How an Icon Brought a Calvinist to Orthodoxy: A Journey to Orthodoxy

christianity.com ^ | Robert K. Arakaki

[MarMema]

Hopefully you can forgive me one more set of quotes in attempting to present my point.

An Evangelical Appraisal

"One Orthodox historian has said that the Orthodox have more in common with evangelicals than with Catholics. Do you agree?"

"In many ways, yes. First, the Orthodox place Scripture at the forefront of their faith. Tradition for them is a handing down of things entrusted to the church, and Scripture is the primary thing entrusted to the church. They regard tradition as an interpretation of Scripture, not as an independent source of religious truth."

"Furthermore, great emphasis is placed on the person of Christ, on his work and on the mystery of his Incarnation and Resurrection."

And then there is always old time favorite in case you have not seen it.

[drstevej]

***They regard tradition as an interpretation of Scripture, not as an independent source of religious truth.***

Parallel (Constitution & the Bible):

Protestants argue for original intent, the Orthodox argue for a living document.

[jude24]

Not the same old tired Filioque contraversy...

(For those not familiar with the topic, here's the question: who sent the Holy Spirit? Was the Holy Spirit sent by the Father alone, or was He sent by the Son, too? The phrase "filioque" comes from the Latin for "the Son as well.")

Personally, I belive that the Holy Spirit was sent by the Father and the Son.

Jn 14:26 - "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."

Jn 15:26 - "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,"

Definately a prima facie case for the Filioque position. But its not a hill I'd die on as a Western Christian; I never understood the Eastern emphasis on it.

[TexConfederate1861]

Actually, it is Fr. John Whiteford now, and he pastors a small RCOR church in North Houston.

I have met him, and spoken to him on the phone often, and he is a great guy, and a powerful theologian.

[TexConfederate1861]

You know I have the greatest respect for you, but believe me when I say that we will offend PLENTY of Romans and Protestants when we speak or write the TRUTH. I decided long ago, that I would defend Orthodoxy to the bitter end, regardless, and if they are offended, Oh Well! Truth is Truth! And I KNOW Fr. John Whiteford, and he is a great priest, and a very learned theologian.

[Conservative til I die]

This account rings hollow. I doubt whether he understood Calvinism.

Yeah, that's it. He must have been an idiot, that's why he left the Calvinist doctrines behind.

[Conservative til I die]

What part of Sola Scriptura did this fellow miss?

The poor schnook must have been reading the Bible, you know, that place where Sola Scriptura is *not* found?

[NYer]

What did Jesus look like? Amazingly, there is no description of Him in the New Testament or in any contemporary source.  Yet, in hundreds of icons, paintings, mosaics, drawings and coins, there is a common quality that enables us to identify Jesus in works of art. Shroud scholar and historian Ian Wilson theorizes that a common set of facial characteristics became the norm following the discovery of the Edessa Cloth concealed in the city's walls in 544 CE. 

Apparent Shroud-inspired images of Christ are noticeable on coins struck in 692 CE during the reign of the Byzantine emperor Justinian II. The distinctive front-facing appearance of Jesus on the Shroud is also found on numerous icons, mosaics and frescos from the sixth century on. The most startling example is the Christ Pantocrator icon at Saint Catherine's Monastery, reliably dated to 550 CE. 

the 1930's, French Shroud scholar Paul Vignon described a series of common characteristics visible in many early artistic depictions of Jesus. The Vignon marking, as they are known, all appear on the Shroud suggesting that it is the source of later pictures of Jesus.
 

• A square U-shape  between the eyebrows. 
• A downward pointing triangle or V-shape just below the U-shape, on the bridge of the nose.
• Two wisps of hair going downward and then to the right.
• A raised right eyebrow. 
• Large, seemingly "owlish" eyes. This may be the result of coins placed over the eyes.
• An accent on the left cheek and an accent on the right cheek that is somewhat lower.
• A forked beard. Dr. Whanger (see below) has suggested that this may the result of a chin band tied around the head to keep the mouth closed.
• An enlarged left nostril. 
• An accent line below the nose and a dark line just below the lower lip. 
• A gap in the beard below the lower lip. 
• Hair on one side of the head that is shorter than on the other side.
  

  
  Christ Pantocrator, c. 1200 from dome of Church at Cefalu, Sicily. 

  
  Computerized overlay of the Shroud of Turin facial image and the Christ Pantocrator icon from St. Catherine's Monastery (550 CE). Images were scaled to the same size and shifted horizontally and vertically for alignment. No changes were made in the vertical to horizontal ratios.

  
  This image is a computerized density average of the negative of the face and the Pantocrator icon above. The high degree of symmetry is best seen by changing the relative averaging weights of each picture which you can do with a Java Applet that runs in your web browser.

  See For Yourself at this link.

[Conservative til I die]

If you think Catholics have more in common with the Calvinists than with the Orthodox you are absolutely insane.

[Conservative til I die]

LOL, what a bunch of unmitigated crap.

[George W. Bush]

I just saw the bump to this thread after having written a FRmail to MarMema that touches on some of these issues of how I understand the differences between Rome and Orthodox and Protestants and Baptists.

Well, I'll have to read and post on this thread as well. But my fingers are wore out for now.

And I did try to stare at Destro's picture of an icon for a twenty or thirty seconds but it just didn't give me further strength to type a response just yet. ; ).

Maybe Baptists are too hardnosed for the icons to do us much good.

[Salvation]

Beautiful narrative.

[Frumanchu]

Well, that explains what attracted you to the conversation.

Flies are not known to wait for invitations to buzz around.

[Destro]

The Edessa Cloth concealed in the city's walls in 544 CE is I am assuming also the Mandelion, which vanished after the sack of Constantinople by the Latin Crusaders.

As for the Shroud of Turin, it may be authentic or it is probably an artistic recreation of the actual Mandelion, the way blessed icons are copied ad infinitum. The icon of the Virgin Mary was said to have been painted by St. Luke himself and from his hand do the representations of Mary come down to us copied over and over again.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The extreme Orthodox argument is that the filioque makes us into atheists, since we do not then, know God. Its not hard to find language to this effect among their apologetics.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Furthermore, great emphasis is placed on the person of Christ, on his work and on the mystery of his Incarnation and Resurrection.

These sort of anti-Catholic slurs (as if we place Blessed Mary above or in front of Christ) are what make me doubt the sincerity of some Orthodox. Its a Jack Chick caricature with no basis in reality.

[FormerLib]

Would this work for you?

[FormerLib]

How about Jaroslav Pelikan becoming Orthodox?

[FormerLib]

The poor schnook must have been reading the Bible, you know, that place where Sola Scriptura is *not* found?

Dang, you beat me to it!

[Hermann the Cherusker]

We might be tempted perhaps to join with Protestants in our emphasis on revelation rather than reason or evidence

This is an utter misreading and misunderstanding of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics and Catholicism. Reason and evidence are put at the service of revelation, to unfold it for the human mind so that the intellect might grasp it. Reason is not a parallel path to divine knowledge seperate from revelation. St. Thomas Aquinas did not begin to write until he had first memorized the Sacred Scriptures.

One good place to start is the relationship between the mind and the heart. It was the medieval scholastics led by the Dominicans who had first begun the grand enterprise of Reason, namely, to discern and confirm the great purposes of God using the faculties of the human mind.

This is a significant misreading of the purposes of the Scholastics. Their treatises were at the disposal of charity - the love of God. It is the virtue of charity and the eternal happiness of man that is caused by charity that are at the center of the Summa Theologica, NOT reason or even faith. If there is one simple message to take away from Scholasticism, it is St. Augustine's dictum: "None can love what he does not know." The will to love God presupposes the ability of the intellect to accept the faith, so that the heart has an object for its affection.

Enter now Orthodoxy, a quite different idea, or one should say, a different ascetical practice, now largely forgotten in the West. In the highest work of Man, prayer, the mind descends into the heart. There, the mind remains in tact, still active and functioning; but in the heart it listens to a Song wider and deeper than its own reasoning, the murmuring of the Holy Spirit who reveals the Living Word, Christ-God, whom it must worship before it understands.

Far from being forgotten, this is a good description of the meditative prayer of the Most Holy Rosary.

This understanding combines all that is good and noble in the human and natural sciences, not in an "easy" humanism that would sell its Christianity for acceptance by the world, but in a new synthesis, the transfiguration of all that is human by the Word and Power of God.

This is PRECISELY the purpose of Scholasticism and of St. Thomas' Summa. The Summa pre-supposes deification.

It is written: "In Thy light we shall see light" (Ps. 35:10).

I answer that, Everything which is raised up to what exceeds its nature, must be prepared by some disposition above its nature; as, for example, if air is to receive the form of fire, it must be prepared by some disposition for such a form. But when any created intellect sees the essence of God, the essence of God itself becomes the intelligible form of the intellect. Hence it is necessary that some supernatural disposition should be added to the intellect in order that it may be raised up to such a great and sublime height. Now since the natural power of the created intellect does not avail to enable it to see the essence of God, as was shown in the preceding article, it is necessary that the power of understanding should be added by divine grace. Now this increase of the intellectual powers is called the illumination of the intellect, as we also call the intelligible object itself by the name of light of illumination. And this is the light spoken of in the Apocalypse (Apoc. 21:23): "The glory of God hath enlightened it"--viz. the society of the blessed who see God. By this light the blessed are made "deiform"--i.e. like to God, according to the saying: "When He shall appear we shall be like to Him, and [Vulg.: 'because'] we shall see Him as He is" (1 Jn. 2:2). ...

This light is required to see the divine essence, not as a similitude in which God is seen, but as a perfection of the intellect, strengthening it to see God. Therefore it may be said that this light is to be described not as a medium in which God is seen, but as one by which He is seen; and such a medium does not take away the immediate vision of God.

The disposition to the form of fire can be natural only to the subject of that form. Hence the light of glory cannot be natural to a creature unless the creature has a divine nature; which is impossible. But by this light the rational creature is made deiform, as is said in this article. (Summa Theologica, Pt. I, Q. 12, Art. 5)

Eternal life consists in the vision of God, according to Jn. 17:3: "This is eternal life, that they may know Thee the only true God," etc. Therefore if all saw the essence of God equally in eternal life, all would be equal; the contrary to which is declared by the Apostle: "Star differs from star in glory" (1 Cor. 15:41).

I answer that, Of those who see the essence of God, one sees Him more perfectly than another. This, indeed, does not take place as if one had a more perfect similitude of God than another, since that vision will not spring from any similitude; but it will take place because one intellect will have a greater power or faculty to see God than another. The faculty of seeing God, however, does not belong to the created intellect naturally, but is given to it by the light of glory, which establishes the intellect in a kind of "deiformity," as appears from what is said above, in the preceding article.

Hence the intellect which has more of the light of glory will see God the more perfectly; and he will have a fuller participation of the light of glory who has more charity; because where there is the greater charity, there is the more desire; and desire in a certain degree makes the one desiring apt and prepared to receive the object desired. Hence he who possesses the more charity, will see God the more perfectly, and will be the more beatified. (Summa Theologica, Pt. I, Q. 12, Art. 6)

Nothing can act beyond its species, since the cause must always be more powerful than its effect. Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness, as it is impossible that anything save fire should enkindle. (Summa Theologica, Pt I-II, Q. 112, Art. 1)

It is written (Jn. 3:8): "The Spirit breatheth where He will," and (1 Cor. 12:11): "All these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as He will." Therefore charity is given, not according to our natural capacity, but according as the Spirit wills to distribute His gifts.

I answer that, The quantity of a thing depends on the proper cause of that thing, since the more universal cause produces a greater effect. Now, since charity surpasses the proportion of human nature, as stated above (2) it depends, not on any natural virtue, but on the sole grace of the Holy Ghost Who infuses charity. Wherefore the quantity of charity depends neither on the condition of nature nor on the capacity of natural virtue, but only on the will of the Holy Ghost Who "divides" His gifts "according as He will." Hence the Apostle says (Eph. 4:7): "To every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the giving of Christ."

The virtue in accordance with which God gives His gifts to each one, is a disposition or previous preparation or effort of the one who receives grace. But the Holy Ghost forestalls even this disposition or effort, by moving man's mind either more or less, according as He will. Wherefore the Apostle says (Col. 1:12): "Who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light."

The form does not surpass the proportion of the matter. On like manner grace and glory are referred to the same genus, for grace is nothing else than a beginning of glory in us. (Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 24, Art. 3)

The Summa is really a ladder of ascent, beginning with our knowledge of the Holy Trinity, His creation of us, the abilities of our natural power versus God's supernatural end for us, our need for the grace of the Holy Spirit, and grace's causing of infused virtue, virtue's action to mitigate our vices, the coming of Christ and our participation in Him by the Sacraments, and our final glorification.

In this synthesis of Holy Orthodoxy there are no battles between Faith and Reason, between Heart and Mind, between Religion and Science, between the individual and the community. All are one in God and this unity extends from humanity to the whole Cosmos.

The same holds for Catholicism. The battle of "Science and Religion" is a battle of scientific investigation freed from the moorings of God versus revealed truth. Same with the battle of "faith and reason".

Now reason, does indeed when it seeks persistently, piously and soberly, achieve by God's gift some understanding, and that most profitable, of the mysteries, whether by analogy from what it knows naturally, or from the connexion of these mysteries with one another and with the final end of humanity; but reason is never rendered capable of penetrating these mysteries in the way in which it penetrates those truths which form its proper object. For the divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity, as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, and not by sight.

Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. (First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith)