*learning to unread, and to be re-written: Bl. Theophylact and the
recapitulation of the mind vis-à-vis Holy Scripture. *
**
*by The Ochlophobist*

  I was pleased to see several persons recommend *The Explanation by Blessed
Theophylact<http://www.chrysostompress.org/catalog/explanation/?CPSESSION=f91024\
14b6e7260978bc6a7e20506f8d>
* in a recent
thread<http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/reading-the-fathers/>dealin\
g
with "essential" patristic reading over at Fr.
Stephen Freeman's blog <http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/>. One of the
recommenders, the always brilliant writer who frequents the Ortho-web under
the name Death Bredon, made the apt point that "Theophylact's Commentaries
are perhaps the original Orthodox Study Bible, if not the ultimate." Indeed.

Those who have been graced to read Bl. Theophylact's
*Explanation<http://www.chrysostompress.org/catalog/explanation/?CPSESSION=f9102\
414b6e7260978bc6a7e20506f8d>
* in English are in debt to Fr. Christopher Stade, the translator of *The
Explanation*, and the editor of Chrysostom
Press<http://www.chrysostompress.org/>,
which publishes the 4 volumes, one for each of the Gospels. Each volume is
available in hardcover and softcover. Fr. Christopher is also the priest who
(with the dedicated help of his parish) put on the excellent Chrysostom
Celebration which I have recently written
concerning<http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2007/10/holy-rus-past-presence-1600-\
years-of-st.html#links>
.

Bl. Theophylact was an eleventh century Byzantine of renowned erudition.
Born on the island of Euboia, he would serve at Agia Sophia under the
patriarch, become a noted preacher and rhetoritician, and even tutor the
son-in-law of Emperor Alexius I Comnenus. In 1090 or so Bl. Theophylact
became the Archbishop of Bulgaria, diligently serving the Church in Ochrid
until his death a score of years later. It was during his time as Archbishop
that Bl. Theophylact wrote his *Explanation*.

Fr. Christopher in his Introduction to the series (found in the Matthew
volume) provides an excellent summary of what Bl. Theophylact attempts in
this work:

The contents of Bl. Theophylact's *Explanation* are based entirely on the
works of the great Fathers of the early Church, and above all, St. John
Chrysostom. Bl. Theophylact employs to perfection the commentary form
introduced by St. Photius the Great known as "links" or "series" (in Greek,
*seirai*, in Latin, *catenae*). The inspiration behind this form of
commentary is the Orthodox desire, and indeed, commandment, to guard and
transmit to future generations the living apostolic tradition of the early
Church. Therefore, later commentators and Fathers such as St. Photius and
Bl. Theophylact, for each passage of Scripture under consideration, would
gather together the explanations and interpretations of the early Fathers.
The result is not simply the interpretation of one person, but an expression
of the consensus of the mind of the Church, in short, what the Church has
believed and taught "at all times and in all places."

But Bl. Theophylact's *Explanation* does not at all read like a list of
quotations. What is truly remarkable is that, although the work is wholly
derivative from the tradition of the fathers, in it the reader hears but a
single voice speaking clearly as a teacher to a disciple.

My own formation in the reading of Scripture was a mix of Evangelical and
liberal Protestant interpretive methods, which I would later come to
recognize as strikingly similar. I went through something of an intellectual
crisis in my twenties caused by the influence of various post-structuralist
forms of criticism and my own horror that what they described as the
normative relationship of a person to a text was exactly what I saw in both
conservative and liberal readings of the Bible. If that was indeed the case,
what relationship could scripture have to the truth? N.T. Wright helped me
gain something of a confidence in Scripture again, but I think that I would
still live with a fear in the back of my mind that there was a
deconstructing strong man ready to jump out and undo Wright's interpretive
method, if Wright were my source for biblical interpretation. And, in fact,
this fear would have been a rational one, as all Protestant interpretive
methods lead to their own dismantling eventually. We have seen this play out
again and again. Even in conservative circles there is always some new
historical "knowledge," some new textual analytical method, some new nuance
or caveat, that will undermine how we get to point *x* even if we continue
to hold that it must always be point *x* that we get to.

Fortunately, I began to listen to homilies given by a master Orthodox
homilist, a priest whose understanding of the scriptures carried a
profundity that, in a sense, deconstructed my modern agendist sensibilities
with regard to scripture. Fr. Jonathan opened up a whole new intellectual
world to me, though I did not know it at the time. But the intellectual
world he opened up was one which, as it were, brought me back to a world
that was not all intellect. He taught one a way to live with words that was
cruciform - obedient suffering for the sake of persons -- and recapitulative
- not mere assent of abstract propositions or vague themes but the
re-wording of my life in accordance with the *Logos*, writing my life over
with the Name of Christ. So many times I would walk away from a sermon of
Fr. Jonathan's and think "of course, how could I not have known this, why
didn't anyone ever tell me?" My wife and I would sometimes be quite
frustrated to learn things which upon learning them seemed essential to
understanding Christ and the Gospel and which we had not been taught in
years of Bible college and at a graduate school of theology. With Fr.
Jonathan, the Scriptures corresponded to real human life and real human
lives. He always seemed, without effort, to express the seamless garment of
the Church's understanding of the holy fathers' understanding of the
Apostles' understanding of Christ's understanding of the OT. I remember once
Fr. Jonathan praying for my wife and I, then inquirers, to have discernment.
We were in the basement of Holy Trinity Church on a cold Minnesota winter's
night. As he prayed he made mention of several OT figures, mentioned how a
certain aspect of their lives iconed Christ, and prayed that this icon would
be written in our own lives. I thought after he finished praying, this is
the bosom of Abraham, having that man pray for you. My wife was in tears. I
don't think we said anything to each other on the ride home, having
encountered a holiness the likes of which we were not prepared for (though
that holiness, thanks be to God, was preparing us).

It is frequently noted that there is a limited amount of Orthodox "biblical
studies" material to be found. One has to be careful in saying this because
anyone who reads the fathers knows that there is more Orthodox reading
material on the Bible than one could possibly read in one lifetime. But
there are few easily accessible, comprehensive with regard to a given book
of the Bible (or the Gospels as a whole, etc.), scriptural commentaries that
take us passage by passage through scripture and say, explicitly, "this is
how the Church interprets this passage." Some find the desire for such works
off-putting, as they are uncomfortable with anyone speaking with such
authority. Others are perhaps a wee bit too trigger happy in their longing
for such works, we do need to keep in mind the great degree of wisdom and
prayerfulness required in order to rightly interpret scripture with the
Church in the fashion so described. But, Orthodox know that this is
precisely the duty of the bishops to teach us the meaning of the Holy
Scriptures, as Christ taught the Apostles who taught the bishops who teach
us.

Bl. Theophylact is an Archbishop who engaged in such a work in a manner both
catholic (as Orthodox understand catholicity) and rhetorically precise. His
commentaries have been read, widely, by Orthodox (among them Byzantines,
Serbs, Bulgarians, Rus, and Greeks) for nearly a millennium, during which
time the Church has received and appropriated Bl. Theophylact's work as
speaking the mind of the fathers with regard to the Scriptural texts. Now,
thanks to the labors of Fr. Christopher Stade, the English speaking Orthodox
world can also partake of this work, one which should inform our patristic
nomenclature and intuition, as it has done so for many other Orthodox
Christians.

Bl. Theophylact's style is very straightforward, and Fr. Christopher's
translation facilitates this well. The books are eminently readable. The
prose is very smooth, so much so that you almost don't notice it. It avoids
the agendism of those "contemporary translations" paraded about today, but
at the same time it avoids the unfortunate linguistic false pieties which
much more often than not don't work (I speak here of those who attempt to
employ King's English when translating hagiographic and patristic texts, and
just don't pull it off, leaving a rhetorical affectation which has nothing
to do with the text at hand). Some of you will be pleased to learn that Fr.
Christopher uses Sir
Brenton<http://www.amazon.com/Septuagint-Apocrypha-Lancelot-Sir-Brenton/dp/03102\
04305/ref=sr_1_2/103-9399908-7258213?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194118948&sr=8-2>when
quoting the
*LXX*, *The Psalter According to the
Seventy<http://www.amazon.com/Psalter-According-Together-Interpretation-Througho\
ut/dp/0943405009/ref=sr_1_1/103-9399908-7258213?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194118992&s\
r=1-1>
* for quoting the Psalms, and the KJV, "modified in a few places to reflect
patristic Orthodox interpretation and usuage, and to avoid a few Elizabethan
expressions which are at the greatest risk of being unintelligible to the
contemporary reader." As far as I can tell with regard to Fr. Christopher's
modifications of the KJV, they are not really noticeable, and certainly not
distracting, to the Orthodox eye.

Bl. Theophylact's method is to take a short passage (one to five verses)
and, well, explain them, as the title suggests. This explanation is not raw
didacticism or threaded proof texting or critical text analysis of the sort
that you are used to if your background is similar to mine. Instead Bl.
Theophylact takes the given words or actions of Jesus (and the other persons
in the Gospel texts), and explains them in the sense that some holy one
versed in Orthodox iconography explains to you the meaning of images within
an icon. And this seems exactly right, as the actions and words of Jesus are
iconic, not subject to the "natural" determinisms of the postlapsarian
universe (hence the impotence of modern critical methods in finally
understanding Christ), but rather actions and words which in all instances
are the bringing about of the Kingdom, the showing of the Father, via Christ
the perfect image of the Father, to mankind. It seems to me that Bl.
Theophylact takes each action and word found in the Gospels and tells us how
in this action and this word Christ is the icon of the Kingdom, the icon of
God's will for man.

We should note here that this particular type of work can be quite
matter-of-fact, to the point in some places of being dry. For one thing,
when one is considering such small portions of scripture at a time, there is
often only but the obvious sense of the Scripture at hand. Bl. Theophylact
states as much in these instances, and does so in a plain manner. There does
not seem to be any attempt to excite or impress with sophisticated nuance.
This can be very difficult for the modern, intellectual mind. We constantly
want a new argument, or something which uncovers that not previously seen,
or (if we are post-structuralists) an interpretive method open to endless
numbers of meanings (so much so that there is no summative meaning, and thus
our thirst for nihilism is pandered to). Bl. Theophylact does not play those
games. His books are for mothers who worry about the salvation of their
children, for the elderly who need to focus their repentance in the few
years that remain, for young priests who need a sober and prudent formation
in the understanding of the Gospels, and for intellectuals who need to be
reminded not to love the spices more than the meat of the lamb. It is easy
for someone like myself to especially love those Orthodox writings by
contemporary Orthodox intellectuals who take a portion of Scripture and
explain all sorts of historical, textual, linguistic, theological, and
liturgical nuances. This is how the text was read was in this place at this
time; this is the history of the text in Latin, Greek, Syriac; this is what
this father and that father had to say concerning it; this is where it is
quoted in the liturgy; this is its place in the theological debate and
discussion, and so on and so forth. Such work is important, and when done
well [read: Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon], very much edifying and beneficial.
But, if you will allow your Ochlophobist to suggest something, there is a
basic disposition before Scripture that is prior to all that. It is that of
a child asking a father "what does this mean?" So often we moderns living in
technocracies with the ubiquitous and constant presence of mass information
want our minds, and our emotions, to be titillated. We Christians frequently
come to Scripture and her interpreters with such lusts. I am more culpable
than anyone else in this regard so please do not read this as a
condemnation. **Bl. Theophylact, as* *a good Archbishop, is not in the
business of titillation, he is about the business of telling Orthodox what
they must do to be saved. Imagine going to a Holy Elder on Mt. Athos and
asking him to explain to you the Gospel of St. John, verse by verse. In the
miraculous event that you found such a father what do you think the
experience would be like? Would every word he had to say blow your socks
off? Would every word carry something utterly new and exciting? If such is
the case you must be suffering from short term memory loss. No, there would
be a mixture of sublime profundity and quotidian obviousness, of the
infinity of God's mercy, and the very ordinary ways in which He saves us.
You would find, if you were so blessed my dear reader, in the teaching of
your holy father, the cadence of grace and truth. There are the mountains
and the valleys (or hills and hallows as one ochlophobist might say), the
highs and lows, the breadths and the narrownesses, but before all that, in
fact in a sense even transcending all that, there is the holy smallness of
this step, and then the next step, and the next, and the next, and the next,
you fall down, you get up, and the next step, and the next, and the next.
You will, if I may so be bold as to say such a thing being nothing more than
the pettiest of sinners, be saved, finally, in your steps and not in your
topography. God's saving movements are too still and too quiet to be found
in ever broad terrains. God does not save you in your next horizon, He saves
you in that place you are setting your foot. This has been the hardest
teaching of Orthodoxy for me to accept, and I still kick against the goads.
Bl. Theophylact's teaching of Scripture is the teaching of the cadence of
graceful steps. He holds the hands of his spiritual children, and teaches
them how to get the feel of the legs underneath them. His commentaries are
meant to be bathed in, their genius is their wholeness, the consistent
movement of grace whether ordinary or life-shattering; this is Baptism by
immersion, and not by sprinkling.

If you are going to purchase one volume of Bl. Theophylact's commentaries I
would start with *The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to
John<http://www.chrysostompress.org/catalog/explanation/?CPSESSION=354a412cab666\
0ca1ae879f115c06ea1>
*, as the Gospel of the Theologian perhaps requires the most help in
reading, and, we might surmise, grants the most mature of riches (I am
speaking here to those who are already Orthodox, or catechumen under the
care of a spiritual father). I will quote three catenae of Bl. Theophylact's
*Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to John* which I believe are
representative of his work.

The first deals with the account of the woman at the well:

Chapter Four: *28-30. The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way
into the city, and saith to them men, Come, see a man, who told me all
things that ever I did: is not this the Christ? Then they went out of the
city, and came unto Him.* The Lord's words kindled such zeal in her heart
that she *left her water pot*, straightway choosing Christ's water over that
of Jacob's well. Ordained to the rank of apostle by the faith taking hold of
her heart, she teaches an entire city and draws it to Christ. *Come see a
man*, she says, *who told me all things that I ever did*. Her soul aflame
with divine fire, she disregards all earthly consequences, even shame and
dishonor. Behold, she is not afraid to declare her sins: *See a man who told
me all things that ever I did*. She could have spoken more guardedly, by
saying, for instance, "Behold a prophet." Instead she disregards her own
reputation and thinks only to proclaim the truth. Nevertheless, she does not
state categorically, "This is the Christ," but rather, *Is not this
[perhaps] the Christ?* making the truth easier for the others to accept and
encouraging them to reach the same conclusion themselves. If she had
insisted, "This is the Christ," they may have scoffer at her and rejected
her proclamation out of hand as merely the opinion of a fallen woman.

Now there are some who understand the five husbands of the woman to
represent the five books of Moses, the only part of the Old Testament that
she, as a Samaritan, accepted. They also interpret Christ's words, *He whom
thou now hast*, to mean "The word which you have now received from Me *is
not thy husband*," that is, "You have not yet been yoked to My teaching."
The Samaritan woman may also be understood as a type of human nature, which
formerly dwelt on a mountain, symbolizing the human mind originally filled
with grace. Before he sinned, Adam was adorned with every divine gift, and
was even a prophet. When he was raised from sleep he spoke prophetically of
the fashioning of the woman and the husband's relationship to her: *This is
now bone of my bones* [Gen. 2:23] and *Therefore shall a man leave his
father and his mother*... [Gen.3:1]. Our nature, then was on this mountain;
the human mind was exalted. But when it rebelled against God and
transgressed, it was led away captive; and the devil, who had taken us
prisoner, also took our nature's holy offspring, by which I mean all divine
thoughts, and led them away to Babylon, that is, he subjected them to the
confusion of this world. In their place the devil planted barbarous
thoughts. These in turn were assailed by lions (symbolizing the noble
thoughts which should exercise dominion over us) until these vile thoughts
accepted divine truth. But they did not accept truth in its entirety, for
the evil which had once settled on the mountain of our lofty mind was not
altogether transformed into good: having accepted the law of Moses, it
remained under the curse. Therefore Jesus journeyed to us, that is, He took
many paths and employed many stratagems to bring us salvation - sometimes
issuing threats and warnings, sometimes striking us with calamities,
sometimes showering us with blessings, sometimes promising us good things to
come. When He had grown weary from His journey and employing all the methods
devised for our correction, He found the final means for our salvation;
being well-pleased, He sat down and rested. What was the final method? The
font of Baptism, by which He brought salvation to our nature, as He did to
the Samaritan woman. This spring may rightly be called the well of Jacob,
that is, the well of him who seized the heel of his brother Esau and
supplanted him. For in the font of Baptism, where the Lord crushed the head
of the dragon and gave him as food to the Ethiopian people, a man can trip
up and vanquish the devil [see Ps. 73:15]. By the dragon, understand the
devil, who is the food and joy of those whose souls are black and have no
share in the divine light. Five "husbands" have been yoked to our nature,
namely, the various laws which God gave her: to Adam in paradise, to Noah,
to Abraham, to Moses, and lastly, to the prophets. For Noah received a
commandment after the flood, and Abraham received the law of circumcision
[see Gen. (;1-17; 17:1-4]. After our nature was wedded to these five laws,
she took to herself a sixth, who was not her husband and whom she had not
yet wedded - the law of the New Testament. But, by a different
interpretation, one might also understand this sixth, which was not our
nature's husband; instead, she joined herself to it as an adulteress.
Therefore the prophet cries, *She hath committed adultery with wood*, and *They
have fornicated under every tree* [Jer. 3:6,9], referring to the pagan
carvings and trees which Judah and Israel worshipped. Man has fallen
headlong to such depths of senselessness as to worship lovely trees like the
cypress and the plane simply because they are beautiful. Therefore, when our
nature loved and embraced this sixth law and succumbed to idolatry as an
adulterer, the Lord came and delivered us. This is why He says, *he whom
thou now hast*; for by the time of Christ's appearing the wisest even of the
Jews had been tainted by paganism. Thus the Pharisees believed in fate and
practiced astrology. The Samaritan woman also represents every soul which,
being yoked irrationally to the five senses, afterwards falls into the
fornication of heresy, erring grievously in doctrine. On such a soul Jesus
bestows blessings, whether through Baptism or through the font of tears.
Tears may likewise be called *Jacob's well*, for they spring from a mind in
which repentance has supplanted wickedness. From this water of repentance
the mind drinks, together with *his children* (his thoughts) *and his cattle
* (the powers of the soul, such as anger and desire, not endowed with
reason). For tears bring refreshment to the soul, its thoughts, and its
faculties.

The second selection I have chosen is from the end of chapter twelve of
John, that great chapter in which we see both Greek and Jew responding to
Christ, and in which He says in the middle of a chapter in which He speaks
rather directly of His death, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will
draw all men unto me." Here Christ speaks of His relationship to the Father:

Chapter Twelve: *48-50.** **He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My
words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same
shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of Myself; but the
Father Who sent Me, He have Me a commandment, what I should say, and what I
should speak. And I know that His commandment is life everlasting:
whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto Me, so I
speak.*"I judge no one," Jesus explains, "but there is
*one that judgeth* the man who refuses to believe." We sometimes put it
similarly when we are about to discipline an unruly child: "You had your
instructions and chose to ignore them. Nobody forced you to do so. You are a
wilful child: your own disobedience punishes you, not I." "Not I," the Lord
is saying, "*but the word that I have spoken*... *shall judge* you. And why
did these people not believe? Am I God's adversary? Do I crave glory for
Myself? But how can that be, when *I have not spoken of Myself*? Everything
I have said is from my Father. I have proclaimed nothing of My own. *But the
Father Who sent Me, He gave Me a commandment, what I should say, and what I
should speak*."

What profound humility there is in these words! Only a person completely
lacking in judgment would say here, "How was it, Lord, that before the
Father sent You and gave You this commandment, You did not know what to
teach? How was it You knew nothing about this commandment of *life
everlasting*, nor about eternal life itself? If all this were true, how
could You say earlier, *I am ... the life* [Jn. 11:25; 14:6]?" Let us be
astute and avoid absurd interpretations of Scripture. We should realize that
the Lord is condescending to the weak understanding of His listeners. His
main purpose is to make it clear that He thinks and speaks nothing that is
opposed to the Father. "Like an envoy who speaks strictly in accordance with
his instructions, so I think and teach nothing other than what the Father
has decreed." And He continues, "*Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the
Father said unto Me, so I speak*. I teach nothing except what the Father has
instructed Me; so what excuse can these unbelievers possibly have?"
Doubtless, they will be condemned for refusing to believe the Father.
Therefore, O right-believing Orthodox Christian, understand that Christ's
humble words about the commandment He has received - if we interpret them
wisely - do not demean the Savior's divinity. The Word [*Logos*], that is,
the Son, reveals everything that is in the Mind [*Nous*], that is, the
Father. The Son declares that He has received a commandment as to what He
should say and speak. Our own word [logos] does the same, provided we speak
truthfully: it declares what our mind commands us to say. For our word and
mind are of one essence, as are the Son and the Father.

Consider at last this passage from the explanation of St. John chapter
fifteen, which speaks of relationships concerning love, obedience, and
suffering:

Chapter Fifteen: *9-10. As the Father hath loved Me, so have I loved you:
abide ye in My love. If ye keep My commandments, ye shall abide in My love;
even as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love.* Urging
the disciples to be of good courage, Christ says, "I have loved you as the
Father has loved Me." Then He warns them about a common human weakness:
laziness. "Having learned that I love you, you must not relax. Whether or
not you *abide... in My love* depends on your own effort. You must strive to
love Me continually." Then He teaches them how to do this: by keeping His
commandments. Constantly stressing this theme, the Lord emphasizes that they
will be safe only by leading a pure life. Then He adds, *Even as I have kept
My Father's commandments, and abide in His love*. Understand that this
statement is a condescension to the weakness of His listeners. It is absurd
to imagine that the lawgiver of the universe is Himself subject to any law,
and that without His Father's commandments He cannot conduct His own affairs
properly. The Lord is only speaking thus to console the disciples. When He
told them first, "I love you," and then "You will suffer tribulations," the
disciples might very well have been dismayed, thinking His love did them no
good. So He reassures them: "Do not be distressed. The Father loves Me, yet
He hands Me over to My enemies to suffer for the sake of the whole world.
The fact that He allows me to suffer does not mean that His love for Me is
any less. Neither does the fact that you will suffer tribulations mean that
My love for you is any less."

It is a difficult, even violent work, to be lifted from the confusion of
this world to which we are subjected by our embrace of the evil one's lies,
and instead of this to interpret wisely the icon of the Son's divinity, thus
avoiding the absurdities which so often leave us with bereft minds, finally
acknowledging that His love is most fully revealed to us in His obedient
suffering, and that this is the pattern of all truth. This pattern is that
pattern that Bl. Theophylact, the holy Archbishop whose spiritual children
now number as the sand of the sea, seeks to inculcate in his readers. The
revered Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, whose books *On the Prayer of
Jesus<http://www.amazon.com/Prayer-Jesus-Ignatius-Brianchaninov/dp/1590302788/re\
f=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-9399908-7258213?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194132393&sr=8-1>
* and *The
Arena<http://www.amazon.com/Arena-Offering-Contemporary-Monasticism/dp/B000PBPK7\
2/ref=sr_1_5/103-9399908-7258213?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194132461&sr=1-5>
* have blessed many Orthodox, had this to say of this work:

While reading the evangelists, the novice should also read The Herald [as
the Explanation is called in the Russian translation], that is the
explanation of the Gospel by Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria.
The reading of The Herald is indispensable. It is an aid to the right
understanding of the Gospel and consequently to the most exact practice of
it. Moreover, the rules of the Church require that Scripture should be
understood as the holy Fathers explain it, and not at all arbitrarily. By
being guided in our understanding of the Gospel by the explanation of the
holy Fathers, we keep the tradition of the Holy Church.

I suppose that many American Orthodox would rightly be considered novices
with regard to having an Orthodox intuition of the meaning of the
Scriptures; such is certainly the case with your Ochlophobist. As you can
see from the quotations above, a reasonably literate Orthodox junior high
age reader could follow Bl. Theophylact's prose. It is not difficult to
read, though it requires attention. It is an invaluable help in the
development of the right intuition with regard to the Scriptures, which is
to say the development of an ear which hears with right understanding (and
can sense that something is "off" upon hearing wrong understandings) and
allows the cadence of right understanding to develop into the rhythm of
right practice.

In the first quote of Bl Theophylact above, we read, "The Samaritan woman
also represents every soul which, being yoked irrationally to the five
senses, afterwards falls into the fornication of heresy, erring grievously
in doctrine." Many of you come from theological backgrounds similar to my
own, which employ some sort of natural theology when seeking to understand
the Scriptures, dogma, worship, and the other essential components of the
Christian faith. Thus we are used to "being yoked irrationally to the five
senses" by way of the social sciences, flashy commercialisms, mass
emotionalisms, some historical or textual critical method, or various sorts
of empiricisms (popular or academic), these being the lenses through we
"discern" God's revelation to us. Thus we knew "the fornication of heresy,
erring grievously in doctrine." Bl. Theophylact's work helps us to chasten
our minds again, unreading the old irrationalities and learning to re-write
proper patterns of discernment in our minds.

I highly recommend Bl. Theophylact's Explanations. These are reference books
which should be in every Orthodox home. If your parish bookstore does not
have copies available, please ask that they be made available there. The
format Bl. Theophylact uses works perfectly if you simply want to look up
the Gospel reading for the day and find a straightforward, easily accessible
patristic reflection on it. It is also one of the very best ways to read
through a Gospel book being guided by the mind of the Church. In doing so,
you will be formed by the words of a saint who has formed Orthodox thinking
on the Scriptures for almost a thousand years, passing on to these many
generations basic patristic exegesis. If you have older children you might
find this work very suitable for family devotional reading. I know that Bl.
Theophylact will be required reading in my household. If you are of limited
means, or if you would like to try one volume before committing to all four,
then as I stated, I would start with the Explanation of The Holy Gospel
According to John. If you are like me, there are certain books which become
almost like friends over time, and as Orthodox we know that we can indeed
develop a real friendship with the holy writers of the texts of our
Tradition. This is one of those works which will make you such a friend.
Holy Blessed Theophylact, pray to God for us.

From Chapter Ten, the Explanation of verses 22-26, which describes the
winter feast of the dedication in Jerusalem, when Jesus was questioned in
Solomon's porch in the temple:

….Although in the present life you are buffeted by wintry storms stirred up
by evil spirits, use this season to renew continually the temple of your
soul and to make ascents in your heart [see Ps. 83:6]. As your co-worker,
Christ will be present with you *in Solomon's porch*. He will shelter you
with His protection and give you peace from the passions, for He is your *
Solomon*, which means "peacemaker." As the Prophet David says, he who abides
in the shelter of Christ the peacemaker has the Lord as his co-worker in
renewing his soul [see Ps. 90:1]. If this work takes place in *winter*,
meaning in this life, then spring is the age to come, when everything dead
and deadened springs to life. Then it will be too late to undertake the
labor of renewing one's soul. The time for that is now.

http://orrologion.blogspot.com/2007/11/original-orthodox-study-bible-review.html


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Christopher, thanks for providing this topic more exposure.  It seems to be one
about which there is a good deal of misunderstanding.  Well, no surprise; it's
king of a slippery subject!

I'd love to have some feedback from Lutherans and/or anybody else.

Anastasia


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I read parts of it, but not all of it yet.

You may want to share it with the Orthodox-Lutheran Dialogue list - I'm not
a member anymore.

Christopher


On 11/5/07, Anastasia Theodoridis <anastasiatheo01@...> wrote:
>
>   Christopher, thanks for providing this topic more exposure. It seems to
> be one about which there is a good deal of misunderstanding. Well, no
> surprise; it's king of a slippery subject!
>
> I'd love to have some feedback from Lutherans and/or anybody else.
>
> Anastasia
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A couple professors from Concordia University Wisconsin announced in
August their plan to run a joint campaign for the Fifth Wisconsin
Congressional District. The campaign manager and web designer of Drs.
James Burkee and Jeff Walz are my roommates.  Lutherans (LCMS) are
very political people. No matter where you go, congregations always
have a working knowledge of Robert's Rules and they are encouraged to
vote based on issues.

Now, take Orthodoxy. I've found that while the Church tends to support
issues (e.g. Orthodox for Life), they aren't as adamant on being
political active.  And, regrettably, when there are active Orthodox,
they tend to be liberal.  It amazes me how much relativism exists in
more Greek Orthodox Churches--I noted the Greeks because they tend be
Democratic for the social programs.

I was active in the Students for Life chapter on-campus, and I used to
help protest abortion clinics (before I became ridiculously involved
in Student Government), and when I proposed this idea to my aunt who
runs our GOYA chapter her response was, "I don't think many people in
the Church would appreciate that." Why? "The Church allows for
abortions--in the case of rape and incest." (NOTE: This is .33% of all
abortion cases)

Anyways, my point is why isn't the Church near as politically active
as the Lutherans? For Lutherans, being political goes hand-in-hand
with being religious. For Orthodox, it tends to be "leaving your faith
at the door" kind of attitude, and heavy political involvement tends
to be discouraged.

I've been around Lutherans all my life, but one thing I haven't been
able to put my finger on is the cause of the spectrum of Lutheran
theology.  There are some Lutherans who are theologically liberal and
some that are conservative, and yet both groups are equally Lutheran.

Here's an example of what I mean. I have three Lutheran suite mates.
All favor traditional worship, but one is willing to compromise to
include contemporary. One prefers the Common Cup, and the two prefer
the shot glasses. Now, these beliefs are adiaphora. But, don't these
"traditions" have some merit and connection to theology? (Maybe this
is the Orthodox in me, I've already gotten into some heated debated
with Lutherans only to realize we were talking about two different
things.)

How can Lutheranism survive "tolerating" so many differing beliefs?
Didn't Luther once say something along the lines of he would rather
keep the Papist traditions than be an Anabaptist?

Dan,



I believe that you are talking about two different kinds of politics.
Lutherans are very political indeed (perhaps to a fault), but chiefly within
their own circles (within the LCMS, for example, or within a congregation).
Your example of Roberts Rules fits here, as does a typical LCMS voters’
meeting or convention (district or synod level). Lutherans can be very, very
political when it comes to “internal politics.”



The level of politics outside of the parish/church body, though, is a
different “critter” and seems to vary from place to place and person to
person. I’m not sure how common it is for Lutheran professors (or pastors,
or even laypeople) to launch a campaign for a state congressional seat. I
certainly commend them for doing so as citizens of the state of Wisconsin.
However, I wouldn’t identify it so closely with their religion. They
certainly may be Christians who happen to run for political office, but they
should not think – or run on the notion – that they somehow will use the
political arena to further their religion. Although I truly hope they will
use their Christian faith and values to inform their decisions for the good
of all citizens.



Also, I would suggest that what you see happen in Greek Orthodox Churches,
that is, that those who tend to be liberal are those who get involved in
politics, also occurs within Lutheranism. Just think of two famous
politicians who happened to be Lutheran (and LCMS at that!): Paul Simon and
Jesse Ventura. They certainly were not conservatives when they were in
office, and they certainly took stands that went against their church’s
teaching.



My observation on politics is that, generally speaking, those who want and
strive to get involved in civil politics tend to be liberal in their views,
whereas those who are more conservative tend not to jump into politics
because, quite honestly, they prefer to have better things to do with their
time and energies. They actually want to mind their own business and take
care of their family, their duties, and enjoy the company of good friends,
etc., whereas those of more liberal bent tend to want to change the social
order, or just plain want to be in control of other people’s lives, etc.



I know I haven’t addressed your real question – that is, about why more
Orthodox aren’t involved in politics – but perhaps a different angle on the
Lutherans will help to see that there may not be as much disparity as you
think.



Randy



+   +   +   +   +
Rev. Randy Asburry
Hope Lutheran Church
St. Louis, MO
HYPERLINK "mailto:r.asburry@..."mailto:r.asburry@...
Blog: HYPERLINK
"http://rasburrysres.blogspot.com"http://rasburrysres.blogspot.com

“...we on our part shall not omit doing anything, in so far as God and
conscience allow, that may serve the cause of Christian unity." (Augsburg
Confession, Preface, 13; Tappert, 26).



    _____

From: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan L.
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 12:23 AM
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Orthodox Christians and Politics



A couple professors from Concordia University Wisconsin announced in
August their plan to run a joint campaign for the Fifth Wisconsin
Congressional District. The campaign manager and web designer of Drs.
James Burkee and Jeff Walz are my roommates. Lutherans (LCMS) are
very political people. No matter where you go, congregations always
have a working knowledge of Robert's Rules and they are encouraged to
vote based on issues.

Now, take Orthodoxy. I've found that while the Church tends to support
issues (e.g. Orthodox for Life), they aren't as adamant on being
political active. And, regrettably, when there are active Orthodox,
they tend to be liberal. It amazes me how much relativism exists in
more Greek Orthodox Churches--I noted the Greeks because they tend be
Democratic for the social programs.

I was active in the Students for Life chapter on-campus, and I used to
help protest abortion clinics (before I became ridiculously involved
in Student Government), and when I proposed this idea to my aunt who
runs our GOYA chapter her response was, "I don't think many people in
the Church would appreciate that." Why? "The Church allows for
abortions--in the case of rape and incest." (NOTE: This is .33% of all
abortion cases)

Anyways, my point is why isn't the Church near as politically active
as the Lutherans? For Lutherans, being political goes hand-in-hand
with being religious. For Orthodox, it tends to be "leaving your faith
at the door" kind of attitude, and heavy political involvement tends
to be discouraged.




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.22/1112 - Release Date: 11/5/2007
7:11 PM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.22/1112 - Release Date: 11/5/2007
7:11 PM



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Perhaps a lot of us just do not see anything appealing in the two
major parties.  Republicans would starve the disabled and kill
criminals who need time to repent.  Democrats would kill millions
upon millions of babies and destroy our national security.  After
spending decades voting Against the greater of two evils, I actually
landed in the libertarian camp, where there seemed a bit of hope for
having a voice.  But that is just this guy's pick among currently
available options.

Among the Russians, there are quite a few monarchists, by the way.

Agape in Christ,

JiMi

--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Dan L."
<teengreek@...> wrote:
>
> A couple professors from Concordia University Wisconsin announced
in
> August their plan to run a joint campaign for the Fifth Wisconsin
> Congressional District. The campaign manager and web designer of
Drs.
> James Burkee and Jeff Walz are my roommates.  Lutherans (LCMS) are
> very political people. No matter where you go, congregations always
> have a working knowledge of Robert's Rules and they are encouraged
to
> vote based on issues.
>
> Now, take Orthodoxy. I've found that while the Church tends to
support
> issues (e.g. Orthodox for Life), they aren't as adamant on being
> political active.  And, regrettably, when there are active
Orthodox,
> they tend to be liberal.  It amazes me how much relativism exists
in
> more Greek Orthodox Churches--I noted the Greeks because they tend
be
> Democratic for the social programs.
>
> I was active in the Students for Life chapter on-campus, and I
used to
> help protest abortion clinics (before I became ridiculously
involved
> in Student Government), and when I proposed this idea to my aunt
who
> runs our GOYA chapter her response was, "I don't think many people
in
> the Church would appreciate that." Why? "The Church allows for
> abortions--in the case of rape and incest." (NOTE: This is .33% of
all
> abortion cases)
>
> Anyways, my point is why isn't the Church near as politically
active
> as the Lutherans? For Lutherans, being political goes hand-in-hand
> with being religious. For Orthodox, it tends to be "leaving your
faith
> at the door" kind of attitude, and heavy political involvement
tends
> to be discouraged.
>

Lutheranism, in part, doesn't tolerate these differences which is why
denominations in communion with the LCMS and WELS do not commune with each
other or with (most) members of the more liberal LWF.

Christopher


On 11/6/07, Dan L. <teengreek@...> wrote:
>
>   I've been around Lutherans all my life, but one thing I haven't been
> able to put my finger on is the cause of the spectrum of Lutheran
> theology. There are some Lutherans who are theologically liberal and
> some that are conservative, and yet both groups are equally Lutheran.
>
> Here's an example of what I mean. I have three Lutheran suite mates.
> All favor traditional worship, but one is willing to compromise to
> include contemporary. One prefers the Common Cup, and the two prefer
> the shot glasses. Now, these beliefs are adiaphora. But, don't these
> "traditions" have some merit and connection to theology? (Maybe this
> is the Orthodox in me, I've already gotten into some heated debated
> with Lutherans only to realize we were talking about two different
> things.)
>
> How can Lutheranism survive "tolerating" so many differing beliefs?
> Didn't Luther once say something along the lines of he would rather
> keep the Papist traditions than be an Anabaptist?
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

First, a friend asked me why the Orthodox are not as fond of statues (3d) as
they are of other two dimensional art. I had found an answer online somewhere
but since lost the link. Maybe you have some resources or explanations that
would help?

Second, I have been wondering what prayers Orthodox say at mealtime. I don't
imagine they pray the ol' "Come Lord Jesus". I am not asking for the theoretical
side (we could pray any one of these number of prayers - althought that would
also be appreciated), but for a practical side (what do *you* pray?).

Yours in Christ
_________________________________________________________________
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I usually make the sign of the cross over the food and say, "Lord Jesus
Christ, bless the food and drink of Thy servant, now and ever and unto the
ages and ages.  Amen."

Of course, I am bad at praying before meals, generally, so this is a little
haphazard on my part.

The standard Prayer Book prayer I usually hear used is:

We thank Thee, O Christ our God, that Thou hast satisfied us with Thy
earthly gifts; deprive us not of Thy heavenly kingdom, but as Thou earnest
among Thy disciples, O Saviour, and gavest them peace, come to us and save
us.

There is not a hard a fast rule, though, I also hear people praying the
Lord's Prayer, "O Heavenly King..." or "It is truly meet..."

The Greek priest in my PA church advises the kids to simply "put on their
cross" (make the sign of the cross) before meals.

Christopher



On 11/6/07, phos_hilarion@... <phos_hilarion@...> wrote:
>
>
> First, a friend asked me why the Orthodox are not as fond of statues (3d)
> as they are of other two dimensional art. I had found an answer online
> somewhere but since lost the link. Maybe you have some resources or
> explanations that would help?
>
> Second, I have been wondering what prayers Orthodox say at mealtime. I
> don't imagine they pray the ol' "Come Lord Jesus". I am not asking for the
> theoretical side (we could pray any one of these number of prayers -
> althought that would also be appreciated), but for a practical side (what do
> *you* pray?).
>
> Yours in Christ
> __________________________________________________________
> Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
>
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us<http://www.reallivemoms.com/?o\
cid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Trust ye not in princes or sons of men."  I'm sure there are similar
sentiments in Ecclesiastes.

For much of Orthodox history in the past centuries the Orthodox have been
under non-Orthodox rule: Muslims, Communists, Roman Catholics, some
Protestants.  There has been very little opportunity to excercise political
influence so the 'habit' is not deeply rooted.  This was very different in
Russia prior to the Revolution where they had been free for quite a number
of centuries and where the Church was very active in the political life of
the nation - from St. Sergius of Radonezh through the take-over of the
Church by Peter the Great to the interim between the February and October
Revolutions.

Of course, the early Church also had little to no say in the government of
the pagan Roman Empire, so they simply went about their business as best
they could trying to avoid martyrdom without disavowing Christ.

The monastics are also generally averse to a preoccupation with the world,
much less politics, and monastics are a heavy presence in the Orthodox
Church.

Christopher



On 11/6/07, Dan L. <teengreek@...> wrote:
>
>   A couple professors from Concordia University Wisconsin announced in
> August their plan to run a joint campaign for the Fifth Wisconsin
> Congressional District. The campaign manager and web designer of Drs.
> James Burkee and Jeff Walz are my roommates. Lutherans (LCMS) are
> very political people. No matter where you go, congregations always
> have a working knowledge of Robert's Rules and they are encouraged to
> vote based on issues.
>
> Now, take Orthodoxy. I've found that while the Church tends to support
> issues (e.g. Orthodox for Life), they aren't as adamant on being
> political active. And, regrettably, when there are active Orthodox,
> they tend to be liberal. It amazes me how much relativism exists in
> more Greek Orthodox Churches--I noted the Greeks because they tend be
> Democratic for the social programs.
>
> I was active in the Students for Life chapter on-campus, and I used to
> help protest abortion clinics (before I became ridiculously involved
> in Student Government), and when I proposed this idea to my aunt who
> runs our GOYA chapter her response was, "I don't think many people in
> the Church would appreciate that." Why? "The Church allows for
> abortions--in the case of rape and incest." (NOTE: This is .33% of all
> abortion cases)
>
> Anyways, my point is why isn't the Church near as politically active
> as the Lutherans? For Lutherans, being political goes hand-in-hand
> with being religious. For Orthodox, it tends to be "leaving your faith
> at the door" kind of attitude, and heavy political involvement tends
> to be discouraged.
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

phos,

Here are a couple of sentences I grabbed from a wiki article on icons about
the Orthodox and statues:

In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, only flat images or bas relief images are
used. The Greeks <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks>, having a long, pagan
tradition of statuary, found the sensual quality of three dimensional
representations did more to glorify the human aspect of the flesh rather
than the divine nature of the spirit and so prohibitions were created
against statuary. The Romans <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire>, on
the other hand, did not adopt these prohibitions and so we still have
statuary among the Roman
Catholics<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church>to this
day. Because the Greeks rejected statuary, the Byzantine style of
iconography was developed in which figures were stylized in a manner that
emphasized their holiness rather than their humanity. Symbolism allowed the
icon to present highly complex material in a very simple way, making it
possible to educate even the illiterate in theology.

I hope someone here can develop this a little more for you.  It is truly a
shame that someone who's spiritual father is actually an iconographer can't
step up to the plate and do more for you on this subject.  Someday I'll have
to learn to express better what I have been taught!

Our home suffers from church divorce, my husband is Lutheran and I am a
convert to Orthodoxy, so when it comes to mealtime prayers, my Lutheran
husband does some extemporaneous prayer.  Sometimes, when there are other
Lutherans around, he does "Come Lord Jesus."  When I am by myself or with my
Orthodox friends we pray "Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have
mercy.  O Lord, bless the food and drink of these thy servants..." (as does
Christopher)

Our bishop however prays something very similar to the Roman Catholic prayer
we used to pray...."Bless us O Lord and these thy gifts..." but I don't know
his exact wording.  It isn't 100% the same...actually it might be closer to
Luther's prayer before meals.

When our family gets together for Christmas we pray "Bless us O Lord" for my
brother's family, "Come Lord Jesus" for my family and last year we added "O
Lord bless" for me!  But before that my brother adds in his own
extemporaneous prayers.  It's a regular smorgasbord of prayer! :)

On 11/6/07, phos_hilarion@... <phos_hilarion@...> wrote:
>
>
> First, a friend asked me why the Orthodox are not as fond of statues (3d)
> as they are of other two dimensional art. I had found an answer online
> somewhere but since lost the link. Maybe you have some resources or
> explanations that would help?
>
> Second, I have been wondering what prayers Orthodox say at mealtime. I
> don't imagine they pray the ol' "Come Lord Jesus". I am not asking for the
> theoretical side (we could pray any one of these number of prayers -
> althought that would also be appreciated), but for a practical side (what do
> *you* pray?).
>
> Yours in Christ
> __________________________________________________________
> Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
>
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us<http://www.reallivemoms.com/?o\
cid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There are no canons against the use of statuary, and there are isolated
examples here and there of their use in Orthodox history.  The 2-D form just
seemed to avail itself better to the 'depths' of Christian theology.  The
arguments back and forth during the Iconoclast Controversy often touched on
whether the divine and human natures could be expressed in art, and then
what that meant for religious art.  A 2-D form and realistic portature
styles tend to overemphasize the lesser of the 2 natures in Christ: the
human nature.  Byzantine iconography attempts to show us what is really
going on behind 'just' the outward, physical forms of Christ and the saints,
and the events in their lives.  this is why perspective is reversed and why
a stylized form was adopted - sculpture just seems to 'realistic' and
naturalistic, though it would be interesting to see what would have happened
had Rodin and modern sculpture been an available tool for religious artists
to the mainstream of Christian art in the first millenium (which was
centered in the centers of civilization in the eastern Roman Empire, not in
the city of Rome and the hinterlands of the Western Empire).  It should
always be remembered that naturalistic portraiture was a skill that the
ancients had mastered, e.g., the Egyptian funeral portraits, even the Christ
Pantocrator on Sinai.  A more 'primitive' style was purposefully adopted
because it better matched the theology underlying sacred art and its
veneration.

Just like most early icons (except for those in places such as Sinai, e.g.
the famous Christ Pantocrator in encaustic at St. Catherine's), any statues
were likely destroyed during the iconoclast controversy - especially since a
statue is harder to move and hide than a painted board.

Christopher


On 11/6/07, Rosemarie Lieffring <rose.lieffring@...> wrote:
>
>   phos,
>
> Here are a couple of sentences I grabbed from a wiki article on icons
> about
> the Orthodox and statues:
>
> In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, only flat images or bas relief images
> are
> used. The Greeks < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks>, having a long,
> pagan
> tradition of statuary, found the sensual quality of three dimensional
> representations did more to glorify the human aspect of the flesh rather
> than the divine nature of the spirit and so prohibitions were created
> against statuary. The Romans < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire>,
> on
> the other hand, did not adopt these prohibitions and so we still have
> statuary among the Roman
> Catholics< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church>to this
> day. Because the Greeks rejected statuary, the Byzantine style of
> iconography was developed in which figures were stylized in a manner that
> emphasized their holiness rather than their humanity. Symbolism allowed
> the
> icon to present highly complex material in a very simple way, making it
> possible to educate even the illiterate in theology.
>
> I hope someone here can develop this a little more for you. It is truly a
> shame that someone who's spiritual father is actually an iconographer
> can't
> step up to the plate and do more for you on this subject. Someday I'll
> have
> to learn to express better what I have been taught!
>
> Our home suffers from church divorce, my husband is Lutheran and I am a
> convert to Orthodoxy, so when it comes to mealtime prayers, my Lutheran
> husband does some extemporaneous prayer. Sometimes, when there are other
> Lutherans around, he does "Come Lord Jesus." When I am by myself or with
> my
> Orthodox friends we pray "Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have
> mercy. O Lord, bless the food and drink of these thy servants..." (as does
> Christopher)
>
> Our bishop however prays something very similar to the Roman Catholic
> prayer
> we used to pray...."Bless us O Lord and these thy gifts..." but I don't
> know
> his exact wording. It isn't 100% the same...actually it might be closer to
> Luther's prayer before meals.
>
> When our family gets together for Christmas we pray "Bless us O Lord" for
> my
> brother's family, "Come Lord Jesus" for my family and last year we added
> "O
> Lord bless" for me! But before that my brother adds in his own
> extemporaneous prayers. It's a regular smorgasbord of prayer! :)
>
> On 11/6/07, phos_hilarion@... <phos_hilarion%40hotmail.com> <
> phos_hilarion@... <phos_hilarion%40hotmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > First, a friend asked me why the Orthodox are not as fond of statues
> (3d)
> > as they are of other two dimensional art. I had found an answer online
> > somewhere but since lost the link. Maybe you have some resources or
> > explanations that would help?
> >
> > Second, I have been wondering what prayers Orthodox say at mealtime. I
> > don't imagine they pray the ol' "Come Lord Jesus". I am not asking for
> the
> > theoretical side (we could pray any one of these number of prayers -
> > althought that would also be appreciated), but for a practical side
> (what do
> > *you* pray?).
> >
> > Yours in Christ
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
> > http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
> <http://www.reallivemoms.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us><
> http://www.reallivemoms.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us>
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I would agree with these explanations of Orthodox use of
statuary...and I would point out that crucifixes are not at all
uncommon in Orthodox use, which are a type of statuary.

One explanation for the preference for icons I heard a while back was
that they are generally more able than statuary to convey the reality
that we can't see visibly:  the kingdom of heaven.  Background colors
are called to be "heavenly;" rooms are turned inside-out, to portray
our participation in what is depicted; light radiates FROM Christ and
the saints, as He shines within them, rather than upon them from outside.

Randy



--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Orr"
<xcjorr@...> wrote:
>
> There are no canons against the use of statuary, and there are isolated
> examples here and there of their use in Orthodox history.  The 2-D
form just
> seemed to avail itself better to the 'depths' of Christian theology.
  The
> arguments back and forth during the Iconoclast Controversy often
touched on
> whether the divine and human natures could be expressed in art, and then
> what that meant for religious art.  A 2-D form and realistic portature
> styles tend to overemphasize the lesser of the 2 natures in Christ: the
> human nature.  Byzantine iconography attempts to show us what is really
> going on behind 'just' the outward, physical forms of Christ and the
saints,
> and the events in their lives.  this is why perspective is reversed
and why
> a stylized form was adopted - sculpture just seems to 'realistic' and
> naturalistic, though it would be interesting to see what would have
happened
> had Rodin and modern sculpture been an available tool for religious
artists
> to the mainstream of Christian art in the first millenium (which was
> centered in the centers of civilization in the eastern Roman Empire,
not in
> the city of Rome and the hinterlands of the Western Empire).  It should
> always be remembered that naturalistic portraiture was a skill that the
> ancients had mastered, e.g., the Egyptian funeral portraits, even
the Christ
> Pantocrator on Sinai.  A more 'primitive' style was purposefully adopted
> because it better matched the theology underlying sacred art and its
> veneration.
>
> Just like most early icons (except for those in places such as
Sinai, e.g.
> the famous Christ Pantocrator in encaustic at St. Catherine's), any
statues
> were likely destroyed during the iconoclast controversy - especially
since a
> statue is harder to move and hide than a painted board.
>
> Christopher
>
>
> On 11/6/07, Rosemarie Lieffring <rose.lieffring@...> wrote:
> >
> >   phos,
> >
> > Here are a couple of sentences I grabbed from a wiki article on icons
> > about
> > the Orthodox and statues:
> >
> > In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, only flat images or bas relief
images
> > are
> > used. The Greeks < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks>, having a
long,
> > pagan
> > tradition of statuary, found the sensual quality of three dimensional
> > representations did more to glorify the human aspect of the flesh
rather
> > than the divine nature of the spirit and so prohibitions were created
> > against statuary. The Romans <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire>,
> > on
> > the other hand, did not adopt these prohibitions and so we still have
> > statuary among the Roman
> > Catholics< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church>to this
> > day. Because the Greeks rejected statuary, the Byzantine style of
> > iconography was developed in which figures were stylized in a
manner that
> > emphasized their holiness rather than their humanity. Symbolism
allowed
> > the
> > icon to present highly complex material in a very simple way,
making it
> > possible to educate even the illiterate in theology.
> >
> > I hope someone here can develop this a little more for you. It is
truly a
> > shame that someone who's spiritual father is actually an iconographer
> > can't
> > step up to the plate and do more for you on this subject. Someday I'll
> > have
> > to learn to express better what I have been taught!
> >
> > Our home suffers from church divorce, my husband is Lutheran and I
am a
> > convert to Orthodoxy, so when it comes to mealtime prayers, my
Lutheran
> > husband does some extemporaneous prayer. Sometimes, when there are
other
> > Lutherans around, he does "Come Lord Jesus." When I am by myself
or with
> > my
> > Orthodox friends we pray "Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have
> > mercy. O Lord, bless the food and drink of these thy servants..."
(as does
> > Christopher)
> >
> > Our bishop however prays something very similar to the Roman Catholic
> > prayer
> > we used to pray...."Bless us O Lord and these thy gifts..." but I
don't
> > know
> > his exact wording. It isn't 100% the same...actually it might be
closer to
> > Luther's prayer before meals.
> >
> > When our family gets together for Christmas we pray "Bless us O
Lord" for
> > my
> > brother's family, "Come Lord Jesus" for my family and last year we
added
> > "O
> > Lord bless" for me! But before that my brother adds in his own
> > extemporaneous prayers. It's a regular smorgasbord of prayer! :)
> >
> > On 11/6/07, phos_hilarion@... <phos_hilarion%40hotmail.com> <
> > phos_hilarion@... <phos_hilarion%40hotmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > First, a friend asked me why the Orthodox are not as fond of statues
> > (3d)
> > > as they are of other two dimensional art. I had found an answer
online
> > > somewhere but since lost the link. Maybe you have some resources or
> > > explanations that would help?
> > >
> > > Second, I have been wondering what prayers Orthodox say at
mealtime. I
> > > don't imagine they pray the ol' "Come Lord Jesus". I am not
asking for
> > the
> > > theoretical side (we could pray any one of these number of prayers -
> > > althought that would also be appreciated), but for a practical side
> > (what do
> > > *you* pray?).
> > >
> > > Yours in Christ
> > > __________________________________________________________
> > > Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
> > > http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
> > <http://www.reallivemoms.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us><
> > http://www.reallivemoms.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us>
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Yes, monarchism is alive and well among the Russians.  My wife is of Russian
stock and we were long connected with the Russian Synod Outside Russia were
monarchism is particularly strong.  You would likely hear a prayer in this home
for a restoration of a truly Orthodox Tsar in Russia where we still have family.

   I have neither time, nor energy nor inclination to political activity but
register and almost never miss voting in an election. I am currently registered
as Green Party. Whatever the government format in place, I render something unto
the Ceasar of our time and place, and seek a peace in which to pray without
hindrance.   Peter

James <jimi@...> wrote:
   Perhaps a lot of us just do not see anything appealing in the two
major parties. Republicans would starve the disabled and kill
criminals who need time to repent. Democrats would kill millions
upon millions of babies and destroy our national security. After
spending decades voting Against the greater of two evils, I actually
landed in the libertarian camp, where there seemed a bit of hope for
having a voice. But that is just this guy's pick among currently
available options.

Among the Russians, there are quite a few monarchists, by the way.


  __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I don't normally touch on politics much for the reasons others have
touched on, but I would also like to point out that there are a lot of
Republicans in Orthodox parishes, even if they don't tend to be as
noisy (for reasons others have touched on).  Like myself, the support
conservatives because conservatism is what is doing the most to stanch
the pro-abortion pro-homosexual agenda, embryonic stem cell research,
anti-Christian laws, etc.  If a Republican politician is pro-abortion
or something, we find a candidate who is pro-life from another party.

Of course there are people who don't like this party and various
positions, which is fine as long as they don't vote for politicians
who are pro-abortion.













--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Dan L." <teengreek@...>
wrote:
>
> A couple professors from Concordia University Wisconsin announced in
> August their plan to run a joint campaign for the Fifth Wisconsin
> Congressional District. The campaign manager and web designer of Drs.
> James Burkee and Jeff Walz are my roommates.  Lutherans (LCMS) are
> very political people. No matter where you go, congregations always
> have a working knowledge of Robert's Rules and they are encouraged to
> vote based on issues.
>
> Now, take Orthodoxy. I've found that while the Church tends to support
> issues (e.g. Orthodox for Life), they aren't as adamant on being
> political active.  And, regrettably, when there are active Orthodox,
> they tend to be liberal.  It amazes me how much relativism exists in
> more Greek Orthodox Churches--I noted the Greeks because they tend be
> Democratic for the social programs.
>
> I was active in the Students for Life chapter on-campus, and I used to
> help protest abortion clinics (before I became ridiculously involved
> in Student Government), and when I proposed this idea to my aunt who
> runs our GOYA chapter her response was, "I don't think many people in
> the Church would appreciate that." Why? "The Church allows for
> abortions--in the case of rape and incest." (NOTE: This is .33% of all
> abortion cases)
>
> Anyways, my point is why isn't the Church near as politically active
> as the Lutherans? For Lutherans, being political goes hand-in-hand
> with being religious. For Orthodox, it tends to be "leaving your faith
> at the door" kind of attitude, and heavy political involvement tends
> to be discouraged.
>

One thing to note is that there are no shadows in icons and the sky is gold
- the Kingdom.

Christopher


On 11/6/07, sr72000 <stortford@...> wrote:
>
>   I would agree with these explanations of Orthodox use of
> statuary...and I would point out that crucifixes are not at all
> uncommon in Orthodox use, which are a type of statuary.
>
> One explanation for the preference for icons I heard a while back was
> that they are generally more able than statuary to convey the reality
> that we can't see visibly: the kingdom of heaven. Background colors
> are called to be "heavenly;" rooms are turned inside-out, to portray
> our participation in what is depicted; light radiates FROM Christ and
> the saints, as He shines within them, rather than upon them from outside.
>
> Randy
>
> --- In
LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Christopher Orr"
> <xcjorr@...> wrote:
> >
> > There are no canons against the use of statuary, and there are isolated
> > examples here and there of their use in Orthodox history. The 2-D
> form just
> > seemed to avail itself better to the 'depths' of Christian theology.
> The
> > arguments back and forth during the Iconoclast Controversy often
> touched on
> > whether the divine and human natures could be expressed in art, and then
> > what that meant for religious art. A 2-D form and realistic portature
> > styles tend to overemphasize the lesser of the 2 natures in Christ: the
> > human nature. Byzantine iconography attempts to show us what is really
> > going on behind 'just' the outward, physical forms of Christ and the
> saints,
> > and the events in their lives. this is why perspective is reversed
> and why
> > a stylized form was adopted - sculpture just seems to 'realistic' and
> > naturalistic, though it would be interesting to see what would have
> happened
> > had Rodin and modern sculpture been an available tool for religious
> artists
> > to the mainstream of Christian art in the first millenium (which was
> > centered in the centers of civilization in the eastern Roman Empire,
> not in
> > the city of Rome and the hinterlands of the Western Empire). It should
> > always be remembered that naturalistic portraiture was a skill that the
> > ancients had mastered, e.g., the Egyptian funeral portraits, even
> the Christ
> > Pantocrator on Sinai. A more 'primitive' style was purposefully adopted
> > because it better matched the theology underlying sacred art and its
> > veneration.
> >
> > Just like most early icons (except for those in places such as
> Sinai, e.g.
> > the famous Christ Pantocrator in encaustic at St. Catherine's), any
> statues
> > were likely destroyed during the iconoclast controversy - especially
> since a
> > statue is harder to move and hide than a painted board.
> >
> > Christopher
> >
> >
> > On 11/6/07, Rosemarie Lieffring <rose.lieffring@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > phos,
> > >
> > > Here are a couple of sentences I grabbed from a wiki article on icons
> > > about
> > > the Orthodox and statues:
> > >
> > > In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, only flat images or bas relief
> images
> > > are
> > > used. The Greeks < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks>, having a
> long,
> > > pagan
> > > tradition of statuary, found the sensual quality of three dimensional
> > > representations did more to glorify the human aspect of the flesh
> rather
> > > than the divine nature of the spirit and so prohibitions were created
> > > against statuary. The Romans <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire>,
> > > on
> > > the other hand, did not adopt these prohibitions and so we still have
> > > statuary among the Roman
> > > Catholics< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church>to this
> > > day. Because the Greeks rejected statuary, the Byzantine style of
> > > iconography was developed in which figures were stylized in a
> manner that
> > > emphasized their holiness rather than their humanity. Symbolism
> allowed
> > > the
> > > icon to present highly complex material in a very simple way,
> making it
> > > possible to educate even the illiterate in theology.
> > >
> > > I hope someone here can develop this a little more for you. It is
> truly a
> > > shame that someone who's spiritual father is actually an iconographer
> > > can't
> > > step up to the plate and do more for you on this subject. Someday I'll
> > > have
> > > to learn to express better what I have been taught!
> > >
> > > Our home suffers from church divorce, my husband is Lutheran and I
> am a
> > > convert to Orthodoxy, so when it comes to mealtime prayers, my
> Lutheran
> > > husband does some extemporaneous prayer. Sometimes, when there are
> other
> > > Lutherans around, he does "Come Lord Jesus." When I am by myself
> or with
> > > my
> > > Orthodox friends we pray "Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have
> > > mercy. O Lord, bless the food and drink of these thy servants..."
> (as does
> > > Christopher)
> > >
> > > Our bishop however prays something very similar to the Roman Catholic
> > > prayer
> > > we used to pray...."Bless us O Lord and these thy gifts..." but I
> don't
> > > know
> > > his exact wording. It isn't 100% the same...actually it might be
> closer to
> > > Luther's prayer before meals.
> > >
> > > When our family gets together for Christmas we pray "Bless us O
> Lord" for
> > > my
> > > brother's family, "Come Lord Jesus" for my family and last year we
> added
> > > "O
> > > Lord bless" for me! But before that my brother adds in his own
> > > extemporaneous prayers. It's a regular smorgasbord of prayer! :)
> > >
> > > On 11/6/07, phos_hilarion@... <phos_hilarion%40hotmail.com> <
> > > phos_hilarion@... <phos_hilarion%40hotmail.com>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > First, a friend asked me why the Orthodox are not as fond of statues
> > > (3d)
> > > > as they are of other two dimensional art. I had found an answer
> online
> > > > somewhere but since lost the link. Maybe you have some resources or
> > > > explanations that would help?
> > > >
> > > > Second, I have been wondering what prayers Orthodox say at
> mealtime. I
> > > > don't imagine they pray the ol' "Come Lord Jesus". I am not
> asking for
> > > the
> > > > theoretical side (we could pray any one of these number of prayers -
> > > > althought that would also be appreciated), but for a practical side
> > > (what do
> > > > *you* pray?).
> > > >
> > > > Yours in Christ
> > > > __________________________________________________________
> > > > Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
> > > >
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us<http://www.reallivemoms.com/?o\
cid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us>
> > > <http://www.reallivemoms.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us><
> > > http://www.reallivemoms.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us>
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the LutheransLookingEast
group.

   File        : /Eastern_Orthodox_Statues.doc
   Uploaded by : k3n77 <jimi@...>
   Description : On Orthodox Statues

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LutheransLookingEast/files/Eastern_Orthodox_Statue\
s.doc

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

k3n77 <jimi@...>

I believe, being involved in politics is very harmful to one's inner
spiritual life, regardless of being a monastic or a layman. And I
believe, the saints would say the same (not just politics but
unnecessary involvement in any kind of debate) although at the moment
I can't present any quotes, sorry.

--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Dan L." <teengreek@...>
wrote:
>
> Anyways, my point is why isn't the Church near as politically active
> as the Lutherans?

In our family, we usually do this: "Our Father", "Glory..." and "Lord,
bless!" with a sign of cross (onto ourselves and onto the food).

--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, <phos_hilarion@...> wrote:
>
> First, a friend asked me why the Orthodox are not as fond of statues
(3d) as they are of other two dimensional art. I had found an answer
online somewhere but since lost the link. Maybe you have some
resources or explanations that would help?

There is a great little anecdote about St. Nicholas Planas (+1932) of Athens
regarding politics:



'...people where discussing politics at a certain house.  "So, what do you
say, Father?" they asked him.  Once he recovered from the depth of his
thought, he wanted to say something.  "Who is governing now?"'

See the Life of St. (Papa) Nicholas Planas
here<http://www.serfes.org/lives/stnicholas.htm>
.



Christopher



PS.  It took me forever to find this reference, I kept thinking it was
something that Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain had said.

On 11/7/07, krolechka <krolechka@...> wrote:

>   I believe, being involved in politics is very harmful to one's inner
> spiritual life, regardless of being a monastic or a layman. And I
> believe, the saints would say the same (not just politics but
> unnecessary involvement in any kind of debate) although at the moment
> I can't present any quotes, sorry.
>
> --- In
LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Dan L." <teengreek@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Anyways, my point is why isn't the Church near as politically active
> > as the Lutherans?
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

We pray, "Christ our God, bless the food and the drink of thy servants, for You
alone are holy, unto ages of ages."  Then, before the "Amen," we usually pray
some extemporaneous things, always including, "Thank You for Your love," and
then giving thanks for specific blessings of that day.  "Thank you for Kostas'
successful surgery," for example.

Anastasia




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What about "Ruba dub dub, thanks for the grub"?



----- Original Message ----
From: Anastasia Theodoridis <anastasiatheo01@...>
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2007 4:11:01 PM
Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Two Questions

We pray, "Christ our God, bless the food and the drink of thy servants, for You
alone are holy, unto ages of ages." Then, before the "Amen," we usually pray
some extemporaneous things, always including, "Thank You for Your love," and
then giving thanks for specific blessings of that day. "Thank you for Kostas'
successful surgery," for example.

Anastasia

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes.  I'm not sure of the intended tone--but, seriously--my "wayward"
younger 16-year-old little brother was very much brought "back to the
fold" by such informalities.  It has its place.
--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, Brian Fink <brfinkster@...>
wrote:
>
> What about "Ruba dub dub, thanks for the grub"?
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Anastasia Theodoridis anastasiatheo01@...
> To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2007 4:11:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Two Questions
>
> We pray, "Christ our God, bless the food and the drink of thy
servants, for You alone are holy, unto ages of ages." Then, before the
"Amen," we usually pray some extemporaneous things, always including,
"Thank You for Your love," and then giving thanks for specific blessings
of that day. "Thank you for Kostas' successful surgery," for example.
>
> Anastasia
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

This is a great story! Although I've never heard of St. Nicholas
Planas, this is exactly what I meant. :)
I'll go read on him now. Thank you, Christopher!
Sasha

--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Orr"
<xcjorr@...> wrote:
>
> There is a great little anecdote about St. Nicholas Planas (+1932)
of Athens
> regarding politics:
>
> '...people where discussing politics at a certain house.  "So, what
do you
> say, Father?" they asked him.  Once he recovered from the depth of his
> thought, he wanted to say something.  "Who is governing now?"'
>
> See the Life of St. (Papa) Nicholas Planas
> here<http://www.serfes.org/lives/stnicholas.htm>
>
>
> Christopher
>
>
>
> PS.  It took me forever to find this reference, I kept thinking it was
> something that Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain had said.
>
> On 11/7/07, krolechka <krolechka@...> wrote:
>
> >   I believe, being involved in politics is very harmful to one's inner
> > spiritual life, regardless of being a monastic or a layman. And I
> > believe, the saints would say the same (not just politics but
> > unnecessary involvement in any kind of debate) although at the moment
> > I can't present any quotes, sorry.
> >
> > --- In
LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "Dan L." <teengreek@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Anyways, my point is why isn't the Church near as politically active
> > > as the Lutherans?

In the Western Rite, we commonly say this prayer before meals:



Bless us, O Lord, and these thy gifts which we are about to receive from thy
bounty, through Christ our Lord.



Apparently Luther used some close variation of this in his Small Catechism.



There is also a longer set of prayers, which vary seasonally, from monastic
usage.





Fr John W Fenton

Priest, Holy Incarnation Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church

  <mailto:frfenton@...> frfenton@...

http://HolyIncarnation.org <http://holyincarnation.org/>

  <mailto:frfenton@...>

   _____

From: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anastasia
Theodoridis
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 4:11 PM
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Two Questions



We pray, "Christ our God, bless the food and the drink of thy servants, for
You alone are holy, unto ages of ages." Then, before the "Amen," we usually
pray some extemporaneous things, always including, "Thank You for Your
love," and then giving thanks for specific blessings of that day. "Thank you
for Kostas' successful surgery," for example.

Anastasia

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "JWF" <frfenton@...>
wrote:
>
> In the Western Rite, we commonly say this prayer before meals:
>
>
>
> Bless us, O Lord, and these thy gifts which we are about to receive
from thy
> bounty, through Christ our Lord.
>


I've used this prayer for several years now, since I spotted it in the
little red prayer book that the Antiochian Archdiocese puts out.  It
was already familiar.

First I say the Lord's Prayer, crossing myself (unless the situation
seems that it would appear a spectacle or showy), and then "Bless us,
O Lord.." making the sign of the cross over the food.

I was reminded in an offline note that I probably should not worry
so much about what others think and go ahead and cross myself.  It
seems my Priest said essentially the same thing in a sermon awhile
back.  May the Lord strengthen my resolve and help me remember to do
this.

Yeah, I probably still have some of that old Lutheran "don't draw
attention to oneself" mentality going, huh?

James/JiMi

p.s. - Thanks to Peter for reminding me I'm not in Lake Woebegone


--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "James" <jimi@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "JWF" <frfenton@>
> wrote:
> >
> > In the Western Rite, we commonly say this prayer before meals:
> >
> >
> >
> > Bless us, O Lord, and these thy gifts which we are about to
receive
> from thy
> > bounty, through Christ our Lord.
> >
>
>
> I've used this prayer for several years now, since I spotted it in
the
> little red prayer book that the Antiochian Archdiocese puts out.
It
> was already familiar.
>
> First I say the Lord's Prayer, crossing myself (unless the
situation
> seems that it would appear a spectacle or showy), and then "Bless
us,
> O Lord.." making the sign of the cross over the food.
>

I make the sign of the cross over my food because it is less conspicuous.

I have also been struck by a comment made by the late Fr. John Krestiankin
in the book of his letters, "May God Give you Wisdom" (St Herman Press), to
believing spouses of unbelievers.  He said, essentially, don't go on too far
ahead.  The same can be true of unbelievers around us in everyday life - we
can't be see as such odd ducks that we are disregarded.  The Letter to
Diognetus states clearly that we live as other men in various countries, but
are always citizens only of heaven.  In the world, but not of the world.  I
tend to prefer to be as 'normal' as the next guy insofar as I can remain an
Orthodox Christian, never hiding, but never affecting differences to make a
point.  When St. Anthony the Great walked through Alexandria preaching
without words, he was simply himself, in his regular, poor clothes, walking;
he wasn't prostrating, and crossing, and raising his hands as an orans in
prayer, etc.  He was simply a Christian, walking.

That being said, crossing oneself in prayer at any times should never be
dissuaded.  I often do so walking down the hallway of my office, on the
street, etc., but as a means to bless myself with the cross and not to
testify to others - and many take such actions to be a conscious attempt to
make unbelievers uncomfortable or as a 'witness'.

Christopher


On 11/9/07, James <jimi@...> wrote:
>
>   I was reminded in an offline note that I probably should not worry
> so much about what others think and go ahead and cross myself. It
> seems my Priest said essentially the same thing in a sermon awhile
> back. May the Lord strengthen my resolve and help me remember to do
> this.
>
> Yeah, I probably still have some of that old Lutheran "don't draw
> attention to oneself" mentality going, huh?
>
> James/JiMi
>
> p.s. - Thanks to Peter for reminding me I'm not in Lake Woebegone
>
> --- In
LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "James" <jimi@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In
LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "JWF" <frfenton@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > In the Western Rite, we commonly say this prayer before meals:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bless us, O Lord, and these thy gifts which we are about to
> receive
> > from thy
> > > bounty, through Christ our Lord.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I've used this prayer for several years now, since I spotted it in
> the
> > little red prayer book that the Antiochian Archdiocese puts out.
> It
> > was already familiar.
> >
> > First I say the Lord's Prayer, crossing myself (unless the
> situation
> > seems that it would appear a spectacle or showy), and then "Bless
> us,
> > O Lord.." making the sign of the cross over the food.
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you, everyone, for sharing what you pray! As the Desert Fathers say, I was
greatly edified.
On being a witness...
People are rarely converted because a stranger presses the Gospel in their face
(or makes the sign of the cross in public). The more likely reason people
convert is because they have a friend or family member that can be a constant
witness to them. Quite fitting that they learn about the relationship Christ has
with men through the relationship of the Christian to themselves.
Thank you for being friends to me.

Yours in Christ,
                  phos








To: LutheransLookingEast@...: xcjorr@...: Fri, 9 Nov
2007 09:35:09 -0500Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Re: Two Questions





I make the sign of the cross over my food because it is less conspicuous.I have
also been struck by a comment made by the late Fr. John Krestiankinin the book
of his letters, "May God Give you Wisdom" (St Herman Press), tobelieving spouses
of unbelievers. He said, essentially, don't go on too farahead. The same can be
true of unbelievers around us in everyday life - wecan't be see as such odd
ducks that we are disregarded. The Letter toDiognetus states clearly that we
live as other men in various countries, butare always citizens only of heaven.
In the world, but not of the world. Itend to prefer to be as 'normal' as the
next guy insofar as I can remain anOrthodox Christian, never hiding, but never
affecting differences to make apoint. When St. Anthony the Great walked through
Alexandria preachingwithout words, he was simply himself, in his regular, poor
clothes, walking;he wasn't prostrating, and crossing, and raising his hands as
an orans inprayer, etc. He was simply a Christian, walking.That being said,
crossing oneself in prayer at any times should never bedissuaded. I often do so
walking down the hallway of my office, on thestreet, etc., but as a means to
bless myself with the cross and not totestify to others - and many take such
actions to be a conscious attempt tomake unbelievers uncomfortable or as a
'witness'.ChristopherOn 11/9/07, James <jimi@...> wrote:>> I was
reminded in an offline note that I probably should not worry> so much about what
others think and go ahead and cross myself. It> seems my Priest said essentially
the same thing in a sermon awhile> back. May the Lord strengthen my resolve and
help me remember to do> this.>> Yeah, I probably still have some of that old
Lutheran "don't draw> attention to oneself" mentality going, huh?>> James/JiMi>>
p.s. - Thanks to Peter for reminding me I'm not in Lake Woebegone>> --- In
LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>,>
"James" <jimi@...>> wrote:> >> > --- In
LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>,>
"JWF" <frfenton@>> > wrote:> > >> > > In the Western Rite, we commonly say this
prayer before meals:> > >> > >> > >> > > Bless us, O Lord, and these thy gifts
which we are about to> receive> > from thy> > > bounty, through Christ our
Lord.> > >> >> >> > I've used this prayer for several years now, since I spotted
it in> the> > little red prayer book that the Antiochian Archdiocese puts out.>
It> > was already familiar.> >> > First I say the Lord's Prayer, crossing myself
(unless the> situation> > seems that it would appear a spectacle or showy), and
then "Bless> us,> > O Lord.." making the sign of the cross over the food.> >>>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last.  Get it
now.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]