Faith and Culture

From: "Christianity and Culture"

by Fr. George Florovsky

We are living in a changed and changing world. This cannot be denied even by those in our midst who may be unwilling or unprepared to change themselves, who want to linger in the age that is rapidly passing away. But nobody can evade the discomfort of belonging to a world in transition. If we accept the traditional classification of historical epochs into "organic" and "critical," there is no doubt that our present age is a critical age, an age of crisis, an age of unresolved tensions. One hears so often in our days about the "End of Our Time," about the "Decline of the West," about "Civilization on Trial," and the like. It is even suggested sometimes that probably we are now passing through the "Great Divide," through the greatest change in the history of our civilization, which is much greater and more radical than the change from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, or from the Middle Ages to the Modern Times. If it is true at all, as it was contended by Hegel, that "history is judgment" (Die Weltgeschichte ist Weltgericht), there are some fateful epochs, when history not only judges, but, as it were, sentences itself to doom. We are persistently reminded by experts and prophets that civilizations rise and decay, and there is no special reason to expect that our own civilization should escape this common fate. If there is any historical future at all, it may well happen that this future is reserved for another civilization, and probably for one which will be quite different from ours.

It is quite usual in our days, and indeed quite fashionable, to say that we are already dwelling in a "Post-Christian world" — whatever the exact meaning of this pretentious phrase may actually be — in a world which, subconsciously or deliberately, "retreated" or seceded from Christianity. "We live in the ruins of civilizations, hopes, systems, and souls." Not only do we find ourselves at the cross-roads, at which the right way seems to be uncertain, but many of us would also question whether there is any safe road at all, and any prospect of getting on. Does not indeed our civilization find itself in an impasse out of which there is no exit, except at the cost of explosion? Now, what is the root of the trouble? What is the primary or ultimate cause of this imminent and appalling collapse? Is it just "the failure of nerve," as it is sometimes suggested, or rather a "sickness to death," a disease of the spirit, the loss of faith? There is no common agreement on this point. Yet, there seems to be considerable agreement that our cultural world has been somehow disoriented and decentralized, spiritually and intellectually disoriented and disorganized, so that no over-arching principle has been left which can keep the shifting elements together. As Christians, we can be more emphatic and precise. We would contend that it is precisely the modern Retreat from Christianity, at whatever exact historical date we may discern its starting point, that lies at the bottom of our present crisis. Our age is, first of all, an age of unbelief, and for that reason an age of uncertainty, confusion, and despair. There are so many in our time who have no hope precisely because they lost all faith.

We should not make such statements too easily, however, and have to caution ourselves at least on two points. First, the causes and motives of this obvious "retreat" were complex and manifold, and the guilt cannot be shifted exclusively onto those who have retreated. In Christian humility, the faithful should not exonerate themselves unconditionally, and should not dispense too summarily with the responsibility for the failures of others. If our culture, which we used, rather complacently, to regard as Christian, disintegrates and falls to pieces, it only shows that the seed of corruption was already there. Secondly, we should not regard all beliefs as constructive by themselves, and should not welcome every faith as an antidote against doubt and disruption. It may be perfectly true, as sociologists contend, that cultures disintegrate when there is no inspiring incentive, no commanding conviction. But it is the content of faith that is decisive, at least from the Christian point of view. The chief danger in our days is that there are too many conflicting "beliefs." The major tension is not so much between "belief" and "un-belief" as precisely between rival beliefs. Too many "strange Gospels" are preached, and each of them claims total obedience and faithful submission; even science poses sometimes as religion. It may be true that the modern crisis can be formally traced back to the loss of convictions. It would be disastrous, however, if people rallied around a false banner and pledged allegiance to a wrong faith. The real root of the modern tragedy does not lie only in the fact that people lost convictions, but that they deserted Christ.

Now, when we speak of a "crisis of culture," what do we actually mean? The word "culture" is used in various senses, and there is no commonly accepted definition. On the one hand, "culture" is a specific attitude or orientation of individuals and of human groups, by which we distinguish the "civilized" society from the "primitive." It is at once a system of aims and concerns, and a system of habits. On the other hand, "culture" is a system of values, produced and accumulated in the creative process of history, and tending to obtain a semi-independent existence, i.e. independent of that creative endeavor which originated or discovered these values." The values are manifold and divers, and probably they are never fully integrated into one coherent whole — polite manners and mores, political and social institutions, industry and sanitation, ethics, art and science, and so on. Thus, when we speak of the crisis of culture, we usually imply a dis-integration in one of these two different, if related, systems, or rather in both of them. It may happen that some of the accepted or alleged values are discredited and compromised, i.e. cease to function and no longer appeal to men. Or, again, it happens sometimes that "civilized man" themselves degenerate or even disappear altogether, that cultural habits become unstable, and men lose interest in or concern for these habits, or are simply tired of them. Then an urge for "primitivism" may emerge, if still within the framework of a lingering civilization. A civilization declines when that creative impulse which originally brought it into existence loses its power and spontaneity. Then the question arises, whether "culture" is relevant to the fulfillment of man’s personality, or is no more than an external garb which may be needed on occasions, but which does not organically belong to the essence of human existence. It obviously does not belong to human nature, and we normally clearly distinguish between "nature" and "culture," implying that "culture" is man’s "artificial" creation which he superimposes on "nature," although it seems that in fact we do not know human nature apart from culture, from some kind of culture at least. It may be contended that "culture" is not actually "artificial," that it is rather an extension of human nature, an extension by which human nature achieves its maturity and completion, so that an "under-cultural" existence is in fact a "sub-human" mode of existence. Is it not true that a "civilized" man is more human than a "primitive" or "natural" man? It is precisely at this point that our major difficulty sets in.

It may be perfectly true, as I personally believe is the case, that our contemporary culture or civilization is "on trial." But should Christians, as Christians, be concerned with this cultural crisis at all? If it is true, as we have just admitted, that the collapse or decline of culture is rooted in the loss of faith, in an "apostasy" or "retreat," should not Christians be concerned, primarily if not exclusively, with the reconstruction of belief or a reconversion of the world, and not with the salvaging of a sinking civilization? If we are really passing in our days an "apocalyptic" test, should we not concentrate all our efforts on Evangelism, on the proclamation of the Gospel to an oblivious generation, on the preaching of penitence and conversion ? The main question seems to be, whether the crisis can be resolved if we simply oppose to an outworn and disrupted civilization a new one, or whether, in order to overcome the crisis, we must go beyond civilization, to the very roots of human existence. Now, if we have ultimately to go beyond, would not this move make culture unnecessary and superfluous? Does one need "culture," and should one be interested in it, when he encounters the Living God, Him Who alone is to be worshipped and glorified? Is not then all "civilization" ultimately but a subtle and refined sort of idolatry, a care and trouble for "many things," for too many things, while there is but one "good part," which shall never be taken away, but will continue in the "beyond," unto ages of ages? Should not, in fact, those who have found the "precious pearl" go straight away and sell their other goods? And would it not be precisely an unfaithfulness and disloyalty to hide and keep these other possessions ? Should we not simply surrender all "human values," into the hands of God.

This questioning was for centuries the major temptation of many sincere and devout souls. All these questions are intensively asked and discussed again in our own days. We say: temptation. But is it fair to use this disqualifying word? Is it not rather an inescapable postulate of that integral self-renunciation, which is the first pre-requisite and foundation of Christian obedience? In fact, doubts about culture and its values arise and emerge not only in the days of great historical trials and crises. They arise so often also in the periods of peace and prosperity, when one may find himself in danger of being enslaved and seduced by human achievements, by the glories and triumphs of civilization. They arise so often in the process of intimate and personal search for God. Radical self-renunciation may lead devout people into wilderness, into the caves of the earth and the deserts, out of the "civilized world," and culture would appear to them as vanity, and vanity of vanities, even if it is alleged that this culture has been christened, in shape if not in essence. Would it be right to arrest these devout brethren in their resolute search of perfection, and to retain them in the world, to compel them to share in the building or reparation of what for them is nothing else than a Tower of Babel? Are we prepared to disavow St. Anthony of Egypt or St. Francis of Assisi and to urge them to stay in the world? Is not God radically above and beyond all culture? Does "culture" after all possess any intrinsic value of its own? Is it service or play, obedience or distraction, vanity, luxury and pride, i.e. ultimately a trap for souls? It seems obvious that "culture" is not, and by its very nature cannot be, an ultimate end or an ultimate value, and should not be regarded as an ultimate goal or destiny of man, nor probably even as an indispensable component of true humanity. A "primitive" can be saved no less than a "civilized." As St. Ambrose put it, God did not choose to save His people by clever arguments. Moreover, "culture" is not an unconditional good; rather it is a sphere of unavoidable ambiguity and involvement. It tends to degenerate into "civilization," if we may accept Oswald Spengler’s distinction between these two terms — and man may be desperately enslaved in it, as the modern man is supposed to be. "Culture" is human achievement, is man’s own deliberate creation, but an accomplished "civilization" is so often inimical to human creativity. Many in our days, and indeed at all times, are painfully aware of this tyranny of "cultural routine," of the bondage of civilization. It can be argued, as it has been more than once, that in "civilization" man is, as it were, "estranged" from himself, estranged and detached from the very roots of his existence, from his very "self," or from "nature," or from God. This alienation of man can be described and defined in a number of ways and manners, both in a religious and anti-religious mood. But in all cases "culture" would appear not only to be in predicament, but to be predicament itself.

Different answers were given to these searching questions in the course of Christian history, and the problem still remains unsolved. It has been recently suggested that the whole question about "Christ and Culture" is "an enduring problem," which probably does not admit of any final decision. It is to say that different answers will appeal to different types or groups of people, believers alike and "unbelievers," and again different answers will seem convincing at different times. The variety of answers seems to have a double meaning. On the one hand, it points to the variety of historical and human situations, in which different solutions would naturally impose. Questions are differently put and assessed at a time of peace or at a time of crisis. But on the other hand, disagreement is precisely what we should expect in the "Divided Christendom." It would be idle to ignore the depth of this division in Christendom. The meaning of the Gospel itself is discordantly assessed in various denominations. And in the debate about "Christ and Culture" we encounter the same tension between the "Catholic" and the "Evangelical" trends which is at the bottom of the "Christian Schism" at large. If we are really and sincerely concerned with "Christian Unity," we should look for an ultimate solution of this basic tension. In fact, our attitude to "culture" is not a practical option, but a theological decision, first of all and last of all. The recent growth of historical and cultural pessimism, of what Germans call Kulturpessimismus and Geschichtspessimismus, not only reflects the factual involvements and confusion of our epoch, but also reveals a peculiar shift in theological and philosophical opinions. Doubts about culture have an obvious theological significance and spring from the very depth of man’s faith. One should not dismiss any sincere challenge too easily and self-complacently, without sympathy and understanding. Yet, without imposing a uniform solution, for which our age seems not to be ripe, one cannot avoid discarding certain suggested solutions as inadequate, as erroneous and misleading.

The modern opposition, or indifference, of Christians to "culture" takes various shapes and moulds. It would be impossible to attempt now a comprehensive survey of all actual shades of opinion. We must confine ourselves to a tentative list of those which seem to be most vocal and relevant in our own situation. There are a variety of motives, and a variety of conclusions. Two special motives seem to concur in a very usual contempt of the world by many Christians, in all traditions. On the one hand, the world is passing, and history itself seems so insignificant "in the perspective of eternity," or when related to the ultimate destiny of man. All historical values are perishable, as they are also relative and uncertain. Culture, also, is perishable and of no significance in the perspective of an imminent end. On the other hand, the whole world seems to be so insignificant in comparison with the unfathomable Glory of God, as it has been revealed in the mystery of our Redemption. At certain times, and in certain historical situations, the mystery of Redemption seems to obscure the mystery of Creation, and Redemption is construed rather as a dismissal of the fallen world than as its healing and recovery. The radical opposition between Christianity and Culture, as it is presented by certain Christian thinkers, is more inspired by certain theological and philosophical presuppositions than by an actual analysis of culture itself. There is an increasing eschatological feeling in our days, at least in certain quarters. There is also an increasing devaluation of man in the contemporary thought, philosophical and theological, partly in reaction to the excess of self-confidence of the previous age. There is a re-discovery of human "nothingness," of the essential precariousness and insecurity of his existence, both physical and spiritual. The world seems to be inimical and empty, and man feels himself lost in the flux of accidents and failures. If there is still any hope of "salvation," it is constructed rather in the terms of "escape" and "endurance" than in those of "recovery" or "reparation." What can one hope for in history?

We can distinguish several types of this "pessimistic" attitude. The labels I am going to use are but tentative and provisional.

First of all, we must emphasize the persistence of the Pietist or Revivalist motive in the modern devaluation of culture. Men believe that they have met their Lord and Redeemer in their personal and private experience, and that they were saved by His mercy and their own response to it in faith and obedience. Nothing else is therefore needed.

The life of the world, and in the world, seems then to be but a sinful entanglement, out of which men are glad, and probably proud, to have been released. The only thing they have to say about this world is to expose its vanity and perversion and to prophesy doom and condemnation, the coming wrath and judgment of God. People of this type may be of different temper, sometimes wild and aggressive, sometimes mild and sentimental. In all cases, however, they cannot see any positive meaning in the continuing process of culture, and are indifferent to all values of civilization, especially to those which cannot be vindicated from the utilitarian point of view. People of this type would preach the virtue of simplicity, in opposition to the complexity of cultural involvement. They may choose to retire into the privacy of solitary existence or of stoic "indifference" or they may prefer a kind of common life, in closed companies of those who have understood the futility and purposelessness of the whole historical toil and endeavor. One may describe this attitude as "sectarian," and indeed there is a deliberate attempt to evade any share in common history. But this "sectarian" approach can be found among the people of various cultural and religious traditions. There are many who want to "retire from the world," at least psychologically, more for security than for "the unseen warfare." There is, in this attitude, a paradoxical mixture of penitence and self-satisfaction, of humility and pride. There is also a deliberate disregard of, or indifference to, doctrine, and inability to think out consistently the doctrinal implications of this "isolationist" attitude. In fact, this is a radical reduction of Christianity, at least a subjective reduction, in which it becomes no more than a private religion of individuals. The only problem with which this type of people is concerned is the problem of individual "salvation."

Secondly, there is a "Puritan" type of opposition. There is a similar "reduction" of belief, usually openly admitted. In practice, it is an active type, without any desire to evade history. Only history is accepted rather as "service" and "obedience," and not as a creative opportunity. There is the same concentration on the problem of one’s "salvation."

The basic contention is that man, this miserable sinner, can be forgiven, if and when he accepts the forgiveness which is offered to him by Christ and in Christ, but even in this case he remains precisely what he is, a frail and unprofitable creature, and is not essentially changed or re-newed. Even as a forgiven person, he continues as a lost creature, and his life cannot have any constructive value. This may not lead necessarily to an actual withdrawal from culture or denial of history, but it makes of history a kind of servitude, which must be carried on and endured, and should not be evaded, but endured rather as a training of character and testing in patience, than as a realm of creativeness. Nothing is to be achieved in history. But man should use every opportunity to prove his loyalty and obedience and to strengthen character by this service of fidelity, this bondage in duty. There is a strong "utilitarian" emphasis in this attitude, if it is a "transcendental utility," an utter concern with "salvation." Everything that does not directly serve this purpose should be discarded, and no room is permitted for any "disinterested creativity," e.g. for art or "belles-lettres."

Thirdly, there is an Existentialist type of opposition. Its basic motive is in the protest against man’s enslavement in civilization, which only screens from him the ultimate predicament of his existence, and obscures the hopelessness of his entanglement. It would be unfair to deny the relative truth of the contemporary Existentialist movement, the truth of reaction; and probably the modern man of culture needed this sharp and pityless warning. In all its forms, religious and areligious, Existentialism exposes the nothingness of man, of the real man as he is and knows himself. For those among the Existentialists who failed to encounter God or who indulge in the atheistic denial, this "nothingness" is just the last truth about man and his destiny. Only man should find this truth out for himself. But many Existentialists have found God, or, as they would put it themselves, have been found by Him, challenged by Him, in His undivided wrath and mercy. But, paradoxically enough, they would persist in believing that man is still but "nothing," in spite of the redeeming love and concern of Creator for His lost and stray creatures. In their conception, "creatureliness" of man inextricably condemns him to be but "nothing," at least in his own eyes, in spite of the mysterious fact that for God His creatures are obviously much more than "nothing," since the redeeming love of God moved Him, for the sake of man, to the tremendous Sacrifice of the Cross. Existentialism seems to be right in its criticism of human complacency, and even helpful in its unwelcome detection of man’s pettiness. But it is always blind to the complexity of the Divine Wisdom. An Existentialist is always a lonely and solitary being, inextricably involved and engaged in the scrutiny of his predicament. His terms of reference are always: the ALL of God and the Nothing of man. And, even in the case when his analysis begins with a concrete situation, namely his personal one, it continues somehow in abstracto: in the last resort he will not speak of a living person, but rather about man as man, for ultimately all men stand under the same and universal detection of their ultimate irrelevance. Whatever the psychological and historical explanation of the recent rise of Existentialism may be, on the whole it is no more than a symptom of cultural disintegration and despair.

And finally, we should not ignore the resistance or indifference of the "Plain Man." He may live rather quietly in the world of culture, and even enjoy it, but he would wonder what culture can "add" to religion, except by the way of decoration, or as a tribute of reverence and gratitude, i.e. especially in the form of art. But as a rule, the "plain man" is cautiously suspicious about the use of reason in the matters of faith and accordingly will dispense with the understanding of beliefs. What religious value can be in a distinterested study of any subject, which has no immediate practical application and cannot be used in the discharge of charity? The "plain man" will have not doubts about the value or utility of culture in the economy of temporal life, but he will hesitate to acknowledge its positive relevance in the spiritual dimension, except insofar as it may affect or exhibit the moral integrity of man. He will find no religious justification for the human urge to know and create. Is not all culture ultimately but vanity, a frail and perishable thing indeed? And is not the deepest root of human pride and arrogance precisely in the claims and ambition of reason? The "plain man" usually prefers "simplicity" in religion, and takes no interest in what he labels as "theological speculation," including therein very often almost all doctrines and dogmas of the Church. What is involved in this attitude is again a one-sided (and defective) concept of man and of the relevance of man’s actual life in history to his "eternal destiny," i.e. to the ultimate purpose of God. There is a tendency to stress the "otherworldliness" of the "Life Eternal" to such an extent that human personality is in danger of being rent in twain. Is History in its entirety just a training ground for souls and characters, or is something more intended in God’s design? Is the "last judgment" just a test in loyalty, or also a "recapitulation" of the Creation?

It is here that we are touching upon the deepest cause of the enduring confusion in the discussion about "Faith and Culture." The deepest theological issues are involved in this discussion, and no solution can ever be reached unless the theological character of the discussion is clearly acknowledged and understood. We need a theology of culture, even for our "practical" decisions. No real decision can be made in the dark. The dogma of Creation, with everything that it implies, was dangerously obscured in the consciousness of modern Christians, and the concept of Providence, i.e. of the perennial concern of the Creator with the destiny of His Creation, was actually reduced to something utterly sentimental and subjective. Accordingly, "History" was conceived as an enigmatic interim between the Mighty Deeds of God, for which it was difficult to assign any proper substance. This was connected again with an inadequate conception of Man. The emphasis has been shifted from the fulfillment of God’s design for man to the release of Man out of the consequences of his "original" failure. And, accordingly, the whole doctrine of the Last Things has been dangerously reduced and has come to be treated in the categories of forensical justice or of sentimental love. The "Modern Man" fails to appreciate and to assess the conviction of early Christians, derived from the Scripture, that Man was created by God for a creative purpose and was to act in the world as its king, priest, and prophet. The fall or failure of man did not abolish this purpose or design, and man was redeemed in order to be re-instated in his original rank and to resume his role and function in the Creation. And only by doing this can he become what he was designed to be, not only in the sense that he should display obedience, but also in order to accomplish the task which was appointed by God in his creative design precisely as the task of man. As much as "History" is but a poor anticipation of the "Age to come," it is nevertheless its actual anticipation, and the cultural process in history is related to the ultimate consummation, if in a manner and in a sense which we cannot adequately decipher now. One must be careful not to exaggerate "the human achievement," but one should also be careful not to minimize the creative vocation of man, The destiny of human culture is not irrelevant to the ultimate destiny of man.

All this may seem to be but a daring speculation, much beyond our warrant and competence. But the fact remains: Christians as Christians were building culture for centuries, and many of them not only with a sense of vocation, and not only as in duty bound, but with the firm conviction that this was the will of God. A brief retrospect of the Christian endeavour in culture may help us to see the problem in a more concrete manner, in its full complexity, but also in all its inevitability. As a matter of fact, Christianity entered the world precisely at one of the most critical periods of history, at the time of a momentous crisis of culture. And the crisis was finally solved by the creation of Christian Culture, as unstable and ambiguous as this culture proved to be, in its turn, and in the course of its realization.

*** *** ***

As a matter of fact, the question of the relationship between Christianity and Culture is never discussed in abstracto, just in this generalized form, or, in any case, it should not be so discussed. The culture about which one speaks is always a particular culture. The concept of "Culture" with which one operates is always situation-conditioned, i.e. derived from the actual experience one has, in his own particular culture, which one may cherish or abhor, or else it is an imaginary concept, "another culture," an ideal, about which one dreams and speculates. Even when the question is put in general terms, concrete impressions or wants can be always detected. When "Culture" is resisted or denied by Christians, it is always a definite historical formation which is taken to be representative of the idea. In our own days it would be the mechanized or "Capitalistic" civilization, inwardly secularized and therefore estranged from any religion. In the ancient times it was the pagan Graeco-Roman civilization. The starting point in both cases is the immediate impression of clash and conflict, and of practical incompatibility of divergent structures, which diverge basically in spirit or inspiration.

The early Christians were facing a particular civilization, that of the Roman and Hellenistic world. It was about this civilization that they spoke, it was about this concrete "system of values" that they were critical and uneasy. This civilization, moreover, was itself changing and unstable at that time, and was, in fact, involved in a desperate struggle and crisis. The situation was complex and confused. The modern historian cannot escape antinomy in his interpretation of this early Christian epoch, and one cannot expect more coherence in the interpretation given by the contemporaries. It is obvious that this Hellenistic civilization was in a certain sense ripe or prepared for "conversion," and can even be regarded itself, again in a certain sense, as a kind of the Praeparatio Evangelica, and the contemporaries were aware of this situation. Already St. Paul had suggested this, and the Apologists of the second century and early Alexandrinians did not hesitate to refer to Socrates and Heraclitus, and indeed Plato, as forerunners of Christianity. On the other hand, they were aware, no less than we are now, of a radical tension between this culture and their message, and the opponents were conscious of this tension, also. The Ancient World resisted conversion, because it meant a radical change and break with its tradition in many respects. We can see now both the tension and continuity between "the Classical" and "the Christian." Contemporaries, of course, could not see it in the same perspective as we do, because they could not anticipate the future. If they were critical of "culture," they meant precisely the culture of their own time, and this culture was both alien and inimical to the Gospel. What Tertullian had to say about culture should be interpreted in a concrete historical setting first of all, and should not be immediately construed into absolute pronouncements. Was he not right in his insistence on the radical tension and divergence between "Jerusalem" and Athens: quid Athenae Hierosolymis? "What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? . . . Our instruction comes from the Porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that ‘the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart’ . . . We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the Gospel. With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides" (de prescription, 7). "What is there in common between the philosopher and the Christian, the pupil of Hellas and the pupil of Heaven, the worker for reputation and for salvation, the manufacturer of words and of deeds" (Apologeticus, 46). Yet, Tertullian himself could not avoid "inquisition" and "disputation," and did not hesitate to use the wisdom of the Greeks in the defense of the Christian faith. He indicts the culture of his time, and a specific philosophy of life, which, in its very structure, was opposed to faith. He was afraid of an easy syncretism and contamination, which was an actual threat and danger in his time, and could not anticipate that inner transformation of the Hellenic mind which was to be effected in the centuries to come, just as he could not imagine that Caesars could become Christian.

One should not forget that the attitude of Origen was actually much the same, although he is regarded as one of the "Hellenizers" of Christianity. He also was aware of the tension and was suspicious of the vain speculation, in which he took little interest, and for him the riches of the pagans were exactly "the riches of sinners" (in Ps. 36, III. 6). St. Augustine also was of that opinion. Was not Science for him just a vain curiosity which only distracts mind from its true purpose, which is not to number the stars and to seek out the hidden things of nature, but to know and to love God ? Again, St. Augustine was repudiating Astrology, which nobody would regard as "science" in our days, but which in his days was inseparable from true Astronomy. The cautious or even negative attitude of early Christians toward philosophy, toward art, including both painting and music, and especially toward the art of rhetorics, can be fully understood only in the concrete historical context. The whole structure of the existing culture was determined and permeated by a wrong and false faith. One has to admit that certain historical forms of culture are incompatible with the Christian attitude toward life, and therefore must be rejected or avoided. But this does not yet pre-judge the further question, whether a Christian culture is possible and desirable. In our own days, one may, or rather should, be sharply critical of our contemporary civilization, and even be inclined to welcome its collapse, but this does not prove that civilization as such should be damned and cursed, and that Christians should return to barbarism or primitivism.

As a matter of fact, Christianity accepted the challenge of the Hellenistic and Roman culture, and ultimately a Christian Civilization emerged. It is true that this rise of Christian Culture has been strongly censured in modern times as an "acute Hellenization" of Christianity, in which the purity and simplicity of the Evangelical or Biblical faith is alleged to have been lost. Many in our own days are quite "iconoclastic" with regard to culture en bloc, or at least to certain fields of culture, such as "Philosophy" (equated with "sophistics") or Art, repudiated as a subtle idolatry, in the name of Christian faith. But, on the other hand, we have to face the age-long accumulation of genuine human values in the cultural process, undertaken and carried in the spirit of Christian obedience and dedication to the truth of God.

What is important in this case is that the Ancient Culture proved to be plastic enough to admit of an inner "transfiguration." Or, in other words, Christians proved that it was possible to re-orient the cultural process, without lapsing into a pre-cultural state, to re-shape the cultural fabric in a new spirit. The same process which has been variously described as a "Hellenization of Christianity" can be construed rather as a "Christianization of Hellenism." Hellenism was, as it were, dissected by the Sword of the Spirit, was polarized and divided, and a "Christian Hellenism" was created. Of course, "Hellenism" was ambiguous and, as it were, double-faced. And certain of the Hellenistic revivals in the history of the European thought and life have been rather pagan revivals, calling for caution and strictures. It is enough to mention the ambiguities of the Renaissance, and in later times just Goethe or Nietzsche. But it would be unfair to ignore the existence of another Hellenism, already initiated in the Age of the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, and creatively continued through the Middle Ages and the Modern times. What is really decisive in this connection is that "Hellenism" has been really changed. One can be too quick in discovering "Hellenic accretions" in the fabric of Christian life, and at the same time quite negligent and oblivious of the facts of this "transfiguration."

One striking example may suffice for our present purpose. It has been recently brought to mind that Christianity in fact achieved a radical change in the philosophical interpretation of Time. For the ancient Greek Philosophers, Time was just "a movable image of eternity," i.e. a cyclical and recurrent motion, which had to return upon itself, without ever moving "forward," as no "forward-motion" is possible on the circle. It was an astronomical time, determined by "the revolution of the celestial spheres" (let us remember the title of the famous work of Copernicus, who was still under the sway of ancient astronomy: De Revolutionibus Orbium Celestium), and human history accordingly was subordinate to this basic principle of rotation and iteration. Our modern concept of the linear time, with a sense of direction or vectoriality, with the possibility of progression and achievement of new things, has been derived from the Bible and from the Biblical conception of history, moving from Creation to Consummation, in a unique, irreversible and unrepeatable motion, guided or supervised by the constant Providence of the living God. The circular time of the Greeks has been exploded, as St. Augustine rejoicingly exclaims. History for the first time could be conceived as a meaningful and purposeful process, leading to a goal, and not as a perennial rotation, leading nowhere. The very concept of Progress has been elaborated by Christians. This is to say, Christianity was not passive in its intercourse with that inherited culture which it endeavoured to redeem, but very active. It is not too much to say that the human mind was reborn and remade in the school of Christian faith, without any repudiation of its just claims and fashions. It is true that this process of Christianization of mind has never been completed, and inner tension continues even within the Christian "Universe of discourse." No culture can ever be final and definitive. It is more than a system, it is a process, and it can be preserved and continued only by a constant spiritual effort, not just by inertia or inheritance. The true solution of the perennial problem of relationship between Christianity and Culture lies in the effort to convert "the natural mind" to the right faith, and not in the denial of cultural tasks. Cultural concerns are an integral part of actual human existence and, for that reason, cannot be excluded from the Christian historical endeavour.

Christianity entered the historical scene as a Society or Community, as a new social order or even a new social dimension, i.e. as the Church. Early Christians had a strong corporate feeling. They felt themselves to be a "chosen race," a "holy nation," a "peculiar people," i.e. precisely a New Society, a "New Polis," a City of God. Now, there was another City in existence, a Universal and strictly totalitarian City indeed, the Roman Empire, which felt itself to be simply the Empire. It claimed to be the City, comprehensive and unique. It claimed the whole man for its service, just as the Church claimed the whole man for the service of God. No division of competence and authority could be admitted, since the Roman State could not admit autonomy of the "religious sphere," and religious allegiance was regarded as an aspect of the political creed and an integral part of the civic obedience. For that reason a conflict was unavoidable, a conflict of the two Cities. Early Christians felt themselves, as it were, extraterritorial, just outside of the existing social order, simply because the Church was for them an order itself. They dwelt in their cities as "sojourners" or "strangers," and for them "every foreign land was fatherland, and every fatherland foreign," as the author of the "Epistle to Diognetus," a remarkable document of the second century, stated it (c. 5). On the other hand, Christians did not retire from the existing society; they could be found "everywhere," as Tertullian insisted, in all walks of life, in all social groups, in all nations. But they were spiritually detached, spiritually segregated. As Origen put it, in every city Christians had another system of allegiance of their own, or, in literal translation, "another system of fatherland" (c. Cels. VIII. 75). Christians did stay in the world and were prepared to perform their daily duties faithfully, but they could not pledge their full allegiance to the polity of this world, to the earthly City, for their citizenship was elsewhere, i.e. "in heaven."

Yet, this detachment from "the world" could be but provisional, as Christianity, by its very nature, was a missionary religion and aimed at a universal conversion. The subtle distinction "in the world, but not of the world," could not settle the basic problem, for "the world" itself had to be redeemed and could not be endured in its un-reformed state. The final problem was exactly this: could the two "societies" co-exist, and on what terms? Could Christian allegiance be somehow divided or duplicated, or a "double citizenship" accepted as a normative principle? Various answers were given in the course of history, and the issue is still a burning and embarrassing one. One may still wonder whether "spiritual segregation" is not actually the only consistent Christian answer, and any other solution inevitably an entangling compromise. The Church is here, in "this world," for its salvation. The Church has, as it were, to exhibit in history a new pattern of existence, a new mode of life, that of the "world to come." And for that reason the Church has to oppose and to renounce "this" world. She cannot, so to speak, find a settled place for herself within the limits of this "old world." She is compelled to be "in this world" in permanent opposition, even if she claims but a reformation or renewal of the world.

The situation in which the Church finds herself in this world is inextricably antinomical. Either the Church is to be constituted as an exclusive society, endeavouring to satisfy all requirements of the believers, both "temporal" and "spiritual," paying no attention to the existing order and leaving nothing to the external world — this would mean an entire separation from the world, an ultimate flight out of it, and a radical denial of any external authority. Or the Church could attempt an inclusive "Christianization" of the world, subduing the whole of life to Christian rule and authority, endeavor to reform and to reorganize secular life on Christian principles, to build the Christian City. In the history of the Church we can trace both solutions: a flight into desert and a construction of the Christian Empire. The first was practiced not only in monasticism of various trends, but also in many other Christian groups or "sects." The second was the main line taken by Christians, both in the West and in the East, up to the rise of militant secularism in Europe and elsewhere, and even at present this solution has not lost its hold on many people.

Historically speaking, both solutions proved to be inadequate and unsuccessful. On the other hand, one has to acknowledge the urgency of their common problem and the truth of their common purpose. Christianity is not an individualistic religion and is not concerned only with the salvation of individuals. Christianity is the Church, i.e. a Community, leading its corporate life according to its peculiar principles. Spiritual leadership of the Church can hardly be reduced to an occasional guidance given to individuals or to groups living under conditions utterly uncongenial to the Church. The legitimacy of those conditions should be questioned first of all. Nor can human life be split into departments, some of which might have been ruled by some independent principles, i.e. independent of the Church. One cannot serve two Masters, and a double allegiance is a poor solution. The problem is no easier in a Christian society. With Constantino the Empire, as it were, capitulated; Caesar himself was converted — the Empire was now offering to the Church not only peace, but cooperation. This could be interpreted as a victory of the Christian cause. But for many Christians at that time this new turn of affairs was an unexpected surprise and rather a blow. Many leaders of the Church were rather reluctant to accept the Imperial offer. But it was difficult to decline it. The whole Church could not escape into Desert, nor could she desert the world. The new Christian Society came into existence, which was at once both "Church" and "Empire," and its ideology was "theocratical." This theocratical idea could be developed in two versions, different, but correlated. Theocratical authority could be exercised by the Church directly, i.e. through the hierarchical Ministry of the Church. Or the State could be invested with a theocratical authority, and its officers commissioned to establish and propagate the Christian order. In both cases the unity of Christian society was strongly emphasized, and two orders were distinguished inside of this unique structure: an ecclesiastical in the strict sense and a temporal, i.e. the Church and the State, with the basic assumption that imperium was also a Divine gift, in a sense co-ordinated with sacerdotium, and subordinate to the ultimate authority of the Faith. The theory seemed to be reasonable and well balanced, but in practice it led to an age-long tension and strife within the theocratical structure and ultimately to its disruption. The modern conception of the two "separated" spheres, that of the Church and that of the State, lacks both theoretical and practical consistency.

In fact, we are still facing the same dilemma or the same antinomy. Either Christians ought to go out of the world, in which there is another master besides Christ (whatever name this master may bear: Caesar or Mammon or any other), and start a separate society. Or again they have to transform the outer world and rebuild it according to the law of the Gospel. What is important, however, is that even those who go out cannot dispense with the main problem: they still have to build up a "society" and cannot therefore dispense with this basic element of social culture. "Anarchism" is in any case excluded by the Gospel. Nor does Monasticism mean or imply a denunciation of culture. Monasteries were, for a long time, precisely the most powerful centers of cultural activity, both in the West and in the East. The practical problem is therefore reduced to the question of a sound and faithful orientation in a concrete historical situation.

Christians are not committed to the denial of culture as such. But they are to be critical of any existing cultural situation and measure it by the measure of Christ. For Christians are also the Sons of Eternity, i.e. prospective citizens of the Heavenly Jerusalem. Yet problems and needs of "this age" in no case and in no sense can be dismissed or disregarded, since Christians are called to work and service precisely "in this world" and "in this age." Only all these needs and problems and aims must be viewed in that new and wider perspective which is disclosed by the Christian Revelation and illumined by its light.

Quote of the Day

"What we're giving as a Father's Day gift to the Anglican Communion is a woman primate, and that is wonderful." -Rev. Susan Russell, president of Integrity, an advocacy group for gay and lesbian Episcopalians.

From the Press: Mea Culpa Mea Culpa...

The travesty of justice in Durham NC (first discussed on this blog here), continues. But the media, which was initially ready to hang the three boys, and went to great lengths to defame the entire Duke Lacrosse team, now seems to have had a change of heart. The NY Times recently ran a story casting serious doubt on the entire case. And this morning we find that Newsweek (which once ran two of the boys’ mug shots on its cover!) has posted an article that can only be seen as a broadside attack on the DA. It also is highly critical of the way the media handled the case, at least in its early stages, even pointing to their own use of the mug shots on the cover. How long will this continue? The callous behavior of this man is stunning. Is there no recourse in North Carolina against a DA who is abusing the powers of his office? Mike Nifong apparently has complained about attacks from blogs. That was encouraging enough to prompt me to post this even before church (I rarely post on Sundays at all).

Quote of the Day

Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfactions, to theirs,—and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.

But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure,—no, nor from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

EDMUND BURKE, speech to the electors of Bristol, November 3, 1774.

More craziness...

OK. I promise no more posts tonight after this one. But I really could not let this one slide by. If the previous article did not give you your fill of weird pseudo-Catholic groups check out this article over at Vivificat.

Here we go again...

I would like to note for the record, that I did not leave the Roman Church because of all the weirdness going on it these days. That said, things like this did not make my move any harder. It goes without saying that this article is so full of inaccuracies, starting with the title, that it should be retracted and the author sent back to journalism 101 for a refresher course on getting the facts right before you publish something. Seriously, this should be (but probably is not) embarrassing to the paper.

Defying church, 12 Catholic women to be ordained here
(Umm no. Catholics don't ordain women. Ergo if your a woman attempting ordination... your not Catholic. Also by wording the title of the article in this manner the paper betrays its prejudice in favor of what the women claim to be attempting to do. Is this rocket science?)

Thursday, June 15, 2006
By Marylynne Pitz, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

On July 31, a dozen well-educated, experienced Roman Catholic women will pass into uncharted spiritual waters on a boat cruising Pittsburgh's rivers. (Thats silly. There is no new heresy being discovered here. Its been attempted many times before by all sorts of weird sects.)

On that afternoon, three women in vestments will lay their hands on the heads of the 12 women and anoint their hands with oil during an ordination ceremony that will be the first of its kind in the United States. (Never heard of Protestants I am guessing.)

Among the participants is Joan Clark Houk, 65, of McCandless, who with seven other women are answering a call to be priests; the other four are candidates to be deacons.

It will be the fourth such ceremony in the world since 2002, all unrecognized by the Vatican. The women are part of a growing international movement to push for women's ordination.

The Women's Ordination Conference, based in Fairfax, Va., will announce today its support of the Pittsburgh ceremony, which will be held aboard the Gateway Clipper boat Majestic. Pittsburgh was selected because of its central location.

In a three-page letter dated May 9, Mrs. Houk, a member of St. Alexis in McCandless, advised Bishop Donald Wuerl of her plans. She has received no response. Mrs. Houk also sent a copy of the letter to all 360 priests in the diocese.

"It is a sin for the Church to discriminate against women and to blame God for it," Mrs. Houk wrote.

The Rev. Ronald Lengwin, spokesman for the Diocese of Pittsburgh, said the church "has determined that the ordination of males is a part of the faith handed down by Christ through his apostles and therefore the church is not free to change it. Ordination to the priesthood can only be conferred on a male."

The participants in the July 31 ceremony, Father Lengwin added, are ignoring church teaching. "I would say they have freely chosen to separate themselves from the church," he said.

Mrs. Houk is a cradle Catholic and mother of six. She has served as a pastoral director in two Kentucky parishes, worked on a marriage tribunal, taught catechism and the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults and worked with her husband, John, to prepare engaged couples for marriage.

"The church has to take a stand for women ... that they are the image of God and are to be respected and treated on an equal, human level. This is really why I have to do what I am doing," she said in a recent interview.

Presiding at the ceremony will be Patricia Fresen, Gisela Forster and Ida Raming, who live in Germany and are bishops in Roman Catholic Womenpriests, an international group of Catholics who support women's ordination. (Excuse me? Who says they are Catholics? The last time I checked there is a guy in Rome who has the final say on the subject. And I am guessing he would not agree with this foolish statement. Once again... we are back to Catholics don't do women prietesses or bishops.)

The women claim they are part of the church's valid apostolic succession because Roman Catholic bishops in good standing ordained them secretly. (Good Standing? Any RC bishop attempting to sacrilegiously perform a sacrament that can not be validly performed due to the Divine Law would be automatically excommunicated under Catholic Canon Law.) The women refuse to name those bishops to protect them from reprisals by Vatican authorities in Rome. (uh huh )

Ms. Forster and Ms. Raming joined the "Danube Seven," a group of women ordained on the Danube River near Austria in August 2002. (Well they claim to have been ordained. They certainly went through a cerremony. Clearly the paper accepts their claims from this sentence.)

In January 2003, all seven were excommunicated by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. The women appealed but the decision was affirmed. (OK. So we are continuing to call these people Catholics because...?)

Ms. Fresen belonged to an order of Dominican nuns for 45 years. But she left her order in 2004 after she was ordained a priest in Barcelona, Spain, in a secret ceremony. Since 2004, she has lived in a small village outside of Munich, Germany. (Again, there is a presumption in this article's wording that the claims of the women to having received valid ordination are accurate.)

In Roman Catholic tradition, priests and deacons are ordained in churches, but the Roman Catholic Womenpriests' previous ceremonies were held aboard boats, on the Danube in 2002 and on the St. Lawrence Seaway near the Canada coast in August 2005.

"To be honest, the main reason is that no Catholic priest or bishop is brave enough to give us a church," Ms. Fresen said about the ceremonies on water.

A boat is one of the earliest Christian symbols of the church. "Jesus ... taught from a boat. Some of the earliest disciples were fishermen," she added.

One of the outspoken disciples in the women's ordination movement is Ruth Steinert Foote, a board member of the Women's Ordination Conference.

In March, Ms. Foote brought Ms. Fresen from Germany to the United States for six speaking engagements in the Midwest.

"Everywhere that we went, she was received joyfully and loved. She is a wonderful, holy and grace-filled woman. Patricia Fresen is the person that will change hearts," Ms. Foote said.

In a recent telephone interview from her home, Ms. Fresen said her religious order's struggle against apartheid when she lived in South Africa taught her "a great deal about how to fight against gender discrimination. For me, they are parallel."

Ms. Foote, an active member of a Catholic parish in Cincinnati, is a medical technologist and married to an Episcopal priest. (I am not even going to touch this one.)

"This movement is not just about the ordination of women. It is about making the Roman Catholic Church a just institution. If women are made in the image and likeness of God, they have the same potential to be called by God that men do," she said.

Christine Schenk, a member of the Sisters of Saint Joseph and executive director of Future Church, which attempts to effect change within the church, will not openly support the ceremony in Pittsburgh, she said.

Last year, she attended the International Synod on the Eucharist in Rome.

"We took 35,000 signatures to Rome to petition for the ordination of married men and opening the diaconate to women. There was, much to my surprise, a very vigorous discussion about a married priesthood." (From who? Funny I never heard about it.)

Last summer, Ms. Schenk attended the Roman Catholic Womenpriest ordinations in Canada because a friend of hers was among the candidates.

"I thought, if she had been ordained in the Methodist church, I would have gone. I have had a number of women Catholic friends who complete their master's of divinity and then are ordained in other faiths."

The Roman Catholic Church, Ms. Schenk added, has changed more than most people realize.

"Taking interest on a loan -- that used to be the gravest of sins. (That's rediculous. She needs a refresher course on Church History and moral theology..) It was OK to have slaves. (This was a controversial subject. When did the Roman Church endorse slavery as doctrine? Never of course. It is just in the last two centuries that a more or less universal consensus has developed that slavery is immoral.) Some bishops fought to keep slaves. (True enough, just as some fought to abolish it.) Eventually, church teaching changed on that. 'The Mass will always be in Latin,' [Pope] Pius XII said. Six years later, it was in English." (Thats a subject too long for here. Lets just say that the liturgical disaster in the Roman Church is not something I would be pointing to in support for this heretical knavery.)

What really disturbs me is how totally one sided this article is. It's not just repeating the most outragous innacuracies. It is presenting them as fact with virtually no response from any authoritative source. If the author had bothered to present this to any Catholic priest before publishing it, I am sure there would have been a quick and devastating response to this clap trap. There is not even a pretension to unbiased reporting here.

Poland to the EU: Keep your (non)morals to yourself.

WARSAW, June 14, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Minister of Education in Poland has sent clear messages in the past week that the Polish government will not tolerate the indoctrination of students with the homosexual agenda in Polish schools. On June 9th, the Polish Minister of Education, Roman Giertych, officially dismissed the Director of Polish In-Service Teachers, Miroslaw Sielatycki, for publishing Compass: a manual on human rights education with young people, and is now considering banning its distribution and sale.

"This Manual speaks about issues of the homosexual relations as being equal to the matrimonial relations between woman and man. The contents included in this Manual accept thesis that the prohibition of matrimonial homosexual relations and the adoption of children by homosexual couples may constitute an element of discrimination", Minister Giertych stated in explaining the firing of Director Sielatycki. He went on to emphasize, "Such contents are in contradiction to the core curriculum for general education; therefore they can not be, by any means, presented as methodological resources."

Read the rest here.

Orthodox to +Benedict XVI: Not so fast.

Orthodox unhappy with Pope's decision to drop title
Posted on Tue Jun 13 2006:

Jun. 14 (CWNews.com) - The Orthodox patriarchate of Constantinople has expressed serious concern over the decision by Pope Benedict XVI to abandon the traditional papal title, "Patriarch of the West."

The Synod of the Constantinople patriarchate has issued a statement saying that by dropping that title, the Pope has created "grave difficulties" for ecumenical dialogue. The change, the Orthodox statement says, suggests that the Pope is claiming universal jurisdiction over the Christian world-- a claim that is unwelcome to Orthodox patriarchs who claim jurisdiction over their own churches.

The statement from the Constantinople Synod comes just before the arrival in Rome of an Orthodox delegation, sent by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I to join Pope Benedict in celebrating the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, the patrons of the Rome diocese, on June 29. The Pontiff himself will travel to Istanbul in November to return the visit, joining Patriarch Bartholomew for the feast of St. Andrew, patron of Constantinople, on November 30.

The statement from the Orthodox Synod acknowledges that the term "West" has acquired new connotations, and that the Bishop of Rome does not wish to be aligned exclusively with the "Western world" in political terms. However, the statement warns against a papal tendency toward "absorption" of other churches.

"Different churches exist," the Orthodox Synod argues. The statement outlines the separate cultural, doctrinal, and liturgical traditions that mark the different Christian churches. In light of these differences, the statement says, the Christian world should aspire to "full unity of local churches."

By dropping the title "Patriarch of the West," the argument continues, Pope Benedict appears to have rejected the notion that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are "sister churches." The statement says that this attitude points to severe difficulties with the Pope's understanding of his own role-- a topic that has caused considerable tension in ecumenical circles.

The Orthodox Synod asks Pope Benedict to recall what he wrote several years ago, when (as Cardinal Ratzinger) he said that the Holy See should not the Eastern churches to accept any more expansive understanding of Petrine primacy than the idea that prevailed during the first Christian millennium.

Pope Benedict appeared to have be addressing the concerns of the Orthodox Synod during his regular weekly public audience on June 14, when he referred to Rome and Constantinople as "sister churches." Still, during that talk he referred to St. Andrew, the patron of Constantinople, as the apostle to the Greek world. Thus he distinguished St. Andrew from his brother, St. Peter, whose mission was universal, the Pope noted.

The 2006 edition of the Annuario Pontificio, the official Vatican yearbook, did not include the title of "Patriarch of the West" under the listing for the Roman Pontiff. The list of titles concludes to include other clear indications of the Pope's universal role, including "Vicar of Jesus Christ" and more explicitly "Sovereign Pontiff of the Universal Church."

In a March 22 announcement, the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity explained the decision to abandon the title, telling Orthodox leaders that the Pope's intent was to advance the cause of ecumenism. The Orthodox Synod of the Constantinople patriarchate has now apparently rejected that explanation.

Early this year the Orthodox Bishop Hilarion of Vienna had complained that the decision to drop the papal title seemed to be motivated by "growing pretensions of the Bishop of Rome to universal primacy." He suggested that the Pope should drop other titles, beginning with "Sovereign Pontiff," to assure the Orthodox world that he did not have such aspirations.

The question of Petrine primacy will undoubtedly be a focus of intense discussion when Orthodox and Catholic theologians meet in September 2006, in Serbia, to resume ecumenical talks that had been suspended for 6 years after reaching an impasse over that issue and over the status of the Eastern Catholic churches.

+Benedict XVI to Orthodox: We are sister churches.

Pope speaks of bond between Rome, Constantinople
Posted on Tue Jun 13 2006:

Vatican, Jun. 14 (CWNews.com) - At his weekly public audience on June 14, Pope Benedict XVI continued his series of talks on the Church's apostolic tradition with a meditation on the special bond between the churches of Rome and Constantinople.

The Holy Father based his remarks on the figure of St. Andrew the apostle, "the first of the apostles to be called to follow Jesus." Later in life he is credited with having brought the Gospel to the Greek world, and today he is the patron saint of the Constantinople patriarchate. Because he was the brother of St. Peter, those two apostles had a special tie, the Pope observed, just as "the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople feel themselves to be sisters." Pope Benedict will visit the Constantinople patriarchate in November, joining the Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I to celebrate the feast of St. Andrew.


On the basis of that special relationship, the Pontiff recalled, Pope Paul VI restored the relics of St. Andrew to the Greek Church in Patras, where the apostle died-- according to tradition, crucified on a diagonal cross. The Pope quoted the words that St. Andrew is reported to have said of the cross on which he died: that "before before the Lord was placed upon you, you incited earthly terrors. Now, blessed with a heavenly love, you are received as a gift."

Pope Benedict urged his audience of about 35,000 to imitate St. Andrew's willingness to respond immediately to a call from Christ. He continued: "We must not be afraid to put questions to Jesus, but at the same time we must be ready to accept the teaching He offers us." Finally, the Pope said, Christians must recognize suffering as a means to identification with Christ.

Having spoken about the role of St. Peter in previous Wednesday audiences, the Pope turned to St. Andrew as the second apostle in rank. He said that he would continue his series of talks with thoughts about the other apostles.

ET TU TIMES?

Even the liberal NY Times is now openly questioning the DA in the so called Duke Lacrosse case. Since the Times (along with much of the rest of the press & media) initially ran stories highly sympathetic to the alleged victim, and just as highly critical of the Duke lacrosse team, Mike Nifong might be forgiven for wondering from whence the next blow will come. The Times all but had the boys locked up for life back in April. This is a remarkable turn around.

Prosecutor's Silence on Duke Rape Case Leaves Public With Plenty of Questions
By DUFF WILSON and JONATHAN D. GLATER

DURHAM, N.C., June 9 — When a woman hired to dance at a Duke University lacrosse team party claimed that members of the team raped her, Michael B. Nifong, the district attorney for Durham County, responded with an aggressive, unflinching and very public investigation.

"There's no doubt in my mind that she was raped and assaulted at this location," Mr. Nifong said on national television after the case surfaced in March. Mr. Nifong called other lacrosse players "hooligans" who had aided, abetted or covered up for the rapists. Local police officers seemed equally certain that they had a horrific crime to solve.

But in the intervening months, the case has come to appear far less robust. Three players have been indicted, but evidence that has surfaced, much of it turned over to defense lawyers by prosecutors and then filed in court with defense motions, has thrown the woman's claims into doubt. Mr. Nifong, so vocal at first, has refused to speak publicly about the case since the beginning of April.

The result is a growing perception of a case in trouble. Increasingly, the onus is on the district attorney. People in Durham are asking what Mr. Nifong is up to, whether his prosecution was influenced by politics — he was in the midst of a campaign when the case began — and what other evidence he might have.

Read the rest here.

Scripture and Tradition: An Orthodox Point of View

Fr. G. Florovsky

I.

The Large Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church opens with chapters on "Divine Revelation" and on "Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture." The question is asked: "In what manner is divine revelation propagated among men and preserved in the true church?" The answer is: "In a twofold manner, first by Tradition and then by Scripture." Now, Tradition is described in the following sentence, "The true believers transmit to each other — and one generation to the other — by word and example, the teaching of faith, the law of God, sacraments and holy rites." The keeper of tradition is the church. "All true believers, united by the sacred tradition of faith, jointly and in succession, constitute the church," which is the "pillar and foundation of truth." Tradition as a method of preserving divine revelation has the priority in time.

There was no Scripture before Moses. Christ himself instructed his disciples orally by word and example, and so did the apostles in the beginning. The Scripture was given in order to fix revelation in precise terms for future times. Then follows the description of the biblical canon. The Old Testament books are numbered according to the Hebrew canon, with a reference to Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius. The Holy Tradition is complementary to Holy Writ in the sense that it directs the right understanding of Scripture, the right administration of the sacraments, and the preservation of sacred rites in the purity of their original institution. Tradition must be kept in so far as it is in conformity with the divine revelation and the Holy Scripture.

In the later sections of the Catechism where it speaks of the church, the infallibility of the church is professed and acknowledged, as she is given and promised the guidance and assistance of the Holy Spirit. It should be added that in the whole course of the Catechism abundant references to Scripture are given, and proof-texts are quoted. References to tradition are comparatively rare. The most important of them are precisely in the chapter on tradition itself: a quotation from St. Irenaeus and a lengthy passage from St. Basil’s On The Holy Spirit, chapter 27.

The Large Catechism is not a "symbolical book" in the technical sense, as the term is used in the West. Yet, it is an authoritative exposition of Orthodox faith, approved by the Holy Synod of the Russian Church and intended for the general instruction of believers. It was drafted by the greatest Russian theologian of the last century, Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. It is safe, therefore, to take the statements of the Catechism as the starting point of presentation of the Orthodox conception of Scripture and Tradition, in their essence and in their mutual relationship
The term tradition is used in the Catechism only in order to clarify the manner of propagating and preserving divine revelation. It is the paradosis, the handing down of what God chose to disclose and communicate to men. It is not a particular "source" of truth or doctrine. Revelation is adequately recorded in Scripture. But Scripture is, as it were, "stored" or "deposited" in the church. On the other hand, tradition is equated with the mind and continuous memory of the church. And in this sense it is the guiding principle and criterion of scriptural interpretation. Accordingly, tradition does not and cannot add anything to Scripture, but only elicits what is contained in Holy Writ and puts it in the right perspective. The Scriptures "belong" to the church, are committed to her and not to individual believers. A faithful guide is required for true exegesis. The church catholic is that guide. Or in other words, Scripture is given and preserved in tradition. Tradition and Scripture are inseparable.

II

This approach to the problem of Scripture and tradition is itself traditional. In fact, it was the approach of the ancient church. St. Irenaeus and St. Basil were appropriately quoted in the Russian Catechism. The problem of correct exegesis was a burning issue in the ancient church during the struggle and contest with heresies. All parties in the dispute used to appeal to Scripture. Moreover, at that time exegesis was the main, and even the only, theological method, and the authority of Scripture was sovereign and supreme. The orthodox leaders were bound to raise the hermeneutical question: What was the principle of interpretation? Now, in the second century the term "Scripture" still denoted primarily the Old Testament. It was in this same century that the authority of the Old Testament was sharply and radically challenged, and actually rejected, by Marcion. The unity of the Bible had to be proved and vindicated. What was the basis and the warrant of a Christian and christological understanding of "prophecy," that is, of the Old Testament? It was in this historic situation that the authority of tradition was first invoked.

Scripture belonged to the church, and it was only in the church, within the community of right faith, that Scripture could be adequately understood and correctly interpreted. Heretics, namely, those outside of the church, had no key to the mind of the Scripture. It was not enough simply to quote scriptural words and texts (the "letter"). Rather, the true meaning of Scripture, taken as an integrated whole, had to be grasped and elicited. In the admirable phrase of St. Hilary of Poitiers, "scripturae enim non in legendo sunt, sed in intelligendo." The phrase was also repeated by St. Jerome. One had to grasp in advance, as it were, the true pattern of scriptural revelation, the great and comprehensive design of God's redemptive providence (the oeconomia), and this could be done only by an insight of faith. It was by faith that the witness to Christ could be discerned in the Old Testament. It was by faith that the unity of the tetramorphic gospel could be properly ascertained.

Now, this faith was not an arbitrary and subjective insight of individuals; it was the faith of the church, rooted in the apostolic message or kerygma and authenticated by it. Those outside of the church, that is, outside of her living and apostolic tradition, failed to have precisely this basic and overarching message, the very heart of the gospel. With them Scripture was an array of disconnected passages and stories or of proof-texts which they endeavored to arrange and re-arrange according to their own pattern, derived from alien sources. They had "another faith."

III

This was the main method and the main argument of Tertullian in his passionate treatise De praescriptione. He could not discuss Scriptures with heretics, with those outside the communion of apostolic faith. For they had no right to use the Scriptures: the Scriptures did not belong to them. They were the possession of the church. Tertullian emphatically insisted on the priority of the "rule of faith." It was the only key to the Scriptures, the indispensable prerequisite of authentic biblical interpretation. And this rule was apostolic; it was rooted in and derived from the original apostolic preaching. The New Testament itself had to be taken in the comprehensive context of the total apostolic preaching, which was still vividly remembered in the church.

The basic intention of this appeal to the apostolic "rule of faith" in the early church is obvious. When Christians spoke of the "rule of faith" as apostolic, they did not mean that the apostles had formulated it. What they meant was that the profession of belief which every catechumen recited before his baptism did embody in summary form the faith which the apostles had taught and had committed to their disciples after them. This profession of faith was the same everywhere, although the actual phrasing could vary from place to place. It was always intimately related to the baptismal formula itself (Cf. C. H. Turner). Apart from this "rule" the Scriptures could only be misinterpreted, contended Tertullian and St. Irenaeus a bit earlier.

The apostolic tradition of faith was the indispensable guide in the understanding of Scripture and the ultimate warrant of right interpretation. The church was not an external authority which could be the judge over Scripture, but was rather the keeper and guardian of that divine truth which has been stored and deposited in Holy Writ. The "rule of faith," of which the early church fathers spoke, was intimately related to the sacrament of Christian initiation. It was the "rule" to which believers are committed (and into which they were previously initiated) by their baptismal profession. On the other hand, this "rule" was nothing other than the "truth" which the apostles had deposited in the church and entrusted to her, to be continuously handed down by the succession of accredited pastors, under the abiding guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The image of the church as a "treasury of truth" comes from St. Irenaeus. The treasure is indeed the Scripture, but also the living faith by which the mystery of the Scripture is assessed. Tradition in the early church was, first of all, a hermeneutical principle and method. Scripture could be rightly and fully comprehended only in the light and in the context of the living apostolic tradition, which was an integral factor of Christian existence. It was so not because tradition could add anything to what has been manifested in the Scripture, but because it provided that living context, the comprehensive perspective, in which alone the true intention and the total design of the Holy Writ, and especially of the divine revelation itself, could be adequately grasped and acknowledged. The Christian truth was, in the phrase of St. Irenaeus, a "well-grounded system," a corpus veritatis, or a "harmonious melody." And it was precisely this harmony that could be apprehended by faith alone. The apostolic tradition, as it was maintained and understood in the early church, was not a fixed core or complex of binding propositions, but rather an insight into the meaning and power of the revelatory events, of the revelation of the "God who acts" and has acted.

IV

The situation did not change in the fourth century. The dispute with the Arians was centered again in the exegetical field, at least in its early phase. The Arians and their supporters had produced an impressive array of scriptural texts in defense of their doctrinal position. They wanted to restrict theological discussion to the biblical ground alone. Their claim had to be met precisely on this ground. Their exegetical method was much the same as that of the earlier dissenters. They were operating with selected proof-texts, without much concern for the total context of revelation. It was imperative for the orthodox to appeal to the mind of the church, to that "faith" which had been once delivered and then faithfully kept. This was the chief concern and the usual method of the great Athanasius. In his arguments he persistently invoked the "rule of faith," much in the same manner as it had been done by the fathers of the second century.

Only the "rule of faith" allows the theologian to grasp the true intention of Holy Scripture, the scopos, the genuine design and intent of the revelation. The "scope" of the faith or the Scriptures was precisely their credal core, which was condensed in the "rule of faith," as this had been handed down and transmitted "from fathers to fathers." In contrast, the Arians had "no fathers" to support their doctrinal claims. Their blasphemy was a sheer innovation totally alien to apostolic tradition and to the overarching message of the Bible. St. Athanasius regarded this traditional "rule of faith" as the norm and ultimate principle of interpretation, opposing "the ecclesiastical sense" to "the private opinions" of the heretics. Indeed, for him Scripture was an adequate and sufficient source of doctrine, sacred and inspired. Only it had to be properly interpreted in the context of the living credal tradition, under the guidance and control of the "rule of faith."

Moreover, this "rule" was in no sense an extraneous authority which could be imposed on the Holy Writ. It was, in fact, the same apostolic preaching which had been deposited in writing in the books of the New Testament. But it was, as it were, this preaching in epitome, Sometimes Athanasius described the Scripture itself as an apostolic paradosis. In the whole discussion with the Arians there is no single reference to any "traditions" in the plural. The only appeal is to Tradition. "Let us look at that very tradition, teaching and faith of the cathlolic church from the very beginning, which the Lord handed down, the apostles preached and the fathers preserved. Upon this the church is established." (St. Athanasius, ad Serap., T. 28). Thus, he teaches that "tradition" is even more than apostolic; it is dominical coming from the Lord Himself.

The first reference to "unwritten traditions" is to be found in the famous treatise of St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit; And, at first glance, it may seem as if St. Basil admitted a double authority and double standard — unwritten traditions alongside of the Scriptures. The fact is however, that he is far from doing so. His terminology is peculiar. His main distnction is between kerygmata and dogmata. In his phraseology, kerygmata are precisely what in the later terminology was denoted as doctrine, that is, formal and authoritative teaching and ruling in matters of faith or the public teaching. On the other hand, dogmata are the total complex of "unwritten habits" — in fact, the total structure of liturgical and sacramental life. These "habits" were handed down, says St. Basil, en mysterio. It would be a flagrant mistranslation if we took these words to mean "in secret." The only accurate rendering is: "by way of mysteries." This means, under the form of rites and liturgical usages. Indeed, all the examples which St. Basil cites in this connection are ritual and symbolic. These rites and symbols are means of communication. In a sense they are extra-scriptural. But their purpose is to impart to the candidates for baptism the "rule of faith" and prepare them for their baptismal profession of faith. St. Basil's appeal to these "unwritten habits" was no more than an appeal to the faith of the church, to her sensus catholicus. He had to break the deadlock created by the obstinate and narrow-minded pseudo-biblicism of his Arian, or Eunomian, opponents. And he pleaded that, apart from this "unwritten" rule of faith, expressed in sacramental rites and habits, it was impossible to grasp the true intention of the Scripture.

V

To conclude this brief excursus on the ancient tradition we should mention St. Vincent of Lerins and his famous Commonitorium. Sometimes it is asserted that Vincent admitted the double authority of Scripture and Tradition. Actually he held the opposite view. Indeed, the true faith could be recognized, according toVincent, in a double manner, duplici modo, that is, by the authority of the divine law (i.e. Scripture) and by ecclesiastical tradition. This does not imply, however, that there are two sources of Christian doctrine. The "rule" of Scripture was for St. Vincent "perfect and self-sufficient." Why then was it imperative to invoke also the "authority of ecclesiastical understanding," (ecclesiasticae intelligentiae auctoritas)? The reason is obvious: Scripture was variously interpreted and twisted by individual writers for their subjective purposes. And to this confusing variety of discordant interpretations and private opinions, St. Vincent opposes the mind of the church catholic (ut propheticae et apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum ecclesiastici et catholici sensus normam derigatur). Thus tradition for St. Vincent is not an independent instance nor a complementary source of doctrine. It is no more than Scripture being interpreted according to the catholic mind of the church, which is the guardian of the apostolic "rule of faith." St. Vincent repeats and summarizes the continuous attitude of the ancient church on this matter. Scripture is an adequate source of doctrine: ad omnia satis superque sufficiat. Tradition is the authentic guide in interpretation, providing the context and perspective in which Scripture discloses its genuine message.

The Orthodox Church is faithfully committed to this ancient and traditional view on the sources of Christian doctrine. Scripture is an adequate source. But only in so far as it is read and interpreted in the church which is the guardian both of the Holy Writ and of the total apostolic paradosis of faith, order and life. Tradition alone allows the church to go beyond the "letter" to the very Word of Life.

[1] Appeared in Dialog, Vol.2, No. 4 Autumn 1963, pp.288-293.

Covetousness

Archpriest Nikolai Deputatov

As a moral feat, Christianity places importance on one’s inner disposition. It looks at actions as consequences of this disposition. The inner disposition serves as an indicator of the spiritual level of attainment of the will. An action is an expression of this disposition. If for some reason the disposition is not realized in actions, its value does not diminish. "We know that without love for those close to you, the mind cannot be enlightened by divine discourse and love… And where there is no opportunity to show love to others around you in visible actions, then our intentions of showing love are sufficient before God (St.Isaac the Syrian). However, the zealots had the means to show love in deeds. These deeds manifested themselves in incessant prayer for all those in peril and in great need.

Unfortunately, a great obstacle to love is people’s predilection for acquisition of material things. The zealots understood love of God in the sense of being constantly in spiritual communion with Him, being in constant thought of Him, together with feelings of love, reverence and gratitude. For this to happen, it is essential to be free of any worldly burdens. One can be with God, when there are no worries and nothing distracts from Him. But for the majority of people, practically their whole life is spent in securing possessions. And whoever succumbs to this, is a slave to his own passion, and is completely engulfed by this anxiety. Ownership demands concerns and the expending of energy not only in gaining possessions, but also in maintaining them. In this, the zealots saw the greatest obstacle for the development in the soul of a constant yearning of love for God.

"If the mind does not free itself from the worries of worldly concerns, then it will never penetrate the innermost. For the humble, the most desirous in the lowliest state, are charity, wanting, poverty. The humble person prefers to remain free, not to have any worries, not to be perturbed by the earthly, the here and now…" (St. Isaac the Syrian).

Life experience convinces us, that the addiction to the pursuit of possessions, is one of the powerful motives of breaking the commandment of love and relationships with others. "If you are not going to be overly tied to your possessions, then it will be easy for you to perform any good deed" (Abba Zosima)… "The ancient adversary disposes our soul to the love of ephemeral things, arouses those close us to be against us, who plots to take away that, which is most precious to us. The ancient adversary does not attempt to destroy the earthly, but to destroy in us love. For we suddenly flare up in hatred, and not wanting to be beaten from the outside, we agonize on the inside. But defending the miniscule on the outside, we lose so much on the inside, because losing a temporary possession, we forgo genuine love, for whoever destroys our possessions is our enemy. For if we bear hatred toward our enemy we lose the inner" (St. Gregory the Dialogist).

To avoid dissension and enmity with those around us, one should free oneself from the addiction of ownership. "Love is a squanderer of not only money, but it also does not even spare earthly life itself" (St. Evagrius). "Even if you found yourself in most dire poverty, but truly not as poor as that widow, who brought all her possessions as a gift (Luke 21:2-4) and not poorer than the widow of Sydon (1 Kings 17), who only had a handful of flour, and did not refuse to feed the prophet! She could see that there were children around her who faced hunger and that she had no more supplies, but nonetheless, she received the prophet with great zeal" (St. John Chrysostom).

To have the opportunity to help the poor, fasting is recommended. "We exhort you to keep the fast every Wednesday and Friday, and that which is left from your fasting, to distribute to the needy (Acts of the Apostles).

True love in itself brings one to impoverishment. Wealth demands constant concern and does not allow the opportunity to concentrate one’s thoughts and feelings exclusively on God. It creates many temptations to break the commandments of love to those around you, causing arguments, hostility and envy. In this way, every possession is an obstacle to fulfilling the commandments of love to God and your near ones. Followers of Christ cannot be rich in the world, while want and poverty reign. A Christian cannot be carefree and happy while there is weeping and affliction. Love towards your near ones, like love of self, though it leads to impoverishment, frees one from many dangerous temptations and unwanted worries and opens up a pathway to a spiritual life and self searching. Searching the self, without fail, leads to a highly intense, supersensitive contact with the Divine.

Abandoning oneself to the love of God, desiring to reach a passionless state and holiness, serenity, humility and the joy and happiness they give rise to, the non-avaricious person tries to keep his thoughts as far away as possible from any material and bodily passions, that stir the soul and do not permit the soul with a pure eye to comprehend the Divine and enjoy the light that is found there (St. Basil the Great).

One must not think that this serves as the ideal only for special people with an inclination towards monasticism. No, — this ideal is pan-Christian. There cannot be any other ideal. There exists only one ideal — that of Christ, unchangeable and eternal for all believing humanity.

What's Missing Here?

The following is from the Roman Catholic Church. I am not reproducing the entire document here. Those wishing to view it will find it here. Can anyone identify a key phrase that one might expect to be in a Catholic Document that is missing here? For those not good at this sort of thing I gave a little hint in the document. The Vatican does not make typos. Not when they are dealing with urgent matters of Doctrine. And considering this was bottom lined by the then reigning Pope and his current successor I would think the implications are significant.

Hat tip to Mike from Metanoia.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

DECLARATION
"DOMINUS IESUS"
ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY
OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH


INTRODUCTION

1. The Lord Jesus, before ascending into heaven, commanded his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to the whole world and to baptize all nations: “Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk 16:15-16); “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the world” (Mt 28:18-20; cf. Lk 24:46-48; Jn 17:18,20,21; Acts 1:8).

The Church's universal mission is born from the command of Jesus Christ and is fulfilled in the course of the centuries in the proclamation of the mystery of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the mystery of the incarnation of the Son, as saving event for all humanity. The fundamental contents of the profession of the Christian faith are expressed thus: “I believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come”.1

Quote of the day...

"The path to hell is paved with good intentions, and illuminated with paraffin candles." -anonymous

It's Over Already

OK. I am ending my neutrality. When last I addressed this subject I was careful to keep an open mind although the seeds of doubt were already firmly planted. This is no longer the case however. The so called Duke Rape case has now turned into a sick joke. I am not a lawyer (though I do have some background in criminal law). But I don’t think you have to be a lawyer to see that this case has taken more damage than the Titanic. It’s time for DA Mike Nifong to do the right thing and call it quits. There is no way that this case will result in a conviction. If the revelations keep coming at their current pace it’s possible that the DA may find himself in the embarrassing position of having the trial judge dismiss the indictment. It is morally reprehensible to keep three men under indictment when you have no case. For the latest developments you can go here.

The Post Pascha Blues

I apologize. Between bizarre work schedules, and the recent problems with Blogger, I have been a little light on postings recently. Added to this is a certain lethargy that has been afflicting me. Something that my confessor likened to (I am paraphrasing here) the post Pascha blues. It does sort of explain things. But even so, I have had a hard time lately getting motivated in a wide range of areas. The weather is getting warm, I am not fasting everyday, and the other usual distractions in life are all combining to turn me into a bum. Lately I would rather spend my limited free time curled up and reading a cheesy detective novel than spend time posting thoughts on serious matters. However I am making a conscious effort to attend to things.

More on ROCOR & the MP

Russian Metropolitan in US hails unity with Moscow Patriarchate
Itar-Tass

JORDANVILLE, NY, June 6 (Itar-Tass) - First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), Metropolitan Laurus, sees the Lord’s mercy in the results of ROCOR’s recent All-Diaspora Council and the Council of Bishops that adopted a line at canonical and eucharistic reunification with the Russian Orthodox Church reporting to Moscow Patriarchate.

As he spoke in an exclusive interview with Itar-Tass in the Holy Trinity monastery in Jordanville, NY, His Eminence Laurus said he was glad to see those results.

He indicated, however, he could not tell yet where, when and how the much-hoped-for reunification might take place.

“We didn’t discuss anything on the issue yet,” His Eminence said speaking of himself and ROCOR’s other hierarchs.

In any case, he proceeds from the assumption that a bilateral commission on negotiations will get together soon again.

The commission has the power of refining the Act on Canonical Communication between the two Churches and to settle some outstanding problems.

Commission members will also have to map out the procedure for signing the document, as His Eminence Laurus believes a special gala ceremony must be organized for it.

He declined to discuss in detail the problems still requiring coordination but singled out ecumenism – the practice of communications among and major international gatherings of the Christians of all denominations.

Such practices “give rise to recurrent questions,” His Eminence said. ROCOR rejects those communications.

All references to the power that dialogue between various confessions ostensibly gives in defending the positions of Eastern Orthodoxy do not look convincing, he said.

Suffice it to recall that none of the partners in that fictitious dialogue changed over to the positions of Orthodox Christianity over the past decades, His Eminence Laurus said.

As for the assistance provided by ecumenical organizations, it looks very selective, he said, adding that, surprisingly, the World Council of Churches did nothing to help the oppressed Christians in the former Yugolasvia, and primarily the Kosovo Serbs who espouse Orthodoxy.

His Eminence Laurus also sounded cautious as he spoke about re-emerging contacts between Moscow Patriarchate and the Vatican.

He believes, for instance, that a pontifical visit to Russia – something that Holy See was seeking to organize back in the period of Pope John Paul’s pontificate – might exert bad impact on relations between Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR.

His Eminence Laurus explained, however, that he had no personal power of deciding on slowdown moves in terms of the pace of reunification, saying full power on such decision-making is vested in the Council of Bishops.

He indicated, though, the information at his disposal did not suggest the presence of any exact plans regarding a possible pontifical trip to Russia.

His Eminence Laurus confirmed that ROCOR hierarchs believe it would be logical to crown the reunification process with the convocation of an All-Russia Church Council.

“Our people, our bishops live with that hope in their hearts,” he said.

ROCOR has its own parishes on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church reporting to Moscow Patriarchate and it would like to keep them up after reunification is formalized, His Eminence Laurus said.

He made it clear, though, that ROCOR’s Synod is ready to settle any problems once they emerge in that context.

The bridging of a tragic divide that appeared in the once united Russian Orthodox Church during the decades of Bolshevist rule would have effects going beyond the boundaries of the Church as such, His Eminence Laurus said.

It would signal moral recuperation of society, he said.

His Eminence Laurus reaffirmed that, to the best of its ability – which is not all-embracing – ROCOR is ready to help improve attitudes towards Russia around the world.

A Perversion of Justice

Aborting a Baby Is Legal in Britain, but Depicting It Is a Crime

by Steven W. Mosher
Posted Jun 01, 2006
Our cousins in Great Britain, from whom we inherited a language, a political culture and, most specifically, the principle of freedom of speech, are going off the deep end, to judge from the jailing of Edward Atkinson.

Here's the background. Last year, the U.K. was rocked by a high-profile abortion case. This was because the demise of "Baby A," as she became known, was photographed and videotaped. This evidence of her brutal end was widely distributed in the U.K.

The abortion took place at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Kings Lynn, Norfolk, not far from where Mr. Atkinson lives. This veteran pro-life campaigner decided to educate the Hospital's chief executive, Ruth May, in the horrors of such events. He sent copies of the photographs and other literature to Ms. May.

Upon receiving the pictures, Ruth May complained to the authorities. The Director of Public Prosecutions, as district attorneys are known in the U.K., promptly ordered his arrest on the charge of "sending offensive materials through the mails." The policy then dragged the 75-year-old Catholic, who is nearly crippled with arthritis, from his home and held him in prison until his court date.

Read the rest here...
Hat tip to the Godfather

Latin & the Power of Silence

Rare Latin Mass A Return to Ritual

By Michelle Boorstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 4, 2006; A12

The ringing of bells. Latin wafting high into the church rafters. Women's heads draped in lace.

There is a solemn aura to 9 a.m. Sunday Mass at Saint Mary Mother of God, a D.C. parish on Fifth Street NW where hundreds of Catholics who long for ancient ritual gather each week to celebrate what is among the most traditional and complex of Roman Catholic rites: the Tridentine Mass.

The sounds are few and particular. Latin is the language of prayer, and the only ones who speak it during the service are the nearly inaudible priest and the Gregorian Chant Choir that performs on the third Sunday of each month. Robed altar servers -- there are as many as 10 -- ring bells several times during the hour-long service. Pews creak and shoes shuffle as some 400 people kneel and stand, kneel and stand.

But mostly there is a powerful silence, a seriousness created by the absence of contemporary church: no responsive readings, no guitars, no congregants walking to a microphone to read from Scripture or to make bingo announcements. There is just a centuries-old script, which dictates the near-constant, intricate movements of the altar servers -- circling the altar, kneeling, pressing hands together, bowing -- as well as the position of the priest, whose back is to parishioners. Together, everyone faces East, acknowledging that Jesus is the true dawn.

Read the rest here

And for a magnificent clip from their choir click here. Its enough to make one think that there may be hope for the Western Church.

Sex Abortion & Responsibility

"I Just Had to Do It"
By Doug Bandow

"It was a decision I am sorry I had to make." Get an abortion, that is. That's how attorney Dana L. (who asked that her last name not be published) explained her decision to get an abortion in Sunday's Washington Post. "It was awful, painful, sickening," but not her fault. Rather, the responsibility goes to (drum roll please!) George W. Bush: "I feel that this administration gave me practically no choice but to have an unwanted abortion."

Most people might have trouble imagining how President Bush could be to blame, but Dana L. has no doubt. Let's start at the beginning. She and her husband "both work, and like many couples, we're starved for time together." Obviously Bush's fault. He's had more than five years to come up with a government program to help people spend more time together. Instead, he's been giving people tax cuts which should allow people to work less, but, well, never mind...

Read the rest here

The Light of Christ

Archpriest Nikolai Deputatov

"In Your light we shall see light."

Man thirsts for enlivenment, inspiration… For a lamp to shine, the presence of transparent glass is not enough, there must be a candle burning within there is a need for a candle to burn within him. This is what the Lord did with His apostles: first, having purified them with truth, He enlivened them with the Holy Spirit, and only then did they become a light for the world.

This process is inevitable for every Christian. First, a cleansing by Truth and then enlightenment by the Spirit. Truth repudiates the inborn inspiration as something ludicrous; it deadens it so that the Spirit, having come, will resurrect him in a renewed form. If a person, before he is cleansed by truth, begins to be guided by his own inspiration, will begin to emit, not a pure light, but one that is tainted and polarized by a filter of his own damaged heart, where good is interspersed with evil.

The soul is lonely in this world and seeks the source of true, meaningful life and renewal outside it. At times the soul locks itself in, becomes introverted, lives inside its own world, and there, finds light.

The fundamental characteristic of the inner world or the emotional life is a troubled soul, an unceasing search for light and joy. A constant ebbing and flowing of the tide, striving, lifting up and being dropped to the ground, — calling like shadows of a spring dawn, and without hope, like the twilight. Flashes of lightning of partially solved mysteries and a bitter feeling of futility of all efforts…

"The beloved pierces the mind with a ray of his own light, and instantly flees from the fast traveling mind. The more it becomes aware, the more it distances itself, wrenching itself from the hands, beckons and draws the soul to follow" (Gregory the Theologian).

"All sensations of my mind and soul concentrated on the indescribable pleasure seeking and joy from that ebullient light. But when that immeasurable light appeared before me and then diminished little by little, and finally became invisible, I then came to my senses and found out what wonders the power of this light had suddenly created in me…. That light when it comes, brings joy and when it disappears, leaves a wound and an ache in the heart" (St. Simeon the New Theologian 86th sermon).

"When I see the increasing malady of the tongue nowadays, fast evolving sages, newly created theologians, for whom it is sufficient to only want to become wise: then I feel a need for wisdom from above and I search with Jeremiah "a lodging place for travelers " (Jeremiah 9.2) and I want to be alone, by myself… Denying the flesh and turning back on the world, and only in dire need succumbing to anything human, communing with God and oneself, to live above the visible; always to have divine images in the mind, pure ones that are not jumbled with distant and deceptive impressions; to be and unceasingly become an untainted mirror of God and of the divine; to accumulate more light to an existing light, to a light less clear, a beaming one, until we ascend to the Source of that radiance and reach a blessed end…" (Gregory the Theologian, pt. 2).

Perception of light, in the experience of visions of an "inner light" are as real as perceptions of physical light. In the written works of the saints quite often we read that they perceived this immaterial, Divine light. At times it appears so powerful, that it emits light to the outside and is perceived as physical light, making the body of the ascetic radiant. Spiritual beauty is a blinding beauty of a radiant, light bearing image, incomprehensible to mortal beings.

The face of abba (=father) Pamvo shone like lightning, and he was like a king, sitting upon his throne…" Before the repose in the Lord of abba Sisoi, when the holy fathers were gathered around him, his face shone like the sun…. A passerby encountered abba Siluan and seeing that his face and body shone like an angel, fell on his face… One brother having come to a monastery, looked through the door of abba Arseny’s cell and saw that the starets was, as if ablaze. Motovilov said to Saint Seraphim: "Father I cannot look, because flashes of light are gushing out from your eyes. Your face has become brighter than the sun, and my eyes are aching with pain…"

The wondrous Fire that was burning inside St. Sergius attracted those people who had seen him, at least once. During the singing of "To Thee we sing," the fire came down "as if from the sky, and moved on the altar engulfing the whole altar and surrounded St Sergius as he was serving the liturgy. While he was partaking of the Holy Sacrament, the divine light descended into this chalice. Something similar had also occurred in the life of the starets (elder) hieromonk Ambrosy. To some extent there was an illumining in the face of Bishop Theophan the Recluse and the righteous St. John of Kronstadt. Father John stood before the Lord as if before the sun and feeling an ineffable brilliance of the divine light, closed his eyes, and clearly felt himself to be in the rays of this light and from them he felt warmth, joy and closeness to Christ the Savior… From the grace of God his face was beautiful, like that of an angel, and one wanted to gaze at him… Sin perverts man but grace luminously adorns him… The Holy Spirit lives in us and makes us resemble the Lord Jesus Christ, just like children resemble their father.

There had been many emissions of inner light of ascetics of the 6th century and recorded in "The Spiritual Field" and in the lives of the saints. The heritage of the holy fathers on the divine light is enormous. This amazes us and unspeakably gives us joy. In it, is Christ’s concerned love for helpless people… However, there is no Mt Tabor without suffering, and there is no support for one’s spirit, outside contemplation of Christ.

Know the Lord and His likeness will reflect in you and it will not allow darkness to overpower you, to bind you like a sinner until eternity, deprived of the ability to do good. Let deathly horror and sanguine sweat and the Lord’s suffering pass before your eyes. When you look at Him, He who endures suffering, will look at you and will do with you, what He did, at one time, with Peter, you will "go and begin to cry bitterly…"

The Gospel is the fullness of the Revelation. It is — the sun, in comparison with which, other holy books are only planets, that shine with reflected light. There, God prophesied with the mouths of prophets. Here, the Son of God, Himself, converses with us — God-man, whose whole life was the revelation of light. "I am the light of the world" (Jn.8:12).

He is not just a bearer of light, but is Himself — Light, incarnate, light of the Hypostases. Whoever believes in Him, knows through experience, that he owes his inner enlightenment to this universal light, as much as in the physical world, he owes it to the sun. Christianity is not only a religion of love, but also of light. Christ taught the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, teaching about the laws of an eternal, divine life, of the "inner light" as a spiritual life, of one being God-man. In so much as the soul is more precious than the body, the inner or spiritual life is more important than the outer, physical life. Conversely, the inner, spiritual darkness is more dangerous, more perilous, more horrific than the black of the night, or blindness. Whoever loses the inner sight, forfeits with it the eternal, divine life, to which light belongs, just as it is in the physical life (Jn.1:4).

Enlightenment of both the body and soul is only necessary within the parameters of space and time. Meanwhile, what is the point of examining infusorians under the microscope and not even once glancing into one’s own soul? What joy is there in using electricity and never seeing the sun’s rays during the day? Inner, spiritual light, not only enlightens, but it also enlivens. The quantity of inner light will always be proportionate to the level of our spiritual growth. Abundance of spiritual light is conditional upon some great feat. We are convinced of this because of the examples and teachings of the saints, who embodied these, together with spiritual excellence and a vivid brilliance reaching an outer radiance, the brilliance of the "inner light."

Mysterious is the nature of spiritual light. The essence of this light is divinely incomprehensible. In its ultimate revelations, the inner light is Divine Light. It reveals the mysteries of the past and the future. It brings one to an understanding of religious truths, speculations, ideas… In its unfathomable essence, the Divine Light is superior to any soul. It is inherent in the spiritual world, as a whole. A pure heart, a brilliant mind, a sensitive conscience- are only ways to contemplating it. In its own right, it is "a great mystery of godliness" (1Tim.3:16).

You, O Lord are all sweetness, all light and life. Enlighten us with the light of Your Divine wisdom. Glorify us with Your Divine power and abandon us not, we who depend on You.

The Way of Christ

Archpriest Nikolai Deputatov

The teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ is the true light of life, the promise of a life most perfect, joyous and free. The Savior came to awaken the spiritual strengths of humankind and to see that the given gifts are not buried and that humans will not be cowardly and meek slaves, but with the freedom of sonship would work in the field and vineyard of his Father. God wants a love from people that is not coerced, but one that is free, the most profound and sincere communion with Him. He is our way, truth and life. A Christian lives by His love, is nourished by His blessings and in His light sees the light of life. To Him he brings his joys and sorrows, troubles and doubts, his delights and his fears…

The way of Christ can never be easy and free like other ways that lead to destruction. The way of Christ, to this very day, remains narrow and the gates to Christ’s Kingdom are hard to see. It is imperative for a Christian to renounce himself, to leave everything behind, without looking back in order to do work for the sake of the Lord. The purpose of a Christian life is to work with God in the task of establishing the Kingdom of God. It is to live in this world by God’s truth, in word and deed and to be its heralds and to courageously fight off the temptations of the world, placing all sorrows and worries into God’s hands, purifying weaknesses and sins by His holiness, His love…

Christ — "is not of this world." That is why the world hates Him, and with Him, all His disciples (John 15:18-19). The Lord foretold His Apostles banishment, suffering and martyrdom — and all this was fulfilled. "All those desirous of living devout lives in Christ Jesus, will be persecuted. But malicious people will prosper," foretells Apostle Paul (2 Tim. 4:12).

A proud and conceited person is not capable of accepting Christ’s teaching. Only he who subjugates and humbles himself, like a child, is capable of accommodating it. "To humble oneself "means to become meek, forgiving, devoid of any kind of violence and pride. And "the world" in every way will abuse and persecute this voluntary child.

Christ brought the world life and joy, but the adversary brought — suffering and sorrow. While there is sorrow and suffering in the world, they will be the lot of every unhypocritical servant of Christ. A Christian cannot be fully happy in this world, because every fault in a loved one becomes the source of sorrow.

In every age there have been people, who during their lifetime, and quite often after death, were recognized as being righteous. And when one examines the heartfelt confessions of these bearers of the light of Christ, one is astounded at their sincere, profound admission of their own sinful state, their powerlessness and impoverished spirit. If the saints openly admitted their powerlessness and impoverishment and in this state went to meet God, so then, for our spiritual growth, we must refrain from all kinds of evil, by exercising goodwill, by fasting, by prayer and recognizing our own insignificance.

Complacency and self-assurance are not indicative of holiness and perfection, but of pride, short sightedness and spiritual limitations. The beginning of humility, in the words of the Savior, which likens the believer to the Teacher, is an endless source of the realization of the inter-relationship of the sin and suffering in this world. In one’s spiritual life, a Christian should be childlike, not wondering about his own growth; a lily of the field, not admiring its own beauty or a bird, not worrying about tomorrow.

A believer always humbles himself because he does not consider anyone lower than himself, always repents because he distinctly sees the splendor of God’s way and is conscious of his distance from God. The believer constantly sheds tears because he recognizes his powerlessness….And in knowing his own weakness, he constantly purifies himself and strives for perfection. Nor a Christian can be revengeful because revenge tears a person away from the all-merciful and meek Savior.