The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware
"I would rather see the Muslim turban in the midst of the city than the Latin mitre."
Thus the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras echoed the words attributed to the sister of Emperor Michael VIII some 150 years prior when she said, "Better that my brother's Empire should perish, than the purity of Orthodox faith."
Why the strong statements?
In both instances reunion councils - at Lyons in 1274 and at Florence in 1438 - were to blame.
To blame? Is not working for unity a good thing?
Indeed it is great, however, not at the expense of the principles you believe are from God. We can negotiate on whether we want pink or blue carpet within the church, but for many of these people, the things of the Church - the Creeds and authority of one church (i.e.,Rome) over all the others were not up for compromise.
Yet compromise on the issues of the Filioque and Papal authority is what the leaders tried to do. The Byzantines gave into Rome's demands and at least on paper agreed that the addition of the Filioque was fine and Rome's thoughts on Papal authority were too. Why this bowing down to Rome's wishes?
The author notes that the two sides truly did want reconciliation between fellow Christians, however, he also recognized politics played a role. The Byzantines were being threatened in the first case by the sovereign of Sicily,Charles of Anjou, and later by the Turks. Help from Rome was needed and this could best be secured by attempting reconciliation.
And what better way to reconcile - at least on paper - than to agree to Rome's wishes.
Yet most of the Byzantine leaders and people did not agree to these compromises.
The author mentions that eastern and western thought continued to drift apart with westerners being influenced by Scholasticism, "new categories of thought, a new theological method, and a new terminology which the east did not understand." In the east, theology was influenced by the Hesychast Controversy where the church leaders had to make sense of God being unknowable (i.e., we cannot define Him) yet able to be known (i.e., He reveals Himself to His creation.)
How is this explained?
The Hesychasts were mystical and thought we could know God through inner stillness, through prayer. Yet another common Greek thought, as mentioned, said God was unable to be known. "'God is infinite and incomprehensible,' wrote John of Damascus, 'and all that is comprehensible about Him is His infinity and incomprehensibility.'"
The controversy between the Hesychasts and Barlaam was taken up by St. Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica,who explained that we needed to distinguish between God's essence (unknowable) and His energies (knowable). St. Basil once had said, "We know our God from His energies..., but we do not claim that we can draw near to His essence. For His energies come down to us, but His essence remains unapproachable." (pg.68)
What are these energies? I was asking this question too and then read this:
"These energies are not something that exists apart from God, not a gift which God confers upon humans; they are God Himself in action and revelation to the world...[All] creation is a gigantic Burning Bush, permeated but not consumed by the ineffable and wondrous fire of God's energies. It is through these energies that God enters into a direct and immediate relationship with humankind. In relation to us humans, the divine energy is in fact nothing else than the grace of God; grace is not just a 'gift' of God, not just an object which God bestows on humans, but a direct manifestation of the living God Himself, a personal encounter between creature and Creator."
Hmmm, any wonder St. Gregory began his defense by reaffirming the Biblical doctrine of Incarnation?
"Palamas, therefore, preserved God's transcendence and avoided the pantheism to which an unguarded mysticism easily leads; yet he allowed for God's immanence, for His continual presence in the world. God remains 'the Wholly Other', and yet through His energies (which are God Himself) He enters into an immediate relationship with the world." (pg. 69)
A contemporary of Palamas, lay theologian St. Nicolas Cabasilas authored a book which dealt with mysticism not becoming speculative and individualistic, but remaining "Christocentric, sacramental, ecclesial."
"Palamas and his circle did not regard mystical prayer as a means of bypassing the normal institutional life of the Church."
Chapter three ends with the east and west unable to come together despite the reconciliation attempt at the council meeting in Florence. In the end the Turks came and one last service - with both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox united - was held at the Church of the Holy Wisdom (Hagia Sophia). After receiving communion, the Emperor went out and died while fighting on the walls.
"Later the same day the city fell to the Turks, and the most glorious church in Christendom became a mosque."
I suppose for the Christians living at that time it would be like what Muslims would think if the Masjid al-Haram at Mecca were converted into a church.
Wow!
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
The Orthodox Church -- St. Photius, Ignatius, Pope Nicolas I, Bulgaria, Humbert & More
The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware
The next section of chapter three deals with the Eastern and Western Churches' estrangement becoming a full division. It began with a new Patriarch of Constantinople being appointed, St. Photius the Great. A dispute arose quickly between him and Pope Nicolas I. I then read about a former Patriarch, St.Ignatius being exiled and forced to resign. The supporters of Ignatius considered Photius "a usurper" and Nicolas decided he would not recognize Photius as the new Patriarch until he looked into the quarrel for himself. He sent a delegation to Constantinople who came back with the report that Photius was the proper Patriarch, but Nicolas decided to not abide by their decision. He figured he needed to retry the case himself at Rome and "a council held under his presidency in 863 recognized Ignatius as Patriarch, and proclaimed Photius to be deposed from all priestly dignity." (pg. 53) The Byzantines never acknowledged this decision by Nicolas and never replied to his letters on this subject.
The author says "this dispute clearly involved the Papal claims." Nicolas had already "done much to establish an absolute power over all bishops in the west. But he believed this absolute power to extend to the east also."
The East did not agree.
The dispute over the Filioque came to a head in Bulgaria as Greek and German missionaries clashed because of this difference in the Creed. Patriarch Photius wrote a letter "denouncing the Filioque at length and charging those who used it with heresy." He called a council to Constantinople which proceeded to excommunicate Nicolas.
Suddenly things changed!
In 867, Photius was out and Ignatius reinstated as the Patriarch of Constantinople. "Communion with Rome was restored."
Even Photius and Ignatius were reconciled and when Ignatius died, Photius once again became the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Pope John VIII was not one for Frankish influence nor did he make the Filioque an issue. Outwardly this was a period of reconciliation between Rome and the East, but no real solution had been made concerning these two divisive issues.
And they cropped up again.
I won't rehash all that happened next, but just note a few things that caught my eye.
Under German influence Rome reformed itself, "and through the rule of men such as Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII) it gained a position of power in the west such as it had never before achieved. The reformed Papacy naturally revived the claims to universal jurisdiction which Nicolas had made." (pg.57)
(It seems Germans are often reformers, huh?)
The "severe quarrel" between Humbert, Bishop of Silva Candida, representing Rome and the Patriarch Michael Cerularius in 1054 contributed more to the divide. Among the charges against the Patriarch: "Humbert accused the Greeks of omitting the Filioque from the Creed!" (Recall from past lessons that the Filioque was an addition from the Roman Church acting independently of the council of churches.)
Previously the disagreement had been between the church and government leaders, however the Crusades - sadly - "brought the schism down to the local level." In Antioch and Jerusalem you had "two rival bishops claim[ing] the same throne and two hostile congregations exist[ing] in the same city." (pg.60)
"'The Crusaders brought not peace but a sword; and the sword was to sever Christendom.' The long-standing doctrinal disagreements were now reinforced on the Greek side by an intense national hatred, by a feeling of resentment and indignation against western aggression and sacrilege. After 1204 there can be no doubt that Christian east and Christian west were divided into two." (pg. 60)
I did like how the author summed up what both sides need to do.
"Yet each, while believing in the rightness of its own cause, must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level...The Greek east and the Latin west needed and still need one another. For both parties the great schism has proved a great tragedy." (pg.61)
Thoughts? Corrections? Clarifications?
The next section of chapter three deals with the Eastern and Western Churches' estrangement becoming a full division. It began with a new Patriarch of Constantinople being appointed, St. Photius the Great. A dispute arose quickly between him and Pope Nicolas I. I then read about a former Patriarch, St.Ignatius being exiled and forced to resign. The supporters of Ignatius considered Photius "a usurper" and Nicolas decided he would not recognize Photius as the new Patriarch until he looked into the quarrel for himself. He sent a delegation to Constantinople who came back with the report that Photius was the proper Patriarch, but Nicolas decided to not abide by their decision. He figured he needed to retry the case himself at Rome and "a council held under his presidency in 863 recognized Ignatius as Patriarch, and proclaimed Photius to be deposed from all priestly dignity." (pg. 53) The Byzantines never acknowledged this decision by Nicolas and never replied to his letters on this subject.
The author says "this dispute clearly involved the Papal claims." Nicolas had already "done much to establish an absolute power over all bishops in the west. But he believed this absolute power to extend to the east also."
The East did not agree.
The dispute over the Filioque came to a head in Bulgaria as Greek and German missionaries clashed because of this difference in the Creed. Patriarch Photius wrote a letter "denouncing the Filioque at length and charging those who used it with heresy." He called a council to Constantinople which proceeded to excommunicate Nicolas.
Suddenly things changed!
In 867, Photius was out and Ignatius reinstated as the Patriarch of Constantinople. "Communion with Rome was restored."
Even Photius and Ignatius were reconciled and when Ignatius died, Photius once again became the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Pope John VIII was not one for Frankish influence nor did he make the Filioque an issue. Outwardly this was a period of reconciliation between Rome and the East, but no real solution had been made concerning these two divisive issues.
And they cropped up again.
I won't rehash all that happened next, but just note a few things that caught my eye.
Under German influence Rome reformed itself, "and through the rule of men such as Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII) it gained a position of power in the west such as it had never before achieved. The reformed Papacy naturally revived the claims to universal jurisdiction which Nicolas had made." (pg.57)
(It seems Germans are often reformers, huh?)
The "severe quarrel" between Humbert, Bishop of Silva Candida, representing Rome and the Patriarch Michael Cerularius in 1054 contributed more to the divide. Among the charges against the Patriarch: "Humbert accused the Greeks of omitting the Filioque from the Creed!" (Recall from past lessons that the Filioque was an addition from the Roman Church acting independently of the council of churches.)
Previously the disagreement had been between the church and government leaders, however the Crusades - sadly - "brought the schism down to the local level." In Antioch and Jerusalem you had "two rival bishops claim[ing] the same throne and two hostile congregations exist[ing] in the same city." (pg.60)
"'The Crusaders brought not peace but a sword; and the sword was to sever Christendom.' The long-standing doctrinal disagreements were now reinforced on the Greek side by an intense national hatred, by a feeling of resentment and indignation against western aggression and sacrilege. After 1204 there can be no doubt that Christian east and Christian west were divided into two." (pg. 60)
I did like how the author summed up what both sides need to do.
"Yet each, while believing in the rightness of its own cause, must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level...The Greek east and the Latin west needed and still need one another. For both parties the great schism has proved a great tragedy." (pg.61)
Thoughts? Corrections? Clarifications?
Sunday, January 9, 2011
On Friday ...
Michael and I talked while we were in the car on the way to my parents' house.
Me: I guess you miss seeing your friend Rachael now that Christmas program practice is over. (at one time they had practice three times a week; some with just the two of them with the director)
Mike: Yeah, I don't see her much any more
Me: But it makes sense.She hangs out with the girls and you hang out with the guys, right? *pause* But maybe if you see her in passing,you can tell her hello and talk briefly.
Mike: Well,I did see her at Wednesday Night Wave [a children's program at their church] and wink at her from across the room.
 |
| The Surfer Angels |
Then I asked him to show me what he did, and he winked at me in a cute way. Little stinker! :-)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Two ladies from the Veteran's Administration came to my grandparents' apartment to assess how they were doing and to offer helpful advice. I think I've told y'all before that Pop suffers from Alzheimer's disease and hasn't known who we are by name or how we are related and know him for quite some time. He thinks I'm just that nice lady - with that "thing" on the top of my head - who comes over to clean their house most weeks. Despite his not knowing us, he is most welcoming and cheerful always thanking us for coming by and making witty jokes. (He hasn't lost his trademark sense of humor, thank God.)
 |
| Pop - Christmas 2010 |
The ladies were impressed by his drawings and one wanted to take pictures by her cell phone to share with others when they have their discussion with other healthcare professionals. Anyway, my mom told me one lady tested Pop's ability to follow directions which he did easily enough. "Read this piece of paper and do what it says." He read it and closed his eyes as instructed. When asked what city, county, state, apartment complex he lived in, he didn't know. But when told to write a sentence - any sentence he wanted - he looked at the lady for a few seconds and then with great care and clear handwriting wrote:
"I am a Christian because I love Jesus."
This disease may have robbed him of knowing his family and friends by name and relationship, but as of Friday afternoon it had been unable to rob him of knowing about his relationship with the one most dear to him, Jesus!
Saturday, January 8, 2011
The Orthodox Church -- The Estrangement that Lead to the Schism; Latin & Greek Thoughts; Barbarian Influence on the Church
The more I read history books and imagine the olden days, the more my mind brings up images of hordes of yelling warriors running up hills, down hills, across plains. This tribe slaughtering that tribe. The other tribe ravaging the other's land. Dark haired, dark eyed, some. Blondes with blue and green eyes, others.
Oh something like these guys from Night at the Museum. Remember all that yelling?
Isn't this post about The Orthodox Church, you ask? Most definitely,but chapter three's beginning impressed upon me how "barbarians" influenced Christianity!
For the record, I like to believe we have moved past these barbaric tendencies, but I think in reality we have those little warriors lurking just below the surface and more often than we like to admit: they surface!
Movin' on!
Chapter 3 of The Orthodox Church begins with the estrangement leading up to the great schism between eastern and western Christianity. The author reminds us that the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire during the apostles' time was due to commonalities in politics and culture. Many people spoke both Latin and Greek. Over time politics and culture throughout the Empire changed. Step by step, the crack widened. I suppose it's like a marriage where spouses develop and pursue different interests. Before you know it, you've grown apart and then if you aren't careful, you find yourself estranged, separated and "schismed." I mean divorced.
Here are factors that I noted as contributing to the increasing estrangement.
Political disunity happened first.
1. Unity of the Mediterranean world declined partly when Constantine founded a "second imperial capital in the east". Except for Rome, barbarian invasions carved up much of Europe under various chiefs.
2. Illyricum, formerly seen as a bridge between east and west, became a barrier when Avars and Slavs invaded the Balkan peninsula.
3. Due to the rise of Islam, the Mediterranean Sea fell largely under Arab control and contact between east and west became more difficult.
4. The Iconclast controversy. Some were for icons; others were not.
5. Pope Stephen reaching out to Pepin brought increased Frankish influence to Rome.
6. Fifty years later, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne, King of the Franks, as Emperor. He was unable to gain sought-after recognition by the Byzantines who regarded him as an "intruder."
All of this political disunity naturally lead to cultural divisions over time. Whereas before many people were bilingual, increasingly, those in the west spoke only Latin and those in the east, Greek. As this pertains to the church, the people stopped reading each other's books so the Latin-only people got more "Latinized" in thinking whereas the Greeks, predictably, went in the other direction.
Even from the beginning the Latins and Greeks approached theology and the Christian Mystery differently. For example:
But when the two groups were in political unity, they would complement each other's work. Both approaches could be melded into one. When the disunification happened, this "blending" stopped.
The Byzantines always were more involved in councils and had a collegiality style, whereas the Latins - with those numerous, divided barbarian tribes - often looked at the Roman Church as the one unifying presence. The western Church grew to resemble a monarchy.
The east tended to be more educated with many "lay" theologians abounding. By contrast the commoners were illiterate in the west so the Church took on a bigger role. People were not reading the Scripture for themselves - how could they? - so they had to wait for the Church to tell them what it said.
With all that power - no checks and balances from other churches or the common folks - I can certainly see how corruption could settle in! Power too often breeds corruption.
Eventually the churches grew into direct conflict regarding two things:
1 -- Papal claims to more authority than the eastern churches wanted to give. The Orthodox were for primacy of Rome, but not supremacy. (Perhaps this monarchical-type ruling in Rome among the barbarian tribes transferred to Rome thinking even the other churches should bow to their wishes.)
2 -- The Filioque -- changing the Creed from saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from not just the Father, but also the Son. While this insertion was not necessarily a bad theological position for some Orthodox, the fact that Rome decided to do this independent of the council, the Orthodox simply could not handle.
So does the individualistic nature/independent streak of many westerners go back to the Roman Church acting independently of the council of Churches? The East even today is more community-minded, yes?
It's all rather interesting, huh? What are your thoughts?
Oh something like these guys from Night at the Museum. Remember all that yelling?
 |
| Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! |
Isn't this post about The Orthodox Church, you ask? Most definitely,but chapter three's beginning impressed upon me how "barbarians" influenced Christianity!
For the record, I like to believe we have moved past these barbaric tendencies, but I think in reality we have those little warriors lurking just below the surface and more often than we like to admit: they surface!
Movin' on!
Chapter 3 of The Orthodox Church begins with the estrangement leading up to the great schism between eastern and western Christianity. The author reminds us that the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire during the apostles' time was due to commonalities in politics and culture. Many people spoke both Latin and Greek. Over time politics and culture throughout the Empire changed. Step by step, the crack widened. I suppose it's like a marriage where spouses develop and pursue different interests. Before you know it, you've grown apart and then if you aren't careful, you find yourself estranged, separated and "schismed." I mean divorced.
Here are factors that I noted as contributing to the increasing estrangement.
Political disunity happened first.
1. Unity of the Mediterranean world declined partly when Constantine founded a "second imperial capital in the east". Except for Rome, barbarian invasions carved up much of Europe under various chiefs.
2. Illyricum, formerly seen as a bridge between east and west, became a barrier when Avars and Slavs invaded the Balkan peninsula.
3. Due to the rise of Islam, the Mediterranean Sea fell largely under Arab control and contact between east and west became more difficult.
4. The Iconclast controversy. Some were for icons; others were not.
5. Pope Stephen reaching out to Pepin brought increased Frankish influence to Rome.
6. Fifty years later, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne, King of the Franks, as Emperor. He was unable to gain sought-after recognition by the Byzantines who regarded him as an "intruder."
All of this political disunity naturally lead to cultural divisions over time. Whereas before many people were bilingual, increasingly, those in the west spoke only Latin and those in the east, Greek. As this pertains to the church, the people stopped reading each other's books so the Latin-only people got more "Latinized" in thinking whereas the Greeks, predictably, went in the other direction.
Even from the beginning the Latins and Greeks approached theology and the Christian Mystery differently. For example:
the Latin approach was more practical, the Greek more speculative;
Latin thought was influenced by judicial ideas, by the concept of Roman law, while the Greeks understood theology in the context of worship and the light of the Holy Liturgy.
When thinking about the Trinity, Latins started with the unity of the Godhead, Greeks with the threeness of the persons;
when reflecting on the Crucifixion, Latins primarily thought of Christ the Victim, Greeks of Christ the Victor;
Latins talked more about redemption, Greeks of deification. (pg. 48)
But when the two groups were in political unity, they would complement each other's work. Both approaches could be melded into one. When the disunification happened, this "blending" stopped.
The Byzantines always were more involved in councils and had a collegiality style, whereas the Latins - with those numerous, divided barbarian tribes - often looked at the Roman Church as the one unifying presence. The western Church grew to resemble a monarchy.
The east tended to be more educated with many "lay" theologians abounding. By contrast the commoners were illiterate in the west so the Church took on a bigger role. People were not reading the Scripture for themselves - how could they? - so they had to wait for the Church to tell them what it said.
With all that power - no checks and balances from other churches or the common folks - I can certainly see how corruption could settle in! Power too often breeds corruption.
Eventually the churches grew into direct conflict regarding two things:
1 -- Papal claims to more authority than the eastern churches wanted to give. The Orthodox were for primacy of Rome, but not supremacy. (Perhaps this monarchical-type ruling in Rome among the barbarian tribes transferred to Rome thinking even the other churches should bow to their wishes.)
2 -- The Filioque -- changing the Creed from saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from not just the Father, but also the Son. While this insertion was not necessarily a bad theological position for some Orthodox, the fact that Rome decided to do this independent of the council, the Orthodox simply could not handle.
So does the individualistic nature/independent streak of many westerners go back to the Roman Church acting independently of the council of Churches? The East even today is more community-minded, yes?
It's all rather interesting, huh? What are your thoughts?
Friday, January 7, 2011
2010 Meme
I've been meaning to finish and post this for several days now. Amber resurrected it from last year and I wanted to play along. Wafa' and Zuhura also did one which was a fun read for me. I always enjoy learning new tidbits about fellow bloggers!
1. What did you do in 2010 that you’d never done before?
1. What did you do in 2010 that you’d never done before?
read the Quran
2. Did you keep your new years’ resolutions, and will you make more for next year?
I didn't make any that I recall.Oh, yes, I think I did and I broke it right away. None for this year. :)
3. Did anyone close to you give birth?
a couple school friends had their fourth children, both boys (2 girls, 2 boys each) and they both have the same first name, Hudson!
4. Did anyone close to you die?
no, but of the very small church I attended growing up, I think four people died: Brother Fred, Willard, Frances and Mike (the preacher's son)
5. What countries did you visit?
no countries and only VA, SC and WV within the US! *hmph*
no countries and only VA, SC and WV within the US! *hmph*
6. What would you like to have in 2011 that you lacked in 2010?
hmmm,maybe a trip somewhere interesting
7. What date from 2010 will remain etched upon your memory, and why?
December 10 -- Andrew got a new truck
8. What was your biggest achievement of the year?
9. What was your biggest failure?
Letting my anger get out of check (despite promptings that this was not how to react) and yelling at someone about some things bothering me
10. Did you suffer illness or injury?
no, thankfully.. just the lingering back pain which I'll likely have to live with
11. What was the best thing you bought?
last year it was tickets to Syria...this year, books so I could "travel" from my front porch
12. Whose behavior merited celebration?
Pop's -- he's such a joyful guy for having Alzheimer's disease
13. Whose behavior made you appalled and depressed?
mine one day in September
14. Where did most of your money go?
probably health insurance
15. What did you get really, really, really excited about?
people commenting on my blog; talking to people online -- it was a good, but low-key year obviously
16. What song(s) will always remind you of 2010?
none come to mind except Michael's Christmas favorite "Carol of the Bells" by Mannheim Steamroller
17. Compared to this time last year, are you:
i. Happier or sadder?
ii. Happier -- last year I was still in my "I miss Syria" depression
iii. Thinner or fatter?
iv. probably fatter
v. richer or poorer?
vi. well, Andrew just bought a truck and paid cash so ...
18. What do you wish you’d done more of?
traveling
19. What do you wish you’d done less of?
sleeping (so I'd have time to do other things!)
20. How will you be spending Christmas?
I spent it with my inlaws for lunch and my family in the evening.
21. How many one-night stands?
Haaaaa! Ummm...
22. What was your favorite TV program?
The Amazing Race
23. Do you hate anyone now that you didn’t hate this time last year?
24. What was the best book you read?
Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes -- to see my top five go here
25. What was your greatest musical discovery?
Michael playing the piano since he started lessons in 2010
26. What did you want and get?
No God But God
27. What was your favorite film of this year?
The Blind Side was the best one I watched.
28. What did you do on your birthday?
Went out with Teresa, Denise and their daughters to Red Robin and Smitty's for ice cream.
29. How would you describe your personal fashion concept in 2010?
comfort is key
30. What kept you sane?
talking to my friends here and occasional outings with real-life people
31. Which celebrity/public figure did you fancy the most?
Kurt Warner
32. What political issue stirred you the most?
foreign policy
33. Who did you miss?
my Syrian friends
my Syrian friends
34. Who was the best new person you met?
Lat! I think I knew the rest of you since before 2010.
If used correctly, Facebook can be a tool for learning a lot about a variety of viewpoints!
Here is my 2009 Meme
The Orthodox Church -- Fathers, Monks, Role of the Emperor
Ah, finally I am at the last section of chapter 2 and it deals with saints, monks and emperors.
Amber had to go and remind me that these are people we are dealing with so it's understandable that they didn't always treat people and each other as Jesus would have. So very true. :)
On the negative side - which the author is honest in stating (and I like that about him!) - "Cyril of Alexandria, for example, in his struggle against Nestorius, bribed the Court heavily and terrorized the city of Ephesus with a private army of monks." (pg. 36) He notes that the Orthodox Church "recognizes that the councils were attended by imperfect humans, but it believes that these imperfect humans were guided by the Holy Spirit."
And on the positive side - The Byzantine bishop was not simply a distant father figure, but "in many cases a true father to his people, a friend and protector to whom people confidently turned when in trouble." Social obligations and charitable work were "principal functions" of the Church in the Byzantine Empire.
I love that!
The next part discussed monasticism of which entering it has been noted as the "best way to penetrate Orthodox spirituality." Too often we are tempted to try building God's kingdom on earth such as even the Byzantines were apt to do. Byzantium was an "image and symbol, not the reality." The life of monks "reminded Christians that the kingdom of God is not of this world."
There are three chief forms of monasticism
hermits -- think solitary living in huts, caves, branches of trees, even tombs
community life -- monks dwelling together; whereas western monasticism gave more emphasis to works (caring for the sick and poor, maintaining hospitals and orphanages), eastern monks' primary service and purpose was prayer
semi-eremitic life -- a "middle way"
Monastic life has always been seen as a vocation for men as well as women.
The chief center of Orthodox monastic life is Athos in northern Greece.
Unlike Roman Catholicism, there are no "Orders" in Orthodox monasticism.
A "characteristic figure in Orthodox monasticism is the 'elder' or 'old man'... a monk of spiritual discernment and wisdom, whom others...adopt as their guide and spiritual director." These "spiritual mothers" and "spiritual fathers" see "in a concrete and practical way what the will of God is in relation to each person who comes to consult him; this is the elder's special gift of charisma." (pg. 39)
While rewarding, I actually think a monk's life is difficult. Or maybe it just requires a discipline that I don't have. I read where a monk must go through a "long and rigorous preparation in solitude" in order to learn the truth about himself and God and gain the gifts of discernment so he can help others.
Re: the role of the Emperor ...
We've already discussed the Church and State connection which was normal for those times, however, I enjoyed this bit about the bishops being the ones who "gathered in council to decide what the true faith was" while the Emperor was in charge of protecting the faith. (pg. 41) (This reminds me of the balance of power within the US system where the Legislature is in charge of deciding the laws and the Executive branch is in charge of carrying them out.) Ideally the two should keep their powers separate in order to keep the right balance.
The Byzantines believed Christ "had redeemed every aspect of human existence" and thus their great vision was "to establish here on earth a living image of God's government in heaven." (pg. 42)
Amber had to go and remind me that these are people we are dealing with so it's understandable that they didn't always treat people and each other as Jesus would have. So very true. :)
On the negative side - which the author is honest in stating (and I like that about him!) - "Cyril of Alexandria, for example, in his struggle against Nestorius, bribed the Court heavily and terrorized the city of Ephesus with a private army of monks." (pg. 36) He notes that the Orthodox Church "recognizes that the councils were attended by imperfect humans, but it believes that these imperfect humans were guided by the Holy Spirit."
And on the positive side - The Byzantine bishop was not simply a distant father figure, but "in many cases a true father to his people, a friend and protector to whom people confidently turned when in trouble." Social obligations and charitable work were "principal functions" of the Church in the Byzantine Empire.
I love that!
The next part discussed monasticism of which entering it has been noted as the "best way to penetrate Orthodox spirituality." Too often we are tempted to try building God's kingdom on earth such as even the Byzantines were apt to do. Byzantium was an "image and symbol, not the reality." The life of monks "reminded Christians that the kingdom of God is not of this world."
There are three chief forms of monasticism
hermits -- think solitary living in huts, caves, branches of trees, even tombs
community life -- monks dwelling together; whereas western monasticism gave more emphasis to works (caring for the sick and poor, maintaining hospitals and orphanages), eastern monks' primary service and purpose was prayer
semi-eremitic life -- a "middle way"
Monastic life has always been seen as a vocation for men as well as women.
The chief center of Orthodox monastic life is Athos in northern Greece.
Unlike Roman Catholicism, there are no "Orders" in Orthodox monasticism.
A "characteristic figure in Orthodox monasticism is the 'elder' or 'old man'... a monk of spiritual discernment and wisdom, whom others...adopt as their guide and spiritual director." These "spiritual mothers" and "spiritual fathers" see "in a concrete and practical way what the will of God is in relation to each person who comes to consult him; this is the elder's special gift of charisma." (pg. 39)
While rewarding, I actually think a monk's life is difficult. Or maybe it just requires a discipline that I don't have. I read where a monk must go through a "long and rigorous preparation in solitude" in order to learn the truth about himself and God and gain the gifts of discernment so he can help others.
Re: the role of the Emperor ...
We've already discussed the Church and State connection which was normal for those times, however, I enjoyed this bit about the bishops being the ones who "gathered in council to decide what the true faith was" while the Emperor was in charge of protecting the faith. (pg. 41) (This reminds me of the balance of power within the US system where the Legislature is in charge of deciding the laws and the Executive branch is in charge of carrying them out.) Ideally the two should keep their powers separate in order to keep the right balance.
The Byzantines believed Christ "had redeemed every aspect of human existence" and thus their great vision was "to establish here on earth a living image of God's government in heaven." (pg. 42)
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Taboos, Superstitions, The Evil Eye: "To Dismiss or Not to Dismiss?" - That is the Question!
"Step on a crack and break your momma's back."
How many of us chanted this little jingle growing up as we deliberately stepped so as to not touch any parts of our feet on the offending cracks in sidewalks?
My friends and I would do it for fun, for a few minutes, and then it was back to normal walking and who really cares if we stepped on or over cracks in the sidewalk because we did not believe the ways we stepped would affect our mothers' backs in any way.
Not that this book, African Notebook, is huge or anything, but the author, Albert Schweitzer, devoted a full chapter to Taboos and Magic. As I was reading it last night, thoughts of American Bedu's recent post concerning "Does the Evil Eye Really Exist" came to mind. I know Saudi Arabia is very cultural and sometimes the culture gets mixed up with the national religion and people fault Islam for things that are not in Islam. They are simply cultural traditions predating Muhammad's religion. Evil eye talk exists in even predominantly Catholic Latin American countries from what I understand.
And we all know of superstitions such as the bad luck that follows breaking a mirror, spilling salt, seeing a black cat, walking under a ladder or the number 13. By contrast a rabbit's foot and four leaf clovers are supposed to bring good luck.
You may recall from the Old Testament that the Israelites used the Ark of the Covenant as somewhat of a good luck charm believing if they took it into battle, they were assured of victory over their foes.
How much stock do you put into such things? Are they nonsensical or do they have some supernatural value that people who only believe what they see should note? Is there some element of the supernatural out there that we should take seriously?
In this book, Schweitzer notes how strongly taboos influenced the people of (now) Gabon, Africa. Some were more general: men whose wives were pregnant could not drive nails, eat meat that had begun to smell (despite most of the times their eating meat that was "already almost putrid"), touch a chameleon, step over a procession of driver ants, fill a hole with dirt and have anything to do with a corpse.
Some taboos were very specific and "at the birth of a child the special taboos affecting it as an individual [were] usually disclosed by the father." When the child was old enough to learn to count to five, he was taught his particular taboos. For one woman it was that she never sweep with a broom. Thus she always used her hands for this task. For a young man, it was that he never be hit on his right shoulder. Yet another was prohibited from eating plantains or even from the same pot where plantains were cooked immediately before. (When he accidentally ate fish that had plantain remains in the pot, he immediately got a cramp and died after a few hours!)
When people died, the villagers often looked for reasons. Instead of attributing death to natural causes, they were quick to consult a witchdoctor who would inform them of the person who had practiced magic or called down a curse on the one who died. In one sad recollection, a French-American observer, du Chaillu, watched with horror and helplessness as the village gathered round and executed quick "justice" over three women who supposedly had caused a young man's untimely death. One of the victims' brothers was forced to participate in this beheading and hacking up of the bodies and throwing them into the river to avoid suspicion. It was not allowed to show sympathy for those accused...even if you knew they were innocent and the one being killed was a close family member! This distraught young man "compelled not only to join in witnessing the murder of his sister, but to shout with the mob in the chorus of rage, [was full of] frightful suffering. [du Chaillu] endeavored to comfort him. He spoke to him of God, Who loathes all cruelty. 'Oh, Chally,' said the poor African, 'when you go back to your country, tell the people there to send people to teach us poor ignorant beings the words that come from the mouth of God.'" (pg. 77)
Apparently some of the natives did believe God freed them from these taboos. I especially enjoyed this recollection:
Nyingone's taboo was that she "must never see her reflection either in glass or metal or water." This was especially hard when trying to cross streams by tree trunks because when she happened to see her reflection in the water, she fainted, fell in the water and nearly drowned. (She'd been rescued from drowning several times.)
Maybe I'm wrong, but I tend to believe that Jesus would have appreciated the faith it took for this lady to overcome this strong cultural superstition.
Twins were often considered halves of the same whole. If they were allowed to live, mothers had to treat them exactly the same, give them the exact same amount of food, dress them alike and even twins were forced to marry at the same time. Often when one twin died, the other hid because tradition held that the other half (since s/he was not a whole person) needed to die as well.
What do you think concerning this post? Do you take evil eyes, superstitions, taboos, magic seriously? Why or why not? Do you believe your holy book supports your position or is it more cultural for you? Did any of the stories above interest you? Does the story about the young man dying after eating out of a pot with plantains prove to you that some spiritual force is behind these taboos? What did you think of Nyingone's declaration that God is stronger than Satan when she wanted to be free of her taboo? Other thoughts or impressions?
Want to read more tidbits from this book? Check out this post with more interesting cultural observations from African Notebook.
How many of us chanted this little jingle growing up as we deliberately stepped so as to not touch any parts of our feet on the offending cracks in sidewalks?
 |
| Admit it...you did this too, right? |
My friends and I would do it for fun, for a few minutes, and then it was back to normal walking and who really cares if we stepped on or over cracks in the sidewalk because we did not believe the ways we stepped would affect our mothers' backs in any way.
Not that this book, African Notebook, is huge or anything, but the author, Albert Schweitzer, devoted a full chapter to Taboos and Magic. As I was reading it last night, thoughts of American Bedu's recent post concerning "Does the Evil Eye Really Exist" came to mind. I know Saudi Arabia is very cultural and sometimes the culture gets mixed up with the national religion and people fault Islam for things that are not in Islam. They are simply cultural traditions predating Muhammad's religion. Evil eye talk exists in even predominantly Catholic Latin American countries from what I understand.
And we all know of superstitions such as the bad luck that follows breaking a mirror, spilling salt, seeing a black cat, walking under a ladder or the number 13. By contrast a rabbit's foot and four leaf clovers are supposed to bring good luck.
You may recall from the Old Testament that the Israelites used the Ark of the Covenant as somewhat of a good luck charm believing if they took it into battle, they were assured of victory over their foes.
How much stock do you put into such things? Are they nonsensical or do they have some supernatural value that people who only believe what they see should note? Is there some element of the supernatural out there that we should take seriously?
In this book, Schweitzer notes how strongly taboos influenced the people of (now) Gabon, Africa. Some were more general: men whose wives were pregnant could not drive nails, eat meat that had begun to smell (despite most of the times their eating meat that was "already almost putrid"), touch a chameleon, step over a procession of driver ants, fill a hole with dirt and have anything to do with a corpse.
Some taboos were very specific and "at the birth of a child the special taboos affecting it as an individual [were] usually disclosed by the father." When the child was old enough to learn to count to five, he was taught his particular taboos. For one woman it was that she never sweep with a broom. Thus she always used her hands for this task. For a young man, it was that he never be hit on his right shoulder. Yet another was prohibited from eating plantains or even from the same pot where plantains were cooked immediately before. (When he accidentally ate fish that had plantain remains in the pot, he immediately got a cramp and died after a few hours!)
 |
| Can you imagine having to sweep with your hands due to a taboo? |
When people died, the villagers often looked for reasons. Instead of attributing death to natural causes, they were quick to consult a witchdoctor who would inform them of the person who had practiced magic or called down a curse on the one who died. In one sad recollection, a French-American observer, du Chaillu, watched with horror and helplessness as the village gathered round and executed quick "justice" over three women who supposedly had caused a young man's untimely death. One of the victims' brothers was forced to participate in this beheading and hacking up of the bodies and throwing them into the river to avoid suspicion. It was not allowed to show sympathy for those accused...even if you knew they were innocent and the one being killed was a close family member! This distraught young man "compelled not only to join in witnessing the murder of his sister, but to shout with the mob in the chorus of rage, [was full of] frightful suffering. [du Chaillu] endeavored to comfort him. He spoke to him of God, Who loathes all cruelty. 'Oh, Chally,' said the poor African, 'when you go back to your country, tell the people there to send people to teach us poor ignorant beings the words that come from the mouth of God.'" (pg. 77)
Apparently some of the natives did believe God freed them from these taboos. I especially enjoyed this recollection:
Nyingone's taboo was that she "must never see her reflection either in glass or metal or water." This was especially hard when trying to cross streams by tree trunks because when she happened to see her reflection in the water, she fainted, fell in the water and nearly drowned. (She'd been rescued from drowning several times.)
In despair over what she had already suffered from this taboo, she came to Monsieur Lavignotte. "This taboo," she said, "is a dreadful force. I can't help being afraid of it. But I know too that God, Whom you know and preach, is stronger than Satan, in whom we have hitherto believed. So with your help I hope to get rid of my taboo. When you have prayed with me, I shall fearlessly turn round the mirror I hold in my hand and look at myself in it."
After the prayer, she had courage to do as she had said. She looked in the glass for a long time glowing with happiness because nothing happened. When at last she raised her eyes, she said to Monsieur Lavignotte, "And to think I never knew how beautiful I am ...'" (pg.62)
 |
| The truth will set you free! |
Maybe I'm wrong, but I tend to believe that Jesus would have appreciated the faith it took for this lady to overcome this strong cultural superstition.
Twins were often considered halves of the same whole. If they were allowed to live, mothers had to treat them exactly the same, give them the exact same amount of food, dress them alike and even twins were forced to marry at the same time. Often when one twin died, the other hid because tradition held that the other half (since s/he was not a whole person) needed to die as well.
What do you think concerning this post? Do you take evil eyes, superstitions, taboos, magic seriously? Why or why not? Do you believe your holy book supports your position or is it more cultural for you? Did any of the stories above interest you? Does the story about the young man dying after eating out of a pot with plantains prove to you that some spiritual force is behind these taboos? What did you think of Nyingone's declaration that God is stronger than Satan when she wanted to be free of her taboo? Other thoughts or impressions?
Want to read more tidbits from this book? Check out this post with more interesting cultural observations from African Notebook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)