Posted on 03/22/2002 4:04:11 PM PST by Wordsmith
Long before the schism, in about 500 A.D. comes the seminal work Cloud of Unknowing along with it's companion, Privy Counsel. These, I'm sure are quite recognizable by today's Orthodox and still form, IMO, the foundation for contemplative Christian practice today.
The basic contemplative practice of Benedictine and Cistercian monks is Lectio Divina - prayer stages moving from discursive to contemplative. This practice can follow the Rule of St Benedict (5th Century.) These practices however, some say, became rigid (isn't that the way with all systemitized practice?)
Much of the West's contemplative schools were centered in monasteries, and I've learned recently the differences in monasticism viewed from the East, thanks to the Reader David.
An interesting, though quite new, prayer practice that aims to build upon the foundation of Lectio Divina and rejuevenate the contemplative in the West is called Centering Prayer. You can browse more of both here.
And, lastly, one of my favorites is Brother Lawrence's The Practice of the Presence of God, though it's from a couple of centuries after the schism.
Something that has stayed with me the last few years, and I believe applies to the topic, was a bit of advice from the RCIA director here. She told me that some are created to be contemplative; some (likely most) are not. Yet each has something to give the other, each is of value in the completion of our true self, part of the body of Christ. And she told me that what I gained in silence should be shared in community, and vice-versa for those whose knowledge and aptitude was of a different nature.
Realizing this has made a great deal of difference in how I view my brothers and sisters. I think I'll be forgiven if I apply it as an analogy to the West and East.
I do realize that underneath it all is the un-namable indescribable, and I value this level of non-theological theology most highly; we listen to God by using our heart not head. But theology has it value for others, I cannot, and should not judge those whose contemplation may be different or transparent to me.
I will be gone 'til late Sunday, will visit again then; and I wish you and all here peace…
It's as if they imagine that preConstantine Christians wore three-piece suits and crewcuts.
The Orthodox clergy, with their beards and robes, probably most resemble in dress the clergy of the preConstantine Church.
I would wager that the dispersed leadership model of the Orthodox is one of the things that's allowed them to persevere. The activity of the Patriarch of Constantinople was severely curtailed when the Ottomans captured the Empire. Likewise the Patriarch of Moscow when the Bolsheviks took power.
I don't think that many in the West can fathom what would have happened to, say, the Catholic Church if Rome fell to the Muslims before modern communications and the Pope was forced to live under the equivalent of house arrest. That's pretty much what happened to most of the Orthodox.
LOL! I've just discovered as much recently on the Neverending Story thread. What's odd is that I am unfortunately very familiar with true paganism. My wife went through a long period as a practitioner of "neopaganism" before we came to the Church. To anyone who understands what paganism actually is, it is impossible to confuse it with Christianity - no matter how many smells and how many bells.
And then on another level, all worship has its common characteristics. So if you try hard enough, you can associate not only Sacramental faith, but any faith, with paganism.
An Evangelical was posting at length about the paganism of devotion to Mary. I tried to show him how it's just as easy to find pagan parallels to worship of Christ. But I doubt the message got through.
Thanks, didn't realize this came so early. I'll have to peek at it again. Have a blessed weekend!
If you’ll take a minute to read Clark Carlton’s essay From First Baptist to the First Century you might be impressed by his observation that (consistent with Peter 1:20: no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation) we are called not to interpret scripture, but to be intepreted by it.
Here’s a brief selection from his essay, which I recommend highly:
"I did not realize at the time that the Bible I held had become in fact an idol, an idol that I myself controlled. An infallible book is only useful if you have an infallible interpreter, which is where the Baptist doctrine of “soul-competency” came in. As an individual, I was that interpreter, the sole arbiter of what the Bible did and did not mean. The Reformation did not do away with the medieval Papacy and all of its pretensions, it merely democratized it and made everyone Pope! So there I was, an eighteen-year-old, pontificating on the correct interpretation of Scripture..."
"I also made a passing shot at the historical Church when I decried the tyranny of dogmatic formulae: “Our heritage upholds the concept that each believer is free to explore for himself the mysteries contained in God’s Word, and not to be bound by meaningless creeds and denominational directives.”"
"I did not know anything about church history, about why the creeds were drafted, or even about what they affirmed. All I knew was that the very idea of a creed was “un-Baptist,” and therefore wrong. Of course, the slogan “No creed but Christ” is a creed, but that did not occur to me at the time..."
"Without question, however, the single most important book involved in my conversion to Holy Orthodoxy was John Zizioulas’ Being as Communion. This is also probably the most difficult book I have ever read... "
"What I learned from Zizioulas is that my own being as well as the being of the Church is inextricably tied up with the being of God Himself-but not simply with the fact that God exists and that I derive my existence from Him. Rather it is tied up with the way God exists, His mode of existence. For the first time I read that God is not an individual. If God exists, it is not because He is Necessary Being, but because He eternally begets His Son and breathes forth His Spirit in an unbroken communion of absolute love and self-giving. To say that God is love (1 John 4:16) is not to describe an attribute of God but to define His very being; it is to affirm that He is the Father Who exists by the total gift of Himself to His Son and His Spirit. “In this manner the ancient world heard for the first time that it is communion that makes things ‘be’: nothing exists without it, not even God.”"
"The necessary conclusion from such an understanding of God is that the individual, that ultimate concern of Protestantism, ontologically cannot exist. Individualism is the denial of being, the content of which is love. ...In true Freudian fashion, I had taken my own fragmented, individualistic nature, endowed it with a host of superlative attributes, and called it “God.”..."
"All my life I had been told that “sin had left a crimson stain” and that “nothing but the blood” could make me clean again because “there is power in the blood.” There was nothing I could add because “Jesus paid it all,” and if I would “only trust Him” “one glad morning” I would “fly away.” I knew all this and believed all this, yet there were questions just under the surface irritating my tidy, little faith. When I got right down to it, the sin of Adam really did not seem to merit the punishment of eternal perdition and the bliss of heaven did not seem worth the price that had to be paid. In other words, hell sounded unreasonable and heaven sounded boring. The problem was that in my evangelical Protestant theology, sin, righteousness, heaven, and hell were all essentially unrelated to my own being. Sin was a stain on my record that the blood of Jesus washed away (if I claimed it!); righteousness was a credit that God placed in my account because of my faith; heaven was a place of bliss where the “saved” would spend eternity; and hell was a place of torment where those who had rejected Christ would roast forever. All of these things impended on my life, of course, but only tangentially; they really had nothing to do with who I am."
"I could not help but wonder why Adam’s sin should have such eternal consequences. Could it be that God is so proud and egotistical that His honor could really be offended by the sins of mortal men? What is sin, anyway? Is it the breaking of a law, the transgression of a code of ethics? I was not satisfied with the “satisfaction theory” of the atonement, and, not being a Lutheran, I was not particularly keen on blaming everything on the insatiable wrath of God...."
"I discovered, however, that sin is not the mere breaking of a rule, but is nothing less than the denial of love and, therefore, of life itself. When I discovered the Trinity, I also discovered the true nature of man, for man was created in the image of this God of Triune love. Man was created precisely as a personal being, one who is truly human only when he loves and is loved. Sin-“missing the mark”-is not a moral shortcoming or a failure to live up to some external code of behavior, but rather the failure to realize life as love and communion. As Christos Yannaras puts it, “The fall arises out of man’s free decision to reject personal communion with God and restrict himself to the autonomy and self-sufficiency of his own nature.” In other words, sin is the free choice of individual autonomy. Irony of ironies: that which I had been touting all of these years as the basis of true religion-the absolute autonomy of the individual-turned out to be the Original Sin!"
"An individual is not a person, but rather the antithesis of personhood and the denial of life. From this perspective, sin is repulsive to God not because it “offends His honor,” but because it is the denial of life itself, which is His gift to man. It is, in the final analysis, the denial of God’s image in man and of God Himself. What makes sin so tragic is that it is self-destructive. God hates sin not because of what it does to Him, but because of what it does to man. Sin is not a blotch on my record, but in the words of Fr. Thomas Hopko, an “act of metaphysical suicide.”"
"Human beings can be “individuals” if they choose, with all kinds of “relationships.” But if they do so chose, to use the language of the Bible, they choose death, and not life; the curse and not the blessing (Deuteronomy 30:19). They destroy themselves in the act of metaphysical suicide in their self-contained and self-interested isolation which is the very image of hell."
Thank you for this post. This is so lovely and inspiring.
Check my profile for an excerpt from "Facing East" which I cherish.
Highly recommended. Thanks very much for this thread. I am vitally interested in questions of dialogue with the east. Though we have significant differences, I am filled with admiration for your doctrine of theosis and freedom grounded in the resurrection. I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to some of the Orthodox complaints about Roman overreaching, though at the same time I do believe the Orthodox are missing much in not embracing the Apostolic See as a much-needed sign of visible unity and reliable source of doctrinal authority. I'm convinced that unity will not be achieved by returning to 1054, but by going forward, guided by the Holy Spirit.
Now, do you want to hear a funny thing? Though I discovered the Eastern Church as an offshoot of my interest in Late Antiquity and Church history, much of my recent guidance in Orthodoxy has come from an Episcopalian priest who'll probably never swim the Bosporus, but probably would secretly like to do so.
I hope this thread prospers, and look forward to visiting often.
I agree completely. To be honest, as a convert I don't share the visceral distrust of Roman Catholicism that I have encountered in some Orthodox. But at the same time, I treasure the faith more than life itself - well, it is life itself - and thus am at times on guard because of the "Borg-like" reputation that often proceeds Rome. "You will be assimilated." :)
There is likely much that we can and should learn from each other. And thank God in America we can come together to discuss and to work for common causes without being threatened by the State.
Another reason that I think the environment of America is crucial to our coming to understand each other better is because of the unique American attitude of looking to the future. As Americans, we have a natural inclination to consider new answers. And the questions the Catholics and Orthodox face in America are so similar.
How to balance concepts of obedience and freedom?
How to maintain the strength of our faith without isolating ourselves from the common culture? How to draw on the lessons of monasticism to inspire a post-sexual revolution world?
How to reach out to seekers who are comfortable with mysticism because of various New Age and Oriental spiritual influences in a language they can understand, without compromising the unique Truth of the Gospel?
And on and on.
Let us not be weary in welldoing; for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. - Gal. 6:9
I'm afraid that I may have introduced my own bugbear into this discussion. When I mentioned problems between the Serbs, Bulgars, and Romanians, I was referring to political differences, not divisions in their Orthodoxy.
Wouldn't it be much easier to have a "point man"? I know you have the Patriarch that is "First Among Equals" (Alexii?) but that doesn't seem to help much.
You are thinking of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholemew. Actually, some of the actions by the Patriarchate of Constantinople during recent (80+) years remind us that placing too much authority into the hands of a single man creates a whole new set of problems in and of itself.
To understand the Orthodox way a little more, consider that it is only those things upon which we all agree that is considered correct.
Our biggest challenge today is in America where some who try to call themselves Orthodox embrace the worst that the Western Church has to offer, i.e. theology by democratic vote, disdain for tradition, "tolerance" of sins such as homosexuality. They are Orthodox in name only.
Don't get all over me, I'm not debating, just asking questions.
Isn't it sad that you have to ask people to be polite on a Christian thread? Of course you're just asking questions! That's how we all acquire knowledge. I'm not offended by the question, especially when the person asking knows how to be civil.
On the other hand, I guess the Orthodox deal much more with nationality differences?
That's where the "division" of the national churches comes in, particularly in the Balkans. Having the national Churches insures that the individual Church will not be seen as being controlled from afar or as serving the purposes of another earthly state.
Beautiful, thank you!
We're also homeschoolers of our 3 boys, and former Nubian keepers as well. Lord willing, we'll be buying land later this year. Horsekeeping is my wife's newfound calling. St. Mamas! Great reminder, hadn't thought of him in a long time, since reading "Animals and Man."
O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our little brothers to whom thou hast given this earth as their home in common with us. May we realize that they live not for us alone, but for themselves and for thee, and that they love the sweetness of life even as we, and serve thee better in their place than we in ours. – St. Basil the Great
Would you say that the actions of Ecumenical Patriarch over recent years have been the main cause of the continuing jurisdictional divisions in America? I'm not an expert on SCOBA or the Church politics of the matter, but it seems that a lack of willingness on the part of Constantinople to relinquish power to a independent American Orthodox Church has played a big part in keeping us fractured.
Generally, you'll find that most of the Orthodox 'distrust of Roman Catholicism' is focused on the Church hierarchy. That's certainly true for me but I distrust hierarchies and bureaucracies in general seeing how they often come around to doing that which insures their own power and growth first and foremost.
Of course, there are some Orthodox who define their Orthodoxy by their anti-Roman statements, a very short-sighted approach.
Gee, I hope this remains a polite discussion and no one jumps in trying to set all of the rest of us straight!
I would say that some of those actions are the single largest contributor to the continuing divisions.
I'm a member of a Serbian parish that is now under the OCA. I've come to recognize that the OCA is the heir, if you will, to the claim as being the original Orthodox Church established here in America. Since they have been given autonomy by their mother Church in Moscow, it certainly appears that they have met all the requirements to be recognized as THE Orthodox Church in America.
An incredible passage, thanks for posting it. I'm adding ANOTHER book to my reading list. I'm still trying to fathom OSAS, and the above seems to sum it up nicely.
From this perspective, sin is repulsive to God not because it “offends His honor,” but because it is the denial of life itself, which is His gift to man. It is, in the final analysis, the denial of God’s image in man and of God Himself. What makes sin so tragic is that it is self-destructive. God hates sin not because of what it does to Him, but because of what it does to man.
A wiser person than I (on FR) summed this up as "sin is choosing or listening to "me" rather than choosing and listening to God.
Thanks for this thread, I like it here! Though some might disagree, I think the East and the West have much to offer and learn from one another. Maybe we can fix the schism ourselves. ;-)
I'm inclined to agree, although I've never been a member of an OCA parish. I will if my relocation works out. Certainly, it was the Russians who got the ball rolling in Alaska. We have icons of St. Innocent, St. Herman, and St. Yakov on our icon corner. I would wager that many, if not most, Antiochians would go along, especially since we both do our services entirely in English. Now about those Greeks... :)
Given the understanding and knowledge of Orthodoxy by non Orthodox, it'd be hard to straighten out what is not understood! A good thing, at least on this thread. I'm looking forward to learning and discussing and not defending (to the degree of argument). It's tough to grow in faith when fighting over words. I love that we all love the Blessed Virgin Mary here and therefore, she is not a point of contention among us.
Off to basketball for the kids, have a wonderful day, all!
Here's a couple of passages from Orthodox teacher Stanley Harakas as a starting point:
“The Church grants "ecclesiastical divorces" on the basis of the exception given by Christ to his general prohibition of the practice. The Church has frequently deplored the rise of divorce and generally sees divorce as a tragic failure. Yet, the Orthodox Church also recognizes that sometimes the spiritual well-being of Christians caught in a broken and essentially nonexistent marriage justifies a divorce, with the right of one or both of the partners to remarry. Each parish priest is required to do all he can to help couples resolve their differences. If they cannot, and they obtain a civil divorce, they may apply for an ecclesiastical divorce in some jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church. In others, the judgment is left to the parish priest when and if a civilly divorced person seeks to remarry. Those Orthodox jurisdictions which issue ecclesiastical divorces require a thorough evaluation of the situation, and the appearance of the civilly divorced couple before a local ecclesiastical court, where another investigation is made. Only after an ecclesiastical divorce is issued by the presiding bishop can they apply for an ecclesiastical license to remarry. ...”
“The Orthodox Church remains faithful to the biblical and traditional norms regarding premarital sexual relations between men and women. The only appropriate and morally fitting place for the exercise of sexual relations, according to the teachings of the Church, is marriage. The moral teaching of the Church on this matter has been unchanging since its foundation. In sum, the sanctity of marriage is the cornerstone of sexual morality. The whole range of sexual activity outside marriage - fornication, adultery and homosexuality - are thus seen as not fitting and appropriate to the Christian way of life. Like the teaching on fornication, the teachings of the Church on these and similar issues have remained constant. Expressed in Scripture, the continuing Tradition of the Church, the writings of the Church Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils and the canons, these views have been restated by theologians, hierarchs and local Orthodox churches in our own day. …”
“The possible exception to the above affirmation of continuity of teaching is the view of the Orthodox Church on the issue of contraception. Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.