The study of Who and What Christ was/is is called “Christology“. This is one of the most complex and controversial topics in Christian theology and it is most definitely not my intention today to provide an exhaustive and authoritative answer as such an answer would be either too ambiguous (if short) and too complex (if exhaustive).
However, what I do want to tackle today is how illustrate dramatically different the discussion this topic was in ancient Christianity and today.
For this purpose, I will use, as a basis, a rather helpful page I found online on the server belonging to the University of Washington. Here is is:
|
Positions rejected by the early Ecumenical Councils (i.e., “heresies”) Ebionitism — Jesus was not divine, but was a holy man and a prophet, upon whom the Spirit of God descended at his baptism. Schematic classification of some of the above Jesus was simply God Jesus was not God but simply a creature The Christ was part man and part God |
Some will call these “ancient heresies”, which is not false, they are ancient, but neither is it true, because in the modern world all of these heresies can still be found.
[Sidebar: “heresy” is not an insult, it is a theological category which I already explained in a previous vignette so I won’t repeat it all here. The same goes for the expression “anathema” which is not a curse; again, I refer you to the same vignette for an explanation of the correct understanding of these terms]
For example, it would not be incorrect to say that Islam teaches a form of Ebionitism while most (but not all) of western Christianity is neo-Nestorian (both the Latins and the Protestants). But mostly what we can observe is what I would describe as a comfortable indifference to this crucial issue, one which was so insightfully noticed by C.S Lewis in his “Mere Christianity” lectures when he said: (emphasis added)
Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world Who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.
One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toe and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men’s toes and stealing other men’s money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences.
This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history.
Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit. Still less do unprejudiced readers. Christ says that He is “humble and meek” and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say.
A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
C.S Lewis was not an Orthodox Christian, but he was undeniably filled with a lot of the spirit of early, original, Christianity, and I often think of the passage above as a powerful “wake-up slap in the face” to those millions today (including those poor souls who think that Christ was some kind of ancient woke hippie and that it was Saint Paul – whom they would, of course, only refer as “Paul” – who introduced all sorts of nasty “non-incusive” “bad stuff” in Christ’s original teachings) who are utterly unaware of the stark nature of the choice before them: either accept Christ as the ManGod (theantropos) or consider Him as either totally insane or very evil: tertium non datur.
By the way, the famous First Ecumenical Councils of Nicea (325) and, later, the Second Ecumenical Council Constantinople (381) gave the most authoritative and exact definition of both What and Who Christ was:
“One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father; by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man; And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; And ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end”.
In addition to that, the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431) later also fully endorsed the following 12 anathemas proposed by Saint Cyril of Alexandria (source):
1. If any one confess not that Emmanuel is in truth God and that the holy Virgin is therefore Mother of God, for she bare after the flesh the Word of God made Flesh, be he anathema.
2. If any one confess not that the Word of God the Father hath been Personally united to Flesh and that He is One Christ with His own Flesh, the Same (that is) God alike and Man, be he anathema.
3. If any one sever the Persons of the One Christ after the Union, connecting them with only a connection of dignity or authority or sway, and not rather with a meeting unto Unity of Nature, be he anathema.
4. If any one allot to two Persons or Hypostases, the words in the Gospel and Apostolic writings, said either of Christ by the saints or by Him of Himself, and ascribe some to a man conceived of by himself apart from the Word That is of God, others as God-befitting to the Word alone That is of God the Father, be he anathema.
5. If any one dare to say, that Christ is a God-clad man, and not rather that He is God in truth as being the One Son and That by Nature, in that the Word hath been made Flesh, and hath shared like us in blood and flesh [Heb. 2:14], be he anathema.
6. If any one say that the Word That is of God the Father is God or Lord of Christ and do not rather confess that the Same is God alike and Man, in that the Word hath been made flesh, according to the Scriptures, be he anathema.
7. If anyone say that Jesus hath been in-wrought-in as man by God the Word and that the Glory of the Only-Begotten hath been put about Him, as being another than He, be he anathema.
8. If any one dare to say that the man that was assumed ought to be co-worshipped with God the Word and co-glorified and co-named God as one in another (for the co-, constantly appended, compels us thus to deem) and does not rather honour Emmanuel with One worship and attribute to Him One Doxology, inasmuch as the Word has been made Flesh, be he anathema.
9. If any one say that the One Lord Jesus Christ hath been glorified by the Spirit, using His Power as though it were Another’s, and from Him receiving the power of working against unclean spirits and of accomplishing Divine signs upon men; and does not rather say that His own is the Spirit, through Whom He hath wrought the Divine signs, be he anathema.
10. The Divine Scripture says that Christ hath been made the High Priest and Apostle of our confession [Heb. 3:1] and He hath offered Himself for us for an odour of a sweet smell to God the Father. If any one therefore say that not the Very Word of God was made our High Priest and Apostle when He was made Flesh and man as we, but that man of a woman apart from himself as other than He, was [so made]: or if any one say that in His own behalf also He offered the Sacrifice and not rather for us alone (for He needed not offering Who knoweth not sin), be he anathema.
11. If any one confess not that the Flesh of the Lord is Life-giving and that it is the own Flesh of the Word Himself That is from God the Father, but say that it belongs to another than He, connected with Him by dignity or as possessed of Divine Indwelling only and not rather that it is Life-giving (as we said) because it hath been made the own Flesh of the Word Who is mighty to quicken all things, be he anathema.
12. If any one confess not that the Word of God suffered in the Flesh and hath been crucified in the Flesh and tasted death in the Flesh and hath been made First-born of the Dead, inasmuch as He is both Life and Life-giving as God, be he anathema.
Once again, I do not propose to discuss these 12 anathemas today (please!), or even explain what they mean and at whom they were directed or why. Instead, I want to show the subtle and yet absolutely crucial complexity of each and every word contained into these dogmatic definitions which, I remind you, are obligatory statements of faith, not “opinions” or “obscure theological points”! Christians and heretics died in huge numbers to defend/condemn such dogmatic definitions. This bears repeating: many thousands of people died, were martyred, because they either accepted or rejected these extremely precise formulations.
At Her core, the Church of Christ is a Church of martyrs, founded by and on martyrs, and true Christianity is always a form of martyrdom (as is any “imitation of Christ”).
[Sidebar: inevitably, some smartass modern positivist will remind us all (as if that needed reminding!) that “the Church” killed an “innumerable number” of “absolutely innocent people” to impose its view of the truth on everybody else. This is both truth and false at the same time. It is a kind of semi-truth. Before the conversion of Saint Constantine the Great in 312 and the Edict of Milan (313), Christianity was mostly persecuted by (non-Christian Jews) and Romans (read the Book of Acts is that is a challenge for you). Later, following the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea (325), the Second Ecumenical Council Constantinople (381) and the Edict of Thessalonica (380) Christianity was proclaimed as the established religion of the Roman State. This was neither a theocracy and bishops did not rule over the state but, instead, the bishops and the heads of state ruled side-by-side in what was called a “symphonia” while “caesaropapism” is a western concept to slander and obfuscate the real nature of the original Christian Roman Empire and, especially, its successor states (the Eastern Roman Empire and Russia). Humans being humans (humans with a fallen nature, according the Christianity!), it did not take long for rulers to figure out that religion can be very conveniently used as an excuse/pretext not only for the suppression of internal dissent (religious or not!) but also for foreign wars. So OF COURSE Roman secular rulers did, at times, use Christianity to persecute all sorts of groups, including, by the way, Orthodox Christians who were also persecuted by non-Orthodox/heretical Roman authorities (by, for example, Leo III the Isaurian or Constans II). And yes, there were also quite a few bloodthirsty bishops in history, if only because bishops are sinful and passionate people too! To the modern, secular, mind, religion is something akin to a personality disorder, and it is responsible for horrible persecutions for 2000 years. Logically (at least to that type of folks), if the Roman Christians were so bad, all those they persecuted (for cause or not) in the name of “the Church” must have been good (by the same token, if Stalin was evil, Hitler must have been kind, and vice versa, of course). Friends! we are talking about how all humans, irrespective of religion or lack thereof, mostly acted in history, both ancient and modern! Considering the massive and utterly unprecedented 300 year long bloodbath resulting from the “progress” of western (masonic) secularism and its various ideological offshoots – including nationalism, liberalism, capitalism, Marxism or National-Socialism, I would not advise modern secularists to thump their chest in self-righteous indignation too much. I would also remind them that the real roots western civilization are the time of the First Crusade and that modern western imperialism is as alive and evil today as it was in the now distant 11th century! For those not familiar with this topic, here is a short “Roman Timeline” to refresh your memory:
- Rome founded in 753 BC
- Rome becomes an empire in 27 BC
- Constantinople founded in 330 AD
- Rome sacked in 410 AD
- (Only the) Western Roman Empire finally ends in 476 AD (see here for what that meant to the entire Christian world)
- Rome cuts itself from the rest of Christianity 1054 AD
- The Papacy adopts the Dictatus Papae in 1075 AD (check the link!)
- First Crusade is unleashed in 1096 AD
- False Council of Florence 1439 AD
- Constantinople falls in 1453 AD and the Eastern Roman Empire ends (over a full thousand years after the fall of the First, western, Rome!)
I especially draw your attention on the very quick succession of the events in 1054, 1075 and 1096: first the break away (schism and heresy) from the rest of the Christian world, immediately after, the megalomanical forgery of “Papal Dictates” quickly followed by the First Crusade. If anybody seriously thinks that the fact this all happened in only 42 (!) years all “just a coincidence”, then please email me, I got a few great bridges to sell to you!]
Again, what I am trying to illustrate is not how bloodthirsty humans have been through history, but only that in early Christianity people not only adopted a very specific set of beliefs, they cared for them enough to die, often in horrible tortures, rather than abjure them.
Nowadays the word “Christian” has lost any objective sense (see here and here for a discussion), it encompasses anything, everything and its opposite, hence utter and proven futility of this entire endeavor and, especially the terminal hypocrisy of Word Orthodoxy denominations saying that they are only participating in this charade to “bring Orthodoxy to the world”, “share the message of Christ” or any other similar nonsense! The undeniable and infinitely sad truth that World Orthodoxy jurisdictions failed to achieve a single tangible positive objective by their participation in the “ecumenical dialog of love”, and the only thing they created are schisms, schisms and more schisms which, of course, they deny and blame on True Orthodox Christians (I always am amazed how all the ecumenists call each other “brothers” (and even “brothers in Christ”!!!) but call True Orthodox Christians “schismatics”, “graceless and the like. Feel the love!
The Ecumenical Movement is the where these putative “Christians” sit down with unrepentant heretics and even pagans and try as hard as can be to obfuscate any and all differences between the many religions and denominations out there.
BTW – the technical term for this activity is “religious syncretism”.
Remember that list above of the “ancient” heresies? They are ALL represented in one form or another in the World Council or Churches and the various “Ecumenical” movements out there. This is why “ecumenism” (aka “religious syncretism”) has been called a “pan-heresy” or a “heresy of heresies”: its purpose is to unite as many people as possible under one umbrella “world religion” and, in the process, obfuscate or even “lift” (by what authority exactly remains unclear!) all the “ancient” and “outdated” anathemas ever pronounced by the One True Church of Christ throughout the centuries.
It is no wonder then that many True Orthodox Christians have come to the conclusions that that the sole real purpose of this entire ecumenical rigmarole is to create a single “umbrella” world religion which would create (one of) the preconditions for the coming and the rule of the Antichrist, which now even the Latins will officially welcome as they have now proclaimed that they “await the same messiah” as the Judaics (whom they now call their “older brothers in faith”) except that for the Latins it would be a 2nd coming while for the Judaics it would be the 1st one.
Long forgotten are the words of the early Christian saints who solemnly defined Christianity as the faith “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian” (St. Athanasius) and that true Christianity is the faith “which has been believed everywhere, always and by all” (Saint Vicent of Lerins) and which “the Prophets saw, as the Apostles taught, as the Church has received, as the teachers expressed in dogmas, as the whole world has agreed, as the grace has illuminated” (Synodikon of Orthodoxy).
At its core and in essence, the entire “Ecumenical Movement” is not “just” a denial and obfuscation of the true, original, Christology, it is much more than that: it is a rejection of the importance and even relevance of Christology as such!
Those who today attend such blasphemous conferences have utterly forgotten even the very first verses of the Book of Psalms (which Christians should be reading on a daily basis!) “Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, and has not stood in the way of sinners, and has not sat in the seat of evil men. But his pleasure is in the law of the Lord; and in his law will he meditate day and night” (Ps 1:1-2 LXX) or even the words of Christ Himself: “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” (Luke 12:51-53).
Yes, of course God wants all of mankind to unite, Orthodox Christians pray for the unity of all in every service, but that unity has to be a unity founded on the full Christian Truth (both doxa and praxis), not outright lies or other forms of obfuscation.
[Sidebar: in the western denominations unity is always seen as something organizational and ceremonial. The perfect example of that is the so-called “Eastern Rite” which demands that its members accept the Filioque, but does not demand that they say so publicly (see Article 1 of the infamous Treaty of Brest for proof of this!) To put it simply, if you accept the authority of the Pope you are “Catholic”, and what you actually believe, or not, makes no difference whatsoever. As for the Protestants, they too can believe anything they want, as long as it is based on the Bible aka “the revealed Word of God”; however, which version of the Bible (Masoretic or LXX) is never clarified and, frankly, it does not really matter since the interpretation of the Scripture is left to each individual acting as his own “mini-Pope”, sola scriptura and all that…
In diametrical contrast, in the East, unity is seen primarily as a “unity of faith” which must come first and which must be total and complete before any organizational or ceremonial expression of unity would be even considered!]
There is a verse in the New Testament which often is very quoted: “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). It is even the (unofficial) motto of the CIA! Yet in 99.99999999%+ of the cases, this verse is truncated and actual sentence by Christ is never mentioned in full: “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32). The terms in red are unambiguously conditionals. The terms in blue indicate which conditions must necessarily must be met for the full proposition to make sense (and take effect in our personal lives!).
The Ecumenist always tell us “but, but, we did not sign any heretical statements!”. First, this is plainly false (see here for a superb discussion of this issue), but it is also nonsensical: by sitting down with heretics at a “council of the ungodly” the pan-heretics have basically treated all of Christology as utterly irrelevant, simply too passé. That is what “religious syncretism” is: a wholesale abandonment of Christology and, therefore, it represents and embodies the ultimate apostasy, even when cloaked in beautiful liturgical vestments or when proclaimed in (truly) holy places (be it in/by Rome or Moscow!).
Can you imagine the Holy Church Fathers sitting down with a worldwide gathering of schismatics, heretics, apostates and even pagan to “seek a common ground and unity”? In fact, most ancient heretics clearly considered themselves Christians (which, of course, they were objectively not, but that is immaterial here, because it would be completely pointlessness for a non-Christian to argue, kill or even die for Christological issues) and “only” disagreed on what nowadays are called “fine and obscure theological points“!
When I look at the list of “ancient” heresies I listed on top, I often think that very few, if any, of the founders of these heretical sects I listed would have agreed to even sit down with the type unity-seeking pan-heretics which nowadays regularly meet at the World Council of Churches (and elsewhere): even the condemned and anathematized heresiarchs of antiquity would have recoiled in utter shock and disgust at what is said (and done!) by the Ecumenists nowadays.
Conclusion: how to really achieve unity?
For a quick and authoritative pointer on how to achieve real unity we can turn to these words of Saint Paul:
“Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph 2:19-20). This clearly shows that in Saint Paul’s mind “Christology” (not that he used that term) was the cornerstone of the entire Christian faith. Which is hardly surprising since Christ Himself said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6) and “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved” (John 10:9). Again, notice the conditionals, they are crucial.
As is all of Christology.
That is why I can only ask every person reading these line to answer (not necessarily in the comment section, though that is fine too, but even in his/her mind only) CS Lewis’ question:
You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse.
So what will you chose, if anything, or will you, like the pan-heretical ecumenists, simply chose the comfortable indifference and ignore Christology and all its momentous implications?
Andrei
Note: We now have 102 registered members, but you still can sign up (here) if you want!
I, Andrei Raevsky, aka The Saker, have absolutely no authority whatsoever to teach anything to anyone. None. Zero. Ziltch. Nada! The “Christian Vignettes” are NOT a catechism, or a course in dogmatics or anything else formal. These vignettes are only one guy’s strictly personal musings on various topics. Nothing more.
Greetings to all, and especially our host, The Saker,
Thank you for this vignette, Saker, just this week I had wondered about Christ’s power performing miracles, whether it was his or imbued by the Spirit or a synergy. I see this line of thought is a slippery slope.
Had just read, Monday, the saint of the day, St Gregory of Neoceasaria, and how combated by various attacks on the faith, including Sabellius as seen above, he prayed for enlightenment, receiving what was to be the Church’s dogma of the Trinity, from St John the Theologian, at the behest of the Theotokos.
Saint Gregory the Miracle-Worker was truly a giant of spirituality!
You can’t go wrong with him.
Saker, forgive me if this comment is a distraction. Frequently you have discussed traditional Orthodoxy, of which I am not a particular fan, nor an opponent, but this has had me thinking more about the calendar question.
Recently I have been studying Geocentrism, and have come to realize that the Father’s of the first council were Geocentrists, by default: since the calendar they instituted was a calendar based on the precepts of geocentric timekeeping. Although there is much literature available on the subject of the old and new calendars,I read various Hocna printings, the particulars of cosmology are not central, but rather are peripheral and left to be inferred —and this is in no small part due, in my mind, to the Copernicien revolution, to which we are inevitably party. It seems that, in terms of timelines, that it wasn’t until after the Orthodox Eastern Rome of Constantinople fell, that the papists, supposedly for the sake of good housekeeping, introduced our present secular/new calendar, some 100 years later, and so, at that time there existed no greater authority to counter them.
Many Orthodox are not inclined to take the Calendar question to heart as a central tenet of the faith, being as it is, that nearly half or more of the parishes here in the States are on one or the other calendar, and as is noted above, the centrality of unity of confession is generally considered to be independent of the particular day of the week. I myself, although sometimes with misgivings, have gone to many new calendar parishes. To quote/misquote a common guideline I hear often ‘’thirteen days won’t save you or cast you into hell’’; a saying which few are prepared to counter, myself least of all. All of that said, traditional Orthodoxy, which has been highlighted in these vignettes, has avowed the Old Calendar to be one aspect of right-worship that isn’t frankly dismissible, especially by authority of a pope, or any other, seeing as it was established by the Nicene fathers as a particular foundation stone of the faith.
Initially I was drawn to this idea of Geocentrism by wikipedia, because having read through the various pages I came to the inevitable relativity-inspired conclusion, which is that the Heliocentric and Geocentric model are both equally valid, and it would not be possible to determine if either theory is correct, since all apparent movement, being relative to our particular reference frame, is not absolute. Relativity = there is no absolute. Heliocentric doctrine is metaphysical. As being one who was indoctrinated into the heliocentric model, the refutation of that model by, a one-hundred years old theory of relativity, was unexpected, and even more so, the suggestion that neither model can be proven came as a shock, and actually a challenge, since as a Christian I hope to find a proof such as this available to me.
The heliocentric model essentially divorces the Sun from the calendar, in the stated aim of correcting for a Sun whose seasons no longer exactly coincide with the calendar date. This is because time, as understood at Nicea, is bounded by the Sun and Moon acting in concert, and this concert of interaction, is the astronomical mathematics of the calendar: the ancient Metonic cycle, which is a harmonizing of the complex interactions of the Sun and Moon. By fixing the Sun as immovable, with Heliocentrism, the apparent synergy of the Sun and Moon is deemed coincidental, and so, the ancient Metonic cycle is no longer an absolute fact, but rather, a synthetic construct of the unenlightened (which includes the ancient Chinese, Hebrews, and builders of Europe’s and America’s stone circles).
Geocentrism is a wonderful thing, because Earth is not just a rock in space, it is the Footstool of God. How easily people say that Christ was not the God-man, that He was not fully God, or not fully man, or not wholly the Son of God in his bodily person. But, Christ was born on Earth, and like us was made of earth, of clay, so how can the Creator become the creation? — and why would He, if the creation, the Earth, was not the focus?
Christ has united mankind to Himself by becoming man. By relegating the Earth to the margins, we easily believe that the Earth becoming Christ’s flesh is inconsequential to God’s plan from the beginning, and then even more easily disbelieve in the Son of God.
Chris: I think your comment is wonderful, wise, and very necessary at this time. “the earth is the footstool of God.” What is the point of loving God and Christ and yet denying the divinity of the earth itself which is clearly created by a loving God and is an expression of Gods loving embrace of humanity. My sense of it is that far from being a rock in space, the earth itself contains its own measure of divine subjectivity. How can it not be? As it is a creation of God and is of God. I am going to go out on a limb and offer the thought that at this time the planet itself and Jesus-Christ the God man are operating in unity.
Thank you Andrei for offering such valuable leadership.
Graeme
Hi Anonymous,
I cannot give you a detailed reply, but I will mention the following: the Church is not an astronomical society and the importance of the calendar issue is purely spiritual, not scientific.
The issue of the calendar is not quite as black and white as some wish it were. For example, the founder of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad once said that the “new calendar is not a heresy, but it is a mistake”. Personally, I would argue that the MANNER in which the new (civil) calendar was adopted certainly looked like an ecclesiological heresy on many levels. It was also a type of schism and, by definition, any schism which is justified becomes an ecclesiological heresy. However, that is a call to make for an authoritative Church council, not for a simple layman like me.
At the very least, the adoption of the new calendar is a clear sign of a total lack of love, both for the flock of those jurisdictions which accepted it and for all those who chose to remain faithful to the traditional, Church, calendar which directly contradicts the words of Christ Himself “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:35).
Saker, thanks for this reply, in all its parts.
With regard to your highlighting that the Church Calendar is a question of Spiritual, and not scientific import; after much musing, I must agree that this is correct viewpoint: the Church Fathers were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, beyond and above the worldly wisdom and sciences of that era.
In the Anonymous comment, the science-based question of Sun-center heliocentrism, versus Earth-center geocentrism, are presented in terms of the views of the Nicene Fathers, and how it relates to us today; and essentially the question becomes one of motivation behind the Calendar: are the Saints attempting to master the secular sciences by divination, or rather, seeking divine inspiration from the Spirit? —without any doubt the true motivation is not, and can not be, worldly science, or its limited aims, but instead is the *Science of sciences*; to love and serve God, above all. This is the motivation of the Fathers, the love of God and His church, no matter what our personal feelings on this or other subjects.
After reflecting on the church calendar, in light of the above, it seems there exists a stumbling block for the Western mind, for my mind, which is to rationalize all things according to one’s viewpoint —while simultaneously not seeing where that viewpoint originates, which is ignorance, and where it leads, which is greater ignorance and worse. The subject of this vignette is Christ’s recognition/acceptance in our hearts; that we are not offended in Him, in His divinity, His suffering, or His rising again. The same logic, apparently, pertains to His holy Church.
So, with the forgiveness of the Saker, I would like to continue the geocentric conversation:
So regarding astronomical models and the indirect, or direct, opinion of the Holy Fathers, as mentioned in the first comment, it can be said that they and the entire world, until now, were geocentrists, of some type or another, but this only with caveats, and these caveats are in addition to the main one, which is Saker’s elucidation above.
Firstly, the Fathers of the Church had knowledge and understanding, of worldly and religious topics, exceeding our own; their various concerns and considerations over the calendar, touch on subjects that many of us are never likely to encounter, or see as important, despite our diligence. These concerns are the concerns of the leaders of the Church on Earth, and to her obligations, and to her future —which is us— in short, there are many things, *above our paygrade*, that are left unspoken, or merely derived from other conclusions. These are weighty matters.
Secondly, despite the obvious modern condescension for Geocentrism, and the numerous disproofs of it, there really exists no factual representation of the geocentric model in popular sciences. In other words, the attempt to discover validity behind such a model is impossible, because no credible discussion exists —as far as I can tell, it would be more accurate to describe the commonplace heliocentrism, as a refined version of Ptolemaic Geocentrism; and the geocentric model as commonly presented, a dumbed down version of the this — there is little valid difference between the two, whereas geocentrism is in reality the basis for both.
Not to try the patience of everyone, or especially our host, but here is a brief explanation of actual geocentrism:
What is the geocentric model? — it is understood from the observed diurnal motions of the heavens above a fixed Earth; an earth unmoved, and unmoving. The body of stars, the Sun and Moon, and the inner and outer planets, turn each day around the earth. To interpret: the Sun revolves around the earth once per diem; the Moon revolves once per diem; Venus and Mercury revolve about the Earth once per diem, as well as the greater planets of Mars, Jupiter, et al.; the body of the stars, circle the earth once every day just as the rest, with the exception that all the objects in the solar system, follow the stars more or less closely in their particular rate of revolution. The first and preeminent timekeeper is the Stars, followed by the Sun and then our Moon, and then the Planets, all of which bodies follow the Stars in their daily course, but at either an equivalent pace, or slightly less. The Sun follows the Stars, and slips behind them one degree of a circle per day, as an average; the Moon, to generalize, follows the daily cycle of the Stars, but slips behind them by a greater amount than the Sun, by about twelve degrees of a circle per day; and so on.
Good Morning Andrei and thank you very much for another great Christian Vignette!
I have been learning how to pray the Jesus Prayer which I pray as, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy on Me, a Sinner”, and when I read the exact same wordage from the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Councils it helps me to understand the importance of these first 6 words in the Jesus Prayer. I learn more each vignette so please keep up this great work. I am reading and working through all the links in the article. Thank you for this learning tool.
This Jesus Prayer is the core of Orthodox spirituality, prayer, asceticism and even dogmatics.
There is no overstating its importance.
However, I would note that Orthodox tradition clearly indicates that this prayer should be made under the guidance of a competent spiritual father (for very serious reasons I don’t want to discuss here).
Please be aware of the following: there cannot be an “effective” Jesus Prayer outside the Orthodox Church.
“So what will you chose, if anything, or will you, like the pan-heretical ecumenists, simply chose the comfortable indifference and ignore Christology and all its momentous implications?”
No i will not, otoh i will seek more knowledge about Christology.
I have read Sain John Chrysostom On marriage and family life and learned a great deal about own sins, now it lies on my nighttable.
I found it to be a wise book, and i will read more of him, i am planning to travel to Oslo in Jan-Feb and talk with Fader arkimandritt Kliment over several days.
I live quite far from there so it takes a while to afford hotel/hostel for week and travel, but now the dice is thrown and plans being made.
Sometimes i wish i was a wordsmith like the host and several others on this blog, but i am not.
Know that i thank you for this vignette from the bottom of my heart Andrei, it helps me to narrow in on things and knowing i can ask more knowlegdeable folks if i get stuck.’
Thank you.
Per
Norway
Dear Per
Thank you for our comment. I also want to commend you for making a long trip!! This is very very important.
Nowadays, a lot of people settle for what I call the “geographical solution” find the nearest vaguely “Orthodox” parish and attend it. I also reply this to them:
Say you learn on CNN, BBC, etc. that Christ not only come back for His Second Coming, but He is located, say, in a location which would take you a full week just to get to. So far. However, you would ALSO hear that He, Personally, invited you to have a meal with Him. Yes, yes, I mean you, Per, personally, by name :-)
Would you not go?
My bet is that under such circumstances you would!
Well, ANY LITURGY is exactly that: a personal invitation by Christ extended to you!
Okay, travel expenses, room and board are not paid for. And travels would be a major pain.
But still, getting an personal invitation from the King of Kings and Creator of the Universe would probably make you throw aside all caution and “pragmatic” considerations and immediately begin your journey, right?
As we say in Russian, “may an angel be your fellow traveler” on your journey!
Kind regards
Andrei
Thank you.
It may be a pain to travel, but you are right it is worth it.
I feel quite isolated here at times, only protestant and catholic churches nearby.
This seems to me to be the crux of the whole problem: who or what is Christ for us. Most “believers” are more or less avoiding this question. For them Christ has become a kind of fairy-tale charakter without deeper meaning, which keeps the community together and makes them feel good. No other needs for them – questions only interfer with their well-being. They do not wont to know that they have made a choice by doing so – a choise agains christ. At one point I had a dispute with a lutheran pastor over the neo-pagans and he said “at least they believe something – that’s the important thing, isn’t it”. I call this folk (the pastor and his ilk) “Kirchenhaiden = church-pagans” or “Irgendwasglauber = something-believers”.
And they are the majority in all churches I know personelly. It’s sad! So, while not “sitting down with heretics”, what remains for believers in Christ?
André
ps. @”If anybody seriously thinks that the fact this all happened in only 42 (!) years all “just a coincidence”, then please email me, I got a few great bridges to sell to you!” – please send the bridges to me even if I not think “its just a coincidence” Thank you!
And they are the majority in all churches I know personelly. It’s sad!
Indeed, and I fully agree with your very sad conclusions!
So, while not “sitting down with heretics”, what remains for believers in Christ?
Find the nearest True Orthodox Church (i.e. a parish/monastery whose *bishop* is *truly and fully* Orthodox) is one option or, better, find the best TOC parish/monastery on the planet (let your heart decide), irrespective of how far you would need to travel to attend it.
A proposal seems to have been presented that either one accepts that Jesus was and is the one true Son of God and is God incarnate, or he was a madman. Do I have that right?
My problem with this is that while I cannot believe in the former, neither can I accept the latter.
The first statement requires an acceptance of Christ, and an avowal of Christianity. I cannot, in good faith, go there.
The second is beyond the pale. By what possible right could I make such an insulting comment?
I accept that I stand outside the church, that I stand (is that the correct term?) in anathema. I am comfortable within myself with that. But to then say that I must consider Jesus a madman? No, I cannot accept that. It’s tricky, I grant you that, being neither a theist nor an atheist.
For true men of true and heartfelt faith, I have the utmost respect. And I continue to wonder, while never – I truly hope never – belittling, besmirching, insulting the source of their faith and veneration.
Dear Hal
Did Christ not say many times over and over again that He was God, or one with the Father, or other ways to express His claim that He is God.
If that was/is not true then I see only these options:
1) Christ was a delusional megalomaniac
2) Christ was a crook and a cult leader
3) Christ was the Son of God and God Himself
Can you offer other possible interpretations?
Also
Not being Christian does not make you anathematized. To be anathematized you would have to claim to be a Christian while professing a heresy which the Church would then denounce. That is clearly not your case.
I hope that my reply makes sense to you.
Kind regards
Andrei
Dear Andrei
Yes, your reply does make sense to me, and thank you for taking the time.
On the first question of Christ as God or as delusional madman, I will have to continue to hold that in abeyance as 1) I am not a believer and 2) I simply do not feel myself competent to or knowledgeable enough to or bold enough to venture an answer.
On the second point about anathema, I accept your interpretation and will not use that term again.
And thank you for these vignettes. Man’s quest for certainty, for meaning, is, to my mind, the most fascinating of all our quests. It underlies all the others.
Dear Andrei
I have to offer one further comment on this thread, and I offer it with respect.
The problem I have with your stance, and I accept its logic, is that it reduces the wonder. And it is a wonderful world out there.
Perhaps this is the problem I have with all Faiths.
I can only hope you are as comfortable in your certainty as I am in my uncertainty.
May we part ways in peace.
Respectfully
Hal
Thank you for your kind words!
Dear Andrei,
Apologize for the delay, hope it is still open. In this vignette, I am very proud to say that I asked by myself the question of C.S.Lewis, although I didn’t know him. It is absolutely true, in the history there were a lot of philosophers and wise men, well estimated for their statements and discourses, from Socrates in Ancient Greece to Confucius in China, and many others from Rome to India, but nobody of them dared to say to be Son of God. Noting this was shocking also for me and, of course, I chose to believe He is the Son of God.
I would add that resurrection is another crucial point: do you really believe that Christ was dead, buried in the cave and, at some point, He ascended to the Heaven with the whole body from inside the cave? Is this not a
“wild” statement? Only a madman could say something similar. Indeed the Apostles were considered as such, but they also were absolutely wise and sane and finally they were credible; we also are mad from this point of view, but in reality we are not, because we know that Him could resurrect and of course He did. Don’t know if this makes sense.
I would add that resurrection is another crucial point: do you really believe that Christ was dead, buried in the cave and, at some point, He ascended to the Heaven with the whole body from inside the cave? Is this not a
“wild” statement?
Exactly!! You are spot on.
Saint Paul wrote this about that exact issue: “And if Christ be not raised (resurrected), your faith is vain” (1 Cor 15:17)
CS Lewis is absolutely correct: Christ only gave us 2 options, there is no third.
Kind regards
Catholic over here but it is wonderful to see how seriously you take Orthodoxy. It is the oldest form of Christian worship existent, right?
I was raised Catholic post Vatican two, so it was all luvy dovey, guitar strumming, no doctrine learned at all in my case, but still, I retained the faith and my syblings who got the full meal deal private Catholic educations, high latin mass all left the church the minute they left home. None came back.
I strayed into Eastern and Indian forms of meditation for a good while.
Now, and I mean these days, everything seems so apocalyptic, two Popes, the contagion, lockdowns, lockstep, peak oil and economic insanity, volcanos and now perhaps war. I know whatever comes we deserve it, I certainly do, and it has deepened my prayer life immensely. But to attend mass from home, on Christmas Eve and day just kills me now, when more than ever we should be praying down Our Lords intercession and mercy on ourselves, neighbours and the sorry state of the world.
Do you have an Orthodox confession similar to ours? I mean a personal one.
Finally, what of Christs words, “If they come healing or casting out demons in My Name, despise them not.”…? I ask this in regards to other forms of Christianity.
Dear Janice,
The post is old, hope you can read. My background is very similar to you, I also stopped to attend the mass for a certain time, but never stopped to believe that Christ is really the Son of God, with all the other sequential implications. The topic of this vignette, Christology, that is to answer the question who is Christ, is fundamental in the very sense that it is the foundation of everything. So, even if one is roaming far from the church (whatever we mean with this) but he is searching sincerely the Truth about the human being and the Universe and retain these correct notions about Christ, he will return in the end because Christ is the Truth. But I have to admit that some attitudes of some Catholics, for example too emphasis on exterior prescriptions and a bourgeois moralism, tend to alienate people, since faith firstly requires credible people testifying Christ.
I let Andrei and the other Orthodox readers correct me if I am stating something wrong and answer your questions.
As for the current time, you are definitive right. But Christ Himself said that well before the second coming many terrible things will happen… so we are warned and we can only pray to ease the sufferings.
The Hindus have many metaphors for God, and the Orthodox hate Pantheism. But they also have a Trinity which predated the Christian where the second person of that Trinity is God, is fully divine, is the Word of God who takes flesh and saves us and shows us the way. Jesus fits well into this system. By no accident, the Wisdom Books were written in Greek in Alexandria Egypt when India was their largest trading partner. The other metaphor that the Judeo-Christian tradition lost was that of Shiva dancing the unvierse, God Being. This explains, “Whatever you do to the least of your fellow human being you do to Me.”
But aren’t all these definitions of Christologies just metaphors for ways God touches us and is active in the world, even as Spirit, the Breath and Energy of God.
I really enjoyed Christmas this year: “Come let us adore Him…” The mind points, and the heart follows.