Stay Orthodox, or Else
Embryo Parson Posted on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 05:38PM Every so often I read something that tends to put a damper on my ecumenical bonhomie with respect to the Orthodox Church. Here is such an item, written by one Fr. Leonidas.
No priestly act is of more far-reaching consequence than a conversion to Orthodoxy.
It crucially determines for all time the convert’s personal status, his marital rights and restrictions as well as his religious allegiance. If a pledge of unqualified loyalty to the Orthodox Church is subsequently betrayed, the result is disastrous, not least for the priest involved, should he have been guilty of an error of judgment in authorising the conversion on insufficient evidence of sincerity.
In that event, he is bound to feel some personal responsibility and liability for every violation of Canon Law the convert may commit. For only through his act in accepting a non-Orthodox into the Orthodox Church do actions like not attending the Sacraments or not keeping the fast days become grave breaches of Canon Law. Little wonder that many conscientious priests, under the weight of this crushing responsibility, contemplate conversions with extreme, sometimes perhaps excessive, hesitation.
The conditions for becoming an Orthodox Christian are simple enough in definition. A properly qualified catechist, after instructing the candidate, must be satisfied that the candidate is genuinely willing and able to accept the religious discipline of the Orthodox Church without reservation, whereupon the formal act of conversion is carried out, either by baptism where the candidate has not been previously baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity, or by the Sacrament of Holyc Chrismation, and the signing. of a letter by which the candidate on the one hand is renouncing his former faith and on the other confessing his Orthodox faith. . . .
Anyone prepared to follow Ruth’s example of total loyalty will be accepted into the Orthodox faith with open arms. But in the absence of such candidates, we should occupy ourselves with the challenge to convert should-be Orthodox, rather than would-be-Orthodox, to Orthodoxy.
If you can manage to slog through the entire article, you'll see a sterling example of how Orthodoxy *can* be cultic in some of its quarters. *Can be*, not is.
Unfortunately, this mentality does get a boost from the teaching of St. Theoplan the Recluse, who when asked if the "heterodox" will be saved, answered thusly:
You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever.
No pressure. ;>)
As I've implied above, not all Orthodox Christians share this rigorist view. Orthodox theologian Bradley Nassif reacts strongly to it in an article at Orthodoxy Today entitled "Reclaiming The Gospel."
Outside of Orthodoxy, have you noticed how the healthiest Christian communities around today are the ones who preach Christ, not their own denomination? They speak of Jesus, not their "Baptist," "Methodist" or "Pentecostal" identities. Yet, all we seem to hear from our pulpits is "Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy!" We are obsessed with self-definition through negation. It is a sick religious addiction. We often shore up our identity as Orthodox by constantly contrasting ourselves with Evangelicals or Catholics. I wish we would talk more about Christian faith, and less about "Orthodoxy."
Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart speaks to the intense anti-Westernism associated with this "sick religious addiction:
The most damaging consequence . . . of Orthodoxy’s twentieth-century pilgrimage ad fontes—and this is no small irony, given the ecumenical possibilities that opened up all along the way—has been an increase in the intensity of Eastern theology’s anti-Western polemic. Or, rather, an increase in the confidence with which such polemic is uttered. Nor is this only a problem for ecumenism: the anti-Western passion (or, frankly, paranoia) of Lossky and his followers has on occasion led to rather severe distortions of Eastern theology. More to the point here, though, it has made intelligent interpretations of Western Christian theology (which are so very necessary) apparently almost impossible for Orthodox thinkers. Neo-patristic Orthodox scholarship has usually gone hand in hand with some of the most excruciatingly inaccurate treatments of Western theologians that one could imagine—which, quite apart form the harm they do to the collective acuity of Orthodox Christians, can become a source of considerable embarrassment when they fall into the hands of Western scholars who actually know something of the figures that Orthodox scholars choose to caluminiate. When one repairs to modern Orthodox texts, one is almost certain to encounter some wild mischaracterization of one or another Western author; and four figures enjoy a special eminence in Orthodox polemics: Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and John of the Cross.
I am one of an increasing number of people I know who have converted to and then left the Orthodox Church. According to the rigorists cited above, my defection is "disastrous" and I have accordingly "lost my soul forever." What darkened, ignorant, sectarian hooey.
But at least St. Theophan knows better now. ;>)
All this ties into what I wrote earier today: the Anglican Churches, however disordered many of them currently are (Roman and Orthodox disorders to be discussed separately) constitute an authentic branch of the Catholic Church. It makes no difference to us that neither Rome nor Orthodox recognizes us as such, just as it makes no difference to us that the Two One True ChurchesTM are out of communion with each other, and that many in their respective ranks consider the other churches damned schismatics and heretics. We don't find our validation in their opinions, but in historical and confessional fact.
Fr. Oliver Herbel is an Orthodox priest who is doing some good reflection and writing on the phenomenon of why Orthodox Christians, both cradle and convert, leave the Orthodox Church. Hear ye him, not this Fr. Leonidas fellow.
Reader Comments (6)
Thanks for that blog recommendation. I really appreciated his comments on Anselm.
Nassif and Hart are spot on.
Hi There,
We live in a sad age when statements of mainstream groups like the Orthodox Church to claims of 'truth' are characterised as 'sectarian' and 'cultic'. Jesus made some pretty bold statements about truth. He must be sectarian and cultic too.
You must know how the Orthodox Church operates so you know Bradley Nassif and Oliver Herbel don't carry much weight. Now Theophan, that is someone who Orthodox accept as an authority.
David Bently Hart makes a valid point. There is no need to misrepresent 'western' thought. A accurate representation is enough discredit western theology.
Sure, there are converts to Orthodoxy who leave. But it must be admitted that there are many more who stay. There important thing is that people are converting and Orthodoxy is rediscovering it missionary vocation.
Americans seem confortable with changing religions often in some unquenchable quest for spiritual fulfilment. It is not unique to converts to Orthodoxy. As I always say the true Church doesn't have to be the perfect Church. Some converts don't realise this.
Stefano, as one of those I've termed the "ideological Orthodox", I understand that this must be hard stuff for you to read.
Hi,
Can you clarify what I find 'hard to read'?
An Athonite monk has much more crediblity for us than the few exceptions you bring up. Bradley Nassif is the darling of those evangelicals who clutch at straws looking for compatibility between them and Orthodoxy.
Posts like this one are counter productive as it is deceptive. You know perfectly well that the Orthodox Church is more in line with what Fr. Leonidas says.
Anyway, can I point out the huge demographic decline of Anglicanism (in all its forms) in the USA in the last 20 years. Does this invalidate your claims? If it doesn't then why bring up for Orthodoxy?
"Can you clarify what I find 'hard to read'?"
No need to clarify something that is abundantly clear.
And no disagreement on Anglicanism's demographic decline in the US. You might want to check south of the equator, however. Not that numbers really prove anything. Islam is the world's fastest growing religion.