Hey, excuse my red face... my scarf is on too tight.

[gphadraig]

Joasia,

Saint John of Kronstadt was, in life, a married priest and not a bishop. Kronstadt was a naval port and he lived very much in the world while not being of it. The area around his church would have been colourful and all of mankind's sins only too obvious with drunkards, thieves, prostitutes and rapacious landlords among others in all too evident abundance. To be a priest in this environment would have been a challenge for any, and for someone as wholehearted in his pastoral care as Saint John a cross beyond imagination.

Any who think to escape to some kind oasis of 'spiritual peace' in a convent or monastery are in for a rude awakening, I suspect, because convents and monasteries are populated by people. (I can sense my cousin nodding vigorously).

As to the comment by another that the lives of Saints were added to, I suspect that much was left out being known only to that ascetic struggler and Our Merciful God. Just as we see the feats of athletes on the field but not all the training and sacrifice which lead up to that performance on the day. (Even the protestant reformer John Calvin was fullsome in his praise and recognition of the truly ascetic struggle and lifestyle of the early desert fathers - should we be less will to recognise the struggle of others?).

[Natasha]

"...I am saying that their stories were added to to make them "over the top" in order to get the attention of uneducated peasants who believed in such things as the "evil eye" and other types of nonsense."

Protestant? Almost sounds like communist nonsense to me...

[Aristokles]

Spoken like a good Protestant! What in the world were you smoking over in Greece, anyway?

I am not saying that all the saints did not exist. I am saying that their stories were added to to make them "over the top" in order to get the attention of uneducated peasants who believed in such things as the "evil eye" and other types of nonsense. I have no qualms that the Church did that back then. That is what needed was needed back then. Since these people could not read or write - you had to make the stories unforgettable.

"Added to"? Pure conjecture. As to other types of "nonsense": It is true that EVERY early culture (Pacific islanders, Amerinds, east Asian, middle eastern, ALL) had a belief in the "Evil Eye". The Orthodox Church does not deny its existence but does not condone the use of torquoise-beaded talismans or other forms of 'filokta' as protection. You should study more and read less protestant 'experts'.

Nowadays, that does not need to be done. Ever wonder why you don't hear these types of "over the top" stories about saints since the masses became educated? Read a book on the history of myth in cultures. It will explain how and why these things evolved as they did.

I daresay that the average layman in 5th century Constantinople was a far more qualfied theologian than most of today's internet experts.

But everyone thinks that I am questioning the FAITH in the Christ just because I am applying reasoning to the stories of the saints.

Yep, we are thinking just that

It's simple common sense.

Perhaps, but I doubt it.

Demetri

[ania]

Don't forget that cradles have their own struggles, and since we've had the faith longer, don't forget that the devil tries harder with people who are in the faith than with people who are not.

What are some of these struggles that the "cradles" have that may be different from converts?

I'm told by cradles that the approach to theology, praxis etc is very different from the way a convert would think about theology, praxis, etc. What are these differences?

Hi Hexapsalms... perhaps I badly stated what I wanted to convey... I do that sometimes (might explain my lack of friends ).

I was trying to explain why many cradle Orthodox often let things slide a little bit (not that I approve, & I really wish people would follow the rules more… not that I don’t tend to bend a few). People who have newly come to Orthodoxy sometimes don't understand that most cradles were born into families that have been fighting the good fight for generations. Through this they have made slight changes, compromises, etc (not necessarily good, but needed for survival) that they have passed on to their children. It is each generation's job to pull back, analyze, and make the needed adjustments, to make up for the mistakes of past generations. Granted, this does not always happen. That is why the Church is there, to remind us what we need to do.

My remark "the devil tries harder with people who are in the faith than with people who are not" goes back to the old thought that, when people aren't very religious, lax, etc, the devil doesn't try so hard with them, as he sees that the battle is already 1/2 won, & all he has to do is sit back & wait. People who are strong in the faith he bombards constantly with temptations. I'm not saying cradles are stronger in the faith than converts... actually I think the opposite is often true. Just imagine though, the devil bombarding generations of Orthodox believers, and they remain mostly strong, but give a little here, give a little there, and now you see the end result.

My brother & I often joke about fasting... "Well, you know, you are excused from fasting when on a journey... we're all on the road of life..." and then we opt for the tomato pie rather than the pizza.

[TomS]

You should study more and read less protestant 'experts'.

Okay. Recommend some things to study that you consider appropriate.

I daresay that the average layman in 5th century Constantinople was a far more qualfied theologian than most of today's internet experts.

Nonsense. The "average layman" back then was ignorant by today's theological standards.

[ania]

Ortho6,
My use of "economia" was not in the textbook sense... I meant it in the sense of things that become accepted if not approved practices to make life a little easier, like not reading beyond the 10th ingrediant on an ingrediant list, or when daylight savings is in effect eating milk & meat products until 1am.
So if my use of the word "economia" bothers you, just disregard it, I've already deleted it from the above post.

[Schultz]

Nonsense. The "average layman" back then was ignorant by today's theological standards.

People were far more knowledgeable about their faith than we are today. This was a time when church and state were so intertwined that you could not distinguish one from the other. To be a citizen of the Empire meant to be a Christian and people actually talked to one another about things then, about life, and life was the life of the Church. I don't mean to say that everyone was a good practicing Christian, but more of then than not, the "ignorant peasants" you look down on would likely talk circles around you. While the "ignorant peasants" may not be able to sit down and dialogue with you on fine points of doctrine, their faith in God was most likely far greater than any pithy amount of faith we can muster today, surrounded by all sorts of cockamamy theories about religion and culture and human development. While it may mean more if we can achieve a level of faith they did, due to the struggle against "non-faith", the simple fact is that they were at that level of faith in God.

It really annoys me at how arrogant 21st century educated people can be about their forebears. We don't know half as much as we think we do and that which do know is most likely worthless garbage. This is coming from someone who has yet to lose a game of Trivial Pursuit.