads lead to Rome anyway so whats it matter where you worship and how.

AS for converts, well let me tell you all that the ROCOR is the queen mother of ordaining inexperienced converts from protestantism to the preisthood. Seminary is often not an option for them because first of all, its in Russian (Russian Church-Russian seminary, If you join a baseball team then be prepared to play ball)! Second, ROCOR is really poor in most cases and no one foots the bill for seminary at Jordanville. So waht happens is the bishop will just ordain someone to the priesthood without any prior experience and send him to the nearest convert parish. This, IMHO, is really dangerous because you have an inexperienced shepherd leading around inexperienced sheep to very strange pastures.

About ROCOR and the TOCG. I think the intercommunion was a big mistake which only furthered the Synods path to sectarianism. THe Info center has a lot of crazy articles written by former Protestants on it. Television is indeed discouraged as a "vice" along with prctically every other form of amusment known to man. Just type in television on the search page of the OCIC and see what comes up!

ROCOR is indeed divided heavily between converts and cradle. Most converts however seem to be very loose in their affiliation with the ROCOR and sometmes preffer to see it has more of being placed under the protection of her bishops rather then being an actual living part of her communion. Theyusually end up ;eaving her after a few years when they realize that she is not as sectarian as they originally thought.
In fact, if you named a ROCOR parish for me, I could probably tell you not only if it was convert or cradle but what their concept of being in the Synod Church is. Just sort of an intuition that I picked up from my association with numerous ROCOR folks fom all over.

I hope this helps clear up a few questions some folks might have on these issue, at least from my perspective.

Robert K.

As posted above:

"Besides, when your Catholic, all roads lead to Rome anyway so whats it matter where you worship and how."

OUCH! This is a REAL problem. It's not the canonicity of the community, but rather the lifestyle and love of the group that determines whether one is a member or not.

When one approaches the Church as an "administrative" entity, then one simultaneously rejects the Eastern mindset of what constitutes church. Personally, I don't care if one is "in communion with Rome" or not, I just want to know that we are (to use the Slav term): "nash".

We know our own kind. Perhaps some might accuse us of 20th century Gnosticism, but the fact remains that we know who belongs and who is just "dressed to kill".

And the 'dressed to kill' folks should probably seek elsewhere. They'll NEVER be part of "us". If one is truly a 'seeker', then this mindset will come across to the 'cradles' and others in the community, and access and membership will be confirmed. But, if one is NOT willing to become (not "be") a part of the community, then we 'cradles' will continue to be sceptical.

Christ is Risen! Christos Anesti!

Bishop Tikhon (former Lutheran) has been Orthodox for 40 years, Abp. Peter (former RC) and Abp. Dimitri (former Baptist) probably for about as long, and Bp. Seraphim (former Anglican)for at least 20-I really don't know. Who else is a convert?]

If Bishop Seraphim is a convert (he is the one I had in question) then it makes six of the nine dicesian Bishops of the OCA as converts to Orthodoxy.
The other two you didn't mention are Bishops Nathaniel (former Romanian Greek Catholic) and Job (former Eastern Rite).

OrthoMan

OrthoMan

What the @#$$ is a Mexican doing in London or Amsterdam? This is almost as funny as a Mexican Muslim LOL!!! -- Military Intellegince, Mexican Muslims - isn't this an oxymoron?

Besides if I'm going to speak english I prefer to speak American, not British or Amsterdamian - whatever that is

[ 04-13-2002: Message edited by: Maximus ]