[w4HPpbSW]

This last weekend, I was privileged to attend the ordination of a young man I have known for some time to the Holy Priesthood. I was filled with prayer, emotion and joy at this event. The presiding Bishop addressed the congregation a number of times with very inspirational directives to the congregation throughout the service and it was impossible not to conclude that He was indeed our Sheppard. Some of his directives were a little vague to me, but at the reception after the service two events were very troubling to me, and I would like to know what you think. The Bishop blessed the food with a prayer that I know very well, as I learned it as a small child at my family's table; Bless us Oh Lord and these thy gifts which we are about to receive, from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen. This is the meal blessing used by Roman Catholics everywhere.

The second thing that bothered me was a very descriptive analogy used by the bishop to describe the Body of Christ, the True Christian Church. He used the analogy of a tree to describe the church. He went on to describe Orthodoxy as the root of the tree which nourishes the branches and the leaves, which he explained were all of the other protestant churches and denominations. He said that it was better to be the root and not a branch but that we were of the the same tree. This analogy was used to support his apparent ecumenical view.

I am all for loving the heterodox and praying for them, but I have fought too hard as a convert to Orthodoxy in order to realize and be changed by the true faith of our fathers to jump right back into the same boat. Do you think I am being too sensitive and critical? The real issue for me is that the bishop is responsible for teaching and overseeing the doctrinal views of the church. What am I supposed to learn from this?

INXC,
Seraphim

[amberamuletuk]

I am all for loving the heterodox and praying for them, but I have fought too hard as a convert to Orthodoxy in order to realize and be changed by the true faith of our fathers to jump right back into the same boat. Do you think I am being too sensitive and critical? The real issue for me is that the bishop is responsible for teaching and overseeing the doctrinal views of the church. What am I supposed to learn from this?

INXC,
Seraphim

You dont' have to learn from everyone. Learn from whoever you know is true. Learn from the person who practices what he preaches. Learn from the person who has little to say but lots of love pouring out of his eyes. Learn from the one who is uncompromising in the smallest detail, but so full of kindness that his "No" feels like a blessing.

I'm sorry, but I'm feeling disgruntled this morning, and hating ecumenicalism very much. If someone wants to be orthodox, be orthodox. There's enough garbage in my life without having to bring in everything that was dear to me before. Cut it off, just cut it all off! If it's something worth having, God will give it back to you.

Oh bother. I quit.

Mary.

[12Dvop4I]

James,
Maybe you are looking to hard to judge based on your new knowledge? I don't think heaven recognizes copyrights on prayer ...
and, no matter your ecumenical views, isn't it the Truth that Orthodoxy is the root of all other branches of orthodox christianity? I find this a beautiful and comforting Truth and, one that serves me well as I witness to my Protestant family and friends.

..just my .02, please only take it for what it's worth to you.

Peace

[immoceefe]

Geez, I thought I had left the branch theory when I left the Episcopal Church!!!

[w4HPpbSW]

James,
Maybe you are looking to hard to judge based on your new knowledge? I don't think heaven recognizes copyrights on prayer ...
and, no matter your ecumenical views, isn't it the Truth that Orthodoxy is the root of all other branches of orthodox Christianity? I find this a beautiful and comforting Truth and, one that serves me well as I witness to my Protestant family and friends.

..just my .02, please only take it for what it's worth to you.

Peace

No! it is not true that Orthodoxy is the root of the tree of all of Christianity. This idea is the "Branch Theory" which I know has been condemned as heresy by the Russian Orthodox (at least) The Orthodox Church is it's own tree! The Tree of Life! we are not a part of any other churches.

INXC,
Seraphim

[Suentiend]

"I am the vine, you are the branches."

--John 15:5a

[popsicesHoupe]

No! it is not true that Orthodoxy is the root of the tree of all of Christianity. This idea is the "Branch Theory" which I know has been condemned as heresy by the Russian Orthodox (at least) The Orthodox Church is it's own tree! The Tree of Life! we are not a part of any other churches.

In the various descriptions I've read, the "Branch Theory" which Orthodoxy rejects was described as the view that the EOC, OOC, and RCC are all branches of the same trunk (Christ), to the degree that they maintain apostolic succession and the teachings of the ancient church (Protestant churches, which mostly don't hold any form of apostolic succession, get left out). That doesn't sound quite the same as what the Bishop said, or what Amy echoed, which puts the Orthodox Church as the trunk or root (being the "Body of Christ").

As a soon-to-be-but-not-yet-a-catechumen, I'm not exactly qualified to critique a Bishop's remarks. But it does seem that his particular emphases would make a great deal of difference. What does it mean, to him, that the various denominations are "branches"? Is it to say that they are legitimate, though of lesser fulness than the trunk? Or merely that all that is true within them, any Life that is found there, derives in some way from Orthodoxy (which sounds like what Amy was saying)? Or maybe something else entirely? That would seem to me to make a big difference in interpretation.

In Christ,
Mike

[w4HPpbSW]

"I am the vine, you are the branches."

--John 15:5a

which of course refers to Christ and us, His body! not to those outside the Church.

[12Dvop4I]

I am sorry Seraphim, I do not know the "Branch Theory" of which you speak. I only know church history. If you do not believe that Orthodoxy is the root of orthodox christianity, do you not believe that Rome broke from the fold in the 11th century and the Protestants broke from Rome in the 16th? How is it that we are our own tree if we share this history?

And, I am not saying that Orthodoxy is a part of other churches, I am saying we share a history in Christendom.

[JessiPollo]

I doubt many Orthodox would (could) disagree with the statement that Orthodoxy is the 'root' from which others sprang. This is not branch theory; this is historical precedence.

Branch theory is going the next step: that since many things spring from a single branch, they all have equal (or comparable) validity. This the Orthodox Church explicitly rejects.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[finnmontserrat]

It's fine to say that Orthodoxy is the root, provided one acknowledges that the heterodox are those branches that fell off the tree.

[w4HPpbSW]

I am sorry Seraphim, I do not know the "Branch Theory" of which you speak. I only know church history. If you do not believe that Orthodoxy is the root of orthodox Christianity, do you not believe that Rome broke from the fold in the 11th century and the Protestants broke from Rome in the 16th? How is it that we are our own tree if we share this history?

And, I am not saying that Orthodoxy is a part of other churches, I am saying we share a history in Christendom.

Hi Amy!
Yes I believe that Orthodoxy is the root of Orthodoxy Christianity. The analogy that was given was that we were the root of all of Christianity including all of the Protestant denominations and the RC church. Those churches have separated themselves from the root of the tree. The schism separated the Rc church from the Orthodox Church, they are now, NOT part of the tree. Yes we share a history, a tragic one to be sure, but the Orthodox Church is NOT in Communion with these heterodox churches. I hope that this clarifies the issue for you as I have stated it.

Love,
Seraphim

[w4HPpbSW]

In the various descriptions I've read, the "Branch Theory" which Orthodoxy rejects was described as the view that the EOC, OOC, and RCC are all branches of the same trunk (Christ), to the degree that they maintain apostolic succession and the teachings of the ancient church (Protestant churches, which mostly don't hold any form of apostolic succession, get left out). That doesn't sound quite the same as what the Bishop said, or what Amy echoed, which puts the Orthodox Church as the trunk or root (being the "Body of Christ").

As a soon-to-be-but-not-yet-a-catechumen, I'm not exactly qualified to critique a Bishop's remarks. But it does seem that his particular emphases would make a great deal of difference. What does it mean, to him, that the various denominations are "branches"? Is it to say that they are legitimate, though of lesser fulness than the trunk? Or merely that all that is true within them, any Life that is found there, derives in some way from Orthodoxy (which sounds like what Amy was saying)? Or maybe something else entirely? That would seem to me to make a big difference in interpretation.

In Christ,
Mike

I agree with you Mike. There was a distinct "break" in the apostolic succession and some are now out side of the Church. In addition, it is not my intention to call the Bishop a heretic, nor can I judge his heart. My comment was simply an observation of a controversial analogy that made me extremely uncomfortable. I do know that a spirit of ecumenism has definitely entered the Orthodox Church. This has been discussed in other threads like the Patriarch of Constantinople, and his efforts to find common ground with the RC church. I do not think we should compromise dogma to accommodate other separated churches. In another thread I made reference to the difference between economia and ackrivia. This issue has changed what for centuries was the praxis in Orthodoxy. I refer to Baptism. A convert to Orthodoxy who was baptized in the RC church is now merely Chrismated and not Baptized, as the RC baptism is considered valid. The opinion is that grace fills in for the lack of actual baptism. My opinion is that if their baptism is valid, then why not all of the rest of their sacraments. That would mean we would be in full communion with them and there would be no difference between us. I know that now, if an Orthodox priest baptized a convert who had been baptized in the name of the Trinity by a separated heterodox church he would be brought before an ecclesiastical court and defrocked. I see this as an effort to "accomodate" other Christians and legitimize their faith. This is exactly what happens in the useless dialogue that goes on in the WCC. Their stated agenda is to make us all into one church. A global, warm and fuzzy, homogenized, lets all just love one another church without Orthodox dogma that would be just perfect for the arrival of the Antichrist. This is why the monks of Mt Athos have taken a hard line with the Patriarchate. I have no idea how it will all end up, but I am extremely concerned.

INXC,
Seraphim

[Suentiend]

I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit.

--John 15:1-2

[12Dvop4I]

Ah, thank you for elaborating, Seraphim; I can understand your perspective now.

And thank you, M.C. Steenberg & Mike Stickles, for your comments as well. As I said, I've not heard of the "Branch Theory" until now and appreciate the enlightenment.

Back to your original question, Seraphim, I can only hope that your Bishop's words were meant for good, for reaching out to those who do not yet experience the fullness of the Faith. For many Protestants, it is precisely this historical Orthodox-root understanding (that their history did not begin with the Reformation) that leads many to the Holy Orthodox Church. I, for one, am glad to be home!

Blessings,
amy

[w4HPpbSW]

Ah, thank you for elaborating, Seraphim; I can understand your perspective now.

And thank you, M.C. Steenberg & Mike Stickles, for your comments as well. As I said, I've not heard of the "Branch Theory" until now and appreciate the enlightenment.

Back to your original question, Seraphim, I can only hope that your Bishop's words were meant for good, for reaching out to those who do not yet experience the fullness of the Faith. For many Protestants, it is precisely this historical Orthodox-root understanding (that their history did not begin with the Reformation) that leads many to the Holy Orthodox Church. I, for one, am glad to be home!

Blessings,
amy

Me Too Amy! I really don't know what was in the Bishop's heart, I just wish he had used some other analogy! It left me with much ambivalence.

INXC,
Seraphim

[lYVgWWcP]

The second thing that bothered me was a very descriptive analogy used by the bishop to describe the Body of Christ, the True Christian Church. He used the analogy of a tree to describe the church. He went on to describe Orthodoxy as the root of the tree which nourishes the branches and the leaves, which he explained were all of the other protestant churches and denominations. He said that it was better to be the root and not a branch but that we were of the the same tree. This analogy was used to support his apparent ecumenical view.

Seraphim,

I have uploaded an image in my profile section that seems to depict that which your bishop was referring to. I also posted the image on myspace.com/ancientchristianity so that you can upload it. Just to briefly describe the photo, Christ is The Tree of Life, depicted as the Eastern Orthodox Church. A lightening bolt, symbolisizing The Great Schism, has torn off a brach (Roman Catholic Church). Several leaves (representing various protestant faiths) are falling off of the broken branch. They are not in communion with the tree. They have been seperated from The source of life.

I think its an accurate depiction of historical events. I think that is what your bishop was attempting to describe. Some things are better left to the eye though.

I also dont think that we should be surprised when we hear church officials say and do unorthodox things, as this is a sign of the times and a refelction of the state of the world today. I have heard and seen much worse. In the spirit of Christmas, and the words of my spiritual father "if I knew what i was really doing when i critize priests i would remain silent" I will exercise some restraint (at least for today).

Have a blessed nativity,

[aAaBecker]

Dear James,

I understand what you are saying, be patient though as even the most pious can be against you.

I was visiting relatives a year ago in your neck of the woods, they attend an Orthodox Church there. Their Priest came over for dinner along with several Orthodox friends from the Parish. The beginning prayer before the meal was something out of the book of common prayer.

During the course of our meal the Priest mentioned many very disturbing things along the lines of what you had mentioned, so I was forced to disagree by my conscience very politely, that went on for around 30 minutes. I refrained from disagreeing when my 80 year old pious mother "Presvytera" started nudging me with her foot under the table and whispered in my ear, don't disagree with Father he's the Priest. The only thing I could do was excuse myself, I ended up in another room of the house, that is after another relative agreed with the notions the Priest was articulating. It seemed like the only thing to do when even the pious are collectively against you.

I thought about it and what seems to be advanced is the idea that we as individuals are no better than other Christians as such if we would just be humble and not judge others, there would be unity with other Christians. The world would be a better place and that's what all of us want etc. Basically the lines between individual passions and the teachings of the Church are being confused. Human passions are being used to establish a unity, "we are no better" therefore there will be unity when we change, become more loving and accept the other expressions of Christianity, after all there are many very good pious people there, better than us in the Orthodox Church. We should not be so proud etc. We know we have the true faith but let us recognize the other Christians as not being heretics but rather as being branches and not the root etc. We can even think who I'm I to judge God's servant, the Bishops or Priests that are articulating such notions. But really there is a difference between judging God's servant and not agreeing with things that we can't agree with according to conscience. The devil is cunning and it is a cunning attempt to use the emotions of man in way to confuse people so they think that true love means acceptance. This is especially so when the other communities also believe in Christ and there really are wonderful loving and caring people within those communities, we all know that.

But for the record, Orthodox Christians have a tradition of following the traditions of our fathers. Inclusive in that tradition is the obligation to speak up when necessary. The problem now is that sometimes even when some speak up they are shut down by others, sadly even Priests on occasions. I know some very pious and knowledgeable Orthodox Christians that simply see no choice but to accept such things as God's will during these times. Even when they speak up and they are correct they are pastorally "corrected" by those that know better. So people end up in odd positions. It really seems to me to be a Western concept of authority that has seeped in somewhat. It seems to come from an established office notion that once one occupies others must agree with since after all the Bishop received the Priest, the Bishop is the Bishop etc. Great errors in the past have come about through such ways, and it is becoming far to common of an experience it seems. There really is nothing that can be done, other than for us to repent of our own sins, trust in God and not worry too much about it.

Anyway if you want to be safe and at peace, being quietly perplexed doesn't work well...

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Freeptube]

Dear Matthew,

I am in no way pious. However I agree with you. And as a Father of modern times has said (excuse the paraphrasing please!) many are trying the unity in the name of "love", but this is a pseudo love because it is not based on the truth.

nina

[ronaldasten]

And as a Father of modern times has said (excuse the paraphrasing please!) many are trying the unity in the name of "love", but this is a pseudo love because it is not based on the truth. I think this is from Father Cleopa Elie, archimandrite in Romania.

Matthew, you were right and I think it was not your turn to go, but those who sold the Orthodox Church to heretics for 30 silver pieces.

It is a pity to see who many people think to do something good by selling everything which Orthodoxy stands for, just trying to please others, who of course don't give up anything from their heretic views.

They say: We are to ones who have to change! And many willing to do so,for the Love of Christ and the Unity of Christianity, as they think.

There is no need for such a unity, the heretics who search such a unity with the Orthodox Churches are looking for the Truth which they lost so long ago already. By giving up our positions just to please them we are doing neither them as well as ourselves anything good. And the Truth will disappear from Earth and the demons will rejoice.

The Future of Orthodoxy is determined not by compromises with Antichrist but by heroic standing and confession. Let us pray, repent and stand firm! Nicolaj