I didn't think that was at all nit-picky or anything; thanks for going over all that! I've really been enjoying learning about religions and denominations different from my own.

Yes, I believe we were talking to Father John.

Annie, I just have ONE question about the discussion between you and Jake on AnikaOwen's site.  I really have no desire to get into a debate on the general issues.  My question is about the incense.  You cited, rightly, the passages talking about the prayers of the saints (living and dead) being incense to God.  And, yes, the Old Testament priests did use incense in their ceremonies.  But, how does it follow that INCENSE is PRAYER or that physical incense must be used to represent the prayers?  Wasn't the use of incense in OT worship symbolic of spiritual prayers, just as circumcision of national Israel was a physical representation of the "circumcision of the hearts" of the spiritual "Israel" and many other physical portions of the OT ceremonies were representations of spiritual truths--which were abolished with the coming of Christ? 

  On another note, I am wholeheartedly with you in my utter disdain for the vast majority of contemporary worship music.  There are a handful of good songs, and a very small number of ones that may stand the test of time ("In Christ Alone" strikes me as one), but most of them are insipid, man-centered, puerile....the list goes on.  As far as instruments, you have a point in that only the harp, timbrel, and maybe a couple other instruments are mentioned in the Psalms, so if we are trying to limit things, we'll have to limit it to those only.  I personally think that the most consistent position is either ANYTHING doctrinally correct or the Psalms a cappella or with harps... The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (there's one near PHC) is one of the few churches to still practice exclusive psalmody, actually. For myself, I have seen instruments abused in worship, when they're made to create an "atmosphere," not for men to worship God, but "for the Holy Spirit to work in you."  And one of my pet peeves is the guitarist or pianist playing background during the prayer.  That's not to say that all uses are abuses, but I would lean toward simple music with a focus on the words in congregational worship.  And the psalms are the best hymns there are.

Colin

Saw your comment on Dan's site about the pregnant woman being tased.  While he may be sacrastic, other people will say exactly what he said and actually mean it!

I wasn't offended, I could just see how someone would take some of the comments too far.  I'm not a first-time subscriber, but I've seen other sites on xanga where it sounds like sarcasm but it isn't.
I know he's prolife from the comments he's made on some of our own sites.

Okay, I see what you mean about not distinguishing so much between the prayer and incense.  I'm still not sure I agree (after all, Revelations is hardly clear as to whether it is literal or allegorical in a lot of places, and the incense being presented is in heaven, by an angel, not a priest on earth).  But I do see what you mean, and thanks for the explanation!

Re: Veneration of the saints.  *sigh*  I did say that was a wholly different issue.  But my objection to that is not on whether they are alive or dead (I agree that they are alive)), but rather whether we ought to be venerating anyone besides God.  I realize that Rome makes a distinction in the kinds of glorification (the terms escape me at the moment), but on what basis?  Also, why not venerate you as a fellow saint, instead of say, St. Catherine or Augustine?  I understand, though, that this issue is hardly going to go anywhere between us, as I will probably demand biblical warrant for the church's practice...

Which gets into the deeper issue that you mentioned in your post.  Suffice to say that I believe the church is NOT infallible: remember that she is a redeemed prostitute, and she does still prostitute herself, both as a body and in her members.  She is clean and pure by the grace of God, but by God's imputed righteousness only (I know, I know, that's another subject. ), not her own doing or her current actions. 

I acknowledge that the Orthodox church does have its roots in times much closer to the Apostolic age, but not all of early Christianity was good (Gnostic heresy, anyone?).  How do we know which of those writers were actually writing on Apostolic authority?  How do we know except comparing them to Scripture?  If their teachings contradicted Scripture (as I would contend a lot of Romanist tradition does, and maybe Orthodox, though I don't know it too well), which do we follow?

I'll be honest, I'm pretty new to the whole Eastern Orthodox thing, and have done no direct reading of the early Church Fathers.  Perhaps I ought to before judging it (just as some I know--not you--would do well to read Calvin before they judge his views).  I'm mostly just curious. 

Thanks again for your time, and may this be mutually edifying!

Colin

Well I'm 19. An old woman, you see.   And yes, I promise I'm not doing as bad as you seem to think I am.  I have a bad  cold that's circulating our town...I'm finishing finals...I'm saving up for college (working a lot)...and I rarely drink more than 12-14 oz. of coffee a day.  So thanks but no thanks - don't worry.