In our last vignette, I tried to outline what a “theologian” means in the original Christian understanding of the word, a person whose spiritual condition make it possible for him/her to “experience the reality/radiance of God but without seeing His face/radiance” (very bad choice of words, but for our purposes, I hope that it will do). I also mentioned this metaphor used by Christ:
The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness. If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light. (Luke 11:33-36)
I need to repeat am important caveat here: there is absolutely no way anything I write here should be seen as any type of “shortcut” or “summary” of anything we are discussing. What follows is, at best, a clumsy attempt outline the very complex is simple terms and my hope is that these vignettes will encourage at least ONE reader to go do the true sources of Christianity, that is the Scripture, the Fathers and the Church. With this in mind, let me offer you my best effort and hope that I don’t miserably fail!
How does one acquire a “clear eye”?
The short answer is through the following sequence:
catechization->baptism->purification->illumination->theosis.
I will now try to offer a simple laymen’s (which I am) understanding of what this sequence means.
Catechization: in other words, instruction. The truth is that Christianity is an extremely complex religion to study, especially in our modern times when most people would recoil in horror at the thought of having to read several hundred, if not thousand, pages of (often complicated) text. Yes, I know, there are “Orthodox” jurisdictions out there which hand out Chrismations (anointment) or Baptisms to anybody asking for it (there are several ways one can be received in the Church, but let’s leave this topic aside for today). Worse, the clergy doing so simply does not want to take the time to ascertain whether the candidate has even received any instructions at all. I have seen, many times, people getting Christmated without any catechisation at all! Again, this often happens in jurisdictions which are deeply infected with the “bacteria” of modernism, ecumenism and who have departed from the 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” (I will repeat this quote of Saint Athanasios very often in our vignettes).
The truth is that, as one priest put it, you have to do your own footwork. And yes, this is hard work and you cannot become Orthodox “on the cheap” or in any “quicky” way. Look at this Beatitude:
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. (Matt 5:6)
And notice that the words “hunger and thirst” are what we would call powerful “gut feelings”, they refer to our core survival instincts, not to some highbrowed academic “interest in” or something which is relevant only on Sunday mornings. Another example:
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (Matt 22:37)
Again, these are very powerful words! And how about this one:
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me (Matt 10:37)
And I could add many, many more quotes, from both the Old and New Testament. The point here is simple, Christ and His Church should be approached the same way as a person dying from thirst is a desert would approach a oasis filled with fresh, clean water and plenty of fruits to eat. In other words, we are dealing here not with a philosophy, or any kind of scholastic curiosity, but what ought to be a desperate struggle for spiritual survival. That, in turn, means that the person being received in the Church should place his/her education/instruction as the absolute number one priority in his/her life.
Would you be willing to read, say, 2000 pages to avoid being executed?
My guess is that yes, at least if you value your life.
If Christ, the God Incarnate, came back and invited you, personally, to share a meal with Him, but in a location which would require you to drive for, say, five days one way by car – would you accept or would you turn down His invitation?
Again, my guess is that you accept, right?
Well, you can think of your instruction into the Church as those 2000 pages which can save your life, or the Eucharist in any truly Orthodox Church as in invitation by Christ Himself! In other words, becoming part of the Church, the Theandric Body of Christ and one of His Incarnations, is a A LOT of work, especially in our post-Christian times when people like fast-“spiritually” for the same reason they like fast foods: cheap, nearby and comfy.
It is only AFTER you do that hard study work that you can be received in the Church.
Next,
Baptism (under that heading I include the other modes of reception too which I don’t want to discuss now).
First, unless there is a major impediment (medical, emergency situation, and others) a Christian baptism must be performed full triple immersion, that is also true for babies, adults and even the elderly (which the the Greek noun βάπτισμα means, immersion). Again, those “Orthodox” which have departed from this principle are, at the very least, infected with modernism, secularism or ecumenism. This is important not just for some “abstract theological fine point with no real relevance to modern life” , and not just out of respect and reverence for the original Christianity, but also because the “old you” “drowns” and disappears in the baptismal waters and then comes back as a “new you” “clothed in Christ”.
Baptism is a Mystery (a sacrament), and discussing it like I did above is actually not a good approach. Mysteries are not something which should be logically discussed or analyzed. So I will stop here and encourage everybody to read the Fathers or to get in touch with a true, traditionalist, Orthodox clergyman. My only goal here is to stress that the reception of a candidate into the Church is not “just” a “ritual”, but as much a Mystery as any other Mystery of the Church. I did my best here, but I apologize for not having the wisdom and words to accurately and fully convey the importance and sacred seriousness of this Mystery.
As I tell all my friends who converted to Orthodoxy: welcome to the battlefield, now things will only get harder. And that is true, if you thought that reading 2000 pages and driving 5 days by car was hard, then you are about to discover that far from having “made it”, you just entered the very first and initial stage of a spiritual battle you will have to fight until your last breath!
The next three steps (purification, illumination and theosis) are too complex for me to summarize here. So I will try to at least give you a general idea in a roundabout, but hopefully truthful and accurate way.
The original, Christian Church believed that our nature, at birth, is already a fallen, corrupted one. No, they did not believe that we personally and directed shared in the Original Sin (which I won’t discuss today), but they all did believe that both our nature and even the entire universe were directly affected by that Original Sin, that we are living in suffering and eventually dying as a direct consequence of that Original Sin. So when Rousseau wrote that the “noble savage” was born innocent and pure and that society corrupted him, the Fathers would categorically disagree; in fact, such a notion contradicts everything Christ taught and did, including His Incarnation and Resurrection. But let’s just say that the source of evil in the world is not in God’s Creation, but comes from our fallen nature. God’s creation was perfect, it is our forefather’s misuse of the freedom God granted them which “created” (wrong word, but I will use it for convenience sake) evil.
Again, I will use a metaphor next. The Church is not a club of saints, or a theological debate society, but a hospital for sinners in which the spiritual pathologies resulting from our fallen nature are treated. So when we speak of “purification” what is meant is a lifelong process of struggle to heal ourselves and that process continues for all our lives. This is why those who believe that baptism is truly an illumination (they are right!) but then confuse that illumination with the illumination which comes in the process of purification are simply wrong. They conflate two very different meanings of the same word (and need to re-read Saint Maximos on that topic).
Which leaves theosis. That is the most complex and what follows is an EXTREMELY inadequate attempt to put in a few words that this means. One corect answer would be “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God (Saint Athanasios), but that raises even more questions and needs to have every single word explained and discussed. There is, however, a very good text discussing this on the Internet which you can find here:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis.aspx in TEN different languages!
In my own inadequate words I will say that the catechization->baptism->purification->illumination->theosis sequence heals our fallen nature, brings us to our full spiritual potential/calling and unites us to God, at least as much as a person can be united with Him. If correctly understood, you could say that it is our calling to become “Christ-like” saints. Again, this is one of the highest of Mysteries and I really don’t feel comfortable discussing it here, even with all my caveats.
Now (finally!) back to theologians in original Christianity:
From the above you can say that theologians are those who, at least, have successfully completed catechization->baptism->purification->illumination sequence. Not all those so illuminated achieve the last stage, theosis, as the latter is a Grace granted by God (again, not a topic needed for our very modest purposes). Speaking of which, one more disclaimer:
Christianity is not magic, nor is it a mechanism. Nothing is conferred or given automatically or formally. “Just” being baptized or, as some in the West say, “establishing a personal relationship with God” will not somehow automatically “save” you. So those who say, “I was saved on that day of that year” and who think that they “made it” are deceived and deluded. In truth, not a single soul truly and finally will “make it” until the Last Judgement Day (again, not our topic today). Even saints and bishops can fall, like “stars falling down from the heavens” (Rev 6:13). A Christian life is a life of a never ending spiritual struggles.
Lastly, for the sake of (at least an attempt at) completeness, I have to add that martyrdom is a “baptism though blood“, but only if the person dies for Christ and/or (same thing, really) His One Single True Church and not for any other reason. Remember the word of Christ to the malefactor “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Like 23:43). I feel that I have to mention this here, but this is another topic which deserves at least one, if not more, vignettes. So for today, let’s please leave it at that.
Unless I get specific requests to discuss another topic (and I feel like this request is appropriate for our format), my next vignette will be about two aspects of Orthodoxy which mostly overlooked in our times: asceticism and experimentalism (careful, I am not sure if that is the correct English word for this! see the small note below about my lack of adequate English language skills).
Now I open the floor for comments, criticism and further information (some of our 96 current commentators made some very good and useful points in the last vignette, so thank you to them all for helping me here!).
Andrei
PS: I read the Scripture in Church Slavonic and much of my instruction was in Russian (and I still think in Russian), hence please be very careful with my choice of words, English is my 3rd or 4th language, and I am a terrible writer to begin with. I am sure that there are all sorts of mistakes above and I ask you to focus my intention to put the complex in simple words rather than on my the frequently poor choice if words!
PPS: we now have 96 registered members, and 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.
As a fellow Orthodox Christian, I find this fascinating, although I never really thought in these specific terms
I have had occasion to listen to many sermons in Orthodox churches, and there are times (too frequent) when I wonder if that identical sermon couldn’t have been given in a Protestant or Roman Catholic church,such was the lack of anything specific to Orthodoxy’s view of God and His reality. I mean absolutely anyone can say “treat people nice” so why even have a sermon?
Very interesting comment.
I know exactly what you mean. Here is how I see the problem.
First, let’s be honest, many nominally Orthodox jurisdictions and parishes are Orthodox mostly/only in the sense of “of the Orthodox – Russia, Greek or other – rite” (ritualism)
Second, a lot of parishes are basically ‘national clubs’ for emigres who miss their countries (phyletism)
Third, a lot of them want to please both the secular powers that be and parishioners who are totally secularized (neo-Sergianism)
Add to this that the level of education actually taught in most seminaries is very low and very heavily infected by modern “theologians” (most of which are a disaster, as I often mention)
I call that “non-Patristic Orthodoxy” which is nonsensical, but then what these people are taught is non-sensical to begin with.
Many modern Orthodox pastors have basically given up on trying to convey not only Christian ethics, but also have completely detached themselves from the spirit (phronema) of the Fathers or the “general conscience of the Church” (he genike syneidesis tes ekklesias).
Instead, they get both their legitimacy and power from the fact that
1) they are numerically much larger than the traditionalists
2) they have the support of the secular, state, authorities (thus also $$$)
3) they hold the main buildings (cathedrals, lavras, monasteries, academies, etc.)
Now, to be fair to them, there ARE good pastors even in modernist jurisdictions and, besides, one cannot pass on something one has not received in the first place.
Likewise, there are plenty of bigots, fanatics and general crackpots in some traditionalist jurisdictions, and that kind of fanaticism repulses a lot of people. The same goes for phyletism. So there is enough blame to go around for everybody, not just the modernists.
True Christianity is not a nice church building, a beautiful choir, a “nice” priests and a bishops.
True Christianity is a life in a desert (not of this world), a battlefield (inside your own soul) and obedience to pastors who place their oath to Christ above their popularity (or income). Our only “weapons” are prayer (hesychasm – and NOT “just” for monastics!), asceticism, faithfully following the Fathers and their example, and a 24/7 burning love for Christ and His truth. I will touch upon some of these in the future.
Lastly, remember this admonition by Christ: “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.”? This is what happened to western Christianity (Latin or Reformed). Hence the ease with which Masons and/or Judaizers trampled upon them.
That is now also happening in the nominally “Orthodox countries”, to my great distress and sadness.
In one way or another, whether literally or metaphorically, true Orthodoxy is now and the Catacombs and in the deserts, even in nominally Orthodox countries…
The good news is that none of that is really new. It has been going on for 2000 years (and more, the same can be found all over the Old Testament). Our fallen nature pulls us down, as do the demons, and we all struggle to not “spiritually drown” in the world.
Coming back to the boring sermons you mention, there is a very effective and simple way to avoid it. Instead of having pastors preaching their own ideas, they should instead simple read Patristic commentaries about the Epistle(s) and Gospel(s) read that day. First, THEY THEMSELVES would learn a lot and, two, their flock would be regularly exposed to the “real thing” instead of the mostly insipid and boring sermons you refer to. Of course, that would require a humility which is nowadays rarely taught in seminaries (who now are much more academic institutions than “character (trans)forming”, in sharp contrast to the kind of spiritual and true education found in monasteries.
Kind regards
I am being drawn to orthodoxy at an older age through a highly unlikely path. I was raised in a small Southern fundamenalist church, the Protestant “Church of Christ” and I am now believing that the Orthodox Church is the TRUE Church of Christ.
To be totally clear I am not yet Orthodox but I am seeking to become Orthodox. I attended the local Greek Orthodox Church on a regular basis for over a year and the experience for my wife and I was one of being a total outsider being nonOrthodox and non Greek. I met with the parrish priest and was never invited to any type of catechization class and really received no encouragement from the priest or the membership of the church. Eventually we quit attending and my “seeking” fell away and we went back to a traditional Protestant church but my feeling about the “mysteries” of the Orthodox church keep coming back to me, especially baptism, the Divine Liturgy, and my reading about Orthodox theosis and the path towards that theosis.
My first involvement in/about Orthodoxy came from reading of Father Seraphim Rose and from his books and writings I gained distant exposure to the Orthodox faith. I was particularly drawn to his stance on the Orthodox church being the true church of Christ and his public stance on modernism and ecumenism. I have each of Fr. Roses books and pdf copies of all of the “Orthodox Word” in which he was so involved with prior to his death.
I am struggling to find an Orthodox jurisdiction that preserves the true apostolic link to the church of the original apostles and followers of Christ in the 1st. century. It has become such a “rabbit hole” of who and what jurisdiction is a valid link to the first century Church of Christ. It is for this reason that I so look forward to these vignettes. I am able and willing to do the hard work to find Christ’s church and I am indebted to you Andrei and to all your readers who have commented on the first 3 vignettes. For someone like me on the outside of “Orthodoxy” to have a forum such as your vignettes which allows two way discussions is invaluable in my seeking and search. Thanks to you and all who comment.
Kindest…Bill
Dear Bill
Thank you for your comment. I have to tell you something important here, it is not my role to point you to one or another Orthodox jurisdiction . Of course, I cannot make a secret my view of what is sometimes called “World Orthodoxy”, but I want to stay away from what some call “gracometry”, that is delivering pseudo certificates of authenticity to any one local church, jurisdiction or parish. Of course, when this is crucial to an important point or when I am directly asked to reply, I do address these issues, see here for a few examples:
/a-negative-view-of-christianity-and-religion-in-general/
/why-orthodox-churches-are-still-used-as-pawns-in-political-games/
/the-abomination-of-desolation-standing-in-the-holy-place/
/obedience-in-christianity-a-reply-to-an-important-question/
/orthodox-faith-yvonne-lorenzo-interviews-the-saker/
However, I try to refrain as much as I can to wallop the sins and compromissions of the modernists, because only a true council composed of truly faithful Orthodox people which kept the totality of true Christianity can judge them and the degree of “infection” they suffer. Such a council could also call the modernists to repentence, and nobody can predict how many will heed that call.
But still leaves questions: who gets to decide who is “truly faithful” and who is invited? Again, now that there are not Christian monarchs left, only God can make such a council happen, so we have to wait for His Providence to show us the way.
It is spiritually very unhealthy to rejoice is the sins of others to begin with, and the current condition of the modernists is not worthy of scorn, it is worthy of tears!
Some are already spiritually dead, others are fighting for their spiritual survival, and they are often filled with sincere clergy and laity. So who am I to judge them?
And why should anybody listen to what one sinful layman thinks anyway?
Listen to YOUR conscience instead!
And ask for God’s guidance, and He will lead you to His Church, even if that path might be long and very difficult!
And yes, I know, the same modernist who hug heretics and call them “brothers” call traditionalists “schismatics” and hate amd despise them. But not all of them, some are, in fact, in discreet contact with us and our clergy. So, again, we should not and CANNOT judge them.
Their compromissions and their hostility towards us is THEIR problem, not ours! We have no need to reply in kind (as Christ told us many times) and those traditionalists who DO spend their time and energy hating and pointing fingers at others are in a state of spiritual delusion possibly even worse than the one of the modernists!
Christ told us: “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another”. There is no point in being an expert on dogmatics or canon law if your heart is full of hate or contempt for others.
Also, please remember that in the past 2000 years, it took not years, not decades, but often CENTURIES to deal with heresies. Modern heresies (ecumenism, neo-Sergianism, phyletism) will, of course, be eventually condemned by such a council; either that, or by Christ Himself at his Second Coming, but maybe not in our lifetimes.
So all I can do is to try describe to you the best I can what “real salt” tastes like (I have been privileged enough to taste a lot of this real salty salt in my life!) and then let you, and everybody else, “sample” the various jurisdictions and decides for yourselves.
Rather than making a list of the “good ones” and the “bad ones”, I want to describe as best I can what true Christianity was in the Apostolic times, how the Fathers wrote about it and how the real salt “tastes” like.
I will say this: the One True Church of Christ still exists today, according to His promise (the Gates of Hades shall not prevail) and This One True Church will never become false either (the pillar and foundation of truth). I have experienced that myself, so your quest for the True Church is not futile.
Also, the numerical size of the One True Church has gone up and down over the centuries, sometimes the Church of Christ was big, powerful and highly visible. In other times (say the early Soviet years or the years of Saint Maximos) it could only be found in jails and in catacombs. However, in ecclesiological issues, size does NOT matter in the least. Again, read the Fathers and you will find a huge list of examples proving this point.
Don’t seek numbers or external trappings (like a beautiful building filled with large crowds, or a superb choir). Forget about historical places who are now in the hand of those who lapsed (say like the relics of Saint Ambrose in a Latin cathedral in Milan). Instead, seek the writings of Saint Ambrose himself!
Then you can decide what you find stale and what you find salty :-)
About Father Seraphim (whom I never met). He was truly an AMAZING personality, I have the greatest respect for him, but I should warn you against something of a cult-following of him which is unhealthy because not every single word Father Seraphim wrote was always 100% in line with what the Fathers taught. Also, some of his books have now been “creatively edited”. So just be aware of these issues. Read his books (early editions), by all means, but just don’t take them as a modern substitute for the Fathers.
Does the above adequately reply to your question?
Kind regards
Andrei
Fr. Seraphim compiled/collated all the extant patristics commentaries on Genesis, something never done nor heard of. This was his answer to the various creationist dialogues of the Protestants: the Creation as seen through the mind of the church fathers, and its juxtaposition to the vast confusion of modern thinkers, no matter how sincere.
In truth, Fr Seraphim’s commentaries comprise one-quarter of the book that was published as, ´Genesis, Creation, & Early Man’, while the remainder is as you say, creative editing, published under Fr Seraphim’s name. But so what? The section of patristics, is unparalleled. There exists nothing like it in the Creationist v. Evolution so-called debate, because the mind of the church is beyond the wisdom of this world, and it’s the desire of Fr Seraphim for us to see this.
“Fr. Seraphim compiled/collated all the extant patristics commentaries on Genesis, something never done nor heard of”
Please look up “Philocalia” or Saint Basil’s Hexameron on the Internet. These are just two examples on the Internet, I know of several more, but in either Russian or Church Slavonic.
Kind regards
St Basil is one church father, albeit a great one, but there are other commentators, and not a few. Perhaps it seems of little importance to compare what various saints say on only one particular subject, such as the six-days, but to Fr Seraphim it was critical! And I agree wholeheartedly.
Perhaps it seems of little importance to compare what various saints say on only one particular subject,
Quite the opposite, I think! Comparing the Fathers allows us to derive the consensus patrum which is the true criterion of Christian Truth. So that is immensely profitable.
and you use the word “saint” instead of “theologian” – again you are spot on!!
to convey these truths to my readers is one of the key goals of this series :-)
thank you!
Hi Saker
Thank you for this series, and I agree with the absolute majority of what you are saying in these Vignettes. I must say however that I’m rather annoyed by your blanket referring to so-called “World Orthodoxy” as “modernists”. This is neither correct nor fair. Here in Russia, the vast majority of parishes and monasteries I’ve been to are rather traditionalist, though there exists an influential “modernist”-ecumenist minority. I don’t know the situation in the US first hand but it’s hard for me to imagine it being very different.
Regarding Fr. Seraphim Rose: even the Fathers didn’t all teach in 100% agreement with each other. I personally think he was a saint or at very close to one; he was also a disciple of the great St.John of San Francisco. I guess popular veneration is in order in such cases; it would only be unhealthy if some of his teachings turned out to be problematic – which I’m not aware of; if you can point to any such – please do…
I’m rather annoyed by your blanket referring to so-called “World Orthodoxy” as “modernists”.
Oh I am sure that you are, as are others, but my concern here is not to please you or anybody else. I find these categories actually quite useful. For example, it does not focus on an individual parish or cleric, neither do they focus on what people feel in their hearts. They focus on what their BISHOPS do (or don’t do).
How would you want me to characterize, say, the SCOBA which, in all modesty, calls itself “canonical” in spite of being full of bishops which are Orthodox only in name? Calling them “World Orthodox” is my way to not use the kind of (much stronger) categories which the Fathers would have used, please think about that!
There are two mindsets out there: one which wants to obfuscate/deny the very real differences between jurisdictions (and even religions) and one which wants to put a spotlight on them. One could call that intra-jurisdictional ecumenism in which the heterodox are embraced as brothers (say in the Balamand declaration and its “two lungs” – an undeniable ecclesiological heresy!) and the traditionalist who told to submit or shut up.
You appear to be of the first persuasion, I am of the second one.
For example, for Russia you are using a numerical argument (“vast majority of”) which, if applied to, say, Saint Maximos would make him a schismatic and not a confessor :-)
So let’s make it simple: I totally agree that a vast majority of bishops, parishes or jurisdictions are on “your side” if you want. I just don’t think that this is a Patristic argument, it is typical “world Orthodoxy” :-).
But if you prefer “non-Patristic Orthodoxy” or “Ritual Orthodoxy” I could go with those, but they are either too complex or even inaccurate (modernists don’t even stick to the proper rites anymore…)
So, I hear your disapproval, noted, and I hope that you will allow me to chose my expression in the future, whether you approve of them or not.
And no, I am not going to go and discuss Father Seraphim, his writing, or how they were re-edited here. I will mention that he sure did see the difference between, say, the ROCOR (before 2007) and the Sergianists (also a category which you would probably find “unfair” “incorrect) whom he considered as both schismatic and heretics, by the way, as did Saint Philaret (but not Saint John, which proves how delicate and complex this issue is).
Look, the Internet is full of websites which I would refer to as “world Orthodoxy” and the latter have the full support of the secular state.
In contrast, we are typically numerically small, poor and isolated – so who cares if one layman’s blog uses categories you don’t approve of. Do you even need to silence our tiny voices?
Kind regards
Andrei
You either choose to misrepresent what I said, or you didn’t make an attempt to properly read my comment. I don’t know if it should bother me much which it is.
First of all, I was talking about different Orthodox jurisdictions i.e. Russian, Serbian etc. (which I think was rather clear from my comments) and not about different denominations i.e. RC, pre-Chalcedonian etc. Hence your reference to ecumenism and Balamand declaration are beside the point. What you seem to say is that the “World Orthodoxy” are among the heterodox – that’s entirely up to you but that’s rather weird if you want to substantively discuss the subject.
Second, I didn’t talk about any differences between the jurisdictions and even less so about “embracing heterodox as brothers”, so I’m completely puzzled how you made that out from any of my comments. How you connected my comment – that vast majority of parishes here are traditionalist – with the situation of St. Maximus is also beside me. If you want to make the discussion pointless by using strawman arguments, you might well end up achieving just that.
Finally, if you truly believe that anyone belonging to “World Orthodoxy” automatically therefore practices “Ritual Orthodoxy” and can’t be a traditionalist by default (which was the real point of my comment), all I can say is that you didn’t prove that point and didn’t even attempt it. In my view, this is rather baseless grandstanding. But of course this is your blog and you are entitled to make any statements you wish; I couldn’t possibly “silence” you even if I wanted to, and am at a loss why you would even mention it.
There are way too many strawman arguments for me to deal with here. So I will pick an easy one
Hence your reference to ecumenism and Balamand declaration are beside the point
Reply: the fact that different Orthodox Churches and jurisdictions reacted in a radically different way makes this very much exactly the point :-)
And ignore the rest.
Cheers!
I don’t know of any Orthodox jurisdiction that officially accepted the Balamand declaration. (Maybe only Constantinople but not sure even of that). If certain individuals accept it personally, it is lamentable but doesn’t tarnish the whole jurisdiction.
I’m not sure what you mean by “ignore the rest” but clearly a discussion cannot proceed on the basis of mudslinging.
Those individuals were official representatives of their Churches which shows
1) they were there in their official capacity (For example, the representative of the MP was Father Hegumen Nestor (Zhilyaev), the official rep of the MP to the WWC in Geneva)
2) illustrates their totally anti-Patristic mindset
3) they ignored the previous condemnation of the Latins by Fathers and Councils
See a full discussion here: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/bal_critique.aspx
Kind regards
Agreeing with all of 1)-3), still this is a problem of those individuals (and yes, a number of others) not the Russian Church as a whole, which never endorsed this document. It is well-known that the foreign relations department of MP (which was in Soviet times fully controlled by the KGB) is heavily infested with ecumenism, which many of them built their careers on.
Speaking more generally, you do not need to convince me of the many problems that exist here in the Russian Church. None of those amount to officially teaching an outright heresy, which is the only case when someone can and should secede from his bishop. I am fully aware that you are of a different view (otherwise the “True Orthodoxy” wouldn’t have a legitimate raison d’être séparés) hence your attempt to make it look like the (pan-)heresy of ecumenism is an official teaching. I am also aware that nothing I say will make you change your mind. It was never my intention to get into this discussion and bicker about the jurisdictions. I’ve had my fair share of those discussions. But it seems that we can’t avoid this.
The pan-heresy of Ecumenism is neither an official teaching nor a condemned heresy, at least not by the “world Orthodoxy” jurisdictions. That lack of honesty and courage to speak the truth, in even such an extreme case is in direct contradiction with the teachings of the Fathers.
As for the foreign relations department of the MP, which, as you correctly pointed out, was controlled of KGB, here are a few reminders about it and the current official MP attitude towards it:
PAST: On 12 September 1971, Father Kirill (Gundaev) was posted as a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church to the World Council of Churches (WCC) in Geneva. Since December 1975, he has been a member of the WCC Central Committee and Executive Committee. In 1971, he was appointed representative of the Moscow Patriarchate at the World Council of Churches and has been actively involved in the ecumenical activity of the Russian Orthodox Church since then. All this in KGB times!
PRESENT: Yet in spite of that, in 2009 he was chosen by the POST SOVIET POST KGB(!) MP Council of Bishops to become their Patriarch! Which spirit does that decision reflect, the Patristic one the Sergianist one?
As for Sergianism itself, it has now received a theological justification under the heading “Met. Sergius took upon himself to commit a personal sin to “save the Church” (his own words, by the way!) which is diametrically opposed to all the basic tenets of Orthodox ecclesiology. That, by itself, makes that teaching a heresy (as any justification for a schism is, by definition, and by the way, exactly of the kind the 15th c. of the 1&2 Council refer to, as does ecumenism itself).
And no, my mind won’t be changed by any rationalization, or any “explaining away”, or “showing under the carpet” or any other form of deliberate obfuscations of such realities.
Finally, here is, for contrast purposes, am example *true* Orthodox teaching about this:
In the beautiful Service to the New Martyrs and Confessor of Russia written by His Eminence Archbishop Anthony (Medvedev) of San Francisco, we can read in one of the sticheras these words:
“People do not save the Church, and collaboration with Her enemies yields no benefits, but it is the Church which saves people by the power of Christ, as your spiritual feat has shown. Oh steadfast New Martyrs of Russia, you who are truly the glory of the Church, fervently pray for Her that God may keep Her steadfast” (my own, rough, translation from Church Slavonic).
Thus we are not dealing with superficial or “obscure” “fine points of theology” is not only a fundamental, dogmatic, disagreement, but the visible manifestation of a HUGE difference in spirit, in phronema.
QED I submit.
Best,
Andrei
Dear Bill,
I am not sure where you are located, but you should be able to find a traditionalist Orthodox church through several resources.
Here is the website of the St. Herman of Alaska Press, https://www.sainthermanmonastery.com/default.asp.
Abbot Damascene, a spiritual son of Father Seraphim, is a wonderful man and I am sure he will answer any questions you have.
The church I belong to, definitely a traditionalist one, is affiliated with the Orthodox Church of America, http://www.oca.org. I have only been to three of our churches but all of them were traditionalist.
I pray you will be guided to the right home.
Thomas
Dear Thomas,
What makes the OCA traditionalist in your view? I mean, are you serious?!?!?!?!
The OCA is about as “World Orthodoxy” as it gets (as is all of SCOBA which calls ITSELF “canonical” and breaks our canons with ease and a remarkable regularity).
As for Abbot Damascene, let’s just say that that he did not continue on the path of Father Seraphim and that Father Seraphim was acutely aware of that, even before his passing. And I am being very VERY restrained here.
So,
PLEASE
let’s not make it all simple by saying I call parish X traditionalist while you call parish Y traditionalist.
The criterion of truth is not a (wholly unsubstantiated) affirmation. IF we do that, we are going to have everybody “marketing” this or that jurisdiction or person.
So please, let’s not go down this road.
Rather then telling somebody where to go or whom to trust, let’s give them the tools to come to their own conclusions listening to their own consciences.
I will now allow the Saker blog or the Vignettes to become a jurisdictional marketing grounds and any attempts to do so will be prevented. I mean this.
Andrei
I apologize and will not comment again.
Dear Thomas
Absolutely no problem and no worries. You are totally welcome to comment.
What I ask from ALL of us is that we do not start “marketing” our jurisdictions or begin fighting each other over who is traditionalist and who is not. We all have our opinions, which is normal and healthy, but I think that we also have a common goal: to allow others to come to their own conclusions.
I could have easily given a link to those jurisdictions which I consider TRULY faithful to the Fathers, but instead I chose to try to discern, together, what the Fathers taught.
So, please, let’s not give them shortcuts.
If I have offended you with my reply, I apologize.
I hope that you will comment again in the future.
Kind regards
Andrei
You did offend me for which I apologize. Abbott Damascene is a personal friend who was at Fr. Seraphim’s bedside when he died, https://orthodoxwiki.org/Damascene_(Christensen). Abbott Damascene was 21 at the time. Fr. Seraphim was his spiritual father. I do not think there were any seeds of heterodoxy in such a young man and devout ascetic. Certainly I never heard that Fr. Seraphim had any doubts about Abbott Damascene, and I count many friends among those who with with Fr. Seraphim at the end including Abbott Damascene’s cellmate and my godfather, Fr. Gerasim.
I apologize again for “marketing” my jurisdiction. I do not care that it expands or contracts, only that it remain a faithful branch of the church.
Dear Thomas,
Let’s leave the issue of Abbott Damascene aside, as it is not pertinent to our efforts.
As for the jurisdictional issues, let’s just go back in time and see how the Fathers dealt with these issues.
So, rather than advocating this or that outcome
Let’s outline the correct, Patristic, “criteria of Truth”.
Agreed?
Again, with my apologies for my harsh reply and my kind regards
Andrei
Hi Bill
I like Father Seraphim’s books very much, too. I think he was a great ascetic of the XX century.
Unfortunately not being familiar with the Orthodoxy in the US first hand I can only point you to what I’ve read of and heard of from my friends who visited the US. There are a number of monasteries across the US founded by elder Ephraim (Moraitis) from the Holy Mountain of Athos, the main of which I believe is the monastery of St. Anthony in Arizona: https://orthodoxwiki.org/Ephraim_(Moraitis)_of_Philotheou. What is good about those is that they follow the Athonite monastic tradition, and elder Ephraim himself was a disciple of a great Athonite elder Joseph the Hesychast.
In Orthodoxy, a pilgrimage to monasteries has always been important for the lay people to find spiritual direction and learn. I highly recommend it. Monasteries (with a true monastic tradition) are the heart of Orthodoxy.
Myself being a former Protestant (also Churches of Christ though a rather more cult-like ICOC branch of those), one book that inspired me on my way to the Orthodoxy was by Fr. Peter Gillquist (https://orthodoxwiki.org/Peter_Gillquist), who was part of a Protestant group that made a journey towards Orthodoxy by studying in depth the Church history. He ended up in the Antioch jurisdiction. But I think the particular Orthodox jurisdiction doesn’t matter that much; all the Orthodox jurisdictions (Greek, Russian, Serbian, Antioch etc.) are parts of the Apostolic church. What matters is to find the parish and the priest who would help you connect to the Orthodox life, and this might mean visiting more than one parish and talk with different priests.
all the Orthodox jurisdictions (Greek, Russian, Serbian, Antioch etc.) are parts of the Apostolic church.
In the past, yes.
But how can you say that in 2021 when some of them are not even in communion with each other?!?!
Is this not the same old Protestant “invisible Church” idea applied to Orthodoxy?
What is the sign of unity in the Church if not communion from the same Cup?
So not only is the Church VISIBLE, it is also UNITED and VISIBLY UNITED (okay, there were some more complex situations in the past, but as a rule, especially for our purposes, this truism stands).
The only real question is WHERE is this Church? And that is for each of us to decide deep in our conscience.
And I won’t even mention that the Churches you refer to are those who have the approval of secular powers in their countries in sharp contrast to the small (or even not so small) traditionalist communities which are typically, ignored at best, and persecuted at worst for their beliefs?
By that logic, those of us who are are not in communion with the numerically big, rich, official ones and how left them for various reasons (including those mandated by the Fathers the 15h c. of the 1&2 council!*) are schismatics (but if so, what if the reverse is true as it has often been throughout the history of the Church?)
If we accept that partaking from the same Cup is a sign of unity, true unity, in Christ, then those many traditionalist jurisdictions which have left these “official” Churches and which are most definitely not in communion are “not Orthodox” at all? (that would include me, and even the historical pre-2007 ROCA of Saint John).
So, whose opinion counts? How can one find this true real Church: my reply is simple: the Fathers, not father X, father-deacon why or even bishop Z. And that begins with those three Patristic signpost:
Orthodoxy is:
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 “which has been believed everywhere, always and by all” (Saint Vicent of Lerins).
and
“As 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)
That is what I recommend to my readers as three key rules to always keep in mind.
But yes, others think otherwise, that does not bother me in the least.
Kind regards
Andrei
*source: https://www.esphigmenou.com/What%20the%20dispute%20is%20about%20and%20why%20the%20monks%20are%20right/canon_xv_of_the_first_and_second.htm
Dear Saker,
I already commented in a separate thread; I’m unsure as to whether you want an open discussion or simply to dismiss other views because it doesn’t bother you what others think.
I am open to a bona fide discussion. Assuming you are too, to what you said here I will only mention that there were a lot of periods, sometimes very long ones, in Church history when some parts of the Church (e.g. Rome and/or Alexandria) did not communicate with other parts (e.g. Constantinople). It happened for various reasons, – sometimes because of a heresy, real or alleged, sometimes for canonical or even personal reasons. In most of these cases, the communion was restored eventually. The current period – be it the schisms started in the XX century (I mean the ones related to the “catacomb church” and others that came to call themselves “True Orthodox”) or today’s schism by the Constantinople patriarch – is, in my view, unresolved yet.
Only the future will tell whether these current schisms are similar to, say, the one in IV AD between the “strict Nicaeans” such as St. Athanasius the Great and “the Eastern bishops” effectively led by St. Basil the Great – who were able to see through the superficial differences that their substantial views are the same – or are they similar to, say, the Novatian schism, or the Great Schism, which didn’t heal.
My goal is simple I explained when I wrote: “The only real question is WHERE is this Church?”
And the answer is not buildings, numbers, beautiful cupolas or choirs. Neither is any number of bishops getting together and delivering themselves a certificate of Orthodoxy.
I accept that for others (what I would refer to “World Orthodoxy”), the above arguments are sufficient and when that is the case, the discussion stops since there is nothing left to discuss. Besides, God knows that these others have means that we, the small traditional flock do not, so I encourage them to simply ignore us (which would be a definite step up from the usual barrage of insults they usual direct at us).
There are many many people out there who seek The One True Church and who, when they are not “armed” with the correct criteria end up in stuck in the external trappings of Orthodoxy and wonder what happened.
You can take an (opaque) bottle of water and write “milk” or “wine” on it, and even sell it, but that does not make it a bottle of milk or wine.
Thus, this question revolves around what the correct “criterion of Orthodoxy” is (and, by implication, what it is not, say the “numerical” argument). I also believe that the Fathers give us the key to this criterion. Thus, there is an *objective* and *observable* real Christianity/Orthodoxy out there. I also believe that besides the Fathers’ consensus, there is a more subtle, but equally important Patristic “spirit” (phronema) which permeates the True Church (and which is self-evidently absent from “World Orthodoxy”, at least to those fortunate enough to have been exposed to it).
Two simple example: those jurisdictions who accept that one can be an “Orthodox Freemason” or who think that they are, together with the Latins, the “two lungs of the Church”. Do I need to list more examples?
Probably not, at this point either these are enough or no further arguments would help.
My desire is to convey that as best I can. After that, it is for each of us to decide deep in our conscience.
What I am not interested in are:
1) having me, or somebody else, affirm to others that that Church is here or there. Instead, I want to give the readers the tools to make that decision *for themselves* (I call that “jurisdictional marketing”)
2) denying the obvious: there are modernists and traditionalists out there, all claiming the same label. They all have their own problems, by the way, and denying that reality is, in my opinion, not only pointless but also VERY dangerous.
3) the personalization of arguments (that is, to make it about me, my lack of respect, my dismissal of others or my desire to have a bona fide discussion). This is not about me or any other individual, including those whose feathers I might ruffle by not agreeing with them or asking them a question.
This is not about me or ANY other person, especially since I allow aliases and that, in turn, means that anybody can claim any title, rank or expertise (that is why I *like* your alias “Laymen”, by the way!). My “bottle” metaphor above also applies to any clerical title, by the way, at least in my opinion.
By rule of thumb is this: don’t be with those who obfuscate problems, be with those who place a spotlight on them and then derive valuable information from them. Why? Again, because I want my readers to be able to navigate these deceptive waters with the tools and information they need to not get confused, deceived, disgusted or desperate.
In yesterday’s Epistle reading we read “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them” ( 2 Tim 3:12-14).
We also all (should) know about the “abomination of desolation standing in the holy place” (Matt 24:15). I tried my best to show how this warning applies to our times in an article (see here: /the-abomination-of-desolation-standing-in-the-holy-place/)
There are two ways every one of us can denounce these “evil man” – by making lists of them and those who support them, and I don’t think that this is helpful at all, or by simply giving others the means to differentiate between the real thing and the fake.
Okay, I think that I have explained myself enough and I have no desire to continue ANY conversation about me or any other individual. And yes, while I truly don’t care at all what others think (including about me), I do very much care about what other post here and I will, therefore, react to any attempts at derailing or misdirecting the purpose of these vignettes.
Participants to this modest forum are as free to come as they are free to go. My advice to all is a quote from “Al Anon”: take what you like and leave the rest.
Kind regards
Andrei
I certainly never made the discussion about you. I don’t care about personalities, either; I do care about an open-minded and – yes, respectful – discussion. That I don’t see the possibility for here unfortunately.
Since none of us has ever met, the basis of respect can only be found in what we write here. For example, “open minded”, while desirable in our daily lives, is not a theological category, especially not when it obfuscates reality or conflates opposing fundamentally different, and even mutually exclusive, phenomena (say like the “legacy” of the Fathers and what Saint Justin (Popović) called the “pan heresy of Ecumenism”: ““Ecumenism is a common name for the pseudo-christianities, for the pseudo-churches of Western Europe. Within it is the heart of all European humanisms led by the Papacy. All these pseudo-christianities, all these pseudo-churches are nothing more than one heresy next to the other. Their common name is pan-heresy.”
With all the nice words, Saker, about not allowing “jurisdictional marketing” and so on, it is you that started bashing and mudslinging the different jurisdictions whenever anyone mentions them for whatever reason. Your own jurisdictional marketing seems rather transparent.
Your opinion comes across very clearly, thank you.
It does not, alas, qualify as an argument, at least not by theological (or even logical standards, if only because you contradict yourself by first denying ad hominems and them making one :-)
Also, “traditional Orthodoxy” is not a jurisdiction, and all I am “marketing” are the Fathers and their example.
Kind regards
Andrei
+“traditional Orthodoxy” is not a jurisdiction, and all I am “marketing” are the Fathers and their example+
Oh, is it not?!
Of course not, it hence the many DIFFERENT jurisdictions you can find in the movement of traditional Orthodoxy. And I sure never mentioned one by name, now did I?
So much for the intellectual honesty and the grand stand about “deliberate obfuscation of reality” (or what other nonsense you mentioned)… With this level of dishonesty…
oh, we are getting personal again, aren’t we :-)
(or I could say naivete but you’re certainly not naive; fake naivete rather).
I had rather civil, substantive and detailed conversations with people from “Traditional Orthodoxy”… somehow expected it would also be possible here… not the case unfortunately.
Civil? Please re-read your own comments then, and all the ad hominems in them :-)
Dear Mr “I don’t do personality”, I get your opinion about me and the blog, loud and clear.
Having now explained your true feelings about me and the blog, I invite you to please reply to my comment here: /christian-vignette-4-theologians-in-early-christianity-part-2/#comment-981159
Kind regards
Andrei
Saker,
Since there’s no reply button on your latest messages, replying here.
Honesty is strictly a theological issue my friend. I commented on the content of your posts, not you personally; but I’m glad you are taking my replies personally as at least this shows you care about what I’m saying ;) (*that* was a personal comment, see?)
“True Orthodoxy” is of course a number of jurisdictions. By saying you don’t market any jurisdictions you’re saying you don’t market “True Orthodoxy” by bashing the “World Orthodoxy” jurisdictions. Which is obviously not true. So my comment about dishonesty stands.
Regarding your other comment, I together with many other people in what you call “World Orthodoxy” condemn the pan-heresy of ecumenism. Some forms of it have, in fact, been conciliarly condemned by the Russian Church. Specifically the “branch theory”. Other forms eg “baptismal theology” – not yet; but in the Church history there were many periods when a particular heresy had not yet been condemned by a council; yet ultimately the condemnation happened.
Regarding “sergianism”, meaning cooperation with godless authorities, the theory that it is a heresy does not hold water. It certainly constitutes a violation of canons and involves immoral behaviour on part of some Church bishops and clergy, but that is not a dogmatic issue. And hence not the cause for 15c of 1&2.
Regarding the different spirit, I guess you’re right. It does remind me of the times of Novatian schism; Novatians were, in fact, respected by many in the “official” Church for their spirit of strictness; they considered themselves “clean” and they didn’t accept those lapsed during persecutions. Yet they were wrong…
Fr. George Calciu, the Rumanian priest held prisoner by Ceausescu for preaching to the youth, revealed a miracle occurring to him in prison involving a vision of uncreated light surrounding two murderers —they were placed in the cell with him with instructions to kill him, but repented, and gave him permission to serve the liturgy. He had no wine, only water, and no antimension only his own body, but served Liturgy in full faith of its genuineness. I have often thought of this account, having heard new calendarists were deprived of grace. But then others claim the reverse, especially the Greeks, asking if the schismatics-traditionalistd experience any miracles at all of our living faith.
Is that not from a book by Wurmbrandt?
No, but he may have known of it, as he and Calciu were well acquainted. The 1996 interview with an Rumanian-american nun, mother Nina: (here is a small fragment online)
http://deathtotheworld.com/articles/the-anti-humans-and-the-re-education-experiment/
Fr George said he tried many times to pull Wurmbrand into Orthodoxy, as he fully believed it to be the one true church. But he wished to remain in the place he was first called, as a confessor-witness to the Lutherans, in faithfulness to Christ, as a former Saul.
Except that Saint Paul did not stay with his those he was with initially.
The other day I read that the 5.8 earthquake last week in Greece, collapsed the roof of a chapel of the prophet Elias on the island of Crete. I read the following and did a double take:
Metropolitan Andreas of Arkalochori later revealed that the unfortunate victim was Iakovos Tsagarakis, who had “made a vow to save the church and preserve it.” “We have martyrs in 2021,” the hierarch emphasized.
Here is a witness of the Orthodox faith, he died while working to restore a church, this much is clear. What isn’t clear is my gut response which says, according to worldly think no doubt, that this Iakovos can’t be a holy martyr as he died in an accident, a seemingly lowly demise. God’s verdict of condemnation. Yet the bishop is very clear, as the Saker is above as well, he shed his blood for the Church, in direct demonstration of active faith, just not how I understand or expected such a thing to be. Does anyone else have anything to add?
Just that only God knows what was in this man’s heart when he died.
If we consider an earthquake to be a natural phenomenon and from your words, the person died while restoring this church, we can certainly show reverence for his death and for his life, but I am not sure that dying on your job this matches the notion of “martyrdom”. Was he aware of the coming earthquake, or did he just happen to be inside the church when it happened?
Did he shed his blood “for the Church”? Only God knows.
My 2cts.
Second comment: today is the commemoration of the prophet Jonas, who in the belly of the fish was sent to Nineveh to the Assyrians to save them from catastrophe. Jonah literally means *dove* and it was the Spirit in the form of a dove that John the Baptist witnessed descending upon the revealed Christ. Later Christ says that no sign will be given to this wicked generation, except the sign of Jonah, who was three days in the belly of the sea monster. I thought of this because of the excellent booklet by Archimandrite George on Theosis linked above. I know that despite self love and arrogance God opened my heart to Orthodoxy in a way beyond my comprehension, the Spirit of Truth revealed the truth of the Church . This is not Theosis, but is God’s energy which like a dove can touch even the wicked and perverse of this world.
Absolutely correct, God loves any and all of us, and if we let Him, he will guide us to Him.
Huh… that was a mouthfull… From the meaning of a few words to the meaning or purpose of life…
and with a progression plan… and more fancy words.
That takes some time to study. So I will probably come back to this at some point with more detailed comments, but my initial take is that actually apart from the terminology the ideas (as i initially understand them) are not so unfamiliar to true protestantism (or non-orthodox traditions of christianity in general) as you migth expect, especially if you take into consideration the differences bethween true and nominal christianity.
Some random thougths:
Firstly: The First Council of Constantinople in AD 381 finalized the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed that maintains that christians believe “in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”. Most Christians adhere to these early ecumenical counsils.
We have to remenber though that there is a difference in meaning when we are talking about local churches in different localities, countries, jurisdictions, church organisational structures or any other legal categories… I think there is also a difference in meaning when we are when talking about A TRUE CHURCH and THE TRUE CHURCH. Especially when you think about what happens if (or when) a church looses its identity and authority to truly function as the body of Christ in a certain place or even globally. We know from the gospel that God as the keeper of the Vineyard hopes for the best and checks for signs of life before finally cutting of the branch from the wine tree. When does the keeper make the final judgement? Can you pick up the pieces or reconnect some parts that still have life in them? One migth look at much of western (and eastern) christianity as a succession of branches that are in various degrees of decay and attemps to revitalize these branches. There will be a time at some point in history when the keeper makes his final judgement on each branch. From the point of view of the individual true christian this issue appears as a question of whether to stay as “the salt” or “when to abandon a sinking ship”. It appears to me that increasingly all over especially the western world christians are abandoning the ship and turning towards smaller and less formal house churches while traditional churches are suffering from “rigor mortis”. Eventhough most christians agree to the early creed that there is only ONE true church globally the claim that a particular church structure is THE church seems a bit overkill to me.
Secondly: The self identity of a church affects internal dynamics of the church and also affects the basic attitude towards other churches and outsiders (in both good and bad). I remember reading somewhere about some kind of “collective memory” of a church. Like that expression. My general impression is that orthodox churches have been more true to their name than many of their western counterparts. I tend to think that its wiser not to make too detailed judgements about the degree of apostacy of different branches of the body of Christ. Its wiser to leave that judgement to the keeper of the wineyard, or the one that walks among the lampstands. I just hope that the idea of being the true church or the successor of it does not give room to complacency. (Rev 1-3)
Dear Lii
You are touching an issue most people get confused by. How can it be that
1) There is One True Church of Christ
2) Local Churches (Serbian, Japanese, Greek, etc.)
3) Jurisdictions (not quite local Churches, but still autonomous in various ways
4) Modernists and traditionalists calling each other names
5) Differences not only in rites, but even in local traditions (say, on fasting)
6) Disagreements on even important issues amongst all of the above?
This topic deserves a full vignette which I might write in the future. I will just offer you (hopefully enticing!) bulletpoint answers. But first, a note. I write the word Church in two meanings: The One True and Single Church of Christ, but also, our of respect, for any local Church, so I will write the Greek Church with a capital ‘c’. When I use the smaller case, I refer to a parish and/or its building. This is not a perfect solution, far from it, but this is my attempt at trying to clarify what I mean.
Next,
For the Latins, you are a good “Catholic” if you do only ONE thing: you submit to the Pope.
For the Reformed, of which there are many, this is more complicated, but basically you are a Christian if you accept Christ in your heart and accept the Scripture as the revealed word of God.
Interestingly, in the case of Islam, if you accept the Shahada and declare that “I bear witness that there is no god but God, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.”
So when all these religions look at Orthodoxy, they often think “what a total chaos!!”. But remember, what looks as chaos to some, can seem like perfect order to others (think fluid dynamics here, for example).
In 2014 I got a question from a reader who bluntly asked me “what is the Church?”. You can find my attempt to reply here: /non-political-interlude-reply-to-two-posts-religions-haters-please-skip-this-one/
May I refer you to it rather than report it all here?
Having re-read my reply, I find it very superficial, but as least I posted some useful links about a very general overview of what the Orthodox Church is:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Faith-Understanding-Orthodox-Christianity/dp/0964914115/
http://www.amazon.com/The-Orthodox-Church-New-Edition/dp/0140146563/
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Catholic-Should-Orthodox-Catechism/dp/0964914182/
http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Dogmatic-Theology-Concise-Exposition/dp/0938635697
http://www.amazon.com/Theosis-True-Purpose-Human-Life/dp/B001UR1SI0/
However, the list I gave in my interview with Yvonne Lorenzo (/orthodox-faith-yvonne-lorenzo-interviews-the-saker/) is much better, I think:
* Saint Cyprian of Cartage “On the Unity of the Church” (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html)
* Saint Metropolitan Philaret “Will the Heterodox Be Saved?“ (http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/metphil_heterodox.aspx)
* Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili “And Who Is My Neighbor?“ (http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/whoismyneighbor.aspx)
* Alexei Khomiakov “The Church is One” (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/church_is_one_e.htm)
* Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky) “Christianity or the Church” (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/christianity_church_e.htm)
* Right Reverend Photios, Bishop of Triaditza, “Orthodox Unity Today” (http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/unity_today.aspx)
* Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky “On the Church” (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/invisible_church_pomazansky.htm)
* St. Justin (Popovich) “The Attributes of the Church” (http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/attributes.aspx)
* Dr. Alexander Kalomiros “Orthodox Ecclesiology” (http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx)
* Saint John Chrysostom “The Character and Temptations of a Bishop” (http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/priesthood_john_crysostom.htm%22%20/l%20%22_Toc6623361)
* Archpriest Georges Florovsky “The Catholicty of the Church” (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/catholicity_church_florovsky.htm)
* Archpriest Georges Florovsky “The Limits of the Church” (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/limits_church.htm)
* Archpriest Georges Florovsky “On Church and Tradition” (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/church_tradition_florovsky.htm)
* Hieromonk Seraphim Rose “The Royal Path: True Orthodoxy in an Age of Apostasy“ (https://www.hsir.org/pdfs/2009/09/02/20090902aRoyalPath%20Folder/20090902aRoyalPath.pdf)
* Bishop Artemije of Raška and Prizren “Deification as the End and Fulfillment of Salvation According to St. Maximos the Confessor“ (https://www.hsir.org/pdfs/2009/03/26/20090326aGiatiEnsB7%20Folder/20090326aGiatiEnsB7.pdf)
Finally, there is a wealth of excellent article on this website: https://www.fatheralexander.org/page6.htm and a very authentic and traditional “Confession of Faith of Genuine Orthodox Christian” here: https://www.hsir.org/pdfs/2015/10/29/E20151029aOmologiaPisteos/E20151029aOmologiaPisteos.pdf
Sorry for this long reply, which is both TOO SHORT and TOO LONG :-)
Hopefully other will chime in here.
Kind regards
Andrei
A lot to read. Get back to that at some point.
Sorry if I am sloppy on small and capital letters and differentiating with different words that basically have the same meaning. I will get back to this issue.
I will say this now though. Your reference to Romanides has been a fruitfull one for me. It gave me a fresh perspective on Roman history. One issue thats been on my mind is how is it possible that abuse of power has crept into the church thats supposed to truly be the body of Christ. Romanides suggests that when WestRome was conquered the leadership was changed to serve the interests of occupiers. Perhaps not so different change than what happened with sergianism you have mentioned. Ecclesiology also has some interesting connections to questions on Church vs State relationship and the purpose of both.
Father John Romanides is a REALLY top notch historian and theologian
Here is his website: http://www.romanity.org/
As for your parallel between the Franks and the Sergianists, it is spot on, to my great regret.
But I rather not go into that right now.
Kind regards
Andrei
Dear Andrei
I so very much thank you for the time you spent in response to my first post on this blog just above. You give me great hope and especially so with your statement:
“the One True Church of Christ still exist today,”
and it is that Church that I am seeking. Secondly, your vignettes are helping me greatly with determine what “real salt” taste like in Orthodoxy. I hope I do not burden this blog with my personal search for the One True Church, but it is such a delight to be able to have a two way discussion with access to help and answers/directions from others.
I have been reading since last night on the various links you listed above and it is this type of direction I am seeking. I am reading and rereading all those links for there is much information there that it requires repeated reading for me.
The booklet by Archimandrite George on Theosis was one of the first things I read in my quest and I will be reading it again today. I have it in hard copy and the one thing I most remember about this booklet was just how far it seemed from the Protestant sermons I sat through in various denominations for many years. I don’t remember how I found this booket and ordered it, but that end result of Theosis has stayed with me throughout my quest. Thank you Chris for your comment urged me to go back to Andrei’s link and download the booket and it was then I found it was the same booklet I owned and read a few years ago.
Andrei, in your vignette you speak of the following sequence in acquiring a “clear eye”…
catechization->baptism->purification->illumination->theosis
and as my engineering background guides me in thinking I am working on moving through this sequence of process so I am way to the left side with cathechization and baptism as first steps required in the quest towards theosis.
I was baptized in the early Protestant church of my youth and now longer consider that valid so my first goal is seeking that avenue of baptism in the Orthodox church and that is where this complicated arena of correct jurisdiction comes into play in my quest. Thank you Andrei and all the commenters on helping me in this regards,
Kindest…Bill
Dear Bill
Thank you for your kind words, but please remember that all I tried to do is to summarize a subtle and complex sequence in a few words, thus it is only a primitive model, and an imperfect one at that, for the real thing, you need to turn to the Fathers :-)
Okay, baptism. Here is a HYPER simplified general rule:
1) if your baptism was made exactly and fully according to the proper rite, then you can be received by Chrismation (anointment). Since the chances of such a baptism taking place in a Protestant church is zero, you need to get baptized.
2) there is not such thing as a “re-baptism” – you can only be baptized once.
HOWEVER
These are general rules, but the decision has to be made by your catechizing pastor (deacon, priest or bishop, sometimes a non-ordained, but tonsured, monastic).
Again, this is also a very and subtle complex issue and the Church is not a collection of rules, it is a living Mystical entity, filled by the Holy Spirit and only a pastor which the corrected “charisma” (which I sure am not and which I sure don’t have!) should discuss this with you, taking many issues and your personal circumstances and life-path into account.
One advice though: do not rush into baptism, you need to take the “long trek” inside your soul and listen to your conscience, rather than to your desires. You do need to not also study, but attend the services as often as you can. Finally, if you could spend 2-3 days in a monastery you would immensely benefit from it (assuming that this monastery is the real thing, not some personality cult wrapped in Orthodox appearances).
Also, see if the priest you talk to about this wants a quickie reception into the Church or whether he is willing to take the time needed to really instruct you.
Sorry, this is the best I can do.
Kind regards
Andrei
I have a question about the instruction (the metaphor of 2000 pages) needed before one could be baptized. Yes, this is true, I understood this during my life (unfortunately not too early) that Christian faith requires a lot to study (Forgive me the Latin expression, Intellego ut credam, credo ut intellegam, meaning faith implies understanding and vice-versa, if I am not mistaken tracing back to Saint Augustine).
However, I tried to read by myself the Old Testment and the Gospel, and I didn’t understand many things, I understood other things only after years, and for many things I felt the risk to misunderstand without someone more expert helping me. Should I ask priests for this? But how can I know in advance if what he is saying is correct or not? If I should wait to read and understand that 2000 pages before being baptizes, there is the risk to never achieve this, especially for people with objective difficulties (familiar or social) impeding this.
My point is that one can be baptized, even if he is not fully aware of the whole story, but only the core of the message. Of course, as you said, this is not the end, but only the beginning implying that study is needed continuously. Luckily God knows the hearts of everyone, and He knows if one is approaching and struggling for the Christian faith sincerely or not, even if the knowledge is not at the best.
What do you think about this?
Thanks.
Dear Gianluca,
Thanks for your comment. And yes, 2000 pages is a metaphor, in reality it might be even more :-) but also even less, of course.
Nothing wrong with Latin, in fact I find it quit beautiful! And some Fathers and many saints used it, so why would I have anything critical to say about it. What you are asking is this: what shall I do next?
And I don’t think that anybody could (or even should) reply to this.
What I would recommend is that you turn to God and pray for Him to guide you to bring you to Him. I really mean that, I know of families which have searched that “the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” for DECADES, but they did find it. Not only that, but realize that the Church IS Christ, so what we all do, like when Saint Peter was drowning is to cry “Lord, save me!” and He will do just that.
Also, God gave us the tools of intelligence, critical thinking, faith, courage and all the others, use them all, there is NOTHING wrong with questioning every idea or speech you hear.
Orthodoxy does not have a “teaching Church” and a “taught Church” like the Latins. Instead, we are all parts of the same “organism” – so talk to other Orthodox Christians, talk to the non-Orthodox, talk to the agnostics and even to the atheists – even they can bring you closer to the truth in ways that only God knows!
And while some bigots take great pride in being totally ignorant about other religions, I recommend that you study them too, including Islam and Hinduism (my favorite: dualistic, “dvaita”, Vedanta). I also would recommend you (re-)read “Mere Christianity” by CS Lewis.
That being said, I would not waste a single minute on the study of Latin and Judaic writings because the former is nothing but an anti-Orthodoxy while the latter is nothing but an anti-Christianity. I studied both of them in some length (including Latin “traditionalism” a la SSPX style) and rabbinical “Judaism” (aka Talmudic Phariseism) and there is nothing there worth your time (at least in my opinion, which I encourage you to question too!).
The Fathers were often very learned in secular philosophy and they studied other religions, if only to polemize with/against them.
I like to say “ignorance is not an Christian virtue” :-)
So go for it, full bore, and drown yourself in study and personal experience, but ONLY while *constantly* asking for God to guide you to Him.
I hope that this is helpful.
Kind regards
“Orthodoxy does not have a “teaching Church” and a “taught Church” like the Latins. Instead, we are all parts of the same “organism” – so talk to other Orthodox Christians, talk to the non-Orthodox, talk to the agnostics and even to the atheists – even they can bring you closer to the truth in ways that only God knows!”
Cannot really understand the meaning or point in the above….
If the idea is that somehow in Orthodox church members are more equal that their Latin counterparts I am not really convinced of the claim. Also I cannot really understand what spesific things you are referring. If the idea is that somehow latin clergy is somehow in a different position than the lay people… I guess someone could say the same about orthodox practices. If its a reference to some monastic order…
To me the expression, “Orthodoxy does not have a ‘teaching church’ “, means something sad, not a positive thing. If you think through all known human history there are a few brigth spots in this global picture and education is one of those better things. There has been people who could read and write for as long as we have written history, but it has been the privilege of a select few. Only those that have had the need for skills in book keeping, governing or similar activities recieved enough education to fullfill their function. Theaching the common people was out of the question. Nobody wanted that. Educated people who can read, write and think are more difficult to govern that ignorant deplorables.
It was Luther and his companion Philip Melanchtons work in Lutheran katechumenate teaching that formed the basis for the education of the common people. Latin was the language of the educated and Roman catholic church held its services in latin. BUT latin was not the language of the common people, so whatever the priest said in latin must have sounded like mumbo jumbo magic to normal peasants. Luthers main revelation was that God wanted a personal relationship with people not some magical rituals. In order to be able to respond with saving faith to the gospel, people needed to understand and recieve the gospel — in their own language. Thats why he started translating the bible to the german language. Similar reasoning was behind most of the reformators. But even after the bible was available in the native language of the people it was not usefull for most if they could not read or understand it. So Luther and Melanchton organised basic education in christianity for the common people and a system to teach common people to read and write. Luther wrote the Large and Small Catechisms because of of pastoral necessity. Smaller ans shorter was for the common people and Large one for clergy. You can familiarise to the content of the small in english for example here: https://catechism.cph.org/
In 1528, Luther and his colleagues visited the congregations in Saxony to assess their spiritual health. Luther was horrified. and writes in his Preface to The Small Catechism.
“Mercy! Dear God, what great misery I beheld!”… “The common person, especially in the villages, has no knowledge whatever of Christian doctrine. And unfortunately, many pastors are completely unable and unqualified to teach… Yet, everyone says they are Christians, have been baptized, and receive the holy Sacraments, even though they cannot even recite the Lord’s Prayer or the Creed or the Ten Commandments. They live like dumb brutes and irrational hogs… O bishops! What answer will you ever give to Christ for having so shamefully neglected the people and never for a moment fulfilled your office [James 3:1]?”
So yes… a teaching church is a positive thing for me. Most of european education was influenced with this push to educate the common people.
The issue is not the education of the people, but that in the Orthodox Church each individual, down to the laity, is personally and directly responsible for the preservation of the True Faith. We do not “hand over” that responsibility to our clergy like the Latins do. We are all “guardians of the faith”.
Please see here for a fuller discussion:
/obedience-in-christianity-a-reply-to-an-important-question/
and please let me know if this clarifies the issue.
Best
That makes much more sence…
As you seem to like smacking as you say “Latins”… perhaps you should read what Luther thought of him…
https://bookofconcord.org/power-and-primacy-of-the-pope/Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope Doctors and Preachers
https://bookofconcord.org is a site that has most if not all crucial foundational documents on lutheranism in english
I call the “Roman Catholics” Latins because they are neither Roman not Catholics.
That term does not refer to the Reformed denominations.
I think its best Andrei answers the question about what he meant with those 2000 pages, but I think I can help with the bible study part.
Firstly: Most protestants believe that you need the help of Holy Spirit to understand the Scripture. Ofcourse The Bible is a written text like any other 2000-3000 year old text, but its also revelation from God. You cannot know God unless he chooses to show you things from himself. God is unknown to us and you need a revelation to know him. So why not ask him to reveal himself to you and give you the wisdom spiritual sigth you need. Prayer puts you in rigth relationship to the scripture.
Secondly: The bible is an ancient text. It helps to know the settings where the books were written and recieved. 2000 years ago you there were no cars, electronics or hamburger salesmen in the streets. You had to walk to travel and prepare you meals. Just stick to the simple interpretation how a normal person would understand the text in his culture when the text was written. The basic principle in properly understanding the text is this: The way the original listeners understood the text is the rigth one. There were some early herecies that tried to interpret the texts through some mystical experiences and read some hidden meanings to the text. The temptation for wild interpretations is still around eventhough we do not call it gnostisism anymore.
Thirdly: Dont just read. Study! Contemplate on the meaning of words? Investigate biblical culture. Where did these things happen? Who wrote this text and when? Who, when and where were the recipients? Why did the writer write these things? What were his main points arguments. Why?…. There are many things you can find out in certain bible study aids. Dictionaries, commentaries, maps, …. There are many options available even for free.
Here is a link to an opensource internet project called Sword. http://crosswire.org/
Its basically a software engine that allows many modules to be attached to it. And a lot of christian publishers have given content for it free of charge. The modules contain lots of different kind of bible study aids.
Another similar tool is https://www.e-sword.net/ From http://www.biblesupport.com/ you can also freely download modules containing early christian fathers texts as modules.
Fourthly: Remember that writing in ancient times was slow. It took time to write each letter and word. A simple lettter migth have taken hours to write, so words were chosen with more care than nowadays.
Most protestants believe that you need the help of Holy Spirit to understand the Scripture
One comment here: while the above is literally quite true, it presents three MAJOR problems:
1) who decides what is included in the Scriptures?
2) how does one know whether The Holy Spirit is helping?
3) how do you know whether you are truly listening to what the Holy Spirit says (as opposed to our brain and its discursive logic and scholastic inclinations). How do you avoid becoming your own, personal, mini-Pope? Khomiakov wrote a lot about that, as did Saint Hillarion.
The way to the Church is not through the Scripture, but the other way around, the way to the Scripture is through the Church.
I would also say that separating the Scripture from not only the Church, but from EVERYTHING which forms part of a single whole of a “Christian life”. Breaking a phenomenon in its constituent parts is very effective for scientific research, but it CANNOT be done when approaching Christianity.
My 2cts
1. The same way apostes did year 48 and in Antioch. Acts: 13: 1-4 and Acts 15:28 Holy Spirit and Us…
2. From the fruits
3. Dont know Khomiakov or Saint Hilarion on this matter, but John says: 1 John 4:1-4
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know you the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof you have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Thank you very much for your replies, both Andrei and Lili, I really appreciated because too many times I let win the tiredness, forgetting to pray or improving my knowledge. A reminder for me.
About the last points, I agree with Andrei that “sola scriptura” may not work, since Christian faith was transmitted by people meeting and speaking directly to other people. For me it was the same, I approached Christian faith thanks to some people, who I first appreciated for their human qualities, and later I realized that such qualities were strongly founded on their faith; and thanks to them I had a glimpse that in Christ I could find answer to all my question and to find all I need to live fully. I was totally sure of this at that time, when I could not even list the names of the Fathers of the Church. Only later I started to realize how much study was needed, so… I’m here, partially doing what Andrei suggested in his good reply. I was lucky, or in other words, God found me through them.
Finally, I read your answer in the link above, I understand what you say and I find it very interesting, but I admit that, of course given my background, it is very far from my mindset. But I will think about it.
Concerning the suggestion about the Latin Church literature, do you mean starting from the Modern Age? I assume this does not apply to Latin writings at least up to the beginning of the Middle Age, and what about XI-XII century?
The Latins (and the Judaics) are *notorious* falsifiers of historical and dogmatic texts (see here for one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine).
Another HUGE problem for the western scholars in general, is that many of them do not have the deep knowledge of the different Greek languages (yes, plural!) needed to understand the texts and correctly translate them.
However, there were truly major Church Fathers in the West (Saint Ambrose of Milan comes to mind).
Alas, the truly Patristic thinking of western Fathers was completely “flipped on its head” by such characters as Anselm of Canterbury or, even worse, Thomas Aquinas, who both “creatively” mis-used Augustine of Hippo and are at the roots of western scholasticism (aka the death of Patristic thinking).
So, caveat emptor, to say the least!
Kind regards
Andrei
Ahh, I know the story of the Donation, it is a perfect example of how false documents/events can impact history much more than the truth.. any similarity with some recent events? Leaving this aside, ok, got it.
I was just asking since in my (scarce) formation on this topic I hear only about western Fathers, like Saint Ambrose indeed; but also I remember Boetius, Tertullianus, Saint Gregory I. Do you know them? Of course Saint Augustine is the most studied in schools.
In any case, I enjoyed your description of what theologians should be, as I agree that many modern theologians are like a pestilence for the Church; so now I have many arguments to say that they are not theologians in the true sense despite their PhDs, I am relieved.
Best regards,
Gianluca
Andrew, I can empathize with your experiences, only from outside Orthodoxy. Over the years I have occasionally heard from various pulpits weak arguments supporting Christianity and even doctrines that I am well aware were not supported by the Bible. I have a favorite pet peeve I have heard taught a few times that causes my spirit to cringe. When I hear these kind of things I retreat into what I know to be true. One of those places is a sermon given in Hebrews that I absolutely love.
The Context: The Hebrews, mostly from the tribe of Judah in Saint Paul’s time, had a 1500 year tradition of relying on a mortal High Priest from the tribe of Levi to act as mediator between the children of Israel and the Lord. Every year on the Day of Atonement the HP would cleanse himself, go into the Holy of Hollies and make animal blood sacrifices to cleanse the people of their sins from the preceding year.
Now I have to apologize for the following indulgence because I just can’t help myself, this is spirit repair at its finest, and I made a personal edit that left out some important points because I am timid about how I use the time of others. Please forgive me for that.
I will let Saint Paul fill in the rest of the context which includes the very important part about the divine and human nature of Jesus.
Hebrews 4:14-16
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
Hebrews 5:8-10
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
Hebrews 7:
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
Hebrews 8:1-2
1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
Hebrews 9:11-14 & 19-28
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Hebrews 10:7-14
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
My spirit soars like an Eagle when I read these words, washing away the spiritual pollution occasionally served up at the pulpit. I love Saint Paul and his words. And if I love Saint Paul’s words, how much more should I love the Lord Jesus Christ whom the words testify of. And if I love the Lord Jesus, how much more should I love God The Father who gave us His Son to provide us a pathway back to Him. And as Andrei reminded us, if I love my wife, children and grand children, and I do passionately, how much more I should love God The Father and His Savior-Son who gave me and mine the opportunity to live in the presence of Them for all eternity.
Bill B
A priest once told me that joining the Orthodox Church might be thought about in a threefold manner of preparation: 1. Spend time in the services, soaking them up, and somewhat parallel, become part of the life of the community outside of worship. 2. Some head knowledge can be helpful. This is why we generally have some program of education, I’m not sure about 2,000 pages, more on which in a bit. 3. Spiritual accountability to the priest who is going to baptize or chrismate you. In my experience as a priest this has been good advice, with the caveat that there needs to be balance among these 3 areas of preparation.
2000 pages of reading of complex texts and reflection on their meaning are well and good for some people’s salvation. For others it may take more, for others it may take less. The suggestion of a massive program of education of some sort is great for the readers and writers of a foreign policy blog. I’m not sure it leads to salvation for everyone. Christ’s salvation is not just for the literate or educated. Before I get raked over the coals, I know no one said it was, but I’m concerned that it’d be easy to read this vignette and the comments on it and think that was the unspoken subtext.
In some cases it may make sense to take someone with “inadequate” education and bring them into the church and into frequent contact with the mysteries/sacraments for their salvation. Also, there are also people you can’t educate, but who have a profound love for Christ. I have in mind a cousin who died long ago of complications of Down’s syndrome (trisomy 21).
About sermons: what is the point of a sermon? One possible answer is: a call to repentance. Another is education/catechism. Another is education about scripture—it was written for a people and time not our own so people sometimes miss what would’ve been obvious to the original hearers. One of my seminary professors suggested that we concentrate on the 10 commandments and if somehow we cover that well, that we turn to the sermon on the mount. Then, once those lessons were well learned by the community, try to cover the edicts of the councils. In other words, keep it simple.
This seems to fit with the average situation out in the pews in my experience. Sure, I’d love to read the commentary of saints to the parish, but I don’t think it’d work. In some cases too much that was common background knowledge or experience has changed. Also, I don’t know that the the attention span is there. Sometimes I’ve tried to take key points from St. Gregory Palamas or some other saint, but I don’t think reading it directly would work in most situations. Your milage may vary, as they say.
I wish the Orthodox would learn to be nice to newcomers and welcome them in. The report in the comments about being mostly ignored is far too common. The only defense I can offer is that some clergy are sick and tired of people trying to use our parish events as some sort of mission field for their heresy and we’re wary of the motives of new folks. Yes, I had this happen to me.
Trying to find the “perfect” “jurisdiction” is probably a mistake. I’ve been Orthodox for over thirty years. This has been enough time to notice that each jurisdiction has its own issues and some may be temporarily more newsworthy than others, but things seem to move in cycles. The perfect church exists in heaven. Better to work on repentance and salvation and go to heaven and leave church politics to others, at least most of the time for most people. Very few of us are called to stand in the gap and be a saint the way Maximos the Confessor was/is (to name just one).
Fr.Seraphim Rose is…I’m not sure how to complete that sentence. May I suggest instead that we might be better off reading the ANF and NPNF (Ante Nicene Fathers and Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers) published by the Society for Promotion of Christian Knowledge (SPCK) in the late 1800’s (or more recent editions of the same texts) before we bother with modern authors like Fr. SR? Some of my fellow seminarians liked to “debate” about him. I read one of his books and thought he was setting up a false dichotomy between revealed truth and truth discovered by science. Regardless, we should be of the party of Christ not Fr. SR or Fr. Someone Else, etc.
Trying to find the “perfect” “jurisdiction” is probably a mistake. I’ve been Orthodox for over thirty years. This has been enough time to notice that each jurisdiction has its own issues and some may be temporarily more newsworthy than others, but things seem to move in cycles
Not “perfect” but *True*.
We need to always remember that while we cannot expect our clergy to be “perfect” (let’s leave that to the Papists), we can both expect and even DEMAND that they remain fully Orthodox. And that is not my personal opinion, but what the Fathers and their canons made explicit times and times again.
The danger in “World Orthodoxy” is that it “explains away” the spiritual lapses of its bishops as “personal sins”. That, by the way, is yet another ecclesiological heresy: trying to justifying spiritual lapsing and even schisms as “personal failures” of those bishops who committed such acts.
Furthermore, we have to decide deep in our conscience where to received the Mysteries or which Bishop to follow. So that effort to find that “real true Truth” is inevitable for every one of us. If only because Christ warned us about numerous “false teachers”!
It might not require 2000 pages or reading (that was a *metaphor*!), but it DOES require the same kind of determination, willpower and effort. Those who seek the “real true Truth” need to be told upfront that they cannot join the Theandric Body of Christ on the cheap, quickly or easily. Their effort does not, of course, have be intellectual (hence my admittedly pretty bad metaphor about books: becoming a bookworm or getting degrees in theology does not make one a Christian), but a long period of deep internal struggle and studies (whether through books or other forms, such as attending the services or practicing self-renunciation is an absolute must before baptism (setting aside a few special cases which I don’t want to introduce now, we are deep enough already).
YMMV of course :-)
Kind regards
Andrei
PS: I’ve tried to take key points from St. Gregory Palamas maybe you can try Saint John Chrysotome instead the next time?