Being Recieved into Orthodoxy

away · Post by **away** » Tue 30 December 2003 12:02 am

Glory to God!

dont look back like pathetic me.

PFC Nektarios · Post by **PFC Nektarios** » Tue 30 December 2003 3:21 pm

Explain that one

Makis · Post by **Makis** » Thu 1 January 2004 4:20 am

Dear OL,

Welcome home!!!!! $/\$ $/\$ $/\$ $/\$ $/\$ $/\$

In Christ,

Makis

Seraphim Reeves · Post by **Seraphim Reeves** » Sat 3 January 2004 1:18 pm

Orthodox Learner,

I will be recieved into the Antiochian Orthodox Church, by the Holy
Mysteries of Initation. I'm so happy that I can be recieved correctly. I Orignally wanted to be recieved into Orthodoxy by ROCOR, but
My ROCOR Spiritual Father, said he wanted me to join the Antiochian Church and if I wish later in life I can move into ROCOR. The Antiochian Church is the closests and the Priest is very traditional.

I'm not entirely opposed, in principle, to people being received "by economy" (something of a misleading term, since all acts of the Church fall under "economy"...but I use it for the sake of convienience.)

However, I'm surprised that a ROCOR priest would send anyone to the Antiochians. Did he tell you why he would send you to a Monophysitic church?

He is a Orthodox Traditionalist not an Orthodox Fundamentalist as some people are on here.

These terms are irrelevent in a genuinely Christian context - they are the words of politicians and those who wish to marginalize and artificially categorize views which do not suit them. If anything, it is the ecumenists who are "fundamentalists".

the word "fundamentalism" in a Christian context originally pointed to a liberal movement in Protestantism at the beginning of the 20th century.
this movement was inextricably linked with ecumenism, a movement which also began in Protestantism.
the word "fundamentalist" refers to someone who accepts a "mere Christianity" type of doctrine as being all that is important. This is what the early Protestant ecumenists were interested in - taking only the most basic fundamentals of their beliefs, shared by everyone, and making them a basis for "essential" doctrine. Everything else was made secondary and unimportant - not to be an impediment to union amongst the varying Protestant sects.
This mentality is very much that of the "Orthodox" ecumenists. While they fawn over and speak nicely of the broad body of Orthodox teachings, in reality they functionally only believe the fundamentals (which they claim to share with the Papists, Monophysites, and to a degree, even Protestants) are really important. This is then a basis for union. This can be found in the opening paragraph of the 1920 EP Encyclical on Ecumenism...

Our own church holds that rapprochement between the various Christian Churches and fellowship between them is not excluded by the doctrinal differences which exist between them (Patriarchal and Synodical Epistle of 1920)

The document in question is filled with ecclessiological heresy. Very conspicuous however is it's fundamentalist character.

However, I doubt this is what you and others commonly mean by this term. Rather, they use it in the misappropriated sense of refering to someone who takes "religion too seriously" or who is perceived as being joyless because they "don't know how to rock and roll or have a "good" time" (usually understood as something involving sin.) That is the import of the term as you're using it - it's a term taken from the world, from secularists and godless people who simply are incapable of understanding how anyone can consider life bearable without a little debauchery and killing at least a few brain cells here or there.

It is certainly not the way a Christian either speaks or thinks.

Is there any genuine Christian who does not take his faith seriously? Who does not take the teachings of the Church seriously? Who does not take the logical consequences these beliefs have on all areas of his life, "seriously"? This is not to say that none of us sin, and fall short of these ideals on so regular a basis that were it not for the mercy of God, all would be lost and without hope. But it certainly does mean, in light of such failings, in light of the difficulties posed by the existance of heretical/schismatical sects, etc., we seek justification from the hands of God and not from ourselves - that is to say, we do not "lower the bar" so that our sins are white washed, or resort to any sort of "fundamentalism" (properly understood) to lower the bar so as to admit blasphemy and perversion.

The truth is, the "traditionalist" who is yet indifferent to such weighty matters, is an ecumenist in drag. They have the smells and bells and sweet words of the Saints, and much high sounding (even edifying at times) speach, but in reality they do not take any of it seriously. Would they, they could not remain in communication and fraternity with those who they do - they would not confuse Light with darkness, or Christ with belial.

Seraphim

PFC Nektarios · Post by **PFC Nektarios** » Mon 5 January 2004 1:08 pm

No Seraphim he would not send me to a Monophysite Parish.

He does recognize the Antiochian as Orthodox and right now he just
wants me to become Orthodox. Nothing more. Not to worry about
Jurisdiction as of yet. Just become Orthodox. He wants me to
go and be recieved there because, ROCOR would take alot longer for
me to be recieved and my Spiritual Father has been talking with my
Parish Priest (antiochian) and he said It would be good for me to go there,
based on his discussion with the Antiochian Parish priest.

I plan in the future to join a ROCOR parish if I ever get a chance.

Mary Kissel · Post by **Mary Kissel** » Mon 5 January 2004 1:29 pm

Forgive me if I sound judgemental, but I am also shocked/confused as to the reason why a ROCOR priest would sent their spiritual child to an Antiochian Church to get Chrismated etc. I know that you said above that (I'm paraphrasing) it would take 'longer' to be received into the ROCOR...but why would you go through the Antiochian Chrismation and all that if you're planning on eventually joining the ROCOR anyway....it makes more sense to me anyway, to just go straight to the ROCOR if that's the intention. I also think I understand why Seraphim called the Antiochians Monophysites...that's because they do openly commune the anti-chalcedonians in their Antiochian Churches....is that what you meant by that Seraphim?

In Christ,
MaryCecilia

PFC Nektarios · Post by **PFC Nektarios** » Tue 6 January 2004 1:07 pm

I'm not going to be recieved into Antiochian Orthodoxy by Chrismation.
I'm going to be recieved by Baptism, Chrismation, and Eucharist. (YaY!)

My spiritual Father lives in a different state. The nearst ROCOR parish from me is the Cathedral in L.A. which is like 1 hour away. Also,
I'm going to Marine Corps boot camp june 28th so he wants be to become Orthodox before I get shipped out to Marine Corps Boot Camp for 3 months. It would take me longer then 6 months to get recieved into Orthodoxy by ROCOR. But the Antiochian Church is treating me differently due to my special circumstances. So I will be recieved into Orthodoxy
with in the next 6 months and by the Holy Mysteries of Initation.

Thats my Spritual Fathers reasoning for having sent me to the Antiochians.
Not to mention that he is in contact with my parish priest and thinks its a good idea because the priest is very orthodox in his Orthodoxy. My parish priest could be a ROCOR priest no problem.

Thats why.

In Christ
OL