by Katherine Frisk for the International reporter
Just over a year ago I had little to no understanding of Orthodox Christianity, the Russian Orthodox Church, it’s history or how it differed from the West. It was largely due to the war in Ukraine that I wanted to get a deeper understanding of the people of Eastern Ukraine and what motivated them. After watching numerous reports from the region I came to realise that although the Soviet Union which included Ukraine had gone through a period of total atheism, since it’s fall after almost 80 years, there had been a major resurgence in Christianity and in Orthodox Christianity in particular. Western perception even after 25 years still regards Eastern Europe and Russia as atheist states when nothing could be further from the truth.
Ukraine as a country is not only divided by language, Russian spoken in the east and Ukrainian spoken in the west, it is also divided by fundamental religious values and beliefs that extend back into the past for well on 1,000 years. But for the purposes of this interview, I did not want to look at Ukraine in an historical context which you can read at:
Ukrainian nationalism – its roots and nature
I wanted to understand the essential beliefs of Orthodox Christianity, how it differs from western Christianity and why these differences should cause such acrimony and conflict generation after generation, from the fall of the Byzantine Empire and the destruction of Constantinople, the Inquisition, Napoleon, World War 1, the communist Bolshevik Revolution, World War 2 and now the current situation in Ukraine. The Saker who has been generously sharing information about the situation in Eastern Ukraine on his web site The Saker.is, was kind enough to take the time to answer these questions.
Q: Briefly, can you please explain the fundamental principles of Orthodox Christianity.
THE SAKER: The simplest way to explain what Orthodoxy is is to say that it is the original Christian religion. A great Orthodox saint called Athanasios (4th century) said that Orthodoxy is the faith “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.” Another famous saint, Vincent of Lérins (5th century), also wrote that on that “which has been believed everywhere, always and by all can be considered truly Orthodox.” In other words, to be considered Orthodox a teaching has to be one which Christians have believed in all parts of the world, at all times (i.e. from the times of Christ and until today) and by truly all Christians (not the personal opinion of this or that bishop, saint, Patriarch or group of people). Any doctrine, teaching or dogma which does not pass these “tests of Orthodoxy” is to be considered as an innovation and rejected as a heresy (the word “heresy” is not an insult, it just means “different choice.”)
Orthodoxy has numerous superficial similarities to western Christian denominations such as the Papacy, the Anglican church or the Episcopalians, but as soon as you dig just below the surface you immediately realize that both in terms of faith and daily life western Christianity has essentially become a new, separate, religion with very little meaningful connection to the original Christianity of the first centuries. This is very sad as Europe used to be Orthodox for roughly 1000 years before the Papacy decided that it would rule over the entire planet and demand that all people accept the hegemony of the Pope.
In the original Christian Church, and in Orthodoxy today, the notion of “unity” is very different from the one of the Papacy. The Papacy is a single organization, run by one putatively infallible “super-bishop” the submission to whom is seen as the criterion of unity. In contrast, the Orthodoxy Church has no central power, it is a fully de-centralized entity which understands unity not in a bureaucratic/administrative sense, but as the result of having the same faith. Having the same faith, in turn, leads to a visible sign of unity: receiving the Eucharist from the same cup.
Spiritually and culturally, the Orthodox Church is much closer to certain form of Islam (Sufism) and Hinduism (Dvaita Vedanta) than to western Christianity. Nowadays the western society cannot be described as Christian any more, it is post-Christian at best, but if we look at the history of western Christianity we see that it tends to be speculative and scholastic. In contrast, Orthodoxy is much more mystical and ascetic.
The 20th century has been terrible for the Orthodox world. Not only did many millions of Orthodox Christians die at the hands of the Communists, but many autonomous local churches were infiltrated by secret agents of influence (for the Bolshevik state in Russia and by Freemasons in Greece). As a result, a new pseudo-Orthodoxy has appeared which I like to describe as a “Eastern Rite Protestantism”: it is externally similar to the real Orthodoxy, but it’s ethos and practices put these modernist denominations much closer to modern version of western Christianity than to the traditionalist Orthodox world or to the original Christian Church.
Q: What does direct knowledge of God mean to you from an Orthodox Christian perspective. In other words, Popes come and go, people come and go, but direct knowledge is everlasting.
THE SAKER: In contrast to the western speculative and scholastic theology, Orthodoxy takes literally the words of Christ Who said: “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.” We do believe that the way to achieve such a purity of heart it to engage in a life-long praxis of asceticism (fasting, prayer, holding vigils, standing, etc.) and of full immersion into the multi-dimensional spiritual struggle against the spiritual, mental and physiological pathologies resulting from our fallen nature. To put it simply: we do not believe that the Church is a club for saints, but rather we believe it to be a hospital for sinners in which the “doctors” “prescribe” a spiritually profitable “medicine” to the patients. Mind you – we do not seek to mortify or otherwise suppress our human nature or flesh, but we seek to sublimate them by re-directing our natural impulses towards the correct goal. The word “sin” in Greek means “missing the target.” So when we sin, we do not anger some vindicative old man sitting on a cloud, but we fail to fully realize our real spiritual potential. Thus our ascetic practices are not motivated by a rejection or hatred of our flesh, but rather they are aimed at recovering the full potential of our true human nature.
While all Orthodox Christians are engaged in this daily spiritual struggle, only some have fully achieved the goal of actually “seeing” God. Let me immediately say there that really “seeing” God is absolutely impossible, God being infinitely transcendent and, if you wish, “different” from us in His nature, what we can see are His “uncreated energies.” This is a very complex topic which has baffled western theologians, so I will grossly over-simplify it by saying that we cannot see God Himself, but we can see what He “radiates.” This is what the Apostles witnessed on Mount Tabor and what the Prophets of the Old Testament saw. But to be able to receive such a vision, a person has to begin by acquiring the “spirit of the Fathers,” to renounce the modern world and seek to “obtain the Holy Spirit” (this experience is vividly described in the famous “conversation of St. Seraphim of Sarov with Nicholas Motovilov.“)
Finally, we do not believe that God has ever “left” us (and thus, we don’t see the need for a Vicar of Christ!) Not only did Christ explicitly tell us “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” but he also said that “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you (…) the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” We believe that the Church is not a wordly “organization” or “administration,” but we believe it to be literally the Body of Christ filled with the Holy Spirit. Thus in the Church we all are directly exposed to the sight of God, albeit in the two persons of the Trinity which He has chosen to show to us: Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Q: What role does the Book Of Revelation play in the Orthodox Church?
THE SAKER: The book of Revelation was added to the canon of the New Testament only relatively late and with a great deal of controversy. This is the only book which is not read at Orthodox Church services. While we do not believe in banning books or dividing the Church into a “teaching Church” and a “taught Church” – we do realize the absolutely unique potential this book has for mis-interpretation. Thus, while it is both read and studied by Orthodox Christians, it is usually done in close conjunction with the study authoritative patristic interpretations. This is also how we study the Old Testament, especially the book of Psalms of King David. Still, in my personal experience most Orthodox Christians are well versed in this book and often discuss what this or that symbol might mean, especially in the context of our modern times.
Q: Do you think that this Orthodox perception has had any impact on the way Putin and the current Russian government have conducted themselves in recent years? And that unlike the west which seems driven towards some kind of Armageddon like scenario, Russian perception differs entirely?
THE SAKER: Formally, Russia is a democracy. Contrary to the western propaganda, elections in Russia have been open and fair (at least since Putin, under Eltsin they were not), you have a multi-party system and the freedom of speech and the press is free. In reality, however, Russia is much more similar to Japan where under a formally democratic system a much more traditional system thrives. In Russia the real center of power is Putin himself and his real power base is in the people. You could argue that in this sense Russia is neo-monarchical. Now the system of government before the 1917 Revolution was directly inherited from the Roman Orthodox monarchy of Constantinople/Byzantium. While Orthodoxy is a-political, it is also clear that Orthodox Christians consider a monarchy as the ideal system of government even if it is no always possible to have one. In Orthodox tradition the monarchy and the Church live in a “symphony of power”, one ruling the country and the other in charge of the spiritual realm. Currently, I would argue that the moral authority of Vladimir Putin is way bigger than his legal authority and thus that Russia now has a ruler whose power is based on authority rather than a ruler whose authority is based on power. That is neo-monarchical if you want, and most definitely traditional for Russia.
The other aspect of Orthodox ethos which is present today in Russia is the strong support of a “social state” i.e.: a state of social solidarity, where the common good is the highest ideal and social justice an ideal supported by most of the people.
De facto Russia has a capitalist market economy but the social ideal is definitely not the capitalist model. The notion that the sum of all the individual greeds results in the best possible system (a typically capitalist assumption) is not compatible with the Russian culture, even if this is still largely the reality of the Russian society. Here again Russia is much closer culturally to her Asian neighbors than to the capitalist West.
When I say that the book of Revelation was adopted “late” I speak as an Orthodox. It was in the 5th century. For us this is “late.” But that is still half a millennium before the birth of the Papacy :-)
And yes, we do believe that there will be an “end times,” many believe that this will happen pretty soon too. However, we also believe that we can delay the events described symbolically in the Revelation by prayer, asceticism and by our struggle against evil. The sequence of events outlined in the book of Revelation cannot be changed or stopped, but it can be delayed!In our lives we are supposed to imitate Christ who was crucified on the Golgotha – that means that we accept that being killed by others for our faith is a real possibility, be it in a direct persecution by the worldly powers or by a long distance nuclear weapon. And while we all want to live and we are not allowed to seek martyrdom, we are also taught to be prepared for it and accept it if this day comes. We live by the words of Christ who said “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Thus our struggle remains primarily a spiritual one.
Myself, I´m light years removed from understanding, although Orthodoxy does have my sympathy. My beef is with our treasured ´ enlightenment values´ and possible conflicts…
For now, for mapping purposes: What about the threatened ancient Christian churches and nominations, mostly in the middle east.
The Copts, the Armenian and Assyrian Christians, the late Celtic church etc. And perhaps historically even more interesting: the Yezidis and Mandaeans.
And now we are at it: the canon and the rejected apocriphical books and the unknown ones at the time: Thomas, Judas, Maria Magdalena, etc.
My apologies , as this is for a part ´Dan Brown´ stuff, and I would never be able to make coherent sense of it myself: What do the orthodox scholars say about it?
@´Dan Brown´ stuff, and I would never be able to make coherent sense of it myself: What do the orthodox scholars say about it?
What the orthodox scholars (and learned laymen as well) would say is to try to make coherent sense of yourself first. Go to the original sources of the Faith (in the first place the Scriptures), learn what the custodians of the Faith (the priests who are the successors of the Apostles to whom the Christ had entrusted the “keys” of interpretation of the Tradition) said about them.
Un-learn whatever Dan Brown and his ilk ever said and start afresh. It can be done with a little effort from you (many took this path and succeeded).
The enlightenment values is the very reason why these minorities are being persecuted without the west losing sleep. Its in the west’s interests that they capitulate, enlightenment values individualism, these traditional groups emphasize the collective community.
The term ‘ canon of scripture’ in Orthodoxy simply denotes those books openly read in Liturgy. You also have other scriptures which are worthy to be read but are not publicly and officially read during the course of the liturgical services.
These include Tobit, 1-3 Maccabees, 1&2 Clement, Revelation, Didache, Hermas and a few others.
Every Church Father recognizes two tiers of books. The ‘Canon’ which are thr books read in church and what St Cyril of Jerusalem called the ‘second tier’. Eusebius spoke of the ‘canon’ and those books which are spurious but not impious. St Amphilocius of Iconium refered to the book of Hebrews as spurious, but its grace not in doubt, etc.
You also have another category called “apocryphal” , these are rejected.
And no there is nothing unknown or secret about these. In fact they are very well known and some of the best commentary on them maybe from Orthodox bishops ( the gnostic text from Nag Hamnadi, Trancendent God of Eugnostos comes to mind).
Thank You very much for the interview and overview Saker!
My great great Grandfather was a Methodist Pastor in Wales and my wife and I spend a lot of time with some Methodists and also with them at their Church (while not members ourselves). John Wesley the founder of Methodist studied Eastern Orthodox theology and the concept of “Theosis”. I mention this because I instinctively feel that their Church and faith has similarities to Orthodox Christianity and is very different from Catholicism/Anglicanism.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but in any event I am attracted to and interested in Orthodox Christianity and instinctively feel a bond with Orthodoxy so I appreciate the post.
Stepping Razor.
John Wesley the founder of Methodist studied Eastern Orthodox theology and the concept of “Theosis”.
You might find this extremely interesting: http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis-english.pdf
Cheers,
The Saker
Sitting down to read now, thanks for link Saker.
There are not even remote similarities between the methodist church and the orthodox church. Even if your ancestors didn’t realize that, that church is a masonic-satanic heresy from the orthodox POV.
Adding to the cannon or how did we get the cannon is a very interesting subject that Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D. took the time to and has provided pictorial audio and textual documentation worth looking into . He is no longer with us but his work is very impressive . Restoring the Original Bible http://www.askelm.com/restoring/index.asp Oh and yes there is a conspiracy that involves Vatican as to why we see standard Bibles looking the way they do but once put into the proper order paints a very different picture that could only be the work of God .
Excuse me, please, are you Terry the Mi’kmaq ?
That would be me ,yes
There is no scholar approach when reading the Bible. The Bible is from the Church, for the Church. And the Church is the Body of Christ.
Every attempt to read it through academic eyes and outside the Church, founded by Jesus Christ, is null and void.
I fully agree. 100%
@Milos There is no scholar approach when reading the Bible. The Bible is from the Church, for the Church. And the Church is the Body of Christ.
Every attempt to read it through academic eyes and outside the Church, founded by Jesus Christ, is null and void. ” I will beg to differ . A child is capable of believing the Gospel .The level of education does not change the message and so we There are differing gifts though . Some are teachers ,some are pastors . You wouldn’t expect someone who was illiterate to teach from something he couldn’t read would you ? Paul claims to have been educated by Gamaliel, one of the premier teachers of the Law in the first century. Gamaliel taught between A.D. 22-55, giving us an approximate early date for Paul’s education Peter was aware of the depth of Pauls knowledge and said that he could be hard to understand
After a year and a half, Paul left for Ephesus and took Aquila and Priscilla with him. The couple stayed in Ephesus when Paul left, again establishing a church in their home (1 Corinthians 16:9). Then an eloquent preacher namedApolloscame through Ephesus. Apollos was mighty in the Scriptures, but he only knew the baptism of John. This means Apollos knew Christ had come and fulfilled John’s prophecies, but he didn’t know the significance of Christ’s death and resurrection, the ministry of the indwelling Holy Spirit, or the mystery of the church containing both Jews and Gentiles. Priscilla and her husband took Apollos aside and explained these things to him (Acts 18:24-26). Both Aquila and Priscilla possessed an in-depth understanding of doctrine learned from Paul, and this husband and wife team was able to pass it on to another Christian and build him up in the faith.
Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/Priscilla-and-Aquila.html#ixzz3efaf7mwO
I guess what I am saying is don’t throw the baby out with the bath water . I have a very limited education myself and do like to learn . If someone has gone to university studying ancient languages and text and can share some light on the matter weather a believer or not I need to have a listen . No need to be stuck in grade one reading when you can move to grade 12 studies . There is a difference between reading the Bible and studying the Bible after all
That pretty much leaves me and other non-Christians out of trying to even read, much less discuss anything in this thread.
Just as well, I guess…
Wouldn’t then be better to keep outside altogether and not waste writing space?
I’ll waste only a little more of your writing space to note that it has become apparent that Orthodox Christianity claims exclusive possession to The Truth’, that only those who ‘believe’ can understand any of it, and that those who do not ‘believe’ should just keep quiet and not expect anyone to consider alternative ideas or information — just like the rest of the authoritarian Biblical religions and cults, and for that matter neocons and other political dogmatists.
That’s all I needed to know, and will henceforth not bother trying to learn any more on the subject. So enjoy your ‘secret club’, for as long as it lasts.
Terry, on the issue of the original Bible text, please see this:
/non-political-interlude-reply-to-two-posts-religions-haters-please-skip-this-one/
(the section “was the Scripture corrupted?”)
and maybe this as a backgrounder:
/off-topic-but-apparently-needed-judaism-and-christianity-back-to-basics/
HTH
I see in Orthodoxy what I see within the pages of scripture . If it can be pointed out to me by a member of The Church which is any believer in the gospel then I will consider it . I am a member of the Body and have come together as a group at times where The Holy Sprite was free to chose a member to speak and teach . I have also visited other groups where if Paul was to walk in would not be allowed to teach or preach because of that Churches laws and creeds . I think where the Body was infiltrated comes from licencing and certificates from the sectarian world . Not that going to university is a bad thing but that a none believer can do the same and receive the equivalent degrees .
From your link 1) Apostolic succession. Simple enough, does not need to be explained. . So you are taking the move along ,nothing to see here folks approach . Well I like to question things and find it better to do like the Act 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. NIV Looking at scripture and seeing the conditions they used to find a replacement for Judas Act 1:21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, NIV
Now we might consider that there were a sort of different types of Apostles but to say Simple enough and move on is not studying the scriptures and showing using scriptures supports the succession . Any one can pick up a Bible and read it and believe it no matter where they might be .They can also share it with a friend and then you have the minimal requirement (where two or more are gathered in My name there am I) and can be a body in the larger Body called the Church .
Peters confession of who Jesus was and is , is the only belief that can create a Christian . That can be done in a closet or out in the woods .On a desert Island or n the middle of a city . Our faith comes from Gods word which is a requirement for salvation .It’s the message that is believed . The message of the good news .
“3) Unity of the Eucharist: simply put – if you are not in Eucharistic communion with the rest of the Body of Christ, you are not part of the Church. ” What if you are in a jail ? What if you are on a desert Island ? There are 2 differing aspects to the Church that contrast being in communion with . One is a collective (local body) and the other is in the universal individual member . It would be impossible as a christian to share in the remembrance feast without having someone else .But that in no way nullifies their position in Christ . They would still be a Christian .
Paul teaches us that it is possible to partake in a unworthy manner .He also shows us that the earlier Churches were a mixed bag of beliefs but addressed them as the saints .ie believers . So it is possible to be at odds in some points and still be a part although in a ignorant way .That is the Christian experience btw . We grow . we better understand .we fail ,we don’t know it all .
“Sure, for administrative and pastoral issues each Church has a senior bishop (put in charge by a council of local bishops ” I suppose
where that is possible it could work well but there is always the first one to believe and then another then another until you get to the point where you may have enough in numbers to create a council but what of the pastoral work then needs to be done prior to gaining enough numbers .?
I think in many ways we share a common faith and understanding of scripture . You being in a better position then I to talk about the local body you belong to . You mention “Most Reverend” .. as a title to some . pff . lol Makes you wonder just how the think of God in that respect .Talk about washing down a title .
“Same for kissing the hand of a priest – its not because he is so worthy, but because of the high rank (charisma) bestowed on him. He himself might be a dumb jerk (many are) or even a lying hypocritical ignoramus with a bad temper. Remember, the Church is a hospital for sinners, not a club of holy men. There is only one thing that really matters: the confession of faith of this clergyman needs to be 100% Orthodox and his personal sins must not be serious enough to ban him from serving and/or himself receiving the Eucharist (so no pedophilia, no sexual immorality, no killing, no apostasy, etc.).” We are given pictures of higher ranking in scripture but we see also that Paul or Peter and Angels rejected this kind of reverence. I give respect to people that earn it ,not to people that could come into the group as a wolf in sheep clothing brandishing a host of titles to their selves . Elder is a title but it has little to do with old age .
@This is what the Apostles witnessed on Mount Tabor and what the Prophets of the Old Testament saw. But to be able to receive such a vision, a person has to begin by acquiring the “spirit of the Fathers,” to renounce the modern world and seek to “obtain the Holy Spirit”
The first and foremost reason why we kiss the hand of a Christ is because they touched the body of Christ.
Then, because kissing hands is a sign of endearment.
I’ll quote from the article link above:
“Though the pagan philosophers also wandered in the darkness of ignorance of God, yet they sought the truth which is beloved by God, and on account of this God-pleasing seeking, they could partake of the Spirit of God, for it is said that the nations who do not know God practice by nature the demands of the law and do what is pleasing to God (cp. Rom. 2:14)”
That much about the whole ritual and hierarchy side. Making those a “must” is pure heresy. You read in the linked interview where he says “You saw that I did not even cross myself; and only in my heart I prayed mentally to the Lord God” – that’s the gist of it. Also
“As for fasts, and vigils, and prayer, and almsgiving, and every good deed done for Christ’s sake, they are only means of acquiring the Holy Spirit of God. But mark, my son, only the good deed done for Christ’s sake brings us the fruits of the Holy Spirit.”
The actual “body” you should join is “not of this world” according to Christ himself, but within your heart.
I read a long time ago in some christian book a description I still find interesting of the east vs the west
quote ‘the west wants the Christ without the Cross , while the east has the Cross without the Christ and the only question is which will resolve the Whole first. {the 7th letter in Rev to the Laodicians does describe western christianty today IMO ,
In other words, to be considered Orthodox a teaching has to be one which Christians have believed in all parts of the world, at all times (i.e. from the times of Christ and until today) and by truly all Christians (not the personal opinion of this or that bishop
So how do you keep track of this? especially in the days when most people didn’t read or write, when small groups lived far from others with only irregular contact…. how did they keep track of things so nothing new dared to slip in?
And considering external circumstances may be quite different from those at the beginning, how are allowances made for this? I am thinking of a recent discussion here about baptism requiring full immersion. How does that work in a community living in a desert with barely enough water to drink, and no immersion-size containers?
@So how do you keep track of that?
Well, although difficult, someone kept track of that. You should keep in mind that the heretics were the ones propagandizing their views, challenging the beliefs hold by all. They were doing it quite loudly and aggressively. That was the reason that the Ecumenical Councils were called up, to check with everyone from all parts of the world what were their beliefs. They have been written down and transmitted to everyone. There was always someone knowing to read an write in any community.
You had not the patience to read the whole discussion about baptism. That straw man question had been answered.
Exactly. In the debate about the role of the Spirit and that of the matter in the ritual of baptism.
Saker, thanks for the interview. As a summary of what is to be, in essence, Orthodox Christian, it is very enlightening and interesting.
As renegade Catholic, from early adolescence, precisely to find incongruous the message conveyed to the people with the opulence in which the papacy is living and blatant materialism of some religious orders, this concept of religion, based on spiritual growth as a human being and the fight against evil and for the truth, is closer to my motto of life that almost anything else I’ve ever known. Indeed, among the religious practices I’ve met through my travels, is Sufism which I have found more authentic and closer to the truth of what should be a religion, more focused on introspection and self-improvement that in public displays .
Believe it or not, at this momment your words serve me great relief.
P.S: I will read the “conversation of St.Seraphim of Sarov with Nicholas Motovilov” to see if I get something in clear.
Dear elsi,
The Sufism is subset of Shia religion. The Shia follow the family of the Prophet, especially his first cousin and son-in-law Imam Ali. The Prophet’s daughter and wife of Imam Ali, who is Fatima. And, the two children of Fatima and Ali, called Hassan and Hussain.
The head of Sufism is Imam Ali.
The Shia stick to the Family of the Prophet and reject the first 3 caliphs and all other caliphs beside Ali. A Shia can be a Sufi on a non-Sufi, but their leaders remain the same, Mohammad, Ali, Fatima, Hassan, Hussain …..
Because the Shia don’t believe in the caliphs, they are called Rafida (Refuseniks) to the Will of God, as the Sunni believe in predestination and believe any leader on any Islamic Nation is chosen by Will of God. Thus, the Shia are considered non-Muslims by Sunnis because they the Shia reject the Will of God.
Whereas to a Sunni Sufi, Mohammad, Ali, Fatima, Hassan, Hussain are the Spiritual and Religious leaders. To them the first 3 caliphs and rest of the caliphs are political leaders chosen by Will of God.
In both Shia and Sunni, there are practicing Sufi and non-practicing Sufi. The practicing Sufi, practice the religion like other Muslims, such as daily Salat (Worship), Fasting in Ramadan, Perform Hajj, Charity and so forth. A good example of practicing Shia Sufi are Imam Khomeini and Imam Ali Khamenei.
A good example of practicing Sunni Sufi is Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President of Turkey.
The Alawites are non-practicing Shia Sufi but due to both Imam Khomeini and Imam Ali Khamenei influences they are now changing and becoming practicing Sufi. According to Erdoğan, “if Alawites means “Lovers of Ali”, than I am a Lover of Ali too, but I do daily Salat (Worship), Fast in Ramadan, Perform Hajj and so forth.
A good example of non-practicing Sunni Suffi are Whirling Dervish.
Both the Wahhabis and Muslim Brotherhood hate/kill Shia and Sufi, because Shia/Sufi love of Prophet and his family and love of saints. However, the Muslim Brotherhood now believes that all these Heads of Islamic Nations are not appointed by Will of God, but by the Imperial Masters. This concept of democracy brought Erdoğan close to Muslim Brotherhood and he abandoned Bashar al-Assad and other Sunni Sufi of Syria. The majority of people in Syria are either Sunni or Shia Sufi.
Dear Mohamed,
Thank you very much for your input and information.
I know a little of the Shia through a book that gave me a cleric in Isfahan.
Indeed, one of the most interesting sports and religious events I have ever met was in the city of Yazd, at the “House of Strength” where they mix sport and tradition, while psalms of praise to Alí are sung ( Zoorkhaneh ). At some point, these practitioners also turn on themselves like dervishes at the rhythmic sound of percussion.
To those curious enough:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDPyChrjyZg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoZ-qXPpeZU
An example of the psalms sung at this event.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyQkfEInJtE
Elsi. American Sufis lead a one week retreat on the Lord’s Prayer in the original Aramaic up in the mountains of Montana in 1996 ..we, under the guidance of the teacher, took it line by line, meditated on the meaning (s), and danced to it. There I learned that the first word of the prayer Abwon can be translated either Father-mother God or transcendence that breathes in and out to manifest…. ( in heaven- pre -manifest- and earth -polarity of good and evil- which is the rest of the line). These Sufis are awesome…and people from all faiths were in attendance. Mystics are beyond any one religion and have much in common in a wordless kind of way.
Thanks for the information, anonymous. Very interesting.
One of the saddest parts of today’s Middle East (to me at least).Is the decline of the Christian Churches there.After surviving centuries of living with other faiths.And the loss of most of their flocks to conversions.They are today dying because of the West’s interference in the societies there.Extremists target them as “collaborators” with the West.Which is ironic,considering the why the West ignores them totally.The West’s concerns are purely directed at the Jews of Israel.They couldn’t care less about Christians living in the very “cradle of Christianity”.The Middle East Christians have over the centuries lived relatively peacefully with their Muslim fellow citizens (most of whose ancestors were Christians in those countries).But now,the Western meddling is literally killing Christianity in those lands.
This is tragic, I agree. The only hope left for the Christians of the Middle-East is with countries like Iran or Syria which are still resisting the Daesh rot. Islam has never had the complete eradication of all Christianity as a policy. Yes, there were LOCAL atrocities committed, especially by the Ottomans, but the overwhelming evidence is that Muslims to not persecute Christians. Not so with the Daesh crazies who, besides exterminating all Christians also want to exterminate all Shia and even all Sunni who do not support them. What we have now is a herd of genocidal maniacs on the loose which cannot coexist with any religion or ethnicity. And the worst part is that their ideology is infecting more and more Sunni Muslims who, even if they do not fully adhere to the Daesh’s crazy ideology, begin to share into some of it.
I am rather pessimistic about the Middle East and I see Iran as the last bastion of Islamic sanity: all others are either too weak or already infected.
God help us all!
I can tell you right now Saker that Sunni Muslims are totally against Daesh/ISIS. All the scums, gangsters, losers, crack-heads of those Arab societies are hired and trained with the help of some local governments in cahoots with the West (sometimes these hired killers are immigrants in the West like those who came back to Libya after the French intelligence took out Gaddafi). Now with ”mind control” techniques- the advanced Western military has achieved, they use these morons as walking bombs too!
I agree totally.Islam and Christianity (locally) co-existed in those countries for hundreds of years.But the Western meddling has created a “backlash” in those countries.It has allowed extremist Wahhabi to infect the weak in the Sunni World with an anti-Christian (and anti-Shia) bias.That is killing Christians,Shia,and those moderate Sunni that disagree with them.Its a horrible situation.And just as the curse of nazism,the only way to stop it is to fight it.And not just with weapons.But with unity among the non-Wahhabi.And an alternate vision of progress to be in the Middle East.Progress that would benefit all the peoples there.
“the 5th century” … “that is still half a millennium before the birth of the Papacy”
I know that the Old Style Calendarists (Slatioara & co) are way behind the rest of us, but I was not aware that it was by that much. Because according to the book ‘Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern influences on Rome and the papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias A.D.590-752″, (written by Greek Orthodox author Andrew J. Ekonomou), the Eastern Orthodox, far from denying that the Papacy existed before the schism, are practically laying claims to it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Papacy
Ekonomou writes: “after four decades of Byzantine rule, the East was inexorably insinuating itself into the city on the Tiber. Even Gregory [the Great, pope between 590-604] would succumb, perhaps unwittingly, to the lux orientis… Once the political bonds had been reformed, both Rome and the PAPACY [not screaming, just emphasizing] would quickly begin to experience, even before the sixth century came to a close, its influence in other ways as well.”
Normally, I only use Wikipedia as a source if it is a well-researched article, and this one definitely is, although based almost entirely on a single (Orthodox) book. Wiki says, quoting Ekonomou most of the time, that already by the 500’s the Latins couldn’t read the Greek language any more, and therefore the Greeks rushed to Rome to help: “Many such [Greek] texts appeared in the PAPAL library, which was established by the POPE Agapetus I circa 535 (moved by future POPE Gregory I..)”. And so on, and so forth, the whole book is about popes and the papacy before the schism of 1054, namely the years between 590 and 752 [very important years, as we shall soon see].
So perhaps a little Orthodox coordination between the fully de-centralized Orthodox Churches would be in order here, even if they don’t need a pope to give them unity, but only so that the right Orthodox hand might know what the left Orthodox hand is doing, and vice versa.
I think he meant before the rise of the “new Papacy”.The old Pope’s where the same as the other Patriarchs of the common Church (well maybe a “first among equal’s “).
Correct. The word Pope comes from the Greek παππας or “father” so FLOR could have claimed with the same brilliance that all the Greek παππας and Russian “поп” are Popes and that the Orthodox are stupid for not knowing that. In fact, FLOR has been at this kind of cheapo Papist trolling for a while already, I just ignore that kind of sophomoric sniping as it is just not worth wasting time on.
YMMV of course.
Cheers,
The Saker
Ad hominem because you don’t have arguments. Ekonomou wrote the book which contradicted you, I only quoted it.
Flor is obviously a Uniate. Uniates have that special way of reasoning which tries to justify their betrayal of Orthodoxy by “finding” everywhere “proofs” of papist claims (or simply inventing them) ignored by the Orthodox out of their backwardness and lack of (papist) learning, if not by sheer malevolence and resentment for the Uniates “successes”. Any correction or criticism are always treated not on their substance, but as “ad hominem” attacks.
What else can they do? The facts are not on their side, and their level of education in religious matters is rather primitive. So all that’s left of them is that kind of petty “nipping at ankles” that a beginner lawyer would try in a small claims court. It is not very convincing, but it makes them feel better.
Also, they rather snipe at us than look at the post-Christian monstrosity their rule has created in western Europe or at the fact that the first association they evoke in their own fellow citizens is one with all sorts of sex scandals (mostly involving children), sleazy financial operations and the systematic cover-up of it all.
So let them :-)
Cheers!
Thank you. I will avail myself of your kind permission to point out what I see as inaccuracies and contradictions in what people write. I do not lay any claim at being erudite at papist learning (I would have thought that the accusation that I don’t have it would have been enough to absolve me of any affiliation, but it seems that pilpulism is found in the most interesting places).
Five centuries before the birth of the papacy.
That was a sweeping statement. It swept Canon V of the Council of Sardica in 344 which recommended that primacy should be given to the Bishop of Rome. And it actually supports one of the Orthodox contentions that the papacy was established only after the Dictatus Papae was published in 1075, after the schism.
The above reply was for Uncle Bob 1. It explained why I challenged that statement.
Pope or Papa was an honorific title. The Patriarch of Alexandria is also called Pope. The Emperor getting involved does not mean they were involved in the papacy. There was no papacy. They were part of the same Church at the time. Revisionist history invents nonsense because that is how she wants it to be.
Trash cult churches were already decentralized- Julian (the apostate),did not forbid disreputable cults. He restricted the title of Pope to a city. He also forbade conversion via the sword . This has caused some confusion as saints/popes ,patriarchs and other assorted psychotic trash after the fact claimed or were given more power and turf than they were allowed. A fact of Christian ‘history’ now being re inserted as records are again purged, Not to put to fine a point on it but I happen too know this from personal experience and more. I also know that orthodox christies have always done this and continue too from the Aleutians thru too Ethiopia.
Some of the best information on this subject can be found in a PDF free downloadable book by a man called Donald Teeter.
Prince Myshkin in The Idiot goes off on a long tirade against the Western Church only to claim a page or two later that he “never said a Church could disappear in its entirety.” (or something like that) This has been one of the things that have stuck with me from my youth when I read Dostoyevsky religiously. Religious differences are a serious buzz kill, but maybe — due to differences of civilization –worthy of consideration.
This is a little bit of an egg and chicken problem as how do we establish which came first, the religious differences or the civilizational ones. In the case of Christianity, the Franks did certainly play a role in the creation of a non-Orthodox “Christianity”, but not immediately and not all of them either. Besides, there had been many more heresies in the East than in the West, so I would argue that the East was much *more* heresy-prone than the West. But by the same token, the East was also better equipped to deal with heresies than the West. The Franks did create a new civilization, the one we now think of as “the Western World”, but the Mediterranean culture was never fully suppressed. If you look at Spain, France or Italy you immediately see that there is “another” South which did not fully dissolve in the European North, and that European “other” South is what is left of the “Western” Orthodoxy which should be more accurately described as “Mediterranean Orthodoxy”.
So I am unable to say for sure that either culture or religion always comes first, it all depends on the specific situation.
Cheers!
Excellent interview, illuminating too.
Although I have had great difficulty resolving: “which has been believed everywhere, always and by all can be considered truly Orthodox.” [at the time]. How could anyone be sure of what specific communities believed in different areas would be in line with rest (at the time and especially now).
I stick to basic spiritual principles & fasting prayer and vigils (though the fasting can be a challenge), which probably is why one feels a sense of failure (on reflection) when resorting to anger, and aggressive admonishment toward others. It is the constant effort to raise our spiritual understanding to reach a stage to ‘see’/experience the emanations of God (while limited to this carnal-coil) that drives my faith.
Orhodoxy: The most previous presentation on this topic left off on the concept of the “logos” but since it appears that a discussion of this might be construed as speculative and scholastic, it would probably be in vain for me to ask about it. A disheartening encounter I had today was with someone claiming we were in “end times” so resistance was futile and in fact maybe even against G-d’s plan for the planet. Sounds like a very convenient theology pushed by the right wing forces in America so it is good to hear that you seem to be willing to “fight the good fight ” until the “end” whatever and whenever that may be.
So will leave it at that. It seems that just because the heart is emphasized that the head needs only to have its proper place but then absolutism rules in authoritarian structures often times. sigh.
this is OT sort of because its talking about the RC and what it could and should do to make the world a better place instead of ‘a descending into the graveyard of civilization’ place…
9. Wise as a Serpent
There is often a risk that any important policy will be misunderstood or misused by those who are centralizing control and power. The G-7 nations have experienced a financial coup d’etat. A great deal of money and assets have been shifted out of sovereign governments into private hands – either illegally or under the guise of trillions in bailouts and quantitative easing – while liabilities have been shifted back into governments.
Now that these transfers are complete, it would be convenient to blame the victims and to abrogate their pensions and other savings plans and promises. It would be unfortunate if this Encyclical were used to justify the value of doing so in the name of “reducing consumerism” or to politically outmaneuver the victims by accusing them of being “selfish.”
Economies function on trust and such trust must come from honoring our agreements. As Pope Francis understands, it is easy to blame the victim and to take from the powerless.
Utah Phillips once said, “The Planet is not dying, it is being killed. And the people doing the killing have names and addresses.”
We commend the Pope for calling out for a cessation of the debasement of all living things. Let us hope that his latest Encyclical starts ringing doorbells – beginning with the opportunity to do so in the Church and in the Church’s asset and investment portfolios.
Thank you, Saker. A couple more thoughts from the Fathers of the Church which would clearly show the difference between the Orthodoxy and the Western teachings:
The Church views sin as a wound or harm that we cause to ourselves, to our souls and our bodies. Only in this sense and, not in any legal sense, we are responsible for our sins (wounds). We cannot “anger” or “upset” God with our sins, otherwise He would be the saddest Being in the universe with over 7 billion constantly sinning individuals. The Church views God as the Healer who only heals our wounds through trials sent to us according to our internal (spiritual) state. Like any patient, we are free to accept the unpleasant medicine or reject it and remain unhealed. It is those who remain unhealed through their own free will not be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
The Church is not a “spiritual banking house” where all our faults and good deeds are meticulously calculated like credit and debit to reward the good doers and to punish the wrong doers. This is a pagan/legalistic understanding of Christianity which took deep root first in Rome and then continued in Protestantism which views Christianity as a “limitless credit” fully pre-paid by the Blood of God.
The Church is not a gathering of “a few good men and women” as seen in the West but an alive unity in faith which means free, willful obedience to all the teachings and the sacraments. The key word is free. Protestants cannot accept this because the faith is a deed, an active deed and God cannot save us without our deeds of faith. Giving alms is not a deed of faith but a display of kindness and has little spiritual meaning because it is always tainted with hidden or not so hidden pride.
The West very sadly sees God and the Church as an external authority whose commands they must obey. This one-sided understanding can only produce protest and no live faith. The situation is paradoxical: the churches are full of people with no real faith. They know it but too scared to admit it.
Can you provide a selected bibliography of the best books on orthodox christianity ? perhaps also of best music, liturgy, videos etc (on youtube etc) that an ordinary person can understand ?
thank you
An advice not from me, but from someone who understands: writings of Seraphim Rose can be a good start for an English speaker. He translated and explained quite a few works of the Church Fathers into a language a modern man can understand.
No church is truly “christian” in my opinion. While my family is almost purely orthodox, even as a child I declined to accept the authority of the Church because already then I saw that there is no need for any middle-men or interpreters of what I see as clear words written in understandable language.
And as Jesus said, the church is within you, not some building made of stone and gold.
This is my church as defined by the highest authority himself:
“1“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Prayer
5“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
9“This, then, is how you should pray:
“ ‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11Give us today our daily bread.
12And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation,a
but deliver us from the evil one.b ’
14For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Fasting
16“When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 17But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Treasures in Heaven
19“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
22“The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy,c your whole body will be full of light. 23But if your eyes are unhealthy,d your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
24“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
And this part from the old testament:
“4“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5You shall not bow down to them or serve them”
See bold part, that about sums it up. Every church I know breaks these rules, thus I don’t belong to any of them.
Sadly, again it is a one-sided, legalistic understanding of the Church and you are not responsible for this personally. You accepted this understanding because everyone else around you has.
According to the Fathers: the Church consists of two parts. One is that it is a place where we gather to pray. The other is that it is unity in faith. The second element totally evades most people. The Church can be full of people and be empty at the same time.
No human can completely fulfill a single of God’s Commandments. We all judge others. We are all slaves to envy, greed, lust, gluttony, etc. Left to ourselves, our condition is hopeless. Only God is pure. When we are in unity in faith, we are in unity with Him. This unity with Him is the Church and it is always pure.
Why then do we need to go Church when we can be “in unity with God” at home? The Fathers give us this answer: the Church in its physical sense is a place where we can at least somewhat distance ourselves from the outside world and its noise, ask for healing of our countless wounds (sins) and think about the truly important things in life such as our ever-approaching death. We can’t do this when we lie on a couch watching TV.
Best wishes.
“The fathers” are a worldly authority and as such absolutely meaningless to me. As said, I refer to the highest authority, which is Jesus himself, as quoted in the bible.
Yes some sort of church is needed for gathering etc. for those who do not yet know the word and can’t read the bible themselves, but that should not be an institution, nor collect money, nor should it practice idolatry (which for me already begins with the worship of the cross).
I do not think that I am or could be “free of sin”, being that I reside in a body made of flesh which feeds on other living creatures.
T2015,
I wonder why do you (or anyone else, actually) write on this site if you disagree with its general line.
because one hones a dull knife on a sharp blade.
What would it look like if everyone agreed ?
What exactly do you imply? The general line here is anti-fascist, anti-murder, anti-crime and somewhat pro-slavic. I think I quite agree with all of that. Even if some people give these characteristics to other players sometimes – that is just two different levels of being (mis-)informed, whichever way it goes.
I don’t need to justify myself to random internet personas, but I’ll give you this for free – it’s not like I would always need to agree, since the idea of this site is in a certain way the search for truth and that presumes openness and freedom of expression (as long as it’s within somewhat polite limits). And to me it means:
1) to fight what I deem as lies and planted memes, especially ones which can produce horrible consequences – both deliberate or for lack of knowledge
2) to contribute what I think could be of use to other people here and also to myself
3) I am always eager to learn and I also don’t mind being proven wrong, which happens often enough
4) I like a good, thoughtful and lively discussion. It aids the process of growth and learning for all of us
5) on topic, my family is mostly orthodox and I grew up with that religion at home, so I am both somewhat competent, as well as personally interested in this topic.
Now you tell me, why did you feel compelled to ask?
“Yes some sort of church is needed for gathering etc. for those who do not yet know the word and can’t read the bible themselves…” – T2015
Without the community of the Church the faith would dissolve into the ether, tradition and community maintain the cohesiveness of the faith. I agree in theory that a spiritually enlightened civilization would not require a physical Church, since the Church invisible would unite those who live through Christ. The reality of the world as it currently exists however requires a physical institution (with its money collections and all) in order to protect the teachings of Christ.
“I agree in theory that a spiritually enlightened civilization would not require a physical Church”
Nor do people who are at least a little bit enlightened or discovered their heart, in the most humble way. My grandmother was one of the most dedicated, humble christians you could ever imagine, but she rarely ever entered the church in her life. She always commented it kinda like what I quoted from Jesus above, despite her being just a simple woman, basically just an uneducated peasant. But with a heart as big as a house.
Agree with you that religious buildings can be a good place for contemplation and meditation, but this is more likely to occur when they are empty. I find very useful especially in big cities where one might not have another chance to isolate a bit from the madding crowd.
But when possible, one can also ponder the immensity of nature, on top of the mountains, the vastness and solitude of the desert or by the sea, on the beach, when the sun out or sets and only some souls here and there. What better temple that containing all the wonders of creation? The places where we are aware of the overwhelming beauty that surrounds us while our own insignificance, are places that also facilitate introspection.
Although I do not practice any religion, during my travels I like to visit religious buildings, especially at times when not busy, but this is often not possible when you make a tour.
A highly recommended experience is to visit the Mosque of Cordoba taking advantage of free admission on Wednesdays, I think, before 10 am. In winter, when I visited, in absolute solitude except for the presence of an employee, with the sunlight streaming through the windows, is it a religious experience. I highly recommend it.
Quite agree with you, T2015, in what you say you do not belong to any church but that does not stop you being a religious person or trying to be an increasingly better human being.
You have selected very interesting passages.
I, actually, have followed almost the same trend and the good of not adhere to any rule, IMHO, is that you can keep the good things you find in every religion and form your own, although this is a long path of study and knowledge that could well lead all existence.
Also agree with you in the privacy of our religious practice. In my experience of life, they are not exactly those of daily or weekly mass which come closest to the truth, let alone the ideal. In my country, Spain, has always been people who gave very religious and then slaughtered its fellow citizens or stole everything that was within reach of its hand. Right now, the government is full of these people, whom others and the world in general do not give a damn but then, yes, to the Sunday Mass and in indicated dates sitting next to the Cardinal, of course.
In this respect, the privacy of religious practice, tell me, what do you think about the show at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem? Unfortunate, I guess.
Thank you. I don’t claim to know it better than anyone else, it’s just how I always felt about it. And I can second that with other religions, I also studied important works from indian, gnostic, muslim/sufi etc. religions and lots of esoteric materials and took what I felt was right.
I might as well be a stupid sinner without knowing it, but alas – what the churches do almost without exception is clearly opposed to the holy books and words of any prophet from any serious religion, thus makes them all invalid in my eyes.
Or as the bible says, “by their fruits you shall know them”. I’m trying to stick to that as good as I can.
I think nothing about it, same as all the other occult rituals in my view. To me it’s the same as muslims going to the black cube of Saturn in Mecca, someone invented it for some local purpose in some dark past.
But this is just my superficial opinion, I am no expert in their tradition or religion and thus am not qualified to play the judge.
Well, T2015, I do not think that both, the pilgrimage to Mecca as the Kaaba ring, can be equated to the demonstration at the Wall.
-To begin, the Hajj, in its original sense of authentic pilgrimage through deserts (not TGV) was a real test of sacrifice and faith. In fact, many were those who undertook this odyssey but not so many that reached Mecca.
-Also, I have read that the fact that so many people turn simultaneously in a particular sense in a particular place develops a certain energy that might have some purpose:
http://www.islamyciencia.com/milagros-cientificos-del-coran/milagros-de-la-meca-kaaba.html
-Also, some say that the Kaaba is a meteorite and like all ancient rocks, has a lot of energy.
i do not know but i will tell you a story. Once I undertook a trip through southern Algeria (Hoggar – Tassili N’ajjers) in not the best mental conditions. During long walks in the desert, a fellow traveler told me that in these tough travels, sometimes, people despair and begins to mourn, but if you carried it well, you filled with energy.
Well, that’s how I got back.
There is a very special place around there, the Assekrem range:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4107/5001203916_b479aa0bf8.jpg
http://www.fotonatura.org/galerias/fotos/usr1772/12254596uk.jpg
Reagardless of those technicalities, both practices are a sort of idolatry.
As for the Kaaba, I have a totally different understanding. The black cube is a symbol of Saturn (Satan) and the meteorite is placed in what resembles the all-seeing eye.
Thus, it is the heritage of the old polytheistic cult and the moon goddess Allat, mixed with masonic ritualism. There is nothing islamic about it at all in my eyes, they re-defined it in order to integrate the old arabic cults (which were already there before Islam).
@This is what the Apostles witnessed on Mount Tabor and what the Prophets of the Old Testament saw. But to be able to receive such a vision, a person has to begin by acquiring the “spirit of the Fathers,” to renounce the modern world and seek to “obtain the Holy Spirit”
See how beautifully St. Peter describes the vision of the Unapproachable Light:
2 Peter 1, 16-21:
“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
St. Peter (and John and James) has heard the same voice uttering the same words as the ones heard by St. John Baptist at the Epiphany. It is a strong belief of mine that St. Andrew, the First called, was witness of the Epiphany. He then planted the seeds of Christianity in Scythia Minor (Dobrogea), in the Bosporan Kingdom (Crimea), and Scythia (Russia).
Unfortunately those seeds must have fallen by the wayside, because those people became Christians only after almost a millennium.
Oh yes, they had to wait for the Papacy to come into being!
And did not the late Monsignor Aloisie Tautu proclaimed from the heights of his “Doctorat de Roma”, the thesis of the Apostleship of St. Andrew in Pontus Euxinus “ridiculous”. Only “bulgaro-slavismul tampit si orb” can believe such a thing!
Mitica, all your pro-Russian and Russian friends are saying that Romanians were Christianized by the Bulgars in the 8-9th centuries. Do you have a theory that disproves this, other than the myth about St. Andrew ?
@WizOz ” It is a strong belief of mine that St. Andrew, the First called, was witness of the Epiphany. He then planted the seeds of Christianity in Scythia Minor (Dobrogea), in the Bosporan Kingdom (Crimea), and Scythia (Russia).” Wouldn’t it make more sense that Jew’s from that area were in Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost and were some of the 1000’s that heard the message that Peter and others were preaching ?
Act 2: 5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
See not need to speculate when there is plenty of good evidence to explain how Christianity exploded on to the scene and spread out so quickly .
@Wouldn’t it make more sense that Jew’s from that area were in Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost and were some of the 1000’s that heard the message that Peter and others were preaching ?
It probably would. In any case that would not contradict the firm tradition of the Apostleship of St. Andrew in the region. Say that he might have preached to the Hebrews from there. But it is doubtful that there were Hebrews in the Kiev region and on Lake Ladoga, where tradition has that the Holy Apostle founded the monastery of Valaam.
@See not need to speculate when there is plenty of good evidence to explain how Christianity exploded on to the scene and spread out so quickly .
This is an unnecessary Straw Man.
Thank! This was excellent article!!
According to Wikipedia: “The earliest (first) recorded use of the term “orthodox” [in the organizational sense] is in the Codex Iustinianus of 529-534 AD,[3]: Jump upLiddell & Scott; Code of Justinian: “We direct that all Catholic churches, throughout the entire world, shall be placed under the control of the orthodox bishops who have embraced the Nicene Creed.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy)
[The term “orthodox” and “ orthodoxy”, however, in the sense of right belief or purity of faith, are used quite frequently In the “Church History” of Eusebius of Caesarea, circa 325 AD: (for examples, scan http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm).]
The term “Catholic”, meaning “universal”, however, denoting the universal Church descended from the Apostles, was in use much earlier. According to Wikipedia: The earliest recorded evidence of the use of the term “Catholic Church” is the Letter to the Smyrnaeans that Ignatius of Antioch wrote in about 107 to Christians in Smyrna. Exhorting Christians to remain closely united with their bishop, he wrote: “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_%22Catholic%22).
The term “Catholic” is next recorded in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (155 AD), before his execution:
“While they were eating he prayed, “remembering all, high and low, who at any time had come in his way, and the Catholic Church throughout the world”. Then he was led away.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12219b.htm)
Clearly by then, 155 AD “Catholic” was the title of the Church. [NB: According to Irenaeus, Polycarp personally knew St. John the Evangelist in Ephesus, and was evangelized by him.]
By 251 AD Cyprian of Carthage (martyred 258 AD), in the “Unity if the Catholic Church” writes: “The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church?” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm)
[The remaining citations are all from (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_%22Catholic%22).]:
Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315–386), who is venerated as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion, distinguished what he called the “Catholic Church” from other groups who could also refer to themselves as an ἐκκλησία (assembly or church):
“Since the word Ecclesia is applied to different things … if ever you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God (Catechetical Lectures, XVIII,26).”
Theodosius I, Emperor from 379 to 395, declared “Catholic” Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, declaring in the Edict of Thessalonica of 27 February 380:
“It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our clemency and moderation, should continue the profession of that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one Deity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation, and in the second the punishment which our authority, in accordance with the will of heaven, will decide to inflict.[18] Theodosian Code XVI.i.2”
Only slightly later, Saint Augustine of Hippo (354–430) also used the term “Catholic” to distinguish the “true” church from heretical groups: “In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15–19), down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should … With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me… No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. —St. Augustine (354–430): Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental, chapter 4: Proofs of the Catholic Faith””
A contemporary of Augustine, St. Vincent of Lerins, wrote in 434 (under the pseudonym Peregrinus) a work known as the Commonitoria (“Memoranda”). While insisting that, like the human body, church doctrine develops while truly keeping its identity (sections 54-59, chapter XXIII),[20] he stated: “In the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense ‘catholic,’ which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors. (A Comminatory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies, section 6, end of chapter II).
Along with Cyril of Jerusalem, and Augustine of Hippo, we can still say, when any stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, that universal church descended from the Apostles, no one would point to an Orthodox church called into existence by a decree of the Roman Emperor Justinian I (nor by an ukaz of the Russian Emperor Peter I).
Well obviously, the Orthodox Church as so referred IS and has always been the catholic [universal] church. The Roman Catholic Church can’t possibly be the same as “The Catholic Church” since it just evolved from the westernmost of the five Patriarchates and was able to maintain its power since not overwhelmed by Islamic invasions, as were the ones to the east. You are just playing with words.
The name Roman Catholic was coined by Anglicans in the late 1500’s, to distinguish Catholics from thenselves, who claimed to be Anglo Catholics. (See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm, inter alia; there are many sources.)
The Church began to call itself Catholic in the 2nd century, universally since the 3rd. It has never called itself Roman Catholic. (Sometimes the term is used in legal proceedings, but only if necessary.) Of the five historic Patriarchates, the three in Moslem countries are essentially dormant, and have been since the Moslem conquest. Constantinople is dormant in its headquarters in Moslem Turkey, but still alive and well in Greece and the diaspora. The various national patriarchates are still alive and well also, especially Moscow (thanks be to God !). As for myself, echoing Our Lord in his final prayer to his disciples, on his last night on Earth, I also pray for the day that all the followers of the Apostles may be one again, on terms satisfactory to all.
As far as my playing with words, what I quoted is historically truthful and correct, as far as I can tell; if not, please enlighten me. As for my last paragraph, try it and see: Ask anyone where the nearest Catholic church is, and see what you are directed to. (It won’t be Orthodox.)
I found something in the text which I perceive as a contradiction with a previously expressed opinion of the author. I will quote:
“Contrary to the Western propaganda, elections in Russia have been open and fair (at least since Putin…), you have a multi-party system”
How does this align itself with the next quote, which I took from:
/russia-and-islam-part-three-internal-russian-politics/
“The reality is that there is only one game in town: United Russia and its non-party ‘All Russia’s People’s Front’, created by Putin as a political movement for new ideas. Everything else is pretty much a way of making the system look ‘democratic’ and legitimate.”
@The book of Revelation was added to the canon of the New Testament only relatively late and with a great deal of controversy.
The Apocalypse of St. John was never considered as a “conclusion” of the “Bible”, which would give it that character of “end of the days”. The Orthodox kept a cool head in this regard and were not afflicted by millenarian frenzies like the West. The original composition was not intended to serve as a conclusion to the entire Bible, but as a consolation for the Christians of the day that eventually God would triumph over all persecutions. The “thousand years” refer to the Christian Empire. It does not prophesy about the Antichrist at the end of times. It does not pronounce that name anywhere. St. John talks namely about the antichrist in his Epistles as manifesting already in the world (“Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist” —2 John 1:7)!
But the “apocalyptic thinking” with its elaborate predictions about world events which was developed mostly in the West (and not infrequently by unscrupulous swindlers) is an infection originating in the Jewish Messianism, with its dreams of restoration of “Zion” and revenge against the persecutors. It is used today as a manifesto for rallying the supporters of the state of Israel around the world. The “Christian Zionists” and “Dispensationalists” are cases in point (the Mahdists fall into the same category).
Excellent, dear brother Saker! What astounds me is the similarity with Shia Islam as expressed in Iran et al. I am sure there is a good argument for research to establish and broaden this common ground. I think I am naturally Orthodox AND Shia and I see very little contradiction. Keep up the good work, you are a light at the end of a tunnel…
There is one little point where Orthodoxy and Shia diverge, but is essential. For the Orthodox Jesus Christ is The Son of God, therefore God and therefore the teachings of Orthodoxy were handed down by God Himself. Islam denies this truth and even condemn it. Do you think that this is “a very little” contradiction?
Talk about throwing a wrench in the works… And it wasn’t me this time.
I actually wonder what do yourself hope to achieve writing here?
Thank you very much Saker and Ms. Frisk for this exceptional interview. As you state, “Spiritually and culturally, the Orthodox Church is much closer to certain form of Islam (Sufism) and Hinduism (Dvaita Vedanta) than to western Christianity..” This seems to be supported by early Christian gnostic texts such as those found at Nag Hammadi in Egypt. There are also more recent books by Eastern mystics (“The Yoga of Jesus” by Paramahansa Yogananda and “The Holy Science” by Swami Sri Yukteswar) explaining the underlying unity of the teachings of Christ and the ancient yogic (Patanjali’s Eightfold Path of Yoga) or Vedic teachings. Both teachings focus on energy, enlightenment and going within to know God–“the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:20-21)