The Pope: Agent of Division

Let me say at the beginning that I consider the Roman Church very much akin to the Ancient Faith of the Eastern Orthodox. It is a brother Church (although there are hoards of believers on either side that will object to my saying so) and the pope is not an Anti-Christ as Luther claimed although the characterization is raised by a early Pope himself; the Church's persistence in truth only seems to be in spite of the papacy at times. Nonetheless, I have great affection for the Roman Church despite the shortcomings of its Papacy. It retains the community of Saints and the possibility of saintliness; it rejects the complete depravity of man that Luther and Calvin claim. The Eucharist is the still central to worship, worship not being simply a good feeling during "praise and worship" accompanied by blaring contemporary Christian Rock Music. Baptism is not just a symbol or statement of faith but a remission of sins and initiation into Christian Life. They continue to honor Mary as Mother of God, not simply a receptacle for baby Jesus and thus a worthy of the Biblical adoration: "Hail Mary, full of favor!" Confession is present as it was in the Early Church. Much of what they do closely resembles the Early Church, nearly as much as the Eastern Orthodox. Alas there is the Magisterial Papacy as a huge stumbling block to unity.

The best one can say about the Magisterial Papacy is that it was an agent for reform and independence of the Western Church against the Civil governments control of the Church, early in the 2nd Millennium as well as a object of reform by the Holy Roman Emporer. In it's errancy the Roman Church purports to be the universal Church. Unity of the contemporary Roman Church is maintained around this magisterial Pope, who rules autocratically over the flock. The Oriental (Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, etc.) and the Eastern Orthodox are ignored. Yes, the Eastern Church recently has been given its due as the "Right Lung" of the Church. Yet, the Roman Bishop retains his ascendancy over the entire church in contradiction to these Ancients Faiths. One of the main ideas is without this ascendant Roman Bishop the church would simply splitter like all the Protestants. I would argue that the reverse, that without the magisterial Pope, Christendom could still be united.

The basis of Rome's authority lies in large part on interpretation of Scripture largely ignored by current day Protestants and given great importance by the Romans. The verse Matt 16:18"... I say to you are Peter and upon this rock I build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it". St. Peter spent the last years of his life in Rome, where he suffered martyrdom. In other words the head and authority of the Church was given to St. Peter and his successors. The Roman Popes avow that the St. Peter's mantle has been passed on to them as Bishops of Rome, in the Apostolic Succession, St. Peter being the first Bishop. The power and authority claimed by the Roman Popes grew until the pope argued for total ascendancy over the whole body of the Church and at one point even civil authorities. The majority of the Church, Orthodox, Protestant, Oriental has vehemently disagreed with this interpretation of Pope as Spiritual King lording over all Christendom.

Let me say, Christ is the head of the Church not his vicar. When the apostles argued who would be first in the future Messianic kingdom, Jesus, Our Lord, admonishes them, saying the First shall be last, the servant is the leader. On the other hand Protestants tend to ignore Episcopal authority. Since the Bible being fully authoritative, when interpreted individually, allows each to be his own pope. St. Paul says that the church was not to be built on one person: neither Apollo nor Paul himself. There's another fact arguing against the ascendancy of the Bishop of Rome; St. Peter was bishop of Antioch, but he probably wasn't Bishop of Rome, where he spent his last days.

Some medievalists argued, Occam for one, that the Pope that errors ceases to be pope. Interestingly, Pope Honorius, in the Early Church's controversy over the nature of Christ erred according to the Whole Church and later Popes thus flying in the face of the dogma an infallible Pope. Pope Honorius was anathematized for centuries for ruling Christ only had one will, the human will being subsumed within the divine as argued the adherents of Monothelitism.

Astoundingly Pope Gregory the Great of the 7th century wrote, "I say without the least hesitation , whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, THE PRECURSOR OF THE ANTI-CHRIST, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others." That's tough to square with the current understanding of the Roman Church of the supreme Holy Father.

At the time of the Protestant Reformation the Church was in need of reform, as opposed to those who deem the Reformation simply misdirected, mean spirited, evil or mostly driven by social and economic forces. Church offices were being sold, simony was rampant. The Roman leadership had been greatly influenced by humanism whose extravagant paintings, sculpture and architecture including St. Peter's Basilica caused consternation to the faithful. The Papal states were always foremost in the Popes' mind. At least one Pope, Julius II, led the papal armies into battle several times and confirmed the Popes soveriengty over them. The Roman Church showed itself incapable of reform. It fell to the 16th century Kings, princes, dukes, etc. to reform and in many cases glad they were because it became a great land grab. The Churches vast confiscated land holdings become prizes for the reforming regents. The Western Church became severed just as the Latin Church forced schism with the Eastern Church.

One especially tragic consequence of the Papal monarchy was falling away of the English Church. English King Henry VIII, a devout Catholic, desired an annulment from childless Catherine, Queen and sister to the Powerful King of the Hapsburg Empire, Charles VI. If power had been decentralized, a Bishop could have grant the divorce as they were on a rare occasion given (i.e. Eleanor of Acquitaine was granted divorce of King Louis VII of France in the 12th Century). However the Roman Pope's efforts were to welfare of his Papal states. Charles VI was poised to invade Rome, if Pope Clement had granted a divorce and he would have suffered the loss or invasion of the papacy's precious Papal States. How precious these were can be demonstrated again and again. When the Papal States were lost upon the reunion of Italy in 1870, despite the Pope's sending into battle his pathetic Papal Army, the Pope refused to recognize the loss despite a promised annual payment in the millions in compensation from the Italian government. In 1929 a Concordant with Mussolini finalized the loss of the Papal States some 59 years later. So the English Church was sent adrift and was taken over by Protestant Reformers and cemented by the land grab of Church Lands that were soon sold to what was to become the Landed Gentry; no more staunch Protestants could be found than they. Return of the Roman Church would have meant return of the lands, you see. So the majestic Pope with all power in his hands was paralyzed by the threat of loss of the Papal States, his primary focus not the health of the Church, and the English Church unable to act for its own good being fully submitted to Rome. So much for a magisterial pope here.

To cement his authority the Roman Bishop declared himself to be Infallible in 1870. There was great opposition to this ruling by the 1st Vatican Council, stacked with Italian Bishops. Frightfully ironic, one pope argues against it and the Franciscans argued for it in the Middles Ages. Pope Nicholas III (1277-80) had favored the Franciscans by declaring that "communal renunciation of property was a possible way to salvation" Pope John XXII 1316-1334 refuted the idea of infallibility by changing that edict; the Franciscans arguing heatedly to the contrary that he, the Holy Father, was indeed infallible and the original judgment couldn't be changed. Today of course this dogma due to its patent absurdity it has been dumbed down to only when the Pope speaks EX Cathedra (in the papal Chair) on matters of doctrine and morals.... which he never does of course.... well, almost never. So we can ignore 99.99% percent of what he says it would seem.

It is virtually unknown that about a century before the Reformation a conciliar movement attempted to reform the papacy. This belies the idea that the Church had no other idea of its government than the transcendent Roman Bishop throughout its history. It's little known that Council of Constance, 1414-1418, called by Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund, adjudicated a dispute between three rival Popes in the early 15th century. And attempts were made to have a council as governing body convene every few years. They issued Haec Sancta which read:

legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the Catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members. It was deemed a gathering of bishops, Cardinals, learned theologians and abbots would have ascendancy over just one Bishop of Rome.

All 3 current popes were either deposed or resigned, the one in Avignon, the one in Pisa and the Roman and a new Pope Martin V was elected. It could be said that without the council the rival popes would have continued to battle among themselves leaving a divided Western Christianity. The Christian Church embodied within the Pope, not in the Council of Bishops, shows itself to be be a source of division.

John Hus, an earlier Reformer desiring to give the laity both bread and wine at the eucharist and given safe conduct to the Council of Constance, was nonetheless burned at the stake. I assume as a warning to the faithful against the dangers of heresy. This was to have great repercussions with a later Reformer. Popes regained their ascendancy. In conjunction with secular sovereigns the popes throughout the 15th century once again gathered power around itself which set itself up to be assailed by the Protestant Reformation, led by secular authorities in large part. Among whom was Martin Luther, who looking back at the burning at the stake of John Hus, rejected the Council and saw them as flawed as well. Only the Holy Scripture could be authoritative, the doctrine of Sole Scriptura.

In the 16th century the Papacy remained disinterested or adverse to reform of the church. After the results of the division were made manifest and efforts towards union dead, the Papacy reluctantly called the Council of Trent to reform the Church, ever fearful of the Councils and their power to call ascendancy.

Could reforms in terms of sale of church offices and simony stopped the tsunami of the Reformers? Great question. Luther, in his criticism of the Papacy, prompted by the sale of Indulgences, gathered great public support. But he was sheltered by the Duke of Saxony an elector of the vacant Holy Roman Empire. Once again politics of the Papal States plays its part. The Roman Pope wanted to retain influence on who would become the Emperor; France had recently invaded Italian States and occupied Rome itself in the early 1500's. Once again Luther couldn't be dealt with harshly without offending the Elector; Luther was free to propagate his Reformed doctrines. And the Pope's focus wasn't on addressing Luther's objections and criticisms but health of the Papal States, his primary focus. So the Church shatters under the office of the Papacy as the main focal point of the Reform and opposition.

The Church was meant to be directed in matters of dogma by the Councils, the writings of the Church Fathers, the Saints, by the Church's Liturgical Truth in agreement with the whole church and the deposit of faith. This is what happened in the first 8 or 9 centuries of the Church. Schism occurred when the Roman church after continued claims not only of Primacy, always recognized by the whole Church, but extra ecclesiastical, monarchical prerogatives, broke from the Eastern Church. 450 years later itself was splintered. If it could only recognize how much damage has been done in the office of the Papacy.

Finally all before has been said only with an eye to unity for all the ancient sacramental churches, Byzantine, Coptic, Armenian, Roman and the rest. This criticism is not meant to denigrate the Roman Church but give light to its divisive history. The Church is authoritative, the pillar and foundation of the Truth, 1 Tim 3:15. To my Pr0testant brothers, rightfully wishing to Reform the Church in the 16th century, we are not our own popes; each deciding the correctness of Bible exegesis and doctrine without reference to the Church. The Church, One and True and Spotless, is first and foremost. Any attempts at reform must be made within her unless the Church itself is led outside the truth which has been held always, everywhere and by all; the parameters of the truth for the Church, that the ancient father, St. Vicent of Lorins laid down.

The "new" kid on the block, Monarchial Papacy, in contrast to Conciliar Eastern Orthodoxy, claims she's the only one one rightfully in the neighborhood, chastising her wayward children, the Protestants, forgetting her parents, the Ancient Orthodox.

Socrates, Relativism and Absolute Truth

Must Read: Refutation of Moral Realitivism by Peter Kreeft

Today society is saturated with relativism and hedonism. If one gages by the popular view as depicted in many a movie or heard on the local Shock Jock station or seen in magazines or Internet, whatever floats your boat is the motto to live by. Yes, there are a few countervailing voices, radio pundit, Dr. Laura for one. But all in all its a Tsunami of cultural relativism. It's almost expected in movies that our earthy action hero will bed his independent smart co-star with whom he has virtually nothing in common socially and actually wouldn't be given the time of day ordinarily. Violence, foul language, nudity, casual sexual situations are common place. Commonly, these movies glorify the rogue individual. For example the James Bond characters in the service of the secret agency, invariably fornicates with his willing co-star, kills without conscience and in the end thwarts the evil genius intent on destroying society. This is simply a vicarious wish fulfillment of the a base sort. And it allows ones to fantasize about acting in an unrestrained manner in the service of the "good" guys. More about that character in just a moment.

Nonetheless, the argument for relativism seems compelling. Anthropology, much used by relativists, looks across other societies and other cultures and even back into history and sees that moral behavior varies and seems far from universal. Part of the argument is made that since a Judeo-Christian ethic is just one of numerous moral systems, we can draw the conclusion that other societies have a validity. Cultures vary and so do morals, its argued. Just recently it was pointed out to me that the Aztec culture was valid as American Society; it just had different religious viewpoint. The sacrifice of thousands by riping their hearts out was deemed necessary to placate the gods of their religious system. This fails on two counts of course, one how to defend the cultural values patently monstrous as a society that routinely violates our moral sensibilities. That is where do we draw the line? A society that commits genocide, like Hitler's Germany? And there were many fine minds in Nazi Germany that defended its behavior. They would say the winners write history; thus might makes Right.


Socrates was confronted in Plato's Republic with an another argument against moral absolutes illustrated in what is called the myth of Gyges. This myth will demonstrate that character is a mere facade or veneer to our true selves. Gyges who is a mere shepherd finds a magic ring much like the Ring in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. He discovers whenever he twists it people wonder what happened to him; he disappears. Eventually he is able to have his way with queen, enlist her aid and kill the king and become ruler of the land. And it is argued that this is what anyone would do given the chance. Socrates would have argued here that the real person harmed here is Gyges, because in his excess he's destroyed his inner soul; the most valuable part of our being. The Republic goes on to demonstrate on a bigger scale an ordered government ruled by the enlightened elite would promote justice not the ravages of a Gyges.



Secondly, relativism can't be defended on its own logical merits. "Societies vary in their values, so values vary" is a relativist conclusion without premise. Since all is relative, how can their conclusions be anything but relative as well.


Back to a portrayal of our hedonistic society. An example of this sickness...words fail me... is the National Book Award that was granted to The March by Doctorow, a book about Sherman's March to the Sea in the Civil War. National Book Awards I have read in the past have been superlative books. Granted contemporary literature is not on my list to read; I read too much else, including nonfiction History and Philosophy and Theology and such. So I most infrequently read fiction, but based on the aforementioned award I looked forward to an inspiring read. Nothing could be farther from the truth; there is nothing heroic or inspiring or insightful about it. It speaks to the pathetic state of current literature if this depicts the best of it. I've read Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn, Dickens and Thomas Hardy even Mark Twain; but this had nothing redeemable. The book had debauched and unprincipled characters that came and went, none thoroughly heroic. It celebrated the bawdy, coarse and the salacious and much of it seemed designed to titillate. One small example features General Kilpatrick whose main interest was bedding a mother and daughter, seemingly of fairly good standing, who seemed quite willing, in the midst of an active Calvary campaign. Highly improbable; any woman of the time except the lowest and most desperate of circumstances wouldn't chance casual affairs especially out in the battle field, for fear of loss of social respect, an illegitimate pregnancy which could led to death during the primitive birthing practices of the time not to mention the social disgrace attached to it. Possibly an unloved or abandoned women meets the General socially outside the theatre of war and commences a tryst but not like this. The General's main preoccupation seems to sexual escape rather than conducting war. It's a novel steeped in moral turpitude. There's nothing uplifting or edifying or insightful about it. Based on the popular acclaim of this novel at Amazon.com there are many who prefer this genre. In comparison Gone With The Wind, by Mitchell is a fine novel about a self-centered young women's struggle to survive in the war and its aftermath, who triumphs in her own way. Only the basest of woman readily abandons herself to her circumstances or cavorts around in such a manner that belies decency; it belies credibility in the case of the Doctorow's work. Yes, people, man and women, many times simply follow their urges and do foolish things in peace time and war. And yes, racy pulp novels get written and people like to buy and read them; something is very wrong when a book of this ilk is granted the Highest award for the best fiction book of the year; that's the most bothersome and telling aspect. This denotes a disturbing sickness in the society. Yes, I admit I'm a prude but there's an ancient and storied legacy of moral refinement that society has mostly forgotten in this Tsunami .


It's easy for democratic republics to lose their moral compass. That's one of the reasons, not the only reason mind you, that they're a rare form of government. And the reason they are quite widespread today is that the strongest country in the world is one and after the last war it destroyed and transformed its enemies two of the strongest countries in the world into democracies, Germany and Japan. Look at history, democracies are NOT inevitable, both Italy and Germany were Democracies before they became dictatorships. Ultimately, a country's leadership must serve justice, the Right and the Truth, to prosper, not political correctness or expediency. They must not simply serve the popular. Democratic governments must needs be a Republic of virtue foremost; the individual citizens need to be virtuous to guide the ship of state. Another pitfall for democracies, temptation to rob the public treasury (welfare, social security, corporate welfare, subsidized insurance for beach houses, list goes on). But there's generally little or no established moral authority in the democratic societies. People need to be taught how to behave in some large measure. The Christian influence now seemingly fading educated the society in right behavior in the past. Now this inheritance is largely discounted; its presumed the benevolent state will create the just society. This was demonstrated in the Civil Rights movement in the Sixties it could not be disputed; the Central Government stepped in and eliminated Segregation in the South and elsewhere. Of course it was popular government that erected segregation and before that slavery in the first place. Even now the Central government begins to cleanse religion from the public square. Be fearful if this benevolent Government with the vast power given over to it, chooses to do great harm; much more harm than a monarchy ever could. The Founding Fathers understood a limited Government, not a mindless abeyance to popular will that does no wrong. Thank God for its current restraint.

Now once again I must back step a bit and acknowledge that non-democratic societies are frequently frightfully unjust. The Duke of Saxony gave little concern for oppression of the serf of Medeival Germany or the Czar of Russia for his freed ones in the 19th century.

Its quite popular to believe that Democracies do no wrong, or the inverse, what is done with popular consent presumably makes it right. The Founding Fathers didn't presume this and feared the rule by the mob. The constitution has checks and balances designed to damper popular mis-rule and tyranny on the other hand. Little known the British embargo of the Germans that resulted in hundred of thousands of deaths in World War 1 was unquestioned as was the strategy of merchant shipping at the last moment opening fire on submarines, who had surfaced to call for their surrender, the result of which the German Submarine ceased asking and just started to sink merchant shipping without warning. Slavery and segregation were both very popular in their day. Certainly only a minority wished to see slavery abolished: no one in the South supported it and only a little more than half of the North; an abolitionist was considered a radical. Legislatures all or in part in Indiana, Missouri and Maryland were suppressed to prevent unpredictable actions against the propagation of the war against the South.

Another example. Not using an atomic bomb after spending a few billion to build it would be too much to ask in the midst of war. But the idea of building one in the first place; yes! there's the evil. Destroy whole cities at one swell foop? So in modern morality dropping atomic bombs to incinerate cities are not war crimes, just a way to shorten a war, done in the concert with the popular will. War is already organized murder, does it have to be unrestricted horror? Who would have conceived of systematically eliminating an entire ethnic group, the Jews, as the Nazi's did? Viewed in the long distance view of history the instances will begin to look very similar. Yet, Relativistically speaking they, the Nazi's, were just trying to cleanse their society, based on their equally valid ideology; America wanted to propagate a war.

Christians are muddied by the Holocaust as may they should be, but they shouldn't shoulder the majority of the blame. It took Darwinian thinking to propel an otherwise civilized society into mass murder that played on prejudice and bigotry. Virtually no Christian leader, worthy of his name advocated such things....ooops! I skip Luther's vile diatribe "On the Jews and their Lies" in 1543, which advocates burning their houses and driving them from Germany. Can we name another Christian Leader? Yes, one is too too many I admit. But that tract lay mostly dormant for 4oo some years until the Nazi's took possession of it. NO ONE could have advocated or imagined that depraved minds at the 1942 Wannsee Conference in Potsdam could have conceived of devising a "Final Solution" with a massive mechanized system of death camps to exterminate an entire ethnic group! I weep as I write this. The lamentable thing is that we are not completely blameless; somehow one is responsible to others, being part of the same civilization. In any case so we shan't feel too superior to the Middle Ages and all its unenlightened backwardness; we too are members of a mass society as was Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia; the prime pre-occupation is consumerism in our case. What's busier on Sundays the market place or the church? Leaving the church aside if deemed too sanctimonious, compare the emptiness of the park on a summer day to the bustling shopping mall. And I can't forget we too have our own death camps in a manner of speaking in the local abortion mill. There is something suspect about the mass society dedicated to the ignoble wants of the common man (woman), and Socrates saw this in the Athenian demos.

Yes, I forget this was meant to be about Socrates. He was an ancient Greek lover of truth and lived in Athens one of its many city states, called a polis, ruled in this case by the demos, the democratic assembly. Although limited to free Athenian males it was far more participatory then ours. Assemblies of Greek citizens were continually involved in adjudicating public policy. On the other hand we send politicians off to govern to the capitals never to be heard from again until election time, while we occupy ourselves with bread and games (yes, the proverbial fingers are pointing back at me as well.... as I finger point).

Socrates lived in the 5 the century B.C. (470-399 B.C.) He doesn't seem to have had an occupation but wandering the streets of Athens and involving people in Socratic dialogues. He was beyond a doubt the most influential moral philosopher in Western Civilization. He argued that true reality is the moral truth, likened unto the absolute principles of mathematics. The ideal Right-triangle, rather than the depicted and imperfect copy, was used to illustrate this ideal truth, mathematical in this case. The existence of an ideal form of triangle represents absolutes in contradiction to the relative truth of Sophism. He used his Socratic method, dialectic: question and answer to prove or point to it. Throughout much of Plato's Dialogues he attempts with varying degrees of success to educate the Sophists away from their relativism. Part of his argument was that they taught simply rhetorical techniques not Truth; Socrates taught the virtues and examining oneself.

He inspired the most prominent ancient schools of thought, Platonism and Stoicism. Platonism is most famous for the allegory of the cave in which humanity is chained to a wall only to gaze at the shadows on the walls. The shadows arise from the a fire behind those chained that the real objects outside the cave create. Unchaining oneself is the journey to real truth. Only humanity is so thoroughly trained to view the shadows if released they are blinded by the brightness of the real world of objects outside the cave. Of course the allegory is a product of Plato, his student. Stoics the most wide spread philosophy in the ancient world believed as did Socrates that no harm can come to you unless you let it; suffering was of your own making. True happiness comes to those that use reason or wisdom to harness the passions and incensive parts of mankind. Harnessing these passions required the virtues, the good habits. Virtues could be attained by education of the correct type. True education is uplifting and teaches us the importance of acquiring the virtues and good habits.


Socrates had very jaundiced view of the Greek Demos, democracy, as well, and this highly democratic society put him on trial and then to death as a corrupter of youth. His central focus was moral education through the dialectic: question and answer. The ones primarily dedicated to educating youth at the time were the Sophists, supposedly lovers of wisdom. But Socrates didn't find them all that wise, more like wordsmiths, golden mouths. They would train their students in the art of persuasion. They would come in handy persuading the City (Polis) assembly that sat almost continually acting as judges similar to our highly selective juries of the most dumbed down. So in the Democratic Polis moral truth is relative and changeable, and becomes what the assembly says it is, subject to the persuasive rhetoric of the Sophists. Today, lawyers are their equivalent and thus sit in the same low light in our society. Ultimately, its lawyers who've led us into this moral morass of abortion on demand in the legacy of Oliver Wendell Holmes, the vaunted jurist and amoralist. No contravening benighted church to hinder the enlightened 7 Supreme Jurists of Roe v. Wade!

Socrates believed highly in education. Little moral education is being carried on today. Churches do some of job of it but as of the Sixties the schools can no longer take on that task. The best they can do is hand out condoms and explain the mechanics of sexual intercourse which any dumb beast figures out pretty quick. A society that fails to train its young does so at its peril. We're educated most by T.V. and movies. In other words corporations, whose only goal is profit motive, pandering to the lowest denominator. And yes, I realize attempts to edify are thoroughly discredited today and would be held in suspicion. But society still sees the need to do so even in its marginal attempts to educate re: the evils of smoking and the need to wear your seat belt and in a rare event see a public service message on the importance of say honesty or something. I suspect this is why there are so many laws. Case in point after the property of the Roman church was expropriated in Tudor England, Queen Elizabeth needed to establish the Poor Laws to attend to the poor in absence of the Roman Church's charitable efforts, whose extensive lands had been taken by King Henry VIII.

Once again I'm off point. Socrates had no use for non-edifying art and surprisingly censured the poets, including the vaunted Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, who today are considered the flower of their civilization. Theatre at the time was played at religious festivals and was meant to be in large part emotionally cathartic. Greek theater survives today, Sophocles' Oedipus Cycle are examples whose themes deal with the most basic of emotions: unconscious sexual desire towards your mother and hatred of your father in the first instance. These would not have been considered uplifting to such a moralist as Socrates, considered unbridled passions. And neither were the shenanigans of the Greek gods, Zeus taking the guise of various animals and impregnating many a maiden for example. And his criticism of them most likely lead to his execution.

Skipping around to the role and influence of Christianity in society. What little was done in the way of moral education in our society through our history was left up to the churches, since there is no authoritative institution to "guide" the populace in moral education. (Yes, a most impossible statement to defend; it take a book.) The Reforms of the 1840's in America were championed by the religious as was abolition of slavery. (Prior to the temperance movement consumption of alcohol was something like 40 gallons per capita. Figure it out; a pint of whiskey will get the average person pretty drunk considering that only adult males drank: 1/4 of population. That's a substantial amount of booze.) Many of the early colonists were motivated by religious impulses and so we see a long history of religious influences in our society. Since the Supreme Jurists began their cleansing campaign in the Sixties every effort has been made to remove religious influence from schools and the public place. Socrates argued that education was key to transforming the human soul. Yes, Communist and Nazi's understood the value of propaganda. Unfortunately, theirs was a depraved evil. Be aware it was Plato who started the first academy and his student Aristotle the Lyceum to give systematic education. Today "Politically Correctness" looks to educate using a relativistic viewpoint. One of the most infamous was a Brown Colleges attempt to regulate date etiquette in absence of rules laid down by a religious tradition, the male was to have asked permission each progressive step of a dating/sexual situation even through sexual congress I suppose... in reality a totally silly proposition (no pun intended). Religious traditions inform people how to behave even if it is "Victorian". PC is a simply a joke, a tyranny of relativism.
How do I sum up? A teaching of moral absolutes is the foundation of our civilization as seen in Socrates and his philosophical heirs the Stoics whose emphasis on teaching virtues and the role of reason in edifying our inner selves was attractive to the Early Christians. The hedonism and relativism of society today although widespread in its acceptance remains a road to societal suicide. Currently in Europe Islam shows the signs of beginning to take over the their morally bankrupt society. Islam provides absolutes much like the Judeo-Christian tradition that has been discounted there and is in the process of being discounted here. Civilization seeks absolutes; the relativist rails against them. But I suspect full strength Islam with its insistance on ruling society by Shar'ia with its harsh punishments, intolerance and authoritarianism would be much less palatable than tolerating a few straight laced Baptists. And lastly what was meant to be education throughout Western History, recognized some element to build character all but set aside today except in amature athletics.

Why I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian

I converted to Eastern Orthodox Church because it is the Early Church. It maintains the Early Church's traditions and expresses a genuinely sublime theology that pre-dates the doctrinal innovations of both the Roman and Protestant tradition. It is the fullness of truth.

I was led to Eastern Orthodoxy due to the antiquity of its traditions, that most reflects the Early Church that the Protestant church claims to represent. However, I was raised so to speak to accept Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) , one of the two main tenants of the Protestant Reform, the other Sola Fidelis (Faith Alone). However at the beginning of my journey I was simply questioning I wouldn't have considered the Roman Catholics (and the Eastern Church if I knew it existed at the time) with their almost alien beliefs. Yet, unlike many Protestants over the centuries I didn't hold them to be apostate or unchristian, more like a different flavor. I like Texas Swing and you like Rachmaninoff kind of a thing but still a bit misguided it would seem. But being very much a ecumenicalist I could heartily accept them as brothers and sisters in Christ.

My ecclesiastical thought journey started with a simple idea that the inspired Scripture of God doesn't say a thing about watching TV or watching Movies, R rated say or ... lots of things concerning leisure activities in modern life. It's been considered by more than a few Christians in the last century that attendance at a movie theatre or listening to secular popular music on the grammaphone was detrimental and dire to ones soul. The Bible doesn't say a thing against these activities directly. The scriptures speak to moral absolutes not picayune details; furthering my thinking on this I guess this limitation can be extended back to the beginning of the Christian era. So can one wear makeup? Fine jewelry? Fur coat?Drive that fancy car? What about the house, larger than we need? Can the teenagers pleasure themselves without "penetration" and not be considered fornication? Bible can give guidelines but does not address every situation . So the Bible doesn't speak to all the details of moral life, rather to moral absolutes: stealing, adultery and murder. So one would look outside the Bible for additional guidance on these questions.

Sometime later I came across the verse in 1st Thess. 3:15. It reads the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. .....But my church tells me its the Scriptures! Now mind you this didn't set off a bombshell just a corrosive thought.



In addition the idea that the Church represents the body of Christ with Christ at the head began to mean more to me. Christ has authority over the Church. The Church is described in Ephesians 5: 17 as "having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing: but that she would be holy and blameless". So this is not merely a social organization but a spiritual body. And as I see today with Christ at head of the Church, ultimately I don't have spiritual authority. This belies the unspoken tenant of current Protestantism as well; each one of us has spiritual authority in the proper rendering of scripture and this was taught at the lectern (pulpit). The pastor would say as an aside in his sermons, check me out; vet me against those Scriptures. So the church of which I was a member didn't claim to be authoritative.



Then I was made aware of other verses no where discussed in my Protestant tradition. John 16:12-13 was the first. "I have many more things to tell you but you can not bear them. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes. He will guide you into all the truth. for he will not speak on His own initiative..." Jesus, Our Lord, is speaking to his Apostles here, meaning to say that the Church will be guided by the Holy Spirit through the centuries. Another verse Matt. 16:19b, "...whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound on heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." This clearly says that the church is promised to be guided by the Holy Spirit and authoritative on earth and heaven. This doesn't sound like my local community Bible church; they simply claim at the best an accurate interpretation of the Bible.

Still with an eye on the Early Church I began to look for a Church that most resembled it. Once again Protestants claim to reform Christian belief back to the early church to those house churches holding Bible studies. Of course there's a problem there; there was no "Bible" to study until much later. What books were to be in the Bible wasn't settled until the late 4th century. Rather the Early Church was centered on Communion or the Eucharist, that is the ceremonial partaking of the Christ's Body and Blood. There is much literature that documents the Early Church, Owen Chadwick's The Early Church and J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines for example in contrast to using ones imagination as to what was taking place; both were written by Protestants. Not to mention the first century writing of the Early Church, the Didache discovered a little more than a century ago. All show the centrality off the Eucharist.



Of course the Bible plainly tells us about the meaning and importance of the Eucharist, once again with verses we skipped over as a Protestant. 1 Corinthians 10: 16 reads "Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?" The next verse speaks to the Church as one body united in the Eucharist: " Since there is one body; for we all partake of the one bread". A spiritual union mentioned above not simply an assembly of like believers. The Gospel of John confirms the belief of the real presence and its importance in verse 53: "So Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, you have no life in yourselves." At the time many who heard were repulsed it would seem; they took him literally and there was a great falling out. Jesus did nothing to parse what he had said, saying in verse 63 that the flesh (human sinful condition) profits nothing but the Spirit gives life not meaning His "Eucharistic" Flesh ... Ofttimes this verse is used to contradict all of what He had said earlier in the chapter. Those hearing it at the time did not see Jesus as speaking symbolically, otherwise I presume there wouldn't have been such a hard time understanding it and such a big falling away. Note Luther knew the true meaning of this (63) verse as well, as referring to flesh, as the human sinful condition.

The Eastern Orthodox Church can trace itself back to the earliest times and holds to the practices of the Early Church. Confession for absolution of sins is still practiced. Confession in the early church consisted of getting up in midst of the Church and confessing ones sins, literally confessing one to another. In fact a re-enactment of this just happen at my wife's Protestant church recently where someone felt compelled to confess publicly to some unnamed sexual sins that were destroying his marriage. This is of course a very rare event indeed. Of course Protestant churches would be appalled at the thought you could connect this behavior with the idea of confession to a Priest. By the way which method of confession would you prefer speaking privately to a priest or to a whole congregation? Note the Churches of Christ hold to a form of confession to the congregation, I understand, mostly practiced in the breech. Note EO even retains the ritual of foot washing described in the "Upper Room" in the Gospel of John, which gets re-enacted during Easter (Pascha) services.




Incidentally as early as the beginning of the Second Century, St. Ignatius, a disciple of the apostles, said where goes the Bishop goes the Church. Whatever you make of that there was a recognition the Church was one of authority and structure not simply individual home bible studies.


The Liturgy of St. James, whose current variation of the Liturgy is largely derived, is known to have been practiced as early as the late 2nd Century and is practiced at least once a year at my little Church. No rock bands, no big screens just heavenly reverence, praise and petitions to God, and celebration of the Body and Blood of Christ. So the style of worship is indeed ancient, and we can see the Early Church.


Baptism is understood as the Early Church understood it as a washing and remission of sins and a mystical birth into spiritual life, not simply a statement of faith. St. Peter says in Acts 2:37-38: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". And as the Early Church baptism is practiced with full immersion. Baptism is a means of Grace so to speak.




EO is not only a repository of the traditions of the Early Church. I was especially touched by the profundity of their theological truth. The Eastern Orthodox see our human condition as corrupted and profoundly sinful but created in the Image of God. Unlike most modern thought EO looks upon us as more than naked apes. We are made in the image of God, capable of perfection, but in a woeful sinful state. Augustine's original sin is absent. We are not guilty until we sin. There's no limbo for babies who die before baptism. We are born into a corrupted and stained state, slaves to our passions and pursuits, but our nature is capable of perfection and partaking of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). The Reformers, Luther and Calvin, saw us a utterly depraved but redeemed by the Grace of Almighty God. And for the most part the contemporary christian would concur that efforts to strive to be Holy are not only futile but heretical "works" salvation. But there's a level of complacency in that thinking that resigns oneself to a fairly low level, still largely subject to passions and pursuits. (Please don't let me give you the idea I consider myself some holy man ,far from it. )



EO looks at the Atonement (how we, as sinners, are reconciled to God, the Most Holy) in a entirely different way. No God didn't simply beat up Christ to pay the debt He did not owe for a debt I could not pay. This is the Anselmic formula, a Scholastic of the 11th century. Rather, Christ, in his perfect humanity, came to reconcile and unite our corrupted humanity with his divinity. The atonement is incarnational and involves Christ's whole life on earth in the Epiphany (Baptism), Transfiguration, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. In some mystical way Christ's death destroyed death, freeing us from spiritual and bodily death. Jesus becomes the one who took away the sin of the World (John 1:29). Even before Christ is crucified, we see him forgiving the sins of the paraplegic and the Mary Magdelene, the prostitute. The parable of the prodigal, who spends his inheritance to pursue a dissolute life, describes the act of atonement best, the brother isn't beaten up for the sins of the prodigal, rather the Father runs to the prodigal in forgiveness. Yes, in some way it took the death of the God/man to restore us. But it wasn't simply a legal transaction, that leaves us fully in possession of saving grace. Salvation is by God's great mercy and we run the Christian race of life by graces continually renewed in repentance and confession and petitions of forgiveness and prayer and scripture reading and fasting and almsgiving and partaking of the Eucharist and attendance at Liturgy.





Our contemporary world desperately needs and seeks a mystical reality, and ofttimes it looks outside the civilization to the exotic transcendental religions of the Orient. Unbeknowst to all, the Eastern Orthodox Church has a living mystical tradition. There are Orthodox Monasteries in many places in the world including the most famous Mount Athos in a mountainous part of Greece. This mystical truth can be read about in the 4 volume Philokalia, which speaks to the prayer of the heart (the meditative centering Jesus Prayer), the importance of the watchfulness of the mind, ascetic struggle and acquiring the virtues. This is a mystical tradition that sees ordinary consciousness much as a sinful construct if you will; caught up in its own pursuits and profoundly steeped in spiritual corruption. The Christian life is a journey of perfection; "be holy as I am holy" the Scriptures admonish. This journey is carried on in humility and love and once we begin, we see how easily we fall and how much of a struggle against our selfish pursuits we have. But I must mention the basics of this journey; we are prone despite our best efforts to fall into sin, which leads to repentance, confession (God's mercy can take place anytime, confession being the most assured method of receiving absolution) then we are able to receive God's grace. Somehow repentance is left out much too often in today's Christianity; big revivals with Contemporary (rock) music inspiring speakers and a decision for Christ suffice but no true walk.





Only a precious few will arrive at holiness or perfection of course; a few of the Saints will have experienced what is termed the Uncreated Light. That is to say in co-operation with God's grace the Eyes of their Hearts were fully opened and were able to fully partake of the divine as received as supernatural light and warmth just as was demonstrated in the Transfiguration. In this mystical journey our godly image, our true nature, gets sanctified by God's grace. But we need the virtues, as well. And acquiring the virtues requires suffering, asceticism in some degree or other. Not suffering for sufferings sake but as means to acquire the virtues. Modern folk like ease and comfort and distraction and entertainment (by the way I have a most decidedly modern inclination). One of the Beatitudes preached on the Sermon on the Mount says, the pure in heart will see God; none of us can attain perfection without the virtues, but these can only be acquired by God's Grace. Grace comes by repentance and asking for mercy in confession if need be. This is basis of any Christian spiritual journey.





Of course most seeking Oriental Religions, do so because it gives them the prospect of some transcendental experience without moral constraints or suffering the virtues. Richard Gere, the Buddhist aficiando, will be bedding his next co-star literally or figuratively while adhering to the Eight Fold Path, he seems to think. Little does Mr. Gere know that The Eight Fold Path is a means to attain the virtues without which the participant would never begin any kind of transcendence of this world of suffering and bedding co-stars is probably not part of that path. Neither is going to foreign countries and violating their social norms, as he did when he kissed a Bollywood star on the mouth in public, which in this country would be like talking about Jesus in public then being asked to leave the TV show. Do I need to mention Madonna's fascination with Kabbala? Prancing seductively on stage must be part of that mystical path as well it seems, according to Ms. Madonna. Ok, these are easy marks; people whose burning ambition was to be world famous and fabulously wealthy and now want to enter some kind of spiritual nirvana the cheap way. Ooops!! Did we gain the world but lose our soul? Ok, that was unkind and mostly irrelevant but I can't resist beating on those types. Like shooting fish in the barrel.

But we see this fascination with the mystical journey elsewhere in Hollywood. But they are so wrong headed. The Fountain, featuring a scientist, who at various times as he time travels, is a conquistador and a monk, meditating under something that looks like Buddha's Banyan tree. Of course the scientist as conquistador works for the beautiful, sexy Queen of Spain against the evil, benighted Inquisitor. At one point under the Banyan Tree our hero the scientist becomes transmogrified into the plant life about and of the tree, telling us that we're all one with nature I presume, something Buddha would thoroughly contest as being enlightenment. The persecuted Spanish Queen (persecuted by the Inquisitor) aspect of the plot plays ridiculously with history, similar to having a movie about America bombing Pearl Harbor and our hero working for those poor Japanese chaps. The conveyor of enlightenment to the conquistador in part is a Mayan Priest, who would as we know rip out the beating hearts of his sacrificial victims as his main occupation. Make note the Royalty of Spain lead the Spanish Inquisition.

Carl Sagan's Contact with Jodie Foster, the irascible scientist who insists on going to this journey through space and time, using a huge expensive and complex multi-billion dollar device to encounter this transcendental experience and meet her dad. It was explained to me that this transcendent experience was the initial step aliens used to contact us; so even the transcendent experience is essentially a fraud. The movie makers are somehow obsessed with the fully sceptical scientist, virtually the last person capable and inclined to a mystical transcendence, as the seeker of mystical experiences and participant in this reality. The Matrix uses that same technological approach to the spiritual but not quite as wrong headed. Come to Orthodoxy and experience truth and sanctity and a way to begin a mystical journey I say.


In contemporary life virtues, the acquiring of good habits at the least, are scoffed at. And in large part this started with the Reformers, Luther and Calvin; mankind was deemed utterly depraved and incapable of a good work. Today, we are a naked ape as evolution tells us. Good habits or virtues are simply social constructs, anthropologists tell us. Freud would argue, civilization restrains us and inhibits and constrains us. But there is a moral tradition at least as old as Socrates, mind you, that called you to moral excellence and the acquisition of the virtues. The EO harkens to it in the journey.

Of course the biggest criticism to the Eastern Orthodox church is it's lack of relevance to modern life. Alas, alack and anon they are right. Just as the Early Church wasn't relevant to the Roman Empire and suffered persecution. In this modern society a monstrous crime is happening before us; the slaughter of the innocents, that is through abortion. Something less than 40 millions have been murdered since the infamous Roe v. Wade. You might turn the question around, what relevance should the Early Church have with this society? In this society whose attention span is in the seconds the EO liturgy would be considered long and boring not meditative, solemn and reverential. This society has begun to legalise homosexual marriage and euthanasia. The Judeo-Christian ethical society that was began to be established by Constantine in the early 4th century has began to unravel. EO must hold to the practices, traditions and truths of the Early Church in the face of the cultural tsunami; the time for accommodation with the society unfortunately seems to be passing. I dearly hope I am wrong. Sorry for the cursing the darkness, as you can tell, I fall easily into that.

In conclusion Eastern Orthodoxy encapsulates a great pearl of truth, and is an ancient guide to a mystical path. Let me say one last thing I've made several criticisms of Protestantism; these are meant to be made as to a brother not in hatred or hostility. We have much in common and without the many believing Christians, Roman and Protestant, the society would be far worse off.