[The Rev. Dave]…Mustian sees nothing odd about choosing a burgeoning town like Erie — peppered with new housing developments and buildings under construction — as a place to set down an ancient tradition. The town, while appearing to be in its infancy, is actually a place with more than 100 years of mining history, he said.
And more important than the church’s physical location — on Austin Avenue just inside the Boulder County line — are the families St. Luke attracts, Mustian said. The families, he said, are looking for constancy in an ever-changing world.
Christi Ghiz, 40, has been an Orthodox Christian for 15 years. The Lafayette woman started off as a Baptist, but saw in her new faith a rich history that seemed to be fading from the Protestant services she attended.
“A lot of the Protestant churches are changing with the times, but the Orthodox Church hasn’t changed in 2,000 years,” she said.
I’m sure you have noted that the article is about Erie Colorado, not PA. Sadly, the first clue was when it described the ‘burgeoning town of Erie’ I knew it wasn’t in Pennsylvania.
I do wish people would stop going on about Orthodoxy not having changed in 2000 years, which is simply untrue. Orthodoxy is constantly evolving- theologically, liturgically, and in terms of the way it interprets disciplinary canons. It’s just that it does it more subtly than we do in the West that people notice it so easily. The clergy notice, however.
Yes, Father, I thought the same thing when I came to that part of the article. The Old Believers in Russia would certainly dispute the idea that Orthodoxy has not changed in 2000 years.
For Russia make that 1,000 years. Statmann
But in the Orthodox Church, a knee-jerk reaction takes about 75 years.
Yeah, I’m Orthodox and I don’t like the “never change” bit because it makes people think Orthodoxy is hermetically sealed, so they lose it when they find out about the Old Believers and stuff like that.
What people mean when they say Orthodoxy doesn’t change is that Orthodoxy doesn’t adapt moral teachings or liturgical uses for modern whims. There’s no concerted effort to make Orthodox churches look plainer and icon-free, no casting aside ancient dogmatic definitions in an effort to be more ‘inclusive’, and no one holding rockin’ contemporary guitar liturgies at 11:30 AM. Even speaking the liturgy is unheard of. People who are weary of churches that are like, “Let’s do rock music so the young people will come!”, throwing away statues and relics to make the church look like a warehouse, and baptizing in the name of the “Rock, Dove, and Rainbow”, often find respite in Orthodoxy for that reason.
Another thing, the “Archbishop Gregory” figure is not Orthodox. He’s a leader of a vagante sect that pretends to be Orthodox. His sect may share some common practices with Orthodox and call itself that, but it isn’t any more Orthodox than eating leftover food makes a person a raccoon.
Yes–this is not my hometown of Erie, PA. Besides, we already have a Greek Orthodox, a Russian Orthodox, a Romanian Orthodox, and a Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church–as well as an OCA church that relocated in the county.
And there’s an Anglican Church in Erie.
William Shontz
[url=http://theleca.org ]the Lake Erie Confessing Anglican[/url]
It might be seen to be inappropriate to diss fellow Orthodox, malfi, by alleging that because they are ‘noncanonical’ that they’re not Orthodox. Post #6 illustrates all too well the problem that even soi-disant ‘canonical’ Orthodox call ‘the curse of jurisdictionalism’. For those of you who are interested, you might want to check out Dormition Skete’s website and history to understand malfi’s problem with them. http://www.dormitionskete.org/ds-history.shtml They are essentially hyper-Orthodox theologically, historically rooted in the post WWI Russian diaspora. Also, to write, “What people mean when they say Orthodoxy doesn’t change is that Orthodoxy doesn’t adapt moral teachings or liturgical uses for modern whims” since that statement is wildly inaccurate at best. I know several absolutely pukka canonical Orthodox bishops of major, major jurisdictions who are gay with lovers, which practice is well-known but winked at in their hierarchies. It’s not officially accepted up-front, but the moral teachings of the Church have certainly undergone an adaptation of sorts. Adaptation takes many forms, most of which are unofficial adaptations. I’ve been present at liturgies of St John Chrysostom (by a bishop) which take only 45-50 minutes through deleting a lot of the repetitious elements, when unedited it takes 2.5 hours. There you have it. Adaptations according to modern ‘whims’. The difference between the Anglicans and the Orthodox is merely in the degree of hypocrisy exhibited. Anglicans less, Orthodox more.
Senior Priest & all,
I think a few points need to be made. I will try to be brief.
1. When discussing “change” or evolution (two very different terms) we need to differentiate between doctrine which does not change, and discipline which can change or evolve. In the case of discipline the change can be of a temporary nature through Okonomia in order to address a specific set of circumstances or it can be more long term (even permanent) if there are compelling reasons. A common short term example would be your priest blessing a relaxation of the Lenten Fast for reasons of health. A more long term disciplinary exception might be the tolerance of cremation in Japan because the law requires it. And an example of a more or less permanent change or development could be the making of the sign of the cross with three fingers instead of two which was adopted over time in response to a specific Trinitarian heresy. This latter case would also be an example of what we might call “organic development” in liturgical practice or discipline.
2. Organic development in the liturgy does occur. But it is in no way radical. A word here, a gesture there, added or deleted over centuries. Orthodoxy is not immune to change in matters of discipline. But it is inherently conservative. Any change, no matter how slight, is certain to be greeted with suspicion and apt to be met with fierce resistance and criticism.
One need only look at the horrendous internal conflict we have had over the last century. Did someone change the Creed? Women priests? Gay marriage? No. They tried to bring the church calendar in line with the civil calendar. To this day if you want to start a riot at a pan-Orthodox convention just climb on a chair and shout the word “calendar!” really loud. But the bottom line here is that if someone were magically transported from the 10th century Roman Empire into a modern Orthodox Church, while some of the service might be a little different, they would recognize it as the liturgy of the Orthodox Church, substantially the same as that which they were used to.
3. Where doctrine is concerned, what the Church taught before is taught today. One’s understanding of doctrine may be broadened in some cases. But there has been no significant amplification on any doctrinal matter since the 9th OEcumenical Council. Nothing taught by the Councils conflicts with anything taught and universally held before.
4. The Old Believer schism is a consequence of an abuse of power by the Patriarch with the support of the Czar (Petar Alexeivich the not-so Great). Unfortunately that schism, as so often proves to be the case, gained a life of its own. Many of the Old Believers have drifted from Holy Orthodoxy and some are today priestless sects subscribing to heretical beliefs. Others have been reconciled with the Church. There is a fully canonical Old Believer parish in the other Erie (PA).
In ICXC
John
A quick follow up to some of the points in #8…
The Church was not created for the righteous. It was created for sinners. There has never been a moment in its history where there have not been high ranking clergy engaged in scandalous behavior. I doubt there ever will be this side of the Second Coming. Unless someone is going to claim that their church has not suffered similar problem (I would advise taking a very deep breath before going there) then I don’t see the relevance of that. As for liturgical shortcuts, they happen and in an ideal world they would not. Even so they are the exception and not the rule. One could argue that it is an abuse of Oikonomia and I would not care to dispute the point. But as long as the essentials are still there I am not going to climb on a chair and scream heresy!
I will take the odd (or even common) sinful bishop and liturgical shortcuts any day over gay marriage, women’s [alleged]ordination and the adoption of gender neutral liturgies (because God is not male as the Scottish Episcopal Church has discovered); all of which seem to be the rage in Anglicanism.
ICXC NIKA
John
LOL I was only pointing out the romanticism of a previous poster’s viewpoint.
Senior Priest, I think Ad Orientem hit the nail on the head when saying that the church is a hospital for sinners. Regardless of possible hierarchical misbehavior, the Orthodox Holy Tradition is clear on the matter.
But what is worse for a church? Openly redefining apostolic teaching as some denominations seem to be doing, or having some members taking up clandestine and hypocritical sins? Even if I were sure which hierarch you’re talking about, I do not think I could bring myself to condemn him, since I have plenty of my own clandestine sins to worry about. May God have mercy upon him.
As for the non-archbishop Gregory, Orthodoxy has a very different idea of what constitutes a part of the Church. It’s more than adherence to a list of common points such as liturgy or dogmatic teaching. It demands being connected to the whole life and being of the Orthodox Church. By necessity, one who separates himself from being part of this is not merely an independent Orthodox from another “communion of churches”, but something new altogether. You don’t have to agree with that for yourself, but this is what we believe.
Well, you guys are sure making me chuckle tonight. Don’t be so sensitive when faced with unpleasant facts, friends. As an Anglican I have had to get used doing that for quite a while now. And, malfi… as you know the MP and the EP have an off-and-on relationship, and even the OCA, whose head is an old (and to my mind holy) friend, very recently had (despite its SCOBA membership) its lack of authentic canonicity pointed out by the Chief Secretary to the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Of course, if the tomos of autonomy which the Moscow Patriarchate gave the OCA had simply avoided claiming to give ‘sole’ jurisdicition over all Orthodox in North America to them, maybe more jurisdictions would recognize it. Also, it’s often pointed out that the tomos granted autocephaly, not autonomy. I rather like what Patriarch Bartholomew, said in October 2008, “…we must admit in all honesty that sometimes we present an image of incomplete unity, as if we were not one Church, but rather a confederation or a federation of churches. … Of course, the response commonly proffered to this question is that, despite administrational division, Orthodoxy remains united in faith, the Sacraments, etc. But is this sufficient? When before non-Orthodox we sometimes appear divided in theological dialogues and elsewhere; when we are unable to proceed to the realization of the long-heralded Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church; when we lack a unified voice on contemporary issues and, instead, convoke bilateral dialogues with non-Orthodox on these issues; when we fail to constitute a single Orthodox Church in the so-called Diaspora in accordance with the ecclesiological and canonical principles of our Church; how can we avoid the image of division in Orthodoxy, especially on the basis of non-theological, secular criteria?” I guess we all understand and agree that the the Ecumenical Patriarch knows what he’s talking about, huh?