What would you do if ROCOR and the MP united tomorrow?

[Daniel]

back to dayton, ohio-i am not aware of a website for the dayton oca parish-perhaps photos of that particular church are included in the oca's website-or a link to that parish website.

michael woerl

Here's the link to St. Paul's.

Granted there may not have been an iconostas in the 4th-5th century quite like what we have today, but none the less there was still a seperation between the nave and alter. Here's a link to some architectural drawings based on the chruch that was at the Hippodrome in Constantinople. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and you can clearly see the partition between nave and alter. Just throw up some icons and attach some doors and you have an iconostas

[Gregory2]

For general interest:

I e-mailed the priest at the above mentioned parish and got a very quick response. Their church is modeled on the ancient Greek practice; its type is found at the church of St Luke in Central Greece; the church that St Nicholas of Myra in Lyceia served in was arranged in the same manner, as was the Orthodox chapel at Dachau. The icons of Jesus and the Theotokos comprise the icon screen; the other icons are behind the altar.

I really appreciated the response, and I learned something. For me, this is a non-issue. A full iconostas does not an Orthodox make!

[mwoerl]

various practices of the orthodox church have developed -uh, for lack of a better word-organically- over the centuries. different practices, different physical arrangements of the churches, different vestments, color schemes for vestments, liturgical practices, etc., etc., etc., and so on, developed, changed, modified, and finally arrived at what we have today. this is 'tradition,' this is what has been handed down to us from our forefathers in the faith.

one of the cornerstones of orthodoxy is that christ instituted his church, and said that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' many protestant groups, especially later extreme cult-type groups, severely twisted this statement of christ, in that they preached that they had "found" or "re-instituted" the church-that is, the gates of hell HAD INDEED "prevailed temporarily" until the baptists, the mormons, the jehovah's witnesses-WHOEVER-had somehow discovered the "real" intent, and "reformed" things,bringing them back to how "they were supposed to be."

this same scenario, somewhat "scaled down," in that it does not proclaim an entirely "new" church, but, nonetheless does advocate and excuse the wholesale trashing of and/or severely changing what has been handed down to us by our forefathers in the faith, has been the practice, the priority, and the hallmark of the "parisian school" of orthodoxy. the "parisian school" is the russian emigre institute of saint sergius, a "theological" institution that has almost singlehandedly reformed and revised orthodoxy. all of the "leading luminaries" of the oca either attended, or were taught by those who attended the saint sergius institute. the founding of the saint sergius institute had a great deal to do with the schism of metropolitan evlogy (georgievsky) from the rocor in the 1920's. those who founded the institute with metropolitan evlogy's blessing had no intention whatsoever to allow their program to suffer any oversight from the synod of bishops, as they knew that, without a doubt, metropolitan antony (khrapovitsky) would never allow their "revision of orthodoxy" to go unchallenged. metropolitan evlogy's entourage, made up of these people who wanted to revise orthodoxy through the saint sergius institute, insisted that he break with the synod abroad so that they could freely teach what they wanted.

Code: Select all

many of these people had been involved in what could be compared to "new age" groups today, both in russia, and in the emigration; some were former bolsheviks, many whose passage to the west had been paid, and were subsequently subsidized by the soviet government. some of their 'compadres'-or perhaps we should say 'comrades'-were writers and poets such as dimitri merezhkovsky, zinaida gippius, vyacheslav ivanov, andrei bely, fyodor sologub, and other writers and theoreticians who were the principals in the "silver age" - also know as the "decadent period" (characterized by a fascinaton with the erotic, the anarchic, chaos, the demonic, primitive religion, theosophy, etc.)-of russian literature. one of the main topics of study of these groups was the theosophical society, the product of the imagination of another russian emigre, madame helena petrovna blavatskaya. theosophy was one of the first ecumenical/syncretistic philosophical-religious cults in existence, evolving from madame blavatsky's expericences wirh spiritualism, and the study of hinduism and buddhism. and, interestingly enough, but not surprising, i would think, is that a passion for ecumenism is another of the hallmarks of the 'parisian school' of orthodoxy. 

to make along story short, just because this or that saint served in this or that type of church building in the 3rd of 4th century is no valid justification for anyone doing so today, especially as these types of 'decisions' are based solely on personal preference and many touchy-feely types of reasoning. a justification for the "no iconostas look" that i have heard many many times is that "it makes the people feel that they are not separate," or, "it makes the people feel that they are more equal to the clergy," or other similar justifications that one-and again, no surprise here-finds for the liturgical changes brought about by vatican 2! in other words, we are not incorporating the entire "authentic historical practice" of orthodoxy in the 3rd or 4th century, we are incorporating what a professor at the saint sergius institute thought was important, or "cool," or what "I, an important and extremely intelligent person thinks that the professor at saint sergius institute meant"-or whatever-as long as it goes along comfortably with our other revisions, modernizations, reformations and minimilizations of orthodoxy, in a form more acceptable to a)the modern world; b)those non-orthodox we have to live among; c)those non-orthodox we wish to impress and unite with in the ecumenical movement; d)those we want to impress with our immense knowledge and impeccable scholarship.

it was remarked by fr seraphim rose that exponents of the "parisian school" of orthodoxy and the boston group, interestingly enough, shared an important characteristic. what could this be? what characteristic could ultra modernists and ultra traditionalists share? it was this-BOTH declared themselves the 'source and font' of orthodoxy in our days in that THEY were the ones people had to go to; THEY were the ones claiming-"we alone know what authentic traditions need to be brought from the 3rd century to make orthodoxy authentic today (in the case of the "parisisan school"), or "we alone know what authentic orthodox tradition is (in the case of the boston group)."

somehow, apparently orthodox tradition was "lost" and the "parisian school" and the "elder panteleimon" were the ONLY ONES who had been able to "find it" again! gee, lucky for us, huh? while the person who posted previously to my post here feels he has indeed "learned something," i wonder exactly what that was; i also urge him to look into the background of those who "bring back the past," and see exactly why they feel they need to do so, what else they have on their agenda, and what types of other sources they have employed to come to these oh so profound and important conclusions.

a very very good source for this is a book entitled, "no religion but the truth," which is a history of the theosophical movement in early 20th century russia. in this book, one finds some names that one would find again in looking at the luminaries of the saint sergius institute, as well as some 'philosophies' one finds espoused by the luminaries of that august institution. as they say- "there is nothing new under the sun."

i apologize for the very rambling quality of this post, and hope at least someone is able to make sense of it! if there is any interest, i can post further and hopefully more comprehensible information on this topic when i can make use of source materials.

michael woerl

[Natasha]

SGT wrote, "For me, this is a non-issue. A full iconostas does not an Orthodox make!"

Yes, sounds like the OCA these days...& an OCA priest also told me that we do not have to celebrate the full Divine Liturgy service on Sunday either, (all that truly matters is that we showed up for church) but it doesn't mean that I believe him.

[Gregory2]

Michael,

Thanks for your reply above. While my own personal taste is for the traditional, "full" iconostas, I do not see in any way how I can condemn those who do not go with the "full" version, especially in light of the historical precedents I cited above. Would any of us castigate those Orthodox who suffered in Dachau for not having a "proper" iconostas??

I am not Russian, but my own experience with those of the "Parisian school" (as you call it) is hardly anything like you call it here. They are, and have been, very Christian and loving, and, yes, very Orthodox. No one I have ever met has been "eager" to enter into communion with Catholics or Protestants, unless the latter became Orthodox.

I'm not going to post any more on this matter.... I am thankful, though, that I was able to learn something about our own Church history.

[mwoerl]

the following is quoted from: "Ecumenism, the New Age, and the Parliament of the World's Religions," which appeared in English in the No. 4, 1994 issue of "Orthodox Life;" in Russian in the No. 11, 1994 issue of "Pravoslavnaya Rus;" and in Bulgarian in the No. 5, 1994 issue of "Pravoslavno Slovo." The portions quoted are from "Orthodox Life," pages 15-17, under the section heading entitled, "Nothing New Under the Sun."

Code: Select all

A large part of the program of ecumenism, as outlined at the 1993 Parliament [of the World's Religions], is syncretism, a blending of all religions, not in the usual sense in which one would think of union, with one religion, one ritual, one leader, as the Dalai Lama "emphatically declared the Parliament has no intention of establishing a one-world religion." {1} This is because the union has already been achieved, a sort of "through the back door" union, by the adoption of the philosophy that "all paths lead to God," and "all religions share the same core, the same divine origins." In other words, "all religions are essentially the same." To be blunt, the union of all religions has been completed.

This, and much of the other current ecumenist wisdom comes to us from Theosophy. Theosophy has played a part in the ecumenist movement from the beginning-members of the Theosophical Society promulgated their beliefs at the 1893 Parliament [of the World's Religions]. They were present at the 1993 Parliament, most likely with a joyous spirit, since much of the Theosophical thought has become official ecumenist dogma.

"Theosophy holds that all religions are expressions of humanity's effort to relate to itself, to the universe around it, and to the ultimate ground of being. Particular religions differ from one another because they are expressions of that effort adapted to particular times, places, cultures and needs." {2} The first object of the Theosophical Society is seen as forming a "nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color." {3} The Theosophical Society's beliefs expressed much of the contents of the "document," "Towards a Gloabl Ethic" [the primary resolution of the 1993 Parliament of the World's Religions] long before that "document" was ever conceived.

Theosophy is also an important component to New Age teachings-in 1977, David Spangler, "a leading spokesman for the New Age movement," stated, "The Theosophical Movement is really the mother of the whole New Age movement, and as such has a tremendous role to play in the unfoldment of the New Age." {4}

The Orthodox Church has been challenged by Theosophy in the past. The founder of the Theosophical Society, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, was an apostate from Orthodoxy. In Russia, "Theosophy was the most important occult trend of the late 19th century in terms of cultural and philosophical content . . . The [Theosophical] Society . . . claimed tens of thousands of members worldwide, spreading eventually to Russia and attracting numerous adherents from the educated middle classes." {5}
" . . . occultism, in general, and Theosophy in particular are everywhere present, and are, in fact, a major determinant in the artistic and cultural course of the Silver Age [of Russian Literature and Art, 1890-1914]." {6}
"At the end of 1909, the [Russian Religious-Philosophical] Society devoted an entire session to an examination of Tehosophy." {7} Many members of this [Russian] Religious-Philosophical Society werer also members of the Theosophical Society, or had shown great interest in its doctrines, studying them in depth. "When the Bolshevik upheaval occurred, this [Religious-Philosophical] Society appeared again, composed of the same people, but under the name of the 'Free Academy of Spiritual Culture.' " {8} After exile from the Soviet Union, the members of the "Free Academy" sojourned in Berlin, and then, "after a short period of time, moved to Paris, where they formed the Brotherhood of Saint Sophia . . . shortly thereafter, they set about organizing a Theological Institute as part of the Saint Sergius Podvorije in Paris, with the professorial staff composed of members who served the 'Free Academy of Spiritual Culture' during the Bolshevik period." {9}

"The Synod [of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia], learning of the intention to open the Theological Institute of Paris, demanded the program of proposed studies." {10} The Synod never received the program of studies from the Theological Institute, and "the entourage of Metropolitan Evlogy [Georgievsky, +1946, at that time ruling bishop of the Western Europen Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia] began from that time striving by every means to rid themselves of the oversight of the Synod," becuase they understood that Metropolitan Antony [Khrapovitsky, +1936, at that time First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia] would not allow the "modernization of OPrthodoxy" {11} planned at the new Theological Institute in Paris.

"Not surprisingly, the Russian Theosophists shared in the messianic vision of the God-seeking ntelligentsia [who comprised the membership of both the Russian Religious-Philosophical Society and the Free Academy of Spiritual Culture]; many Theosophists were members of that intelligentsia . . . The outbreak of the First World War revealed the extent to which the Russian Theosophists' vision of the 'Path of Saint Sophia' and the 'Russian Idea' of the God-seekers coincided . . . " {12} " . . . it was the Gnostic, rather than the Buddhist, dimension in Theosophical cosmology that in the end made it particularly appealing to Theosophically inclined members of the Russian creative intelligentsia . . . the Gnostic influence appears in Vladimir Soloviev's Sophiology . . . and inthe elaboration of his work by the priests Sergei Bulgakov and Pavel Florensky." {13} "The teaching concerning Holy Wisdom [Sophia] of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov, a professor at the Paris Theological Institute, was condemned by the Council of Bishops [of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia." {14}

[It is noteworthy here to mention that the teachings of Bulgakov were also condemend as heresy by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1935. {15} ]

The influence of Theosophy contributed to the schism between Metropolitan Evlogy and his adherents from the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and to the heretical teachings of Bulgakov. Pernicious remnants of both events continue to trouble the Church to this day in both Europe and the United States, especially in the case of the OCA, as many of its "leading lights" graduated from the Paris Theological Institute, and went on to advocate the doctrines learend there. And, who can say how much influence Theosophy has had on thepositive attitudes towards ecumenism of both the Paris jurisdiction and the OCA?
[end of quotations from article]

---

Any cursory study of the Paris Theological Insitute clearly shows the mania for ecumenism that was promulgated there. Part and parcel of the approach to ecumenism there was the desire to "return" to a "purer" form of Orthodoxy, one which the heterodox would be "more comfortable" with. This is the philosophical basis for current fascination by some in the OCA
with churches "just like the one Saint ____________ [fill in the blank . . . ] served in during the 4th century."

I could easily append the myriad involvements in ecumenism of the Paris Theological Institute, and its professors and luminaries (Bulgakov, Fedotov, Zander, 'a monk of the Eastern Orthodox Church (Lev Gillet),' Shakhovskoy, Schmemman, Meyendorff, et al . . .), but perhaps it would be more beneficial for those interested to study this phenomenon for themselves. There is, indeed, no scarcity of matrials availabnle for such an undertaking.

Michael Woerl

Following are the sources for quotes within the article from "Orthodox Life"

1. "Divisions and Controversy Mars World Parliament"
   "Christian News"
   20 September 1993
   p. 15

2. Beversluis, Joel D., editor
   "A Sourcebook for the Community of Religions"
   Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions
   Chicago, 1993
   p. 97

3. Ibid.

4. Cranston, Sylvia
   "HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky"
   N.Y., 1993
   p. 526

5. Carlson, Maria
   " 'No Religion Higher Than Truth': A History of the Theosophical
   Movement in Russia, 1875-1922"
   Princeton, N.J. 1993
   pp. 28-29

6. Ibid., p.

7. Ibid., p. 162

8. Rodzianko, M.
   "The Truth About the Russian Church Abroad"
   Jordanville, N.Y., 1975
   p. 13

9. Ibid., p. 14

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Carlson, Maria
    op. cit., p. 78-79

13. Ibid., p. 127

14. Rodzianko, M.
    op. cit., p. 46

15. (Sobolev), Archbishop Seraphim
    "Zashchita Sofianskoi Eresi Protoiereem S. Bulgakovim"
    Sofia, 1937
    Prilozhenie 3, pp. 1-11

[gbmtmas]

Michael,

Thanks for your reply above. While my own personal taste is for the traditional, "full" iconostas, I do not see in any way how I can condemn those who do not go with the "full" version, especially in light of the historical precedents I cited above. Would any of us castigate those Orthodox who suffered in Dachau for not having a "proper" iconostas??

I am not Russian, but my own experience with those of the "Parisian school" (as you call it) is hardly anything like you call it here. They are, and have been, very Christian and loving, and, yes, very Orthodox. No one I have ever met has been "eager" to enter into communion with Catholics or Protestants, unless the latter became Orthodox.

I'm not going to post any more on this matter.... I am thankful, though, that I was able to learn something about our own Church history.

I agree. The Russians generally tend towards a very high iconostas--at times even up to the ceiling, while the Greeks have been more varied. Personally, I think there are much more important issues in life.

gbmtmas