Moderator: Mark Templet
Gregory,
I'd like to answer, but the issue is such a touchy one that I'm afraid I'd come off sounding like a self-righteous, judgmental, fool; or a hypocrite. Probably both. Perhaps it'd be better if I explained why I'm a traditionalist (in a group like I'm in), not why I think you should become one. After all, in the end it's not my choice where you are, but yours; and the more I try to force things the more I'd probably do harm. So, more tomorrow... 
Dont mean to sound rude Zollars, but it seem that nobody is intrested in the ROAC.
Now to give my opinion on your question, your Individual parish may not be Ecumenical just as my Parish isnt, but its still the OCA and very ecumenical and modernized not to mention their false Autocephaly.
That would be a few brief examples for me. They are the basically the Anglican "Church" of the Orthodox Church.
I see what some of these guys are saying to me being recieved into Orthodoxy by the Antiochian Orthodox and being a Traditionalist, its hard but right now I have no other choice. Maybe there is an Jerusalem Patriarchate Parish, or maybe a Serbian Orthodox Church near you that you could attend to. My two Cents.
In Christ
OL
When I think of being a traditionalist, I think of being Orthodox. That is not to say that one must proclaim oneself a traditionalist to be Orthodox. Neither do I think that one must join a Local Church that openly proclaims herself traditionalist to be Orthodox. But I consider traditionalist synonymous with Orthodox Christian, for I believe our Orthodox religion to be a religion that is one with Holy Tradition--and that unites us each organically with Tradition.
To be Orthodox is to be Tradition: being Orthodox is not just about being "traditionalist," but it is, ontologically speaking, to be tradition itself. Communion with God and union with all the saints makes us, in actuality, a living, growing part of Tradition. Tradition, in the Church, interpenetrates everything, and even the "newest" Orthodox thing is nothing but a new piece of fruit on the living tree called Tradition. Tradition is not simply the past fruit, then, but the fruit from all ages which has been pleasing to God and has been produced from the tree that he planted in His vineyard, the earth.
I suppose there is no way to express this in the English language, or in any language, as it is a "great mystery." Perhaps that's why Saint Paul referred to the union of a husband and wife to describe the Church: two become one, being simultaneously together and yet seperate. The same might be said of the Orthodox Religion and Tradition (since Tradition is simply another name for Orthodox faith and life). One need not call oneself a traditionalist for it to be so--indeed, probably many of us who call ourselves traditionalists are, in a certain way and to a certain extent, nothing of the kind (if judged according to the description of a traditionalist provided below).
I must note that I do not think that traditionalist and rigorist can be considered synonymous terms. Traditionalist does not equate to rigid or rigorist--unless Tradition herself requires such rigidity and rigorism. But so long as their is room for more than one position, I believe it wrong to view the most conservative, rigorist, or rigid position as necessarily the traditionalist position. Traditionalists today have gotten mis-labeled as being the rigorists and such because of the stances they've taken, but I don't think this assessment is a fair one.
Those who consider the calendar innovation to be a schismatic act, for instance, are rigorist (on this issue) because they are traditionalist, not vice versa. It is not their rigid stand that makes them traditionalists, but it is the fact that they are traditionalists (= Orthodox) that made them take such a rigid stand (on this issue). Some might say that I'm playing word games here--that this is nothing more than a matter of "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" but I believe the distinction is a profound and vital one.
Perhaps, if someone thinks I am merely playing a game with words, it could be thought of this way. Let's suppose that a man named John said this: "My wife loves me, and so I buy her gifts". Now let's suppose that a man named Peter said this: "I buy my wife gifts, and so my wife loves me." Surely it can be seen that these are two very different statements, and that the first is acceptable, while the second is wholly unacceptable? Merely by changing the sentence around we change the entire meaning of an entire Husband-Wife relationship. I believe it to be the same with my words on traditionalism above (ie. being a traditionalist who is sometimes led into rigorism is totally different than being a traditionalist who derives his traditionalism from his rigorism)
I believe this issue is important, for it all ties in with how I define traditionalism. Traditionalism can never, ever have it's definition rooted in rigorism, because Tradition is not always rigorist and rigid, and it would therefore be inconsistent and untruthful to claim rigorism as a foundation upon which to build. Now, rigorism on a particular issue (e.g., something that various councils and Fathers have weighed in on authoritatively) might be something that traditionalists take a more rigid stand on: but rigidity in itself cannot be a defining characteristic of a traditionalist.
(I should add a clarification, though. Orthodoxy in faith and actions is a foundation of traditionalism (since I consider Orthodoxy and traditionalism the same thing), and certainly to the modern world, or those used to thinking according to the mindset of the modern world, Orthodoxy will often appear to be rigid and rigoristic. However, we must not judge either Orthodoxy or traditionalism according to the world's criteria, but must perceive it with an Orthodox mindset if we are to properly understand it.)
The attributes that I think define (or at least describe) a traditionalist would be too many to mention here. If one person is more valuable than the entire universe--if we were indeed made in the image and can attain to the likeness of God--then no one could possibly describe humanity in his fulness. It is beyond our comprehension; I am beyond my own understanding. But thankfully, our religion is a revealed one, and we have a book that has all the answers. As Saint Justin Popovich said in his essay on How and Why To Read the Bible, there is no question that can be asked that can't find its answer in the Bible.
Looking at the Bible, then, and at other sources which have informed our Tradition, I think there are four main attributes that Christians--and therefore traditionalists--are said to possess: love, virtuous efforts, suffering, and faith. Each of these attributes could fill volumes by themselves, and of course I don't have the ability to expound on them so extensively. In leiu of such discourses, I'll list the aspects of each of these four attributes that strike me as necessary to claim that one has the attribute:
Love
Virtuous Efforts
Suffering
Faith
Now, if these things are what define a traditionalist--an Orthodox Christian--then I must admit that I fall well short. I imagine that just about everyone does, though what do I know of others? Yet, in spite of our possible inability to attain to these lofty goals, these above things are what our Tradition teaches us we must do. The important thing, I think, is not to worry about being a traditionalist, any more than we should worry about being deified. The fact is that Christ our God demands perfection, but we're going about things wrong if we think we can micromanage our lives into attaining this goal.
It is only by synergy--by experiencing God's uncreated grace through His Divine Energies, and responding (even as he is paradoxically responsible for our ability to respond)--that we can come to be true Orthodox--true traditionalists. Being a member of Group X or Jurisdiction Y does not make you a traditionalist. Condemning belief X or doctrine Y does not make you one. And of course, merely calling yourself a traditionalist does not make you one. Being a partaker of the divine nature, and that which comes with it in this world--love, virtuous efforts, suffering, faith--is what makes one a traditionalist.
Of course, though, the word traditionalist itself points to the concept of holding on to the traditions which have been handed to us, whether by word or epistle. This is merely an aspect of the faith attribute, though, and our perception would be skewed if we focused in almost exclusively on this part of being a traditionalist. Unfortunately, the way that traditionalism and traditionalists are viewed is often skewed in this way, and those who call themselves traditionalists are as guilty of this mis-conception as anyone.
But why is all this important? Supposing that Traditionalism and Orthodoxy really are synonymous, why should anyone care? The answer, according to Tradition (and yes I know that argument is circular ) is that: there is no salvation, and no true virtues or mysteries, outside the Orthodox Church. To go against Tradition, then, is to go against the Church, which is to place oneself outside the Church. Tradition and Church are both of the most profound salvific importance. This three-fold chain is also why I said that to be Orthodox was to be a traditionalist, for to break the chain at any point means that all is lost (e.g., one can't be "in the Church" and still argue against Tradition).
Church, of course, does not equate to the largest group. Unfortunately, we many times identify the "Church" with that group which appears to be largest or most prosperous. This is a terribly wrong position to hold to, though, and has probably been the spiritual death of tens of thousands, if not millions, of souls. Many times it is those who seem like the majority in the "Church" who are actually outside the Church, while those who are a minority are actually the truly Orthodox Christians. Everyone (I think) is familiar with the words of Saint Maximos on this issue, so I'll not quote that example, but will instead quote a different example:
Upon being summoned from exile by the Emperor, Pope Liberius was told to condemn Saint Athanasius. He refused to do so, which provoked from the Emperor the response: "How large a portion of the earth are you that you take sides alone with an impious man and disturb the peace of the earth and all the universe?" Pope Liberius replied: "Even if I am alone, the word of faith is not weakened for that." - Ronald H. Bainton, Early Christianity, (D. Van Nostrand Company, 1960), p. 70
For me, being a traditionalist is the same as being an Orthodox Christian. And being an Orthodox Christian comes down to one question: Where can I and my family love, suffer, believe, and live, so that we are in communion with God, and being saved in the Church? This leads to other questions, such as "Can I do this in ROCOR?" "Can I do this in the OCA?" and so forth. That is a tough road to trudge through, and I'll not say anything more than that I think OOD has a lot of good thoughts on the subject and think it'd be beneficial to give him a good listen.
Being a traditionalist isn't about loudly condemning every heresy that we become aware of--but it is about avoiding every heresy we become aware of (because heresy seperates us from the Church). It's also not about aligning oneself with this or that group and therefore thinking that you "get your Orthodoxy" from that group. In a way that is very true--yet we perhaps focus too much at times on the outward organization, and not enough on God, who is the giver of all good things. Above all, being a traditionalist is about working one's faith out with fear and trembling. And so, I know I am far from being a real traditionalist, for I have very little fear and do very little trembling before God, when I consider my sins, or even my own death.
At the very least, in this life I am laboring under the assumption that we should all try to become traditionalists. And in spite of all I've said, I suppose I will go on calling myself a traditionalist. It is only because God hasn't given up on me yet, though, that I can be so bold as to hopefully apply such a wonderful description to myself. My fancying myself a traditionalist is about as accurate as my fancying myself as being saved. Yet by the grace of God, by the will of God, by the love of God, it is somehow not totally impossible and inaccurate to say so.
And I still trust in God that he will lead people to where they should be. Despair at how "confusing" things seem today is hardly an excuse, for things have rarely been clear-cut. Sometimes things were so muddy that even Saints disputed amongst themselves. If we strive for holiness and peace with all men though, if we strive to be Orthodox, I think we will end up where we ought to be. I guess this is my answer to your questions. Any other answer (from me) would have come off as combative and confrontational.
Thanks for the long post, Paradosis!
For me, being a traditionalist is the same as being an Orthodox Christian. And being an Orthodox Christian comes down to one question: Where can I and my family love, suffer, believe, and live, so that we are in communion with God, and being saved in the Church? This leads to other questions, such as "Can I do this in ROCOR?" "Can I do this in the OCA?" and so forth. That is a tough road to trudge through, and I'll not say anything more than that I think OOD has a lot of good thoughts on the subject and think it'd be beneficial to give him a good listen.
Yes, that is part of my question.
One more thing: I believe that the Church is visible and that one can and should identify those churches within Orthodoxy. Therefore, in your view, please name all the churches within Orthodoxy. Are ROAC and GOC in communion? Etc.
Greg
After thinking about it overnight, I've come to the conclusion that I better keep my mouth shut. I have a number of "issues" and "concerns" with my own group at this point (and yes, I am talking about them with my spiritual father ), so I don't think it'd be a good idea for me to talk about other groups. I don't think that I'd be the one to talk about who is and isn't Orthodox anyway. Besides, I've come to believe that these types of issues you have to work out on your own. Even if you persuade someone to agree with you, it often turns out being a worse scenario than they had just found out on their own. I'm sorry if this seems like a cop-out.