Re: Constantine moved the imperial capital across the Aegean Sea to modern Turkey in the early 4th century
A very minor quibble: Constantinople is still on the European side of the Bosphoros. And the western capital itself was moved up to Milan or to the more easily defended Ravenna. A book I read about the decline and fall of Rome noted that in 2nd and 3rd centuries AD grand celebrations, the equivalent of a modern world's fair, were held in Rome to mark the nine hundredth and one thousandth anniversaries of the city's founding. But In the 4th century no effort was made to mark that anniversary.
Also to note: the Byzantine Empire held territory in Italy right up until the high Middle Ages. To this day there are two small pockets of Greek speakers in the far south. Byzantium meddled endlessly in the affairs of the Papacy in the first millennium, not always to good effect: all the political maneuvering debased the office. Meanwhile the imperial crowning of Charlemagne was the reaction of Pope Leo, himself either Greek or maybe Arab, to the usurpation of the throne (by the expedient of blinding her own son) of the Empress Irene.
Thanks for the review. The deep roots of the schism are fascinating.
Does the book deal at all with non-Latin, non-Greek Christian traditions? I wonder if similar cultural differences explain why Miaphysitism took off among Syriacs and Copts.
No. The Copts split off in the 100's if I remember. He delves into the Russians quite a bit, but the rest is various Greek flavors. He's upfront in the intro that he's dealing with Orthodox Christianity that's in mutual communion most of the time. Copts fall outside that scope.
Enjoyable, but these people VALUE Rublev's icon of The Holy Trinity. When Jesus returns, I expect his terrible swift sword to hack it to pieces, or perhaps He'll just vaporize it.
The icon isn't my cup of tea, but what's your beef with Rublev?
This book spends a good deal of time on the shift from Constantinople to Kiev. I always viewed the Russians as a bolt on to "real" Orthodoxy. I have a sense now that Orthodox Moscow views itself as the "third Rome" and the last Christian empire.
I flatly do not believe that Orthodoxy has anything of spiritual substance, or which could enhance spiritual growth, which orthodox Protestantism does not have. Their worship is without question a beautiful thing, but there is a fine line between enacted beauty, even in the service of God, and theatre for its own sake, and I have failed to be persuaded that Eastern Orthodoxy does not step across it much of the time. Your article, and a book such as Rod Dreher's “Living in Wonder,” are uptown versions of the whole charismatic/Pentecostal movement of a half century ago.
I'm disabled, and cannot drive. Many years ago, I was being given rides to church by a man in his early eighties. He was the quintessence of Presbyterian squareness, as the term of art of the 1950s would have called it. ( What a square! ) He was a retired computer programmer, never married, intensely reserved personally. He was an Elder Emeritus, and a great saint.
One Sunday he, who was always punctual, was not just late, but twenty minutes late! I was standing by the door, close to phoning for a welfare check for him, when his little sports car, his one defection from colorlessness, which he loved and drove rather madly, came around the corner. As I yanked open the passenger side door, I implored, “Are you all right?!”
He had a dreamy - eyed countenance.
“I'm sorry I'm late, Bob. I was meditating on John the Baptist, and the time got away from me.”
Before his death the next year, he read “The Lord of the Rings,” and loved it.
Dreher in his Substack makes frequent reference to the matter of his hope that he makes it to Heaven. My reaction is to steal from Flannery O'Connor: if that's all his Eastern Orthodoxy has done for him, I say the Hell with it! My sports car loving, maniacal driver of a friend, disappointed in life but face to face with the Lord, knew exactly how he was going to get to Heaven.
There is a weird fascination which Presbyterians have with the E.O., unrequited, of course, but we accept it with charity in our hearts. One of our favorite books is Schmemann's “For the Life of the World.” If you haven't read it, you are a deprived child of God, and should fix the matter right away. But classical Protestants should be the ones who understand that we walk by faith in God's Word and in partaking of the Sacrament. Contra Eastern Orthodoxy, God hides Himself, and The Beatific Vision is glorious news which we who are under the sun cannot yet see.
I hate to tell you Bobby, but your last line in particular sounds very Orthodox to me. I do get the "theatre for it's own sake" comment though, especially if you're coming from a denomination that largely doesn't do ritual. I know little of Presbyterians, but my understanding of them is that they're extremely practical in service and governance.
As I've said before, I'm not interested in internecine (intra-Nicene in this case?) conflict, but in showing American Protestants how large and diverse the Body actually is.
The objective is Christ, the Word. If something doesn't brings you closer to Him, it matters not whether it has been used by Christians for centuries. If you see nothing but theatrics in the Divine Liturgy, find a different service, one that DOES bring you closer to Christ. I'm the worship leader of an Evangelical church, yet the Divine Liturgy does that for me.
Thanks for this!
Re: Constantine moved the imperial capital across the Aegean Sea to modern Turkey in the early 4th century
A very minor quibble: Constantinople is still on the European side of the Bosphoros. And the western capital itself was moved up to Milan or to the more easily defended Ravenna. A book I read about the decline and fall of Rome noted that in 2nd and 3rd centuries AD grand celebrations, the equivalent of a modern world's fair, were held in Rome to mark the nine hundredth and one thousandth anniversaries of the city's founding. But In the 4th century no effort was made to mark that anniversary.
Also to note: the Byzantine Empire held territory in Italy right up until the high Middle Ages. To this day there are two small pockets of Greek speakers in the far south. Byzantium meddled endlessly in the affairs of the Papacy in the first millennium, not always to good effect: all the political maneuvering debased the office. Meanwhile the imperial crowning of Charlemagne was the reaction of Pope Leo, himself either Greek or maybe Arab, to the usurpation of the throne (by the expedient of blinding her own son) of the Empress Irene.
Jon, I knew you would have useful things to add. Thanks.
Thanks for the review. The deep roots of the schism are fascinating.
Does the book deal at all with non-Latin, non-Greek Christian traditions? I wonder if similar cultural differences explain why Miaphysitism took off among Syriacs and Copts.
No. The Copts split off in the 100's if I remember. He delves into the Russians quite a bit, but the rest is various Greek flavors. He's upfront in the intro that he's dealing with Orthodox Christianity that's in mutual communion most of the time. Copts fall outside that scope.
Enjoyable, but these people VALUE Rublev's icon of The Holy Trinity. When Jesus returns, I expect his terrible swift sword to hack it to pieces, or perhaps He'll just vaporize it.
The icon isn't my cup of tea, but what's your beef with Rublev?
This book spends a good deal of time on the shift from Constantinople to Kiev. I always viewed the Russians as a bolt on to "real" Orthodoxy. I have a sense now that Orthodox Moscow views itself as the "third Rome" and the last Christian empire.
I'm glad a graven Image is not your cup of tea.
I flatly do not believe that Orthodoxy has anything of spiritual substance, or which could enhance spiritual growth, which orthodox Protestantism does not have. Their worship is without question a beautiful thing, but there is a fine line between enacted beauty, even in the service of God, and theatre for its own sake, and I have failed to be persuaded that Eastern Orthodoxy does not step across it much of the time. Your article, and a book such as Rod Dreher's “Living in Wonder,” are uptown versions of the whole charismatic/Pentecostal movement of a half century ago.
I'm disabled, and cannot drive. Many years ago, I was being given rides to church by a man in his early eighties. He was the quintessence of Presbyterian squareness, as the term of art of the 1950s would have called it. ( What a square! ) He was a retired computer programmer, never married, intensely reserved personally. He was an Elder Emeritus, and a great saint.
One Sunday he, who was always punctual, was not just late, but twenty minutes late! I was standing by the door, close to phoning for a welfare check for him, when his little sports car, his one defection from colorlessness, which he loved and drove rather madly, came around the corner. As I yanked open the passenger side door, I implored, “Are you all right?!”
He had a dreamy - eyed countenance.
“I'm sorry I'm late, Bob. I was meditating on John the Baptist, and the time got away from me.”
Before his death the next year, he read “The Lord of the Rings,” and loved it.
Dreher in his Substack makes frequent reference to the matter of his hope that he makes it to Heaven. My reaction is to steal from Flannery O'Connor: if that's all his Eastern Orthodoxy has done for him, I say the Hell with it! My sports car loving, maniacal driver of a friend, disappointed in life but face to face with the Lord, knew exactly how he was going to get to Heaven.
There is a weird fascination which Presbyterians have with the E.O., unrequited, of course, but we accept it with charity in our hearts. One of our favorite books is Schmemann's “For the Life of the World.” If you haven't read it, you are a deprived child of God, and should fix the matter right away. But classical Protestants should be the ones who understand that we walk by faith in God's Word and in partaking of the Sacrament. Contra Eastern Orthodoxy, God hides Himself, and The Beatific Vision is glorious news which we who are under the sun cannot yet see.
I hate to tell you Bobby, but your last line in particular sounds very Orthodox to me. I do get the "theatre for it's own sake" comment though, especially if you're coming from a denomination that largely doesn't do ritual. I know little of Presbyterians, but my understanding of them is that they're extremely practical in service and governance.
As I've said before, I'm not interested in internecine (intra-Nicene in this case?) conflict, but in showing American Protestants how large and diverse the Body actually is.
The objective is Christ, the Word. If something doesn't brings you closer to Him, it matters not whether it has been used by Christians for centuries. If you see nothing but theatrics in the Divine Liturgy, find a different service, one that DOES bring you closer to Christ. I'm the worship leader of an Evangelical church, yet the Divine Liturgy does that for me.
Why?
Mark, read the reply I just made to Brian Villanueva.