Quite agree! Resurrection is all around, Christian or otherwise. The sun has come out here for the first time all year, seemingly, just this week, and the insects are suddenly back. The world still works.
Yes, agreed! Driving home today, the sun was just peeping out from behind a large cloud. With my sunglasses on I could see the lines of rays of sunlight all around the cloud (they weren't as vivid with my sunglasses off). It was so beautiful I admit almost crashing my car twice as I couldn't take my eyes off it.
There are some similarities, but in my understanding they are also poles apart. Orthodoxy does not recognise the infallibility of the Pope, as he is a human. I found a lot of useful info here https://christianorthodoxchurch.org/
There are differences in the wording of the Nicene Creed, which Catholics have changed. I think I've got that right.
Any more experienced Orthodox, please feel free to expand. I'm a newbie!
This is actually a very complicated question—or perhaps it simply has a complicated answer! Both Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism are both apostolic and Christian, but they've developed differently for various reasons, such as different languages/culture/history (very roughly put, there's been a Latin stream and a Greek stream since the beginning). The bishop of Rome (also known as the Patriarch of the West) oversees the (Roman) Catholic Church, as well as those churches which are Eastern but in communion with Rome (they have different canons that apply to them, and a lot of them would simply call themselves Orthodox while in communion with Rome), and Eastern Orthodoxy is generally shepherded by the Ecumenical Patriarch. And then there are the churches such as the Assyrian Church of the East, which is still a part of the Nicene Christian tradition, but has its own complicated relationship with the rest of Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy, as well as with the Chaldean Catholic Church, which has a similar heritage as the ACE (both were part of the historical Church of the East, and both worship using the East Syriac Rite), but is in communion with the bishop of Rome.
We have had no formal relationship with Rome for about a thousand years. It’s easiest to consider the two churches like estranged siblings—the same DNA, but living totally separate lives. The Eastern church maintains the mystery at the heart of the experience of God, whereas the Catholics pursued a more rational, materialist approach. For Western people, saying that Eastern Orthodoxy is “like” Catholicism is an easy shorthand, but it really only covers the superficialities (sacraments, icons, incense, candles) because Protestants often find both mildly inscrutable (if not positively alarming).
Can you please explain what you mean by "The Eastern church maintain the mystery at the heart of the experience of God, whereas the Catholics pursued a more rational, materialist approach?"
Sure—the Eastern Orthodox understand the purpose of human life to be the process of sanctification (theosis), where what is sought is direct experience of God (or at least His energies) in the nous (heart/soul/mind—not the brain), through prayer. Catholic theology beginning with Aquinas (though beginning further back, in some writings of St. Augustine), sought to make sense of God with the brain rather than the heart, and to make the mystical rational. In the Orthodox understanding, the core of faith is mystery.
Thank you, D&M Miller. So, are you saying that the Eastern Orthodox believe that the purpose of human life is to glorify God by becoming more and more like Him, experiencing God's Life and transforming Power in the heart, soul, mind (not the brain) through prayer? Whereas Catholics believe that the purpose of human life is to make a rational (scientific?) study of God with the brain (not the mind, heart, soul) and to deny the mystery of faith? What is your source for this distinction? How does one know if he is using his mind or his brain? And how is a Catholic able to exclude his heart, soul, and mind from his study? Or his prayer?
It isn’t so much a matter of belief as a matter of how one approaches knowing God. I don’t believe that Catholics would aim to deny the mystery of faith, but the way that faith is approached is from a scholastic perspective where mystery is minimized or explained away. It is experienced first with the brain, whereas an Orthodox perspective would be that it is an embodied experience that begins with the nous. It is sometimes difficult to explain, because we (modern people) have very different notions of what constitutes words like mind, brain, heart, soul, etc., than what the original Christians meant by them.
I feel obliged to point out that, because the internet has no nuance, I am not slamming Catholics here. I could say plenty about issues in my own backyard, and I have known many devoted Catholics who I think are far better Christians than I am. But fundamentally, the East and West have different approaches.
D&M- St. Augustine a rationalist? The St. Augustine who's most famous quote is "my HEART is restless until it rests in Thee?" The Catholic faith holds the view that in order to love someone, you must know them. This came from Aquinas. Catholics pose the question: "how can you love God without attempting to know Him?" It is not an attempt to make the mystical rational, but an attempt to use the intellect that God gave man to better understand the mystical, thus to love more.
No, St. Augustine was not a rationalist. But in the history of theology as a discipline, St. Augustine had some views that led to the development of scholastic theology as it is now practiced. It certainly began with Aquinas, but St. Augustine opened the door (albeit unwittingly).
It is not a matter of discounting the intellect, merely the priority. The attempt is to know God with your whole being, united, and not only through your intellect or emotions.
Orthodoxy is about the direct experience of God in the body, especially the heart. The brain is not very important -- it's alright, and has its uses, but it's not the main thing.
The short answer is that in the early centuries of Christianity there were five historic church centres: Rome, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antoich and Alexandria. Together they made up 'the Church', and agreements about theology and practice were agreed on by all at a series of ecumenical councils. To cut a long story short, Rome broke away from the others and decided to 'go it alone' in 1054, after centuries of tension. The Bishop of Rome wanted power over the other churches, and the Roman church had also unilaterally changed the wording of the Nicene Creed to re-imagine the nature of the Trinity.
I'm going to write more about this, but I see the Great Schism of 1054 as the beginning of the West as we know it. The 'Catholic' church of today is a breakaway church in that sense: it is the Roman church, claiming lordship over all Christendom. The 'Orthodox' church of today are the other churches which remained true to the agreed apostolic faith, and which have been joined in time by other newer churches: Russia, Romania, etc.
Over time, other Catholic innovations - purgatory, ancestral sin, the immaculate conception, the assumption, the infallibility of the Roman bishop - have dirven the churches further apart in teachings and practice. These teachings in turn, and the Western churches worldly power, drove a further split, the 'reformation' in the 16th century, when a whole lot of new schismatic churches rejected Roman teaching and decided to go it alone.
Meanwhile, the original ('Orthodox') church remained. And despite all this, Catholic and Orthodox still recognise each other as valid apostolic churches with valid sacraments.
Objections to my potted history from Catholics and Calvinists may now commence below!
“The Orthodox church of today are the other churches which remained true to the agreed apostolic faith…”
To fairly discuss the distinctions between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, and the Great Schism, it should be noted that prior to 1054 there were at least five instances of schisms in the East:
The Arian schisms (343-98)
The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415)
The Acacian schism (484-519)
Monothelitism (640-681)
Iconoclasm (726-87 and 815-43)
This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism! And in every case, Rome was on the right side of the issue in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides.
In two instances, the entire Eastern church fell into doctrinal error. The first was The Robber Council at Ephesus in 449 (which got its name from Pope Leo I who accused it of trying to steal the true faith). The council was called by Emperor Theodosius II with the approval of Pope Leo I to deal with the Monophysite heresy being propagated by Dioscurus, the patriarch of Alexandria, and Eutyches, the abbot of a monastery outside of Constantinople. Although it was intended to be an ecumenical council, it was never accepted as such. The second instance was in the signing of the Monophysite Henotikon of Emperor Zeno in 482. All four Eastern Patriarchs denied Chalcedon and advocated the "orthodoxy" of Monophysism. This resulted in a 35 year schism between the churches in the East and Rome, with Rome, again, being the standard bearer of Truth. In A.D. 519 the rift was healed when Emperor Justin I (an orthodox Christian) came to the throne and basically forced all of the Eastern bishops to condemn Monophysism, to embrace the dogmas of Chalcedon, and to sign the Libellus Hormisdae, which reads as follows:
"Because the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ, when He said, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will found my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, etc,' cannot be set aside; this, which is said, is proved by the results; for in the Apostolic See (Rome) religion has always been preserved without spot ....In which is set the perfect and true solidity of the Christian religion." ... "In the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled and her holy doctrine proclaimed. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion with you which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion: promising also that the names of those who are cut off from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, not consentient with the Apostolic See (Rome), shall not be recited during the Sacred Mysteries . This is my profession, I have subscribed with my own hand, and delivered to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable Pope of the city of Rome." (Formula Hormisdae Episc. Orient. Praescript Denzinger's Enchird. p. 42, ed. 1874) in Charles F.B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri --Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns & Oates, 1879, 92.
The Libellus was signed by 2,500 Eastern bishops in A.D. 519. It was also re-affirmed and signed by all of the bishops who deposed Photius at the Constantinople Council in 869.
This illustrates very clearly that the Orthodox Church has not always "remained true". The East’s tendencies toward innovation in doctrine and schism have plagued it on and off throughout its history. It has changed its stance on such teachings as: contraception, divorce, absolution certificates, Mary's perpetual virginity, Mary's sinlessless, and the Primacy of Peter.
I will end with several quotes from Eastern Church Fathers, prior to year 1054, that demonstrate the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Church in a separate comment.
No can of worms. Paul invited us to raise objections to his comment, and I responded specifically to his statement that the Orthodox Church remained true to the agreed apostolic faith. I focused on the word “remained”, but he clarified what he meant, and I have no disagreement.
I meant no offense to Paul or to anyone else, and I certainly did not suggest that the Orthodox Church bears a greater share of blame for the Great Schism. I attempted to add balance to the conversation by demonstrating that the Bishops of the East did not always remain true to the apostolic faith, that Eastern Orthodoxy has moved on some of its positions, and that the Bishop of Rome, as the See of Peter, has primacy among the Bishops.
No one can deny that chaos, corruption, and abuse—sin--are a problem now and have been throughout Church history. But to insinuate that the Roman Catholic Church is the root cause of all that is wrong in the modern world and has paved the way for the antichrist is a careless statement, as the Holy Spirit is the source of Faith and Truth throughout the universal Church. I find it hard to believe that this is a commonly held sentiment in Eastern Orthodoxy.
For anyone interested in balance, here is an article from “Orthodox Christianity” about the history of indulgences (and their sale) in the Greek Orthodox Church:
Eastern Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic Church are separated but hold much in common, along with a few serious differences. As Paul said: we are Christians together. We must continue to love and pray for greater unity.
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria: "For that all holy throne has the office of heading the Churches of the whole world, for many reasons; and, above all others, because it has remained free of the communion of heretical taint, and no one holding heterodox sentiments ever sat in it, but it has preserved the Apostolic grace unsullied." (Theodoret, Epist Renato)
The disciple of Patriarch Sophronius: "And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy Hugh, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for 'Peter,' saith He, 'lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.' And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority .....And Sophronius of blessed memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, and under whom I was bishop, conferring not with flesh and blood, but caring only for the things of Christ with respect to your Holiness, hastened to send my nothingness without delay about this matter alone to this Apostolic see, where are the foundations of holy doctrine." (Sophronius, to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council, Mansi, x., 893)
St. Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople (449): ...writing to Pope Leo: "When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. ...Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference ...but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. ...Further to issue an authoritative instruction ...so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound. (Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo, 449).
"You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith." Flavian, ---Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98
The Emperor Justinian (520-533) Writing to the Pope: "Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches." (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).
"Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Supreme Pastor, the salvation of all." (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).
St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650): "The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High." (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)
"How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the Popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome." (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)
"If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world." (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).
John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715): "The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren." (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)
St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828): "Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles." (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).
St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826): Writing to Pope Leo III ....”Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven." (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)
Sts. Cyril & Methodius (c. 865): "It is not true, as this Canon states, that the holy Fathers gave the primacy to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire; it is from on high, from divine grace, that this primacy drew its origin. Because of the intensity of his faith Peter, the first of the Apostles, was addressed in these words by our Lord Jesus Christ himself 'Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep'. That is why in hierarchical order Rome holds the pre-eminent place and is the first See. That is why the leges of old Rome are eternally immovable, and that is the view of all the Churches" (Methodius ---N. Brianchaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 177).
"Because of his primacy, the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council; but without his participation, manifested by sending some subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is as non-existent, for it is he who presides over the Council." (Ibid.)
St. Irenaeus "Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the bishops' successions of all the city-churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness or wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper (i.e., renegade heretics), by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the Tradition and the Faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For it is a matter of necessity that all other city-churches agree with this church because of its preeminent authority." (Against the Heresies, 3, 3:2).
I didn't say the Orthodox churches had 'always remained true', just that they got there in the end. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that Orthodoxy has not also been riddled with errors and failings and corruption, and sometimes still is. But in the end it tends to end up in the right place.
I suppose we could argue all day about who was right on those early issues - the Orthodox would not agree about John Chrysostom, for starters - and in any case those 'schisms in the east' were actually schisms in the whole church, because there was no division. Arianism was not confined to 'the east', for example.
Butthere is no precedent or justification in Christian history for the power of the Bishop of Rome as 'king of the Christians,' and it's simply unchristian in my view to exercise that kind of worldly power (I note that Orthodox patriarchs have also sought and exercised such power, which I dislike too.) I've never been convinced by the 'Jesus told Peter to rule the roost' line. It seems like a justification after the fact. That's something on which Orthodox and protestants can agree.
I find strength and truth in Orthodoxy that I haven't found elsewhere, as well as a deep mystical practice that the West lacks, and I see a church too which, for now at least, is stronger in its faith. I consider it to be the continuation of the original lineage of the church.
Still, Orthodox and Catholic people are all Christians together, and all this aside, I have met people from various denominations who are all better Christians than me.
Paul, I just want to say that I appreciate your reply and thank you for sharing your Christian faith and experiences in Eastern Orthodoxy. In my objection to your statement I had focused on the word “remained”, so I am glad for your clarification. I certainly agree that Orthodox and Catholic people are all Christians together, thanks be to God! I also want to thank you for your excellent essays and for offering this monthly Salon to your subscribers.
Indeed! He is risen! In deed, let us not forget the gravity of those two words. This is real! I love the image of dancing chandeliers, dancing lights! Twinkling stars and dancing fireflies fill my dome! I know why I am Orthodox, it is so beautiful and so thoughtful.
If one considers the internet to be the beautiful daughters of men and one considers mathematical algorithms or AI to be the sons of God then are we about to see Nephilim on the Earth again?...Gen6:1-4... last time it got so bad God decided to bring a flood... just wondering for a friend...😉
I recently listened to the Lord of Spirits podcast on the topic of Nephilim...and in the Q&A they answer a question about whether the Nephilim are here on earth today. It's an older episode titled Giants
That was a good episode. The question then becomes if Nephilim are the product by an improper Union Between Heaven and Earth is it possible to create them again? It seems we are creating something improper that is an egregor ...it is a Golem, a Nephilim and in the Enochian tradition the Nephilim bathed the Earth in human blood so badly that even the angels ask God WTF... those fallen angels and their children ended up in the bottom of a pit chained but will get one last hoorah before the end according to Revelation.... , we've already seen the return of Incubus and succubus and perhaps even Golems but now are we going to see Nephilim as well? Talk about retro...
That's the question. It certainly is the animating principle but it needs a body and unless I miss my guess that body is going to be billions of users. If it truly is a Nephilim then God help us...
I lived in England in my early teens and did a bike/train adventure up to the Orkneys. I'd love to come to Ireland sometime. Are you familiar with Mull Monastery? My friend David is a monk there. He was just ordained a few weeks ago. His parents are just a few blocks from us. I have wanted to do one of the Summer Pilgrimages. I got to know Fr. Seraphim a bit when he was traveling and fundraising for the monastery. Christ is Risen!
Alithos anesti, to all! Today, on Bright Monday, I think back to the Apostles, and those gathered around them, terrified in the upper room, confused and distraught that their hope, Jesus Christ, was dead and gone and that the entire mission of Christ was fast tumbling down around them. Christ appears suddenly and says, "Peace be with you. Receive the Holy Spirit." The darkness is enveloping us quicker and quicker, but the Light is still with us.
I’m going to the Academy 2023 in Bedfordshire in July organised by Ideasmatter.org.uk and the topic this year is “ What happened to the Future?” The Academy explores the history, philosophy, literature and sociology of our current moment. Topics such as ‘ the apocalyptic imagination, from religion to XR’ and transhumanism. On the suggested reading list is “ Martin Hagglund “ This Life. Why Mortality makes us free”. I’ve only got half way through but I find his arguments for secular faith electrifying. ( I’m probably one of the minority of subscribers who is not a Christian) but I’d love to know what others think of this work?
I once had an atheist friend ask me what would it take for me to drop my faith. I replied, "It would have to be proved that Jesus did not rise from the dead and at this stage of the game that isn't possible to do" I regard the resurrection of Jesus as the primal anomalous data point along with my own personal experience of his reality. But yes, if you don't accept and experience this, arguments for secular faith are quite valid.
I have not read This Life, but I looked it up and found a review of Hagglund’s book by David Chivers on TheHumanist.com. The following are quotes from This Life that I pulled from Chivers' essay. Below each quote are my own thoughts:
"Only someone who is finite can sense the miracle of being alive.”
How can Hagglund know this for sure? For example, Christians, who believe that life is not finite but eternal, experience life as a miracle. In fact, the definition of miracle is a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
“Religious faith holds that our ultimate aim should be to transcend the finitude we share. As a consequence, this life [his emphasis] is devalued.”
From the perspective of Christianity, this statement is faulty. Christians greatly value this life as divine gift. It is the Christians' ultimate aim to know, love, and serve God in this world, and be happy with Him forever in the next. To do this, we are to deny ourselves, to put God first, and to serve Him in others—all of which imbue this life with deep and beautiful meaning.
"Religion, by not recognizing that life is finite, causes people to 'misrecognize the suffering we seek to overcome.'
I am not sure if it is possible to "misrecognize" suffering. Everyone knows what suffering is when he experiences it and when he sees it. What does it mean to "overcome" suffering in a world where everything dies? Is this even possible? THAT sounds like someone who is aiming to "transcend" the finitude we share! Christians believe that when Jesus took on human flesh in the Incarnation, He forever redeemed human suffering. Therefore, suffering teaches us about God, about ourselves, and about our relationship with him. There is this intimate bond between the cross, the epitome of the sufferings of Christ, and the suffering of the people which is a participation in the self-same cross. Thus, Christianity makes it possible for suffering to be used for good rather than wasted.
By death, Christ conquered death. Just as Jesus was resurrected bodily from the dead, Christ will come again to resurrect all who died. When a Christian dies, he is “away from the body and at home with the Lord” until Christ’s return. Thus, death is now a mere threshold to more abundant life. When Christ comes again to judge the living and the dead, all who have died will be bodily resurrected, and those in Christ will be wholly, corporeally themselves.
Death is actually one of the reasons I believe in God. If nothing supernatural is involved in the existence of life, then why would everything have evolved to die? Why not evolve to never age? To regenerate? To cooperate rather than compete?
The other reason I believe in God is life. All living things exist without their decision or consent. We just happen. And our bodies work without our input. In fact, we have no control over our inner workings at all. What, then, IS life?
Thank you for your response. I’ve only finished Part 1 of the book. Hagglund is passionate about living a purposeful and caring life on earth. His devotion to this project is down to his sense of the fragility of life, and on his dependence on others. He takes issue with the premise that an eternal life such as is promised by religion is somehow superior. It reminded me of Paul’s U tube interview with Tom Holland. Tom is an atheist but intrigued by those who have faith. He asked Paul about how a Christian perceives all the so- called pagans in the world, or followers of other religions - are they not also to be ‘saved’ ? If so how? I don’t think this point was satisfactorily answered by Paul.
Hagglund doesn’t think there needs to be an ultimate end to serve God in order to lead a meaningful or moral life. For him it is precisely our shared finitude and fragility which form a sufficient basis on which to form a caring and free society. He goes as afar as to say that the ecological crisis can only be taken seriously from the standpoint of secular faith. If your ultimate goal is to achieve eternal life and salvation he certainly has a point - because why would you ultimately care what happens to the planet?
I don't know anything about Hagglund, but I'm familiar with this atheist argument in general. It relies on a lot of strawmen.
Christianity, for one, is precisely about 'living a purposeful and caring life on earth', and so are the other faiths I know about. It was Christians who pioneered hospitals, almshouses, charities, human rights and the abolition of slavery in the West. Strange behaviour for people who only care about 'the next life.' There are certainly some versions of Christianity that can give that impression, but it's nothing to do with the real thing.
As for 'the ecological crisis can only be taken seriously from the standpoint of secular faith' - that's a silly notion, and for the same reason. If you believe all of nature is a 'creation' - the creation of a God you claim to love and worship - and if you believe your purpose is to 'tend and keep' that creation, then everything else follows. From an atheist perspective, meanwhile, it would be easy enough to decide that, since the whole thing is just a meaningless collexction of matter, we might as well exploit the hell out of it.
In reality, of course, both religious and non-religious people are trashing the place, so it's hard to argue that either is 'superior' from that standpoint.
Tom Holland is a Christian, not an atheist, but he has questions (who doesn't?) In terms of who is 'saved': well, Christians have a clear view on this, and it comes from what Christ teaches. Christianity, like all religions I know of, teaches that we are alienated from God and need to turn around (the literal meaning of 'repent') and walk towards him again. Those who choose to live a life in denial of God, or in rejection of him, pay a price for that. In terms of followers of other religions: we could argue all day about what happens to those who don't recognise Christ, but in the end we don't know. I tend to just ignore the question and try getting on with the work.
I do agree that it is, in theory, possible, to lead 'a meaningful or moral life' without God up to a point. But I think the point usually wears out into nihilism. As for 'our shared finitude and fragility which form a sufficient basis on which to form a caring and free society': well, how? Perhaps he explains in the book. But I can't see that the fact we're all going to die is enough to bring anyone together. It certainly hasn't thus far.
Hi Paul. Yes, Tom Holland did say he was a Christian in the video but in the same way that I also feel like one, which is to say a ‘cultural Christian’. If I walk in the woods to find peace or to solve a problem I often find myself saying the Lords Prayer which was taught to me as a child. Likewise I can appreciate the Bible stories and certainly see the mystery of life in a hundred everyday ways. This is a far cry from considering the world as ‘meaningless matter’. But to go back to Hagglund’s philosophy which is partly based on Kierkegaard. The latter deemed real or living religious faith to entail the ability to sacrifice the finite for the eternal, as Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his beloved son, in the belief that he would eventually be saved. This resignation is the crux of the matter. Hagglund does offer a critique of capitalism and suggests working for democratic socialism in the last part which I have yet to read!
I'd say that's in some ways a good description of religion - scarificing the finite for the eternal. But in a way it's a good description of human culture too. Parents sacrifice for the future of their children, soldiers sacrifice for their nation, we might all sacrifice for the future of our country or community. But yes, 'religion' requires a belief in many other layers of reality, which is a belief I have always had.
Mary, I haven't read Hagglund but I read Kierkegaard quite differently. K's longing for union with truth, God, "the Eternal" is not about an exchange of the particular present for an afterlife or an abstraction -- as I read him, quite the reverse. The "knight of infinite resignation" gives up Hegelian longings and schemes for facing and embracing very particular commitments and risks in a value-laden world. Abraham's sacrifice, as K reads it, is not a cost-benefit calculation but resigning from, giving up such controlling, instumental reason in favor of faith. I can easily imagine such a knight using a prayer to silence a chattering mind in order to see, hear and inhabit the actual forest, life, calling from God before them. Hagglund may be exploring similar territory but the ancient Christian categories K offers us anew are Incarnation and Obedience -- states our Machine worshipping and gnostic culture flee like the plague but K reveals as a vital path. Best wishes.
Hi Mary. I share your feeling of being a 'cultural Christian' — nominally the culture I was brought up & sent to church in. But it has inspired no faith in me. Which isn't to say that I scorn faith in others or would deny that maybe it's all true. How would I know? I've simply never had religious faith. Any faith.
I definitely have a strong sense of right & wrong, but not sure where that comes from.
Paul says "those who choose to live a life in denial of God, or in rejection of him, pay a price for that." I ask: What about those who wouldn't dream of denying or rejecting anything, but have simply never felt any need to embrace it? Paul has said in youtube conversations that long before his conversion he felt the need to worship. That's perfectly fine with me; just that I never have.
Seems to me that some who call themselves Christians are in fact trying to feather their nest for an 'afterlife'. That too is a way of sacrificing the finite (or some of it at least) for the eternal.
So, are people like me (people who've merely never experienced faith — not preachers of faithlessness) going to "pay a price"? For what sin?
Seems to me that if you don't have faith and don't believe in 'sin' etc, then you don't have to worry about it! It's just some people with beliefs you don't share. I spent most of my life also not believing things like that. We all choose our paths and what we consider to be true. It does intrigue me that people seem to demand answers from Christians about a faith they don't believe in. Why bother?
In fact, a recognition that we all suffer and die may just as easily give rise to feelings of despair and hopelessness. Like you, I don't see that it has to date brought anyone together. What I do see is evidence that a lot of people are motivated to extend their personal finitude and limit their fragility as much as possible.
To possibly answer the last point Mary, the point is that the planet sustains human life and it is our duty as Christians to love all of humanity (and of course all sentient beings, dependent on the specifics of your chosen faith). To behave or live without care and compassion for the environment would be working against that, I would suggest.
The ecological crisis is a spiritual crisis. I don't see any way that the ecological problems will be solved as long as people are unwilling to take on their own impulses, which is where asceticism comes in. We have to say yes to less! I have a 260 pg PDF of quotes from early and modern Christians on the importance of creation. Beyond what creation provides us, we are also responsible for participating with God in its healing. Priests vs stewards. Unfortunately, most Christians, Orthodox included, do not pay any attention to this. It takes non-Christians to point out what should be intrinsic to our ethos.
Take for example, this article I read this morning from David Abram. This vision of reciprocity is just beautiful!
I like that the Orthodox question "is this good for my salvation?" is much deeper than "am I in/am I out." I expect that if I were about to recklessly destroy a plot of land or commit an act of cruelty the answer would be, "no - this is not good for my salvation." In a sense, perhaps our lifelong treatment of everything and everyone around us is our singular commitment to Christ. A very, very long statement of faith.
This is beautiful. I feel like I need an anecdote for western Christianity and culture.
On that note, I'd like to explore the Orthodox church that is near me, but I don't know if it's the kind of place where I can just drop in. I've gone to nondenominational Christian churches since I graduated high school (grew up United Methodist otherwise), and I've reached a breaking point here.
I'd love to hear from anyone who has experienced coming to the Orthodox church from some other church background. I know Paul's story, of course, but I'd love to know more about the details of how you make that first step and how the church generally receives people like me.
If it's like any of the Orthodox churches I've been to, you can totally just drop in. You can be as involved or as uninvolved as you want. You can come and go as you please; it's not at all like the Western churches I grew up with, where the doors close when the service begins, like a theater, so you're then having to interrupt something by coming in late. It's very low key. People might say hi, they might not. Everybody's busy praying, they won't bother you.
My experience exactly upon going for the first time. Everyone was welcoming. It felt miles apart from Western churches (with a small 'c'). It felt like home, even though I didn't understand a word of Greek!
Christ is Risen! Jared, I converted from Lutheranism to the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) in 2016. I don’t know where you live and thus what branch (e.g., Russian OC, Greek OC, Romanian OC...) is nearby, but you can always drop by. Caveat: Some ethnic churches serving recent immigrants may still use their native tongue and have other culture- specific practices that may confuse you. Best advice is to speak with the parish priest. I did that, and once I was at Vespers one evening, I was brought to tears, and the rest is history. I was Chrismated about a year later, and it has been quite a journey! In the OCA, most of the clergy, including some in seminary leadership roles are converts from Protestantism of one kind or another. Like life and death, becoming Orthodox is a process, at least it was for me. You will find your questions answered in due time, just trust in the Lord’s guidance and look to the testimonies of the saints, whose icons gaze back at us and beckon. Indeed He is risen!
Thank you! There is a church about a mile from my house that says it is part of the Orthodox Church of America, so I'm not sure where that would put them on the spectrum compared to Greek or Romanian iterations. All the same, I'm encouraged to reach out, so thank you!
Orthodox Church in America (OCA) usually does everything in English. We have largely gone to OCA churches. They tend to be smaller than Greek, Romanian, Antiochian, etc. churches. (Not always.) While the melodies differ among the types of churches, the services are pretty much the same across the board.
And going to an evening service rather than a Sunday morning service the first time may give you the quiet and prayerful introduction best. Sunday mornings can be overwhelming at first since it is usually quite a different sort of service than you are used to. Our OCA parish in Texas has no pews but we do have some chairs around the walls if standing gets too be too much (in time most people adjust). And we also have several parishioners who need wheeled devices to get around, so they can easily roll into any spot out in the middle. I love the Saturday evening vigil services, and many of us just come in when we can and leave when necessary. Staying the whole time is beautiful, though.
I was received into Orthodoxy through an Antiochian parish back in 1987; they used mostly English, with some Arabic, Greek, and even Russian, plus Romanian at Pascha. I’ve been in OCA parishes since 2001, and have visited a few other OCA churches and missions since then, and feel it is a appropriate balance of English language with Holy Tradition. One thing I haven’t seen discussed (may have missed it) in this thread is the benefit and blessing of Confession. It is VERY helpful to have that requirement and source of spiritual counsel. As with all the sacraments, it is a receiving of divine grace into our lives. Even just attending church services is to receive God’s grace. This is really a mystery, but the key to beginning to understand it is that Orthodoxy considers ‘grace’ to be God’s ‘uncreated energies’ being poured out into the world. This is why we bless items with holy water, anoint with oil, etc. All of creation becomes sacramental, and by acquiring God’s grace we slowly sanctify our lives. According to the beloved Russian saint, Seraphim of Sarov, this is the purpose of the Christian life, the acquisition of the Holy Spirit, of God’s uncreated grace. This is the meaning of the parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins waiting for the Bridegroom. Everything in the Orthodox Church may be understood in this way. May your journey be blessed!
We were Protestant refugees and found our way into the Orthodox Church 25 years ago this past Saturday. For us, it was a long road into Orthodoxy. We were initially somewhat horrified. (Is that Mary up front there?? When do we get to sit down? What’s going on?) We also visited a Greek-speaking church at first, which sadly was more about being Greek. But we persevered (eventually in an English-speaking church) and have never looked back.
My advice:
- Start with a Vespers service. It’s shorter and quieter. Fewer people, usually.
- Wear comfortable shoes. We stand a lot. If you get tired, sit. (Except during the reading of the Gospel and the Lord’s Prayer.) It can take a while to develop church feet.
- Don’t worry about “getting it right.” Nobody cares.
- Bishop Ware’s book “The Orthodox Way” is a good introduction. He was a convert, too.
Thank you so much! This is really helpful. Despite growing up in church, there's something a bit intimidating about going to an Orthodox church for the first time, but it's been on my mind for a long time, so God must be leading me there.
It's certainly intimidating going for the first time. I was mostly convinced by Orthodoxy for a year and a half before I even started going to services regularly. Don't waste time like me. Just go. If you're an introvert, don't feel obligated to talk to anyone right away. You'll meet people when you're ready.
Just an update here for anyone who might see it: I went Sunday morning and felt a tad out of place (but not unwelcome), but that's sort of what I expected to feel. The comments here helped me to know what to expect, which did make me feel a lot more comfortable than I probably would have otherwise.
Right now I'm planning to go again this Sunday, and then at some point I will reach out the the priest.
Of course you can visit.. Just out of courtesy phone the priest and indicate when you want to attend a Divine Liturgy, or even just to be shown around the Church outside of a scheduled Divine Liturgy, if you have questions and queries. Have an open mind, the Orthodox Church features many things unfamiliar to those from a western Christian background, but nothing is random, all is explicable, and every aspect of the Orthodox Liturgy, Church design, and liturgical practice is derived from scriptural origins. I came to Orthodox Christianity from a Roman Catholic background, but I was fortunate to be welcomed, and my (many!) questions were answered.
Jared, I honestly feel it might be a fuller experience for you and indeed for those in the Parish, including the Parish Priest, if you approached the Church in a pre-arranged manner as suggested. Thus permitting introductory observations, personal introductions to other parish members, who may perhaps share things in common with you, and may be able to informally explain further things about the Orthodox Christian worship and our communities. Please do not expect effusiveness, or a "hard sell", this is not part of the Orthodox approach to Faith. Do not mistake this for indifference or "unfriendliness", remember that culturally Orthodox Christianity is quite distinct from prevailing western cultural norms, in particular behaviour derived from the dubious and superficial world of "marketing".
I would second what others have said—barring churches where they may not speak your language, it’s a walk-in situation. My present parish is very friendly, so someone would likely speak to you as a new face, but I have been to many parishes where nobody would approach you.
Definitely start with a vespers service if you want to see what an Orthodox church is like and get your bearings. It’s customary to stand, but it’s totally okay to sit if that makes you more comfortable; it is also okay to walk around and look at the icons, etc. If you do go to liturgy and someone offers you antidoron (blessed bread), it’s fine for you to eat it. 😉 It’s our way of welcoming guests, even if we don’t stop to chat.
Oh, and before and after services can be a hard time to chat with the priest, as there is usually a lot going on. Sometimes it may work out, but it’s often easier to schedule a time to talk if you get to that point. Godspeed on your journey!
I was baptized into the Antiochian Orthodox church last weekend on Lazarus Saturday, after 10 years as a Protestant. I found it intimidating at first because it's so active - all the bowing, metania, kissing things. But just give it a chance! You should 100% visit a church, and go several times. If you feel interested, follow that instinct. I'm part of a large church of mostly converts, with several of the clergy also being converts from Protestantism. Go for it!
Quite agree! Resurrection is all around, Christian or otherwise. The sun has come out here for the first time all year, seemingly, just this week, and the insects are suddenly back. The world still works.
We’ve had so much rain this winter in Northern California and the flowers are certainly celebrating! Redbuds, poppies, roses!
Yes, agreed! Driving home today, the sun was just peeping out from behind a large cloud. With my sunglasses on I could see the lines of rays of sunlight all around the cloud (they weren't as vivid with my sunglasses off). It was so beautiful I admit almost crashing my car twice as I couldn't take my eyes off it.
Is orthodoxy related to Catholicism? More closely than other Christian religions?
There are some similarities, but in my understanding they are also poles apart. Orthodoxy does not recognise the infallibility of the Pope, as he is a human. I found a lot of useful info here https://christianorthodoxchurch.org/
There are differences in the wording of the Nicene Creed, which Catholics have changed. I think I've got that right.
Any more experienced Orthodox, please feel free to expand. I'm a newbie!
There are certainly similarities, but once you scratch below the surface you’ll find some deep differences, too.
A fundamental difference is that they changed the Nicene Creed from what the Council of Nicea gave us.
In relation to Orthodoxy, the Roman Catholic Church are "the first protestants."
This is actually a very complicated question—or perhaps it simply has a complicated answer! Both Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism are both apostolic and Christian, but they've developed differently for various reasons, such as different languages/culture/history (very roughly put, there's been a Latin stream and a Greek stream since the beginning). The bishop of Rome (also known as the Patriarch of the West) oversees the (Roman) Catholic Church, as well as those churches which are Eastern but in communion with Rome (they have different canons that apply to them, and a lot of them would simply call themselves Orthodox while in communion with Rome), and Eastern Orthodoxy is generally shepherded by the Ecumenical Patriarch. And then there are the churches such as the Assyrian Church of the East, which is still a part of the Nicene Christian tradition, but has its own complicated relationship with the rest of Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy, as well as with the Chaldean Catholic Church, which has a similar heritage as the ACE (both were part of the historical Church of the East, and both worship using the East Syriac Rite), but is in communion with the bishop of Rome.
The relations between these two apostolic strains are hard to sum up—there's been a lot of work towards reunification as well as distrust and antipathy—but Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart's essay “The Myth of Schism” (I linked to it in another comment, but here it is again: https://www.clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2014/06/the-myth-of-schism-david-bentley-hart.html) gives a really helpful summation (he also links to this piece by Fr. Chrysostom Frank, on “Orthodox-Catholic Relations”: https://www.trinityorthodox.ca/documents/Frank%20-%20Orthodox-Catholic%20Relations.pdf).
We have had no formal relationship with Rome for about a thousand years. It’s easiest to consider the two churches like estranged siblings—the same DNA, but living totally separate lives. The Eastern church maintains the mystery at the heart of the experience of God, whereas the Catholics pursued a more rational, materialist approach. For Western people, saying that Eastern Orthodoxy is “like” Catholicism is an easy shorthand, but it really only covers the superficialities (sacraments, icons, incense, candles) because Protestants often find both mildly inscrutable (if not positively alarming).
Can you please explain what you mean by "The Eastern church maintain the mystery at the heart of the experience of God, whereas the Catholics pursued a more rational, materialist approach?"
Sure—the Eastern Orthodox understand the purpose of human life to be the process of sanctification (theosis), where what is sought is direct experience of God (or at least His energies) in the nous (heart/soul/mind—not the brain), through prayer. Catholic theology beginning with Aquinas (though beginning further back, in some writings of St. Augustine), sought to make sense of God with the brain rather than the heart, and to make the mystical rational. In the Orthodox understanding, the core of faith is mystery.
Thank you, D&M Miller. So, are you saying that the Eastern Orthodox believe that the purpose of human life is to glorify God by becoming more and more like Him, experiencing God's Life and transforming Power in the heart, soul, mind (not the brain) through prayer? Whereas Catholics believe that the purpose of human life is to make a rational (scientific?) study of God with the brain (not the mind, heart, soul) and to deny the mystery of faith? What is your source for this distinction? How does one know if he is using his mind or his brain? And how is a Catholic able to exclude his heart, soul, and mind from his study? Or his prayer?
It isn’t so much a matter of belief as a matter of how one approaches knowing God. I don’t believe that Catholics would aim to deny the mystery of faith, but the way that faith is approached is from a scholastic perspective where mystery is minimized or explained away. It is experienced first with the brain, whereas an Orthodox perspective would be that it is an embodied experience that begins with the nous. It is sometimes difficult to explain, because we (modern people) have very different notions of what constitutes words like mind, brain, heart, soul, etc., than what the original Christians meant by them.
I feel obliged to point out that, because the internet has no nuance, I am not slamming Catholics here. I could say plenty about issues in my own backyard, and I have known many devoted Catholics who I think are far better Christians than I am. But fundamentally, the East and West have different approaches.
D&M- St. Augustine a rationalist? The St. Augustine who's most famous quote is "my HEART is restless until it rests in Thee?" The Catholic faith holds the view that in order to love someone, you must know them. This came from Aquinas. Catholics pose the question: "how can you love God without attempting to know Him?" It is not an attempt to make the mystical rational, but an attempt to use the intellect that God gave man to better understand the mystical, thus to love more.
No, St. Augustine was not a rationalist. But in the history of theology as a discipline, St. Augustine had some views that led to the development of scholastic theology as it is now practiced. It certainly began with Aquinas, but St. Augustine opened the door (albeit unwittingly).
It is not a matter of discounting the intellect, merely the priority. The attempt is to know God with your whole being, united, and not only through your intellect or emotions.
Orthodoxy is about the direct experience of God in the body, especially the heart. The brain is not very important -- it's alright, and has its uses, but it's not the main thing.
The short answer is that in the early centuries of Christianity there were five historic church centres: Rome, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antoich and Alexandria. Together they made up 'the Church', and agreements about theology and practice were agreed on by all at a series of ecumenical councils. To cut a long story short, Rome broke away from the others and decided to 'go it alone' in 1054, after centuries of tension. The Bishop of Rome wanted power over the other churches, and the Roman church had also unilaterally changed the wording of the Nicene Creed to re-imagine the nature of the Trinity.
I'm going to write more about this, but I see the Great Schism of 1054 as the beginning of the West as we know it. The 'Catholic' church of today is a breakaway church in that sense: it is the Roman church, claiming lordship over all Christendom. The 'Orthodox' church of today are the other churches which remained true to the agreed apostolic faith, and which have been joined in time by other newer churches: Russia, Romania, etc.
Over time, other Catholic innovations - purgatory, ancestral sin, the immaculate conception, the assumption, the infallibility of the Roman bishop - have dirven the churches further apart in teachings and practice. These teachings in turn, and the Western churches worldly power, drove a further split, the 'reformation' in the 16th century, when a whole lot of new schismatic churches rejected Roman teaching and decided to go it alone.
Meanwhile, the original ('Orthodox') church remained. And despite all this, Catholic and Orthodox still recognise each other as valid apostolic churches with valid sacraments.
Objections to my potted history from Catholics and Calvinists may now commence below!
“The Orthodox church of today are the other churches which remained true to the agreed apostolic faith…”
To fairly discuss the distinctions between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, and the Great Schism, it should be noted that prior to 1054 there were at least five instances of schisms in the East:
The Arian schisms (343-98)
The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415)
The Acacian schism (484-519)
Monothelitism (640-681)
Iconoclasm (726-87 and 815-43)
This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism! And in every case, Rome was on the right side of the issue in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides.
In two instances, the entire Eastern church fell into doctrinal error. The first was The Robber Council at Ephesus in 449 (which got its name from Pope Leo I who accused it of trying to steal the true faith). The council was called by Emperor Theodosius II with the approval of Pope Leo I to deal with the Monophysite heresy being propagated by Dioscurus, the patriarch of Alexandria, and Eutyches, the abbot of a monastery outside of Constantinople. Although it was intended to be an ecumenical council, it was never accepted as such. The second instance was in the signing of the Monophysite Henotikon of Emperor Zeno in 482. All four Eastern Patriarchs denied Chalcedon and advocated the "orthodoxy" of Monophysism. This resulted in a 35 year schism between the churches in the East and Rome, with Rome, again, being the standard bearer of Truth. In A.D. 519 the rift was healed when Emperor Justin I (an orthodox Christian) came to the throne and basically forced all of the Eastern bishops to condemn Monophysism, to embrace the dogmas of Chalcedon, and to sign the Libellus Hormisdae, which reads as follows:
"Because the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ, when He said, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will found my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, etc,' cannot be set aside; this, which is said, is proved by the results; for in the Apostolic See (Rome) religion has always been preserved without spot ....In which is set the perfect and true solidity of the Christian religion." ... "In the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled and her holy doctrine proclaimed. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion with you which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion: promising also that the names of those who are cut off from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, not consentient with the Apostolic See (Rome), shall not be recited during the Sacred Mysteries . This is my profession, I have subscribed with my own hand, and delivered to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable Pope of the city of Rome." (Formula Hormisdae Episc. Orient. Praescript Denzinger's Enchird. p. 42, ed. 1874) in Charles F.B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri --Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns & Oates, 1879, 92.
The Libellus was signed by 2,500 Eastern bishops in A.D. 519. It was also re-affirmed and signed by all of the bishops who deposed Photius at the Constantinople Council in 869.
This illustrates very clearly that the Orthodox Church has not always "remained true". The East’s tendencies toward innovation in doctrine and schism have plagued it on and off throughout its history. It has changed its stance on such teachings as: contraception, divorce, absolution certificates, Mary's perpetual virginity, Mary's sinlessless, and the Primacy of Peter.
I will end with several quotes from Eastern Church Fathers, prior to year 1054, that demonstrate the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Church in a separate comment.
No can of worms. Paul invited us to raise objections to his comment, and I responded specifically to his statement that the Orthodox Church remained true to the agreed apostolic faith. I focused on the word “remained”, but he clarified what he meant, and I have no disagreement.
I meant no offense to Paul or to anyone else, and I certainly did not suggest that the Orthodox Church bears a greater share of blame for the Great Schism. I attempted to add balance to the conversation by demonstrating that the Bishops of the East did not always remain true to the apostolic faith, that Eastern Orthodoxy has moved on some of its positions, and that the Bishop of Rome, as the See of Peter, has primacy among the Bishops.
No one can deny that chaos, corruption, and abuse—sin--are a problem now and have been throughout Church history. But to insinuate that the Roman Catholic Church is the root cause of all that is wrong in the modern world and has paved the way for the antichrist is a careless statement, as the Holy Spirit is the source of Faith and Truth throughout the universal Church. I find it hard to believe that this is a commonly held sentiment in Eastern Orthodoxy.
For anyone interested in balance, here is an article from “Orthodox Christianity” about the history of indulgences (and their sale) in the Greek Orthodox Church:
https://orthochristian.com/7185.html
Eastern Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic Church are separated but hold much in common, along with a few serious differences. As Paul said: we are Christians together. We must continue to love and pray for greater unity.
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria: "For that all holy throne has the office of heading the Churches of the whole world, for many reasons; and, above all others, because it has remained free of the communion of heretical taint, and no one holding heterodox sentiments ever sat in it, but it has preserved the Apostolic grace unsullied." (Theodoret, Epist Renato)
The disciple of Patriarch Sophronius: "And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy Hugh, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for 'Peter,' saith He, 'lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.' And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority .....And Sophronius of blessed memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, and under whom I was bishop, conferring not with flesh and blood, but caring only for the things of Christ with respect to your Holiness, hastened to send my nothingness without delay about this matter alone to this Apostolic see, where are the foundations of holy doctrine." (Sophronius, to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council, Mansi, x., 893)
St. Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople (449): ...writing to Pope Leo: "When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. ...Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference ...but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. ...Further to issue an authoritative instruction ...so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound. (Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo, 449).
"You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith." Flavian, ---Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98
The Emperor Justinian (520-533) Writing to the Pope: "Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches." (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).
"Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Supreme Pastor, the salvation of all." (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).
St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650): "The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High." (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)
"How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the Popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome." (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)
"If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world." (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).
John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715): "The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren." (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)
St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828): "Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles." (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).
St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826): Writing to Pope Leo III ....”Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven." (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)
Sts. Cyril & Methodius (c. 865): "It is not true, as this Canon states, that the holy Fathers gave the primacy to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire; it is from on high, from divine grace, that this primacy drew its origin. Because of the intensity of his faith Peter, the first of the Apostles, was addressed in these words by our Lord Jesus Christ himself 'Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep'. That is why in hierarchical order Rome holds the pre-eminent place and is the first See. That is why the leges of old Rome are eternally immovable, and that is the view of all the Churches" (Methodius ---N. Brianchaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 177).
"Because of his primacy, the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council; but without his participation, manifested by sending some subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is as non-existent, for it is he who presides over the Council." (Ibid.)
St. Irenaeus "Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the bishops' successions of all the city-churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness or wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper (i.e., renegade heretics), by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the Tradition and the Faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For it is a matter of necessity that all other city-churches agree with this church because of its preeminent authority." (Against the Heresies, 3, 3:2).
I didn't say the Orthodox churches had 'always remained true', just that they got there in the end. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that Orthodoxy has not also been riddled with errors and failings and corruption, and sometimes still is. But in the end it tends to end up in the right place.
I suppose we could argue all day about who was right on those early issues - the Orthodox would not agree about John Chrysostom, for starters - and in any case those 'schisms in the east' were actually schisms in the whole church, because there was no division. Arianism was not confined to 'the east', for example.
Butthere is no precedent or justification in Christian history for the power of the Bishop of Rome as 'king of the Christians,' and it's simply unchristian in my view to exercise that kind of worldly power (I note that Orthodox patriarchs have also sought and exercised such power, which I dislike too.) I've never been convinced by the 'Jesus told Peter to rule the roost' line. It seems like a justification after the fact. That's something on which Orthodox and protestants can agree.
I find strength and truth in Orthodoxy that I haven't found elsewhere, as well as a deep mystical practice that the West lacks, and I see a church too which, for now at least, is stronger in its faith. I consider it to be the continuation of the original lineage of the church.
Still, Orthodox and Catholic people are all Christians together, and all this aside, I have met people from various denominations who are all better Christians than me.
Paul, I just want to say that I appreciate your reply and thank you for sharing your Christian faith and experiences in Eastern Orthodoxy. In my objection to your statement I had focused on the word “remained”, so I am glad for your clarification. I certainly agree that Orthodox and Catholic people are all Christians together, thanks be to God! I also want to thank you for your excellent essays and for offering this monthly Salon to your subscribers.
Indeed He is risen! Joyous feast to you!
Indeed! He is risen! In deed, let us not forget the gravity of those two words. This is real! I love the image of dancing chandeliers, dancing lights! Twinkling stars and dancing fireflies fill my dome! I know why I am Orthodox, it is so beautiful and so thoughtful.
One more time, with feeling, in Latin!
Christus Resurrexit!
Vere Resurrexit!
And in Greek 'Christos Anesti'! 'Alithos Anesti!' I hope I spelled those correctly.
London talks look interesting - is there a reduced price for Abbey subscribers as well as Unherd ones?
I'm not organising it, so no. But in future, at my own events, that's an option I'll think about.
Will it be recorded? It would be nice for us members who live abroad.
I believe so.
Thanks anyway - hope it goes well.
He is risen!...
If one considers the internet to be the beautiful daughters of men and one considers mathematical algorithms or AI to be the sons of God then are we about to see Nephilim on the Earth again?...Gen6:1-4... last time it got so bad God decided to bring a flood... just wondering for a friend...😉
In Revelation 11 - a portion of what the 24 Elders say as they fall down on their faces before God
"your wrath came, and the time for . . . . . . . . destroying the destroyers of the earth"
I recently listened to the Lord of Spirits podcast on the topic of Nephilim...and in the Q&A they answer a question about whether the Nephilim are here on earth today. It's an older episode titled Giants
That was a good episode. The question then becomes if Nephilim are the product by an improper Union Between Heaven and Earth is it possible to create them again? It seems we are creating something improper that is an egregor ...it is a Golem, a Nephilim and in the Enochian tradition the Nephilim bathed the Earth in human blood so badly that even the angels ask God WTF... those fallen angels and their children ended up in the bottom of a pit chained but will get one last hoorah before the end according to Revelation.... , we've already seen the return of Incubus and succubus and perhaps even Golems but now are we going to see Nephilim as well? Talk about retro...
Is AI the modern day Nephilim?
That's the question. It certainly is the animating principle but it needs a body and unless I miss my guess that body is going to be billions of users. If it truly is a Nephilim then God help us...
Just spent a few days cycling / camping on the wild west of Ireland. Beautiful in so many ways. A Bright week. Blessings to all.
Cycling in the Irish west is one of the best ways to spend time!
I lived in England in my early teens and did a bike/train adventure up to the Orkneys. I'd love to come to Ireland sometime. Are you familiar with Mull Monastery? My friend David is a monk there. He was just ordained a few weeks ago. His parents are just a few blocks from us. I have wanted to do one of the Summer Pilgrimages. I got to know Fr. Seraphim a bit when he was traveling and fundraising for the monastery. Christ is Risen!
Adevărat a înviat!
Indeed He is risen! Got home from our Paschal vigil and after-party at 6AM on Sunday morning 😅
Alithos anesti, to all! Today, on Bright Monday, I think back to the Apostles, and those gathered around them, terrified in the upper room, confused and distraught that their hope, Jesus Christ, was dead and gone and that the entire mission of Christ was fast tumbling down around them. Christ appears suddenly and says, "Peace be with you. Receive the Holy Spirit." The darkness is enveloping us quicker and quicker, but the Light is still with us.
I’m going to the Academy 2023 in Bedfordshire in July organised by Ideasmatter.org.uk and the topic this year is “ What happened to the Future?” The Academy explores the history, philosophy, literature and sociology of our current moment. Topics such as ‘ the apocalyptic imagination, from religion to XR’ and transhumanism. On the suggested reading list is “ Martin Hagglund “ This Life. Why Mortality makes us free”. I’ve only got half way through but I find his arguments for secular faith electrifying. ( I’m probably one of the minority of subscribers who is not a Christian) but I’d love to know what others think of this work?
I once had an atheist friend ask me what would it take for me to drop my faith. I replied, "It would have to be proved that Jesus did not rise from the dead and at this stage of the game that isn't possible to do" I regard the resurrection of Jesus as the primal anomalous data point along with my own personal experience of his reality. But yes, if you don't accept and experience this, arguments for secular faith are quite valid.
Hi Mary,
I have not read This Life, but I looked it up and found a review of Hagglund’s book by David Chivers on TheHumanist.com. The following are quotes from This Life that I pulled from Chivers' essay. Below each quote are my own thoughts:
"Only someone who is finite can sense the miracle of being alive.”
How can Hagglund know this for sure? For example, Christians, who believe that life is not finite but eternal, experience life as a miracle. In fact, the definition of miracle is a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
“Religious faith holds that our ultimate aim should be to transcend the finitude we share. As a consequence, this life [his emphasis] is devalued.”
From the perspective of Christianity, this statement is faulty. Christians greatly value this life as divine gift. It is the Christians' ultimate aim to know, love, and serve God in this world, and be happy with Him forever in the next. To do this, we are to deny ourselves, to put God first, and to serve Him in others—all of which imbue this life with deep and beautiful meaning.
"Religion, by not recognizing that life is finite, causes people to 'misrecognize the suffering we seek to overcome.'
I am not sure if it is possible to "misrecognize" suffering. Everyone knows what suffering is when he experiences it and when he sees it. What does it mean to "overcome" suffering in a world where everything dies? Is this even possible? THAT sounds like someone who is aiming to "transcend" the finitude we share! Christians believe that when Jesus took on human flesh in the Incarnation, He forever redeemed human suffering. Therefore, suffering teaches us about God, about ourselves, and about our relationship with him. There is this intimate bond between the cross, the epitome of the sufferings of Christ, and the suffering of the people which is a participation in the self-same cross. Thus, Christianity makes it possible for suffering to be used for good rather than wasted.
By death, Christ conquered death. Just as Jesus was resurrected bodily from the dead, Christ will come again to resurrect all who died. When a Christian dies, he is “away from the body and at home with the Lord” until Christ’s return. Thus, death is now a mere threshold to more abundant life. When Christ comes again to judge the living and the dead, all who have died will be bodily resurrected, and those in Christ will be wholly, corporeally themselves.
Death is actually one of the reasons I believe in God. If nothing supernatural is involved in the existence of life, then why would everything have evolved to die? Why not evolve to never age? To regenerate? To cooperate rather than compete?
The other reason I believe in God is life. All living things exist without their decision or consent. We just happen. And our bodies work without our input. In fact, we have no control over our inner workings at all. What, then, IS life?
Thank you for your response. I’ve only finished Part 1 of the book. Hagglund is passionate about living a purposeful and caring life on earth. His devotion to this project is down to his sense of the fragility of life, and on his dependence on others. He takes issue with the premise that an eternal life such as is promised by religion is somehow superior. It reminded me of Paul’s U tube interview with Tom Holland. Tom is an atheist but intrigued by those who have faith. He asked Paul about how a Christian perceives all the so- called pagans in the world, or followers of other religions - are they not also to be ‘saved’ ? If so how? I don’t think this point was satisfactorily answered by Paul.
Hagglund doesn’t think there needs to be an ultimate end to serve God in order to lead a meaningful or moral life. For him it is precisely our shared finitude and fragility which form a sufficient basis on which to form a caring and free society. He goes as afar as to say that the ecological crisis can only be taken seriously from the standpoint of secular faith. If your ultimate goal is to achieve eternal life and salvation he certainly has a point - because why would you ultimately care what happens to the planet?
I don't know anything about Hagglund, but I'm familiar with this atheist argument in general. It relies on a lot of strawmen.
Christianity, for one, is precisely about 'living a purposeful and caring life on earth', and so are the other faiths I know about. It was Christians who pioneered hospitals, almshouses, charities, human rights and the abolition of slavery in the West. Strange behaviour for people who only care about 'the next life.' There are certainly some versions of Christianity that can give that impression, but it's nothing to do with the real thing.
As for 'the ecological crisis can only be taken seriously from the standpoint of secular faith' - that's a silly notion, and for the same reason. If you believe all of nature is a 'creation' - the creation of a God you claim to love and worship - and if you believe your purpose is to 'tend and keep' that creation, then everything else follows. From an atheist perspective, meanwhile, it would be easy enough to decide that, since the whole thing is just a meaningless collexction of matter, we might as well exploit the hell out of it.
In reality, of course, both religious and non-religious people are trashing the place, so it's hard to argue that either is 'superior' from that standpoint.
Tom Holland is a Christian, not an atheist, but he has questions (who doesn't?) In terms of who is 'saved': well, Christians have a clear view on this, and it comes from what Christ teaches. Christianity, like all religions I know of, teaches that we are alienated from God and need to turn around (the literal meaning of 'repent') and walk towards him again. Those who choose to live a life in denial of God, or in rejection of him, pay a price for that. In terms of followers of other religions: we could argue all day about what happens to those who don't recognise Christ, but in the end we don't know. I tend to just ignore the question and try getting on with the work.
I do agree that it is, in theory, possible, to lead 'a meaningful or moral life' without God up to a point. But I think the point usually wears out into nihilism. As for 'our shared finitude and fragility which form a sufficient basis on which to form a caring and free society': well, how? Perhaps he explains in the book. But I can't see that the fact we're all going to die is enough to bring anyone together. It certainly hasn't thus far.
Hi Paul. Yes, Tom Holland did say he was a Christian in the video but in the same way that I also feel like one, which is to say a ‘cultural Christian’. If I walk in the woods to find peace or to solve a problem I often find myself saying the Lords Prayer which was taught to me as a child. Likewise I can appreciate the Bible stories and certainly see the mystery of life in a hundred everyday ways. This is a far cry from considering the world as ‘meaningless matter’. But to go back to Hagglund’s philosophy which is partly based on Kierkegaard. The latter deemed real or living religious faith to entail the ability to sacrifice the finite for the eternal, as Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his beloved son, in the belief that he would eventually be saved. This resignation is the crux of the matter. Hagglund does offer a critique of capitalism and suggests working for democratic socialism in the last part which I have yet to read!
I'd say that's in some ways a good description of religion - scarificing the finite for the eternal. But in a way it's a good description of human culture too. Parents sacrifice for the future of their children, soldiers sacrifice for their nation, we might all sacrifice for the future of our country or community. But yes, 'religion' requires a belief in many other layers of reality, which is a belief I have always had.
Mary, I haven't read Hagglund but I read Kierkegaard quite differently. K's longing for union with truth, God, "the Eternal" is not about an exchange of the particular present for an afterlife or an abstraction -- as I read him, quite the reverse. The "knight of infinite resignation" gives up Hegelian longings and schemes for facing and embracing very particular commitments and risks in a value-laden world. Abraham's sacrifice, as K reads it, is not a cost-benefit calculation but resigning from, giving up such controlling, instumental reason in favor of faith. I can easily imagine such a knight using a prayer to silence a chattering mind in order to see, hear and inhabit the actual forest, life, calling from God before them. Hagglund may be exploring similar territory but the ancient Christian categories K offers us anew are Incarnation and Obedience -- states our Machine worshipping and gnostic culture flee like the plague but K reveals as a vital path. Best wishes.
Hi Mary. I share your feeling of being a 'cultural Christian' — nominally the culture I was brought up & sent to church in. But it has inspired no faith in me. Which isn't to say that I scorn faith in others or would deny that maybe it's all true. How would I know? I've simply never had religious faith. Any faith.
I definitely have a strong sense of right & wrong, but not sure where that comes from.
Paul says "those who choose to live a life in denial of God, or in rejection of him, pay a price for that." I ask: What about those who wouldn't dream of denying or rejecting anything, but have simply never felt any need to embrace it? Paul has said in youtube conversations that long before his conversion he felt the need to worship. That's perfectly fine with me; just that I never have.
Seems to me that some who call themselves Christians are in fact trying to feather their nest for an 'afterlife'. That too is a way of sacrificing the finite (or some of it at least) for the eternal.
So, are people like me (people who've merely never experienced faith — not preachers of faithlessness) going to "pay a price"? For what sin?
Seems to me that if you don't have faith and don't believe in 'sin' etc, then you don't have to worry about it! It's just some people with beliefs you don't share. I spent most of my life also not believing things like that. We all choose our paths and what we consider to be true. It does intrigue me that people seem to demand answers from Christians about a faith they don't believe in. Why bother?
Hi Rod, thank you for your thoughtful response, I would like to know the answer to that too!
In fact, a recognition that we all suffer and die may just as easily give rise to feelings of despair and hopelessness. Like you, I don't see that it has to date brought anyone together. What I do see is evidence that a lot of people are motivated to extend their personal finitude and limit their fragility as much as possible.
To possibly answer the last point Mary, the point is that the planet sustains human life and it is our duty as Christians to love all of humanity (and of course all sentient beings, dependent on the specifics of your chosen faith). To behave or live without care and compassion for the environment would be working against that, I would suggest.
The ecological crisis is a spiritual crisis. I don't see any way that the ecological problems will be solved as long as people are unwilling to take on their own impulses, which is where asceticism comes in. We have to say yes to less! I have a 260 pg PDF of quotes from early and modern Christians on the importance of creation. Beyond what creation provides us, we are also responsible for participating with God in its healing. Priests vs stewards. Unfortunately, most Christians, Orthodox included, do not pay any attention to this. It takes non-Christians to point out what should be intrinsic to our ethos.
Take for example, this article I read this morning from David Abram. This vision of reciprocity is just beautiful!
https://www.kosmosjournal.org/kj_article/98966/
Cheers!
I like that the Orthodox question "is this good for my salvation?" is much deeper than "am I in/am I out." I expect that if I were about to recklessly destroy a plot of land or commit an act of cruelty the answer would be, "no - this is not good for my salvation." In a sense, perhaps our lifelong treatment of everything and everyone around us is our singular commitment to Christ. A very, very long statement of faith.
Hey Blake, I'd love to see your 260pg PDF of quotes from Christians about the importance of creation. Is it possible to upload it somewhere?
You can email me at Gregory.palamine@protonmail.com.
I have a bunch of stuff I can send you.
This is beautiful. I feel like I need an anecdote for western Christianity and culture.
On that note, I'd like to explore the Orthodox church that is near me, but I don't know if it's the kind of place where I can just drop in. I've gone to nondenominational Christian churches since I graduated high school (grew up United Methodist otherwise), and I've reached a breaking point here.
I'd love to hear from anyone who has experienced coming to the Orthodox church from some other church background. I know Paul's story, of course, but I'd love to know more about the details of how you make that first step and how the church generally receives people like me.
If it's like any of the Orthodox churches I've been to, you can totally just drop in. You can be as involved or as uninvolved as you want. You can come and go as you please; it's not at all like the Western churches I grew up with, where the doors close when the service begins, like a theater, so you're then having to interrupt something by coming in late. It's very low key. People might say hi, they might not. Everybody's busy praying, they won't bother you.
My experience exactly upon going for the first time. Everyone was welcoming. It felt miles apart from Western churches (with a small 'c'). It felt like home, even though I didn't understand a word of Greek!
Rightly so. " In our Church it is always a wonderful mess"( Archbishop Justinian Chira)
Christ is Risen! Jared, I converted from Lutheranism to the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) in 2016. I don’t know where you live and thus what branch (e.g., Russian OC, Greek OC, Romanian OC...) is nearby, but you can always drop by. Caveat: Some ethnic churches serving recent immigrants may still use their native tongue and have other culture- specific practices that may confuse you. Best advice is to speak with the parish priest. I did that, and once I was at Vespers one evening, I was brought to tears, and the rest is history. I was Chrismated about a year later, and it has been quite a journey! In the OCA, most of the clergy, including some in seminary leadership roles are converts from Protestantism of one kind or another. Like life and death, becoming Orthodox is a process, at least it was for me. You will find your questions answered in due time, just trust in the Lord’s guidance and look to the testimonies of the saints, whose icons gaze back at us and beckon. Indeed He is risen!
Thank you! There is a church about a mile from my house that says it is part of the Orthodox Church of America, so I'm not sure where that would put them on the spectrum compared to Greek or Romanian iterations. All the same, I'm encouraged to reach out, so thank you!
Orthodox Church in America (OCA) usually does everything in English. We have largely gone to OCA churches. They tend to be smaller than Greek, Romanian, Antiochian, etc. churches. (Not always.) While the melodies differ among the types of churches, the services are pretty much the same across the board.
And going to an evening service rather than a Sunday morning service the first time may give you the quiet and prayerful introduction best. Sunday mornings can be overwhelming at first since it is usually quite a different sort of service than you are used to. Our OCA parish in Texas has no pews but we do have some chairs around the walls if standing gets too be too much (in time most people adjust). And we also have several parishioners who need wheeled devices to get around, so they can easily roll into any spot out in the middle. I love the Saturday evening vigil services, and many of us just come in when we can and leave when necessary. Staying the whole time is beautiful, though.
I was received into Orthodoxy through an Antiochian parish back in 1987; they used mostly English, with some Arabic, Greek, and even Russian, plus Romanian at Pascha. I’ve been in OCA parishes since 2001, and have visited a few other OCA churches and missions since then, and feel it is a appropriate balance of English language with Holy Tradition. One thing I haven’t seen discussed (may have missed it) in this thread is the benefit and blessing of Confession. It is VERY helpful to have that requirement and source of spiritual counsel. As with all the sacraments, it is a receiving of divine grace into our lives. Even just attending church services is to receive God’s grace. This is really a mystery, but the key to beginning to understand it is that Orthodoxy considers ‘grace’ to be God’s ‘uncreated energies’ being poured out into the world. This is why we bless items with holy water, anoint with oil, etc. All of creation becomes sacramental, and by acquiring God’s grace we slowly sanctify our lives. According to the beloved Russian saint, Seraphim of Sarov, this is the purpose of the Christian life, the acquisition of the Holy Spirit, of God’s uncreated grace. This is the meaning of the parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins waiting for the Bridegroom. Everything in the Orthodox Church may be understood in this way. May your journey be blessed!
We were Protestant refugees and found our way into the Orthodox Church 25 years ago this past Saturday. For us, it was a long road into Orthodoxy. We were initially somewhat horrified. (Is that Mary up front there?? When do we get to sit down? What’s going on?) We also visited a Greek-speaking church at first, which sadly was more about being Greek. But we persevered (eventually in an English-speaking church) and have never looked back.
My advice:
- Start with a Vespers service. It’s shorter and quieter. Fewer people, usually.
- Wear comfortable shoes. We stand a lot. If you get tired, sit. (Except during the reading of the Gospel and the Lord’s Prayer.) It can take a while to develop church feet.
- Don’t worry about “getting it right.” Nobody cares.
- Bishop Ware’s book “The Orthodox Way” is a good introduction. He was a convert, too.
God go with you.
Thank you so much! This is really helpful. Despite growing up in church, there's something a bit intimidating about going to an Orthodox church for the first time, but it's been on my mind for a long time, so God must be leading me there.
That's how I felt, but I went because God was leading me. I have never and will never look back. Go for it.
It's certainly intimidating going for the first time. I was mostly convinced by Orthodoxy for a year and a half before I even started going to services regularly. Don't waste time like me. Just go. If you're an introvert, don't feel obligated to talk to anyone right away. You'll meet people when you're ready.
Thank you! I'm planning to go this Sunday for the first time to check it out. There's an OCA church about a mile from my house that I'm going to try.
Just an update here for anyone who might see it: I went Sunday morning and felt a tad out of place (but not unwelcome), but that's sort of what I expected to feel. The comments here helped me to know what to expect, which did make me feel a lot more comfortable than I probably would have otherwise.
Right now I'm planning to go again this Sunday, and then at some point I will reach out the the priest.
Of course you can visit.. Just out of courtesy phone the priest and indicate when you want to attend a Divine Liturgy, or even just to be shown around the Church outside of a scheduled Divine Liturgy, if you have questions and queries. Have an open mind, the Orthodox Church features many things unfamiliar to those from a western Christian background, but nothing is random, all is explicable, and every aspect of the Orthodox Liturgy, Church design, and liturgical practice is derived from scriptural origins. I came to Orthodox Christianity from a Roman Catholic background, but I was fortunate to be welcomed, and my (many!) questions were answered.
Thank you! I wasn't sure whether just showing up on a Sunday morning would be the best path, so this helps to know.
Jared, I honestly feel it might be a fuller experience for you and indeed for those in the Parish, including the Parish Priest, if you approached the Church in a pre-arranged manner as suggested. Thus permitting introductory observations, personal introductions to other parish members, who may perhaps share things in common with you, and may be able to informally explain further things about the Orthodox Christian worship and our communities. Please do not expect effusiveness, or a "hard sell", this is not part of the Orthodox approach to Faith. Do not mistake this for indifference or "unfriendliness", remember that culturally Orthodox Christianity is quite distinct from prevailing western cultural norms, in particular behaviour derived from the dubious and superficial world of "marketing".
Thank you! I was thinking it wise to call the church first and set up something like this rather than just showing up. This is really good to know.
I would second what others have said—barring churches where they may not speak your language, it’s a walk-in situation. My present parish is very friendly, so someone would likely speak to you as a new face, but I have been to many parishes where nobody would approach you.
Definitely start with a vespers service if you want to see what an Orthodox church is like and get your bearings. It’s customary to stand, but it’s totally okay to sit if that makes you more comfortable; it is also okay to walk around and look at the icons, etc. If you do go to liturgy and someone offers you antidoron (blessed bread), it’s fine for you to eat it. 😉 It’s our way of welcoming guests, even if we don’t stop to chat.
Oh, and before and after services can be a hard time to chat with the priest, as there is usually a lot going on. Sometimes it may work out, but it’s often easier to schedule a time to talk if you get to that point. Godspeed on your journey!
I was baptized into the Antiochian Orthodox church last weekend on Lazarus Saturday, after 10 years as a Protestant. I found it intimidating at first because it's so active - all the bowing, metania, kissing things. But just give it a chance! You should 100% visit a church, and go several times. If you feel interested, follow that instinct. I'm part of a large church of mostly converts, with several of the clergy also being converts from Protestantism. Go for it!
He is risen indeed! We haven't seen His hands and side, yet we have faith in this reality.
My Lord and My God!
Indeed! He is risen! Glory to God!
Adevărat a înviat!
Love that when it all gets too much...we all spend time together with a brewed something and perhaps sing!