tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6280628704843419636.post4068831811098494852..comments2023-05-26T03:24:12.140-07:00Comments on Ex occidente ad orientem: orthodox, Orthodox or ORTHODOX?Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06200319733737651773noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6280628704843419636.post-40751636274503237602009-12-15T12:21:22.492-08:002009-12-15T12:21:22.492-08:00I've sometimes said that there is no such thin...I've sometimes said that there is no such thing as a non-practicing Orthodox Christian. But I always hesitate because it is not for us to say who is the practicing Christian and who is not and appearances can always be deceiving.<br /><br />On one end of the spectrum that you describe---orthodox, Orthodox, and ORTHODOX---we should not forget that one of the great traps for the ORTHODOX is to become pharisaical about it. Orthodoxy is a very attractive religion for the pharisaical, because it gives them a "rule-book" to adhere to that's so long and so complicated, they'll never exhaust the opportunities it gives them for legalistic, outward conformity. Such a person may appear to fall into the ORTHODOX category, but is not really practicing the faith at all.<br /><br />And on the other end of the spectrum, one possibility that comes to mind is a person who falls into the "orthodox" category because she is married to someone outside the church. Her absence is not negligence, not ignorance of the faith, and certainly not a lack of faith or commitment to Christ. It is, rather, her commitment to her marriage as the primary content of her Christianity, her primary sacramental means of receiving God's grace. Regular attendance at Church is not possible because it would, in fact, conflict with her marriage, with time for raising the kids, etc., and because it might even anger her husband, causing him to think of his wife as arrogant and sanctimonious. The way she witnesses Christ to him, then, is through her submission to him, through her love and affection and commitment to him. I don't remember who, but one of the Fathers has written that such a woman can save her husband. Her marriage is her monastery. She is most definitely ORTHODOX, to my mind. She is more Christlike than the pharisaical ORTHODOX man, and after all, the Church and its liturgies and practices are not the end; they are a means to an end, which is theosis.<br /><br />It reminds me of St. Mary of Egypt. Remember that this great Saint, so holy that she gets her own day of commemoration during Holy Week, fled into the desert at her conversion and received the Eucharist only twice in her long life. Except for at her baptism, she never attended the Liturgy at a church. She lived naked in the desert and obviously had no prayer books and was not "informed" in the sense of reading theology or Church history. But she was most certainly ORTHODOX.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6280628704843419636.post-30185246672776162512009-11-14T11:57:38.083-08:002009-11-14T11:57:38.083-08:00I am surprised that no one has commented on this. ...I am surprised that no one has commented on this. It is a well-written and insightful piece that I think would make a good read in a church bulletin or newsletter.<br /><br />Thanks for sharing.<br /><br />This reminded me of a recent post on my blog (I'm not plugging it!), a selection from by Fr. John Romanides. If you have the time, read it. If you have more time, get and read his Patristic Theology, if you haven't already. I think you would like it.<br /><br />Here's the link: <a rel="nofollow">http://ekekraxa.blogspot.com/2009/10/fr-john-romanides-on-therapeutic-nature.html</a><br /><br />In Christ,<br /><br />AndyAndreas Houposhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02279848515954071078noreply@blogger.com