Romanovs and Faith/Orthodox Religion

[bluetoria]

Matushka, thank you for your very thoughtful response my post! Have no fear! The services I mentioned between Catholic & Protestant congregations did not involve either Church compromising their beliefs. They are services such as shared Gospel readings & walking together in procession on Good Friday. Also, members of other Churches are invited so jubilees etc. in our parish.
I do not know WHY the Catholics should want to convert people from Orthodoxy. I do not understand why there is a need to do so.
There are many things in my Church which I find difficult to understand or accept but I believe that the most important thing for ALL Christians must surely be to be 'united' in following the messages that Jesus taught (& I do not find many of these theological differences in the Gospel....) But then I suppose, tradition is viewed as equally important.
The fact that people died in 'fighting heresy' is very difficult to take, too. People were killed for being heretics? Is that Christian?
I am glad we can stay friends, too!! I hope my post doesn't in any way cause offence to you, Matushka, or to Orthodoxy. (I'm sorry I'm not a very good 'defender of the (Catholic) faith' )

[lexi4]

I have a question. Are women allowed to be priests in the Orthodox churches?

[RealAnastasia]

Hi, Matushka, and Bleutoria:

                                               Thank you for your explanations about Holy Water. Now, I understand.  

                                                And be sure: I'm not of these catholics who wants to convert Orthodox people to our faith. You are christians, like us, and there is not reason to force anyone to be as they wanted NOT to be. And I'm a little sceptic too to the former Pope efforts to the Unity. I agree with all the Patriarch Alexis arguments .

                                                 To answer lexi4, I think there are not women priest in Orthodoxy. But now I have another question: there are nuns in Orthodox Church?  

                                                   RealAnastasia.

P.S: And what are burial traditions in Orthodoxy? I read something about them, but I don't understand them very much.

[Elizabeth]

Greetings, RealAnastasia -
Sorry I didn't respond sooner (for some reason, my server is not "alerting" me to new messages).

Going back to several posts earlier - yes, there DEFINITELY is "holy water" in the Orthodox church - just not in a "font" at the entrance of the church (like Roman Catholics).  Of course, I've only attended Orthodox churches in the USA (OCA/Antiochian/Green), so don't know if there are other "traditions" in other countries regarding a "font" at the entrance.

Actually, the baptismal font should be in the "Narthex" (the entrance to the church - sort of like a lobby).  In the ancient Orthodox tradition, it was where "non-Orthodox" stood and watched the service (they were not permitted to enter).  So it was with unbaptized children - the baptismal font was in the Narthex, they were baptized in the Narthex, and then welcomed into the church.  (Our church has the baptismal font in front of the iconstasis - not theologically correct, but no one wants to move it!)

No, women are not permitted to be priests in the Orthodox faith.  

And, as a follow up to that, yes, there are nuns in the Orthodox church.  However, they're NOT like the nuns in the Roman Catholic faith (in that they don't teach in schools, minister in hospitals, etc.).  The nuns in Orthodoxy are MONASTIC - they live in "monasteries" and their work involves not only prayer, but sometimes making of liturgical garments, prayer ropes, iconography, etc.  

There are TWO nice-sized monastic communities that I've visited here in the United States - one in Rives Junction, Michigan (the Dormition of the Mother of God Monastery) and in Ellwood City, Pennsylvania (the Holy Transfiguration Monastery).  I'm sure there are a number of others in the US (and definitely MORE overseas) - they're just not within driving distance of where I live.

Oh, and burial traditions - maybe Matushka can help out more on this, but I'll try to answer as best I can:

In my church, the deceased (we refer to it as someone who has "fallen asleep") is placed in the funeral home for visitation (usually 1-2 days depending on the family's wishes).  On the last night before burial, Trisagion (pronounced "Tree-sag-ee-on") prayers are read and/or chanted by the priest and choir at the side of the casket.  They're quite beautiful - praying for the soul of the departed - and ending with the chant, "Memory Eternal!"  After this, the priest, who is holding a cross that has been by the coffin, blesses the body and those in attendance, and each person comes up to venerate the cross.

The next morning, the family comes back to the funeral home - with the priest - and Trisagion prayers are read and/or chanted once again at the side of the coffin.  The body is then taken to the church, where the choir (or chanters) is waiting.  The priest - who has made it back to the church before the coffin - greets the coffin - with the family - at the doors of the church and leads the coffin up the main aisle.  The coffin is placed before the iconstasis, and, if the body is able to be presented, the coffin lid is raised and the entire service takes place with the coffin open.  

Again, absolutely GORGEOUS prayers - chanted and read - about the resurrection of Christ, the falling asleep of the deceased, etc.  The final act is the priest blessing the body and annoiting the forehead with holy oil).  The coffin is then closed for the last time.

Then, the coffin is taken to the cemetery, additional prayers are read and sung at the grave site, and that's it.  

There's usually a "mercy meal" back at the church hall that the parishioners of the church prepare for the family and other friends and relatives (like an Irish wake!).  

Of course, this is what I've witnessed in the Antiochian archdiocese.  I've also sung at a funeral that was in the EVENING, which took place after visitation (the coffin stayed in the church the whole time - visitation and all).  The coffin stayed in the church throughout the night (I think various chanters stayed with it and said prayers throughout the evening), and then the family came back the next morning to the church - more prayers - and then on to the cemetery.

Also, not to confuse things further, but after the burial, there are memorial services for the deceased at certain intervals (can you help me out here fellow Orthodox?).  A 10 day, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year and then each year on the date of death after that.  Holy wheat is offered (and prepared by a member of the church) - the wheat represents the Gospel where Christ says something about wheat and how it falls to the ground and decays (referring to us as human beings).

Okay - now I've made EVERYONE confused (including myself), but I think that answered the question.

E--  

[RealAnastasia]

Hi, Elizabeth:

                       Thank you again...No; your answer was not confusing at all. At least, for me. I understand perfectly what you wanted to said.

                         I found I really LIKE Orthodoxy. It seems to be so mystical...and I'm myself a mystical person.

                           I'm very grateful to you, to Dasha and to Matushka, for you explained so good your faith for me to understand. God Bless you.  

RealAnastasia.

[SSKENDER]

Hello Everyone,
I figured I could add my two cents worth if you don't mind, since I am also an Orthodox Christian.

Since I saw posts speaking about Holy Water and Baptism, below is a site from the Greek Orthodox Church detailing how the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, blesses the holy water used for baptisms, which is then sent around the world to all the Orthodox Churches.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8420.asp


Since no one dealt with in depth about the relationship of the various Patriarchs, you will permit me to go into this.

As someone already posted, we do not have an "infallible" leader, such as the Catholic Pope.
We have spiritual leaders, but not all powerful, "monarchical" leaders such as the Catholic Popes.
The Ancient Patriarchs of Orthodoxy (which by the way, also includes the Roman Patriarch, i.e., the Pope) were Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.
Among all of these, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, came to pre-eminence among the others, as this city was the capital of Byzantium, or the Eastern Roman Empire.  Till this day, the Patriarch of Constantinople is considered the SPIRITUAL leader of all Orthodoxy.  He is "Primer-Inter-Pares", first among equals.However, the Patriarch does not have administrative leadership over the various Orthodox churches, only of the churches that fall within his jurisdiction.
Today, the list of leaders of the various churches has grown from the initial 4 to 20 some odd? hhaha


We believe in a "democratic" form of solving theological questions, that is, all the leaders, all the Patriarchs, all the archbishops, of the various Orthodox Churches must come together in a Synod to decide questions of theology or other relevant issues.  The Patriarch of Constantinople is the chair of such synods.
The theory is that a single person cannot be in control of church doctrine, as a single person is bound to make errors.  An Ecumenical Council (Such as which adopted the Nicene Creed all those centuries ago) will not make errors.  

There hasn't been a full Ecumenical Council in centuries.  Orthodoxy only remembers the first 7.  Here we disagree with Vatican II of the Catholics, as it is not considered an Ecumenical Council.

Our union does not revolve around a single person, but we are united by our faith.  Christ is our only head and the only true leader of the church.


For instance, as we speak, for the past two days, a Pan-Orthodoxy Synod is taking place in Constantinople, in regards to Orthodoxy's stance to the scandal rich issue of the Jerusalem Patriarchate and Patriarch Irinaeus of Jerusalem.

Some other differences, the Greeks and the Patriarch of Constantinople follow a different calendar from most other Orthodox, that is, the Greeks and Constantinople follow the Western Calendar while the rest of Orthodoxy follows the old-Calendar which is, I believe, 12 days or so behind the western calendar. HOWEVER, Easter must fall on the same day for all Orthodox.  

Also, for Orthodoxy, the main holiday of the Church Calendar is Easter, or holy Pascha, because it celebrates the resurrection Christ.  Most other Christians, including Catholics, put emphasis on Christmas.  (At least in our consumer rich world it does!)

Well If I think of anything, I'll add some stuff.
Hope I also provided some useful information.

[RealAnastasia]

Thank you isekenderbey. You, orthodox believers are really great! I like very uch the way you explain your faith, to people who knew anything about it...Like me.   I understand every day more about Orthodoxy, and certainly, I'm very tempted to be one of yours.   But, of course, I must think very carefully about it.

  As for catholics , I think that Easter is also the more important celebration in our church as it is in all christian churches, but Western believers are now, very far from their religious concivtions, and it's just for that, that some people seems to believe that Christmas is more important than Easter. As television in Christmas time speaks all time about purchasing things and EAT; EAT; EAT, DRINK-DRINK-DRINK  , people got influenced and simply purchases gifts, eats and drinks, rather than go to the church and so...I certainly goes to the church in Christmas and always said to my family and friends that it is a RELIGIOUS celebration and not a profane one. I love to prepara delicious meals myself this beatiful night, but not for the simply fact of eating, but to show to my family, my deep love to them. Some people confounds Christmas Eve with the New Year's night, and just got a great party to enjoy themselves...Bad enough.   :-/ But be sure, not al catholic people acts like this.

  As for my brother, he became a protestant lutheran after marrying a german girl, and they are much more religious in Easter and Christmas than we catholics uses to be.

RealAnastasia.

[cimbrio]

I'd like to know why does the Orthodox Church forbid frst cousin marriages (i.e. Ducky-Kyrill) but for example allows cousin-second cousin once removed (i.e. Sergei-Ella) and second-cousin marriages (Nicholas-Alexandra F., Elena V.-Nicholas, Paul A.-Alexandra, etc)? Does the Orthodox Church allow them with the Patriarch's permission for instance(in the Catholic Church you need to ask the Pope's permission to marry a relative who is abviously not an ancestor, a descendant or a sibling)? I know several countries forbid cousin marriages, and some states in the US do as well, while other countries do it repeatedly... intermarriage I mean... any help?  

[Georgiy]

I think it is because they are just too closely related. A lot of those prohibitions go back to Old Testament times. Also marriage to people who you are closely related to spiritually (IE through a Godparent relation) can't marry - I think this applies through several generations.

BTW, for special marriage circumstances, you don't have to go to the Patriarch for permission - your local Bishop or Archbishop is the one who you appeal to. A Patriarch is after-all the same as a Bishop - with broader responsibilities, but there are only 3 types of Clergy: the Diaconate, the Presbyterate and the Episcopal.

[grandduchessella]

There used to be a lot of societal/religious restrictions that were mostly ended by law later on. You didn't used to be able to marry a brother or sister-in-law. QV had once thought Beatrice could marry the widowed Louis of Hesse and I think this was when she supported the repeal of that restriction. I think it was what Henry VIII used to try to argue his way out of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon (the first wife) since she'd previously married his elder brother who died on their honeymoon.

[cimbrio]

When Henry VIII was trying to annull his marriage to Catherine, his brother's widow, the Pope would have dispensed his dispensation to allow the marriage, sicne there is a passage in the Bible (deuteronomy I think) where t says Thou shall not take your brother's widow. I think Queen Victoria just dropped the idea of marrying Beatrice to Ludwig IV because of the age difference, and moreso because she wished to keep Beatrice by her side. Besides, it would have seemed a bit awkward, can you imagine Beatrice being the foster mother of Victoria, Ella, irene etc? It seems odd that the Churhc would revert to the Old Testament since Adam and Eve's descendants HAD to go through intermarriage (and indeed, haven't we all, from a Christian point of view?) Besides, I think Ella's and Sergey's marriage was almost as "incestuous" as a cousin marriage, so I don't understand why the Orthodox Church allowed them to marry and not Michael A. and his cousin beatrice... But then again, maybe someone else knows..keep the posts coming

[bluetoria]

Queen Victoria was very annoyed about the church's objections to Beatrice marrying Louis of Hesse & even suggested they should change the church rules!
Ella and Serge were not first cousins: - Serge was Ella's father's cousin. The rule about not marrying cousins applied on to first cousins which is why they were permitted to marry.
It is ironic that Henry VIII decided to quote from Leviticus about not being allowed to marry your dead brother's widow....a little further on in the Old Testament is a contrary rule which says that a man must marry his brother's widow if she dies childless. Henry VIII just used the argument to suit his own ends....

[Linnea]

It´s maybe alittle bit off topic, but it has to do with marriage: Would it have been possible for a Grand Duke or Prince of Russia to marry a catholic princess?

[jehan]

I think QV was wrong to even suggest for the church to change their rules just to suit her own needs and I thought she didn't even want Beartice to get married anyway...I do think that an in-law should be able to get married to each other but only if the previous marriage was childless such as the case with Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon and I think marrying your own uncle/niece or aunt/nephew is a bit disgusting which is what the most of the Hapsburgs practiced

Well the church did change the rules eventually, didn't it?  And it had nothing to do with Queen Victoria.

It has happened several times in my distant family past (in rural Finland) that a man has married his deceased wife's sister, or a woman her husband's brother.  But why should childlessness of the first marriage be an issue?  Surely a biological uncle or aunt would usually (there are always exceptions!)  be a  very loving stepparent- moreso than a stranger in many cases- after all they would have a blood tie to the children.

I think that ONE of the impetuses for changing the law in England was after WW!, when so many men were killed in the war- there were many younger (presumably) brothers who wanted to marry their sisters-in-law and adopt their late brother's children.  One factor among many , I'm sure, but the law was changed in the early 1920s.

[grandduchessella]

It´s maybe alittle bit off topic, but it has to do with marriage: Would it have been possible for a Grand Duke or Prince of Russia to marry a catholic princess?

I'm pretty sure they would've been able to--AIII and MF wanted Nicholas to consider Helene of Orleans as a bride. The Catholic church disapproved mightily of marrying non-Catholics though it did happen. Helene would've had to convert if she married the heir, but a regular GD or Prince, no. Considering the enmity that exists between the Orthodox and Roman branches it could've been an uncomfortable position though.