What if there are only modernist parishes in my area?

[ORPRcamper]

Thank You for someone finally recognizing Owasso. I have already private messaged Vasili about the ROCA mission here.

[_cizinec_]

I went to high school there, but from what I hear, I may not recognize it anymore!

[PFC Nektarios]

Let me look to see if I can find the statement by your metropolitan saying this.

Waiting........

In Christ
Nektarios

[Reader Michael]

Let me look to see if I can find the statement by your metropolitan saying this.

Waiting........

In Christ
Nektarios

First, the positive spin.

A couple of years ago, after the Ben Lomond affair, “Met. +PHILP sent out an arch-pastoral directive that forbade concelebration with American JP clergy. There are no restrictions on concelebration with visiting JP clergy, or with JP clergy when visiting JP territory. In addition, the same letter reitterated Met. +PHILP’s directive that clergy are to wear black shirt, with clerical collar and black sport coat when outside the church. This has been his long-standing policy (15+ years, as I understand). It does NOT forbid the wearing of the cassock/riassa outside the church. In fact, according to a priest I just spoke to, +PHILP has "threatened" the clergy with mandatory wearing of cassocks/riassas outside the church if they refuse to abide by the shirt/colar/coat rule. “

The directive does not forbid wearing a Riassa outside the church, but instead is an attempt to get more strict regarding "civilian" clothes. “You have to read the entire letter, and know the context. The clergy have always been free to wear the cassock. If they chose not to, then they must wear shirt/collar/jacket. And they will be disciplined if they are found out to go out in civilian clothing. If they wear a cassock, they are under no risk at all."

Sorry, but I didn't make note of the sources of the above quotes from a Google search. I did better with the next one:

http://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa A2=ind0306A&L=orthodox&P=R2400&I=-3
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:56:44 -0500
Sender: Orthodox Christianity orthodox@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU
From: "kentgwashburn@compuserve.com" kentgwashburn@COMPUSERVE.COM
Subject: Re: JP Altar Consecration

"That's true. But it is our call to acknowledge correct
practices and belief and seek a place where those can be
practiced without hindrance. For example, the Antiochians
have recently mandated that their clergy must wear
western clerical suits rather than the riassa. Or for
another example, the OCA officially refuses to receive many
converts by Baptism, giving only Chrismation instead. There
is no option available in those places for those who wish
to hold to those important aspects of our Faith... but that
option is available in the JP and other places."

I write to correct a mistake in Reader Constantine's most recent post, where
he claims that the Antiochian Archdiocese requires that suits be worn in
place of the riassa. This is inaccurate. The Archdiocese has told its
clergy where a suit is to be worn and where a riassa is to be worn.

The basic, net result is that our clergy will be wearing a suit coat, not
the riassa, when they are out in public.

love,
Fr. George

"The Archdiocese has told its clergy where a suit is to be worn and where a riassa is to be worn. The basic, net result is that our clergy will be wearing a suit coat, not the riassa, when they are out in public. "

me:
So an actual priest under Metropolitan Philip puts a more negative spin on it than the laymen quoted above.

But who cares what people say!! Talk's cheap. Look at what they do. It is so confusing.

And it's not just the orthodox who see it. Look what a protestant had to say:

"I can understand a traditionalist Orthodox congregation that strictly
follows all ancient customs prescribed by Scripture, patristic witness, and canon law. That seems consistent, even if I don't necessarily accept all those authorities myself. I can understand a progressive Protestant
congregation that considers itself entirely free to interpret the Bible and
revise old denominational customs for the sake of outreach and cultural
relevancy. That again seems consistent, even though I often think it goes too far. ... But it just comes across as really strange to see a
group of Orthodox who invest great energy in keeping track of which fast days permit a katalysis for wine and oil, but feel relatively nonplussed about shrugging off two-thousand years of universal and biblically grounded practice on the issue of women's headcoverings. It just comes across as picking and choosing according to private taste, which according to the Orthodox is supposedly the great fault of Protestant praxis. Net impression: "We'll do detailed legalistic things, provided we get to pick which detailed legalistic things we want to do, and they aren't too inconvenient."

Of course, I'd probably prefer a general and intentional reconsideration of all Orthodox practice toward the modernist direction to be a good thing, but I'm just critiquing internal consistency of the Orthodox with their own theology. If the Orthodox are going to dump headcovering and beards and bring in pews and organs, then I have trouble taking as seriously the residual insistences on liturgical purity, fasting strictures, and exclusive use of iconographic-style art and eastern chant (as opposed to Western art and music). It looks as if the modernist Orthodox are just retaining a few parts of their own tradition that help them feel "non-Protestant" on the basis of local personal preference, in which case they ought to stop being so smug about the superiority of their "God-centered" worship. (Trads, on the other hand, can go on being smug, and at least be asured that in the process of being judgmental, they aren't also being logically inconsistent!)"