Posted by Al
on 5/2/2009, 2:49 pm, in reply to "Re: More Facts"
Herman-
I think dean does a good job of commenting on the "mess". However, if we don't honestly face the history of the "mess" we are in, it will be difficult to figure out how to get out of it - lest we do more of the same.
My point about ROCOR is that in compromising with them, Moscow ignores the Tomos of Autocephaly, and adds fuel to arguments against the legitimacy the OCA's Autocephaly. At no point did Moscow ever entertain taking the stand that it would be inappropriate for ROCOR to "compete" in the OCA's territorial region. Re-establishing Communion trumps the Canons? There are times when I wonder if ROCOR was wanting recognition from Moscow, or if Moscow wanted recognition from ROCOR.
As to the naming issue, sadly, it is all too common, even in predominantly convert parishes. Since the Army moved me around a lot, I've been in quite a few parishes of a variety of jurisdictions. I am sure that if the "Rupert Schwartz" in my earlier post had been originally named "Basil Schwartz" the issue of a new name would have never arisen, even though he was named after "Basil Fawlty".
To take it a step further, think of the contradiction of receiving someone by Chrismation or Confession of Faith and requiring a name change to a more "ethnically acceptable name". The original Baptism "works", but the name doesn't?
I would offer that a mark of a "missionary priest" is the presence of the Oxford, Penguin and Sheehan Dictionaries of Saints in his library. Thus, when giving instruction to an enquirer or catechumen, he can determine if that person's name arises from a legitimate saint and encourage them to read about the saint who's name they carry.
My guess is that the name practice is a mix of phyletism, laziness and ignorance. And, it reeks of amateurism. It may be a minor impediment to evangelizing, but it is one of many such unnecessary and baseless impediments.
Al
Paros Island, Greece
Responses:
