The Shroud of Turin - The Icon of Icons.
Those familiar with ‘Happy Jack’ during his sojourn on the
Cranmer blog may recall the occasional dispute there between him and Carl
Jacobs concerning The Shroud of Turin. The latter claimed the Shroud was a
medieval forgery created by crucifying a living man.
I posted two meditations on the Shroud on a blog I created during my “banishment” by Adrian Hilton – here and here.
As someone who was given an image of Christ’s face from the Shroud at my Confirmation, and who has carried that image ever since, I have followed the scientific research down the years. I never had any real doubts about its authenticity.
Many believe the Shroud to be a true relic of the Passion of Christ. Many regard it as a human creation.
I want to suggest another alternative.
But before all that ….
Introduction
Many believe the Shroud is a true relic of the Passion of Christ. Many regard it as a human creation. Some view it no more than a scam to fleece pilgrims. For over a hundred years, it has been scrutinised by numerous scientific disciplines. Indeed, the Shroud of Turin is the most studied artefact in human history.
The Shroud is a
linen cloth showing the front and back of a naked man who was tortured, crucified,
and humiliated. It holds human blood, sweat, bodily fluids, and mucus. Science
has proven that this image is not a painting, drawing, or caused by a scorch.
The image creates three-dimensional data when evaluated in a VP-8 scanner. No
artwork can do this. After decades of study and evaluation, modern-day science
cannot reproduce the image with all the same attributes. Full understanding of
all the facts, evidence, theories, details, and probabilities for the linen
Shroud of Turin, continues to be a monumental task.
A photograph of
the face on the Shroud was taken by Secondo Pia in Italy in 1898. The detailed image
of a face is visible in that photograph because the faint image on the cloth
was a negative like undeveloped film in an analogue camera. Thus, when
developed a positive detailed image was revealed. A feat beyond human
endeavour.
All the theories claiming the Shroud is a forgery have been disproven. Even an infamous 1988 carbon dating test claiming it is from the 11th century has been withdrawn by the scientific journal that first published this result. Now there are dozens of individual pieces of evidence using new age-testing methods that show that the Shroud dates, in fact, from the time of Jesus of Nazareth.
Below is the image I received as a 12 year old. It captured my attention and promoted my devotion to Christ.
Currently, new AI-generated images of how Jesus may have looked are circulating throughout social media and the news. These images are being created from the Shroud’s black-and-white photo of Jesus’ face. The key word is “may.”
New Research
This latest research
on the Shroud of Turin, published in the journal Heritage
shows that the material is from the time of Jesus. And this has caught the
attention of the secular mass media.
Al Jazeera published a good explainer on the
history of the Shroud and its mysterious origins. Their article surveyed the
controversy over the years and recent scientific discoveries.
British Daily Mail gives the most detailed description of the research’s process.
What to Make
of This
Fox News interviewed Bishop Robert Barron, who,
in British-like understatement, said:
I
have had a long fascination for the Shroud of Turin. It first came to my
attention when I was 16 and I read everything I could about the Shroud - its
history and provenance, arguments regarding its authenticity, and the
scientific research.
As
such the recent news that the use of new technology had led to a different
conclusion than a carbon dating test conducted in 1988. It seems that there is
now new evidence that strengthens the hypothesis that the cloth of the Shroud
is contemporary to the time of Christ.
Aleteia sought the views of Myra Kahn Adams,
executive director of the National Shroud of Turin Exhibit who stated:
I
think it is the hand of God.
I
believe the Lord wants us to know this is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus,
in whom you can place your faith and your hope and your trust – to believe in
him … new attention to the Shroud is happening now because the world’s a
complete mess, and people are losing faith and losing hope.
When asked, Nora
Creech, the North American representative for Orthonia, an organisation with the objective of
educating people around the world about the Shroud through exhibits,
educational initiatives, conferences, and lectures, responded:
It’s
wonderful that so many people are learning about the shroud - some maybe for
the first time.
There
are so many amazing aspects of the shroud that are undisputed and not
controversial – and can lead people to saving faith. These new articles give us
the opportunity to explain that the shroud image is less than 1/2 the thickness
of a human hair, acts like a photographic negative, and has three dimensional
qualities. In addition, despite being one of the most scientifically studied
artifacts in the world, there is still no explanation for what caused this
mysterious image.
For
the believer, the most significant aspect of the shroud is that it is a mirror
of the Gospel.
The
wounds documented on the man of the shroud exactly match the wounds suffered by
Jesus during his Passion and death. The shroud invites everyone who encounters
it to answer the question that Jesus asked His Apostles, “Who do you say that I
am?”
Catholic Answers author, Bill Lauto, unashamedly
asserted:
Although
the faithful may not need the Shroud, the story the Shroud tells needs to be
heard.
The
Shroud holds the truth for many . . . and a fear of accountability for others.
This is a life-enriching truth that no human should fear coming to terms with. The image of Jesus on his shroud was his last miracle, done 2,000 years ago for us to discover today with our modern technology.
Here's a sculpture (thanks to Ray Sunshine) based on the shroud called "The Sign":
Orthodox Reflectioons author, “Nicholas,” states:
I
am an Orthodox Christian who, after much research into the matter, accepts the
authenticity of the Shroud. I believe that the preponderance of evidence makes
it almost a certainty that it is the burial garment of Our Lord and Savior. If,
however, this turns out to be untrue, the effect on my faith in Christ would be
absolute zero. Everything I could learn from an authentic Shroud, I already
believe because the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church already taught it
all to me.
He then raised
an interesting point I had never considered:
The Shroud presents a challenge that can actually destroy Evangelicalism. A fact that many of them are well aware of on some level, even if they refuse to articulate it plainly.
Evangelical apologists went into overdrive viciously attacking the authenticity of the Shroud. The intensity of this reaction left a lot of Orthodox and Roman Catholics a bit startled.
He offers two reasons for this reaction:
An
authentic Shroud totally demolishes Evangelical teachings concerning sola
scriptura and Church history ... If the Shroud is true, then what other parts
of Church Tradition are also true? How can Evangelicals demand everything in
Christianity be authorized by “chapter and verse” (icons, statues, vestments,
Cathedrals, liturgy, the Church Fathers) when the Shroud’s existence makes it
clear that not all Christian Truths are in the Bible? ….
So expect the
Evangelical War on the Shroud to continue, to intensify, and to get even
nastier. Evidence alone will not suffice for most Evangelicals, making any
rational discussion with them nearly impossible on this subject. Their faith is
quite literally at stake.
This may be an over statement. Even so, hitherto, I had thought any Christian could accept the Shroud as authentic. If true, these observations about a certain strain of Protestantism poses even greater difficulties for the worldviews of atheists.
Conclusions
If nothing else, this new research disproves Carl Jacobs’ horrendous claim. For this alone, I am grateful.
Science will never be able to “prove” the Shroud’s authenticity. Just as it can never prove the existence of God. It can only disprove certain hypotheses. What will be left is mystery - in particular the source of energy behind the creation of Shroud’s image and why the Shroud has been left for us.
It
is frequently said, “If God would only give proof of his existence, I
would believe.” or “Why doesn’t he give us a sign so more would
believe.” But what if Jesus did leave something behind, something for us to
find and study thousands of years after his bloody death? And what if that
something left no answer other than proof of His death and resurrection? Could
that “Something” be the Shroud of Turin?
All the miracles of Jesus recorded in the Gospels are “living parables” that illustrate and animate His teachings. Jesus uses His Divine power to heal and raise the dead as “signs.” They have a deeper significance. That is why Scripture calls them “signs and wonders.” They demonstrate a teaching and a revelation. Is the Shroud the “Icon of Icons,” given to us by God as the miraculous Sign of the Good News?
St John was the only apostle who gives us an eye witness account of the Crucifixion. He witnessed the cruelty of the Roman solders as they beat, mocked Jesus with a crown of thorns, hammered nails into His hands and feet, and pierced His side with a spear. John details these tortures and they all line up exactly with the physical evidence manifested on the Shroud. John also mentions the burial cloth and how it was left behind in the tomb.
We all need to consider the evidence of the Shroud. Does it raise questions and cause us to pause? If not, it really should.
For Christians, we can reflect on the image as the Icon of all Icons and set aside scientific, artistic, or archaeological themes. Through the eyes of faith, we discover in the image of the Shroud a presence that challenges us and transcends us. It takes us into God. It introduces us to the mystery of God's Love. A God made flesh out of Love. With physical wounds to heal our spiritual wounds; and a temporal death to give us eternal life.
When we
contemplate the Holy Face of Jesus, the peace it transmits pierces our hearts.
And a question arises. After all the sufferings He has gone through, how can He
radiate such peace? It is the peace of the Love of God who has poured Himself
out totally, who has given His life for humanity. It is the peace of a God who
gives the Spirit of Peace; the Spirit of Love; the Spirit given us at Pentecost
to move our hearts and reshape our minds.
As we give witness
to the Man of the Shroud, we contemplate the consequences of our sin. Sin now consumed
by the Love of God. When we look at the Man of the Shroud we discover the depth
of our sin. Sin now healed by the sacrifice of the very Son of God made man.
The Shroud
condenses the Good News and makes it visibly present. It is the template for all
icons of Christ.
It contains the
Icon of the Incarnation; it makes us understand that God has taken our nature
and offers us into His intimate life.
It contains the
Icon of the Cross; it shows us with crudeness and terrible realism the
historical reality of the Crucifixion.
And it contains the Icon of the Resurrection; the peace on the Face leads us to understand the reality of the Resurrection; of the victory of Life over death; the victory of Christ which can be ours.
For more information, watch this video:
Just to add to the confusion, here’s a recent (August 2023) article by Gilbert Lavoie, an American doctor who has examined the Shroud personally and has written two books about it. In this article he argues that the body must have been propped up in a standing position, not lying down, when it was wrapped in the Shroud.
ReplyDeletehttps://catholicexchange.com/the-shroud-of-jesus-the-discovery-of-the-image-of-an-upright-man/?fbclid=IwAR3an5A3HXn7UqQpG_qkKwBY_FaCDHyD9JdzFiDZHoQoYwDtgqoAH0I0Qcc
Good find.
DeleteYou say "confusion; HJ says increasing "clarity."
As the author says:
"I must admit that I was overwhelmed with the discovery of the upright man. It caused me to back out of the room in awe and respect for what the image of the man of the shroud was visually telling me. My first thought was that indeed this image is a reflection of the moment of Jesus’ resurrection. It was a moment in direct contrast from all that I previously understood. Prior to that moment, I thought there was nothing on the shroud that revealed that this man’s image was a reflection of Jesus’ resurrection.
In the context of what I knew of Jesus’ life, the image of the upright man that I now saw was a visual declaration of his resurrection."
There's a set of separate articles suggesting the image was created by the energy of the resurrection.
Through these eyes, we discover in the image of the Shroud a presence that challenges us and transcends us.
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of Meister Eckhart: 'The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me. My eye and God's eye is one eye, and one sight, and one knowledge, and one love.'
These are some reflections from an Orthodox writer who accepts the Shroud as genuine. It's written contra errores Evangelicals (relevant, perhaps to Jack's opening paragraph), but near the end of the article is an image comparing an AI rendering of the face on the Shroud with the face of Christ in early iconography:
https://orthodoxreflections.com/two-reasons-evangelicals-reject-the-shroud-of-turin/
What a great quote. Wish I'd come across this article sooner - so thank you for sharing.
DeleteI'd never really considered this:
"The Shroud presents a challenge that can actually destroy Evangelicalism. A fact that many of them are well aware of on some level, even if they refuse to articulate it plainly."
The two main reasons given:
- God Himself Made an Icon; and
- The Accuracy of Church Tradition.
Hitherto, I thought any confessing Christian could accept the Shroud. This helps me understand Carl's palpable opposition the Shroud. I'd just attributed it to his ant-Catholicism without thinking it through, and, of course, at root, it is.
"An authentic Shroud totally demolishes Evangelical teachings concerning sola scriptura and Church history ... If the Shroud is true, then what other parts of Church Tradition are also true? How can Evangelicals demand everything in Christianity be authorized by “chapter and verse”, when the Shroud’s existence makes it clear that not all Christian Truths are in the Bible?"
I'm a big fan of Meister Eckhart, a sadly misunderstood theologian, IMO. The full context of the quote is:
Delete'The man who abides in the will of God wills nothing else than what God is, and what He wills. If he were ill he would not wish to be well. If he really abides in God's will, all pain is to him a joy, all complication, simple: yea, even the pains of hell would be a joy to him. He is free and gone out from himself, and from all that he receives, he must be free. If my eye is to discern colour, it must itself be free from all colour. The eye with which I see God is the same with which God sees me. My eye and God's eye is one eye, and one sight, and one knowledge, and one love.' (Sermon IV : True Hearing)
In my Protestant days, I didn't have many feelings about the Shroud one way or another; at worst, I thought it might have been a medieval forgery to get money out of people (even at an early age I had an appreciation of the priorities of most ecclesial institutions...). I think that's probably the position of a lot of more mainstream Protestants.
But the article is correct that the Shroud is problematic for the fundamentalist evangelicals we've met online, because it's extra-Biblical (kind of) and undermines the dogma that everything worthy of belief is found in there. Of course, the compilation of the Bible is also extra-Biblical, but there we go.
I think a lot of the fundamentalist objection also stems from an aversion to religious art, similar to that found in Islamic tradition, which rests on a misunderstanding of 'images' and 'prayer'. Even if the Shroud were a fake, discounting Carl's suggestion as to its creation, and it moves people to contemplation, then it would simply be on the same level as something like renaissance devotional art, so there's no problem unless you have a problem with religious art qua art.
Protestantism has, I think, largely lost an understanding of what graven images are in the OT - that is, literally engraved (carved) images, or idols: not just 'pictures'. As nobody thinks that the Shroud, or a religious painting, or an icon is itself a god, it's not a proscribed 'image'. Protestantism, by jettisoning the sacrificial nature of Eucharistic worship, has also lost the idea that prayer is not always an act of worship, but simply an act of request - which may legitimately be directed to saints without implying they have any divinity. Icons are tainted by this misunderstanding, and the Shroud by association.
If these two things are properly understood, then it would be possible to have a much more coherent conversation about the Shroud. My own feelings are that the Shroud very closely matches our iconography, and tradition holds that St. Luke was the first iconographer. I also don't think that something that old and famous should be so hard to discredit if it were fake. I don't think it would be controversial or debated, I think it would simply be debunked.
Never really thought too much about Eckhart or read him. I think many medieval theologians/mystics were considered dangerous by the Roman Catholic Church - too close to universalism and not holding to tightly defined conceptions of the Trinity.
DeleteGot this from Wiki:
>>Eckhart generally followed Thomas Aquinas's doctrine of the Trinity, but Eckhart exaggerated the scholastic distinction between the divine essence and the divine persons. The very heart of Eckhart's speculative mysticism, according to Royce, is that if, through what is called in Christian terminology the procession of the Son, the divine omniscience gets a complete expression in eternal terms, still there is even at the centre of this omniscience the necessary mystery of the divine essence itself, which neither generates nor is generated, and which is yet the source and fountain of all the divine. The Trinity is, for Eckhart, the revealed God and the mysterious origin of the Trinity is the Godhead, the absolute God.<<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meister_Eckhart#
I think there's always a difficulty in translating mystical insights for others, particularly in written form. Mystics tend to use a lot of exaggeration, paradoxes and things that don't make much sense to try to jolt the mind out of its accustomed rut. If these are taken literally, as with Christ's suggestion to put out your eye if it causes you to sin, they can seem dangerous or heretical.
DeleteOff topic, but today, September 8th, is the Birthday of Our Lady.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu7LIZJqA5M
“She is the flower of the field from whom bloomed the precious lily of the valley. Through her birth the nature inherited from our first parents is changed.”
Delete(Saint Augustine)
Sorry to be the speck of grit in the oyster here, but as much as I love HJ's blog (and my Catholic brothers and sisters), there appear to be some slightly silly ideas abroad.
ReplyDeleteThe shroud hopefully doesn't present "a challenge that can actually destroy evangelicalism" (small 'e'), as Christ commands us all to evangelise, so presumably a "certain strain of Protestantism" is meant (Carl's?). I have no idea why "Evangelical apologists went into overdrive viciously attacking the authenticity of the Shroud" and haven't encountered any.
"If the Shroud is true, then what other parts of Church Tradition are also true?" If the shroud is counted as "Church Tradition" then presumably so are all the (often exhorbitantly expensive at the time) saints' bones and pieces of the true cross. Do they all need to be true to convince us about the primacy of church tradition?
"The shroud’s existence makes it clear that not all Christian Truths are in the Bible?" Its existence may demonstrate that a man crucified 2000 years ago was considered so important that his death shroud was kept, and this coincides with Jesus' life, about which historians generally concur, but it doesn't prove he was God, which is the essential Christian truth to be gleaned from the Bible.
Yes, yesterday is celebrated as the birthday of Mary, Jesus' mother, who, if my knowledge of church tradition is correct, after 1854 is dogmatically considered to have been conceived immaculately but not so before then.
I suppose it would be pretty cool if it actually was the image of Christ, but "Orthodox Nicholas" is right that it really wouldn't affect one's faith.
Feel free to pile on :-)
Thank you for your comment. HJ also agrees with "Orthodox Nicholas" that whether the actual burial shroud of Christ or not, it should have no impact on one's faith.
DeleteYou'll notice HJ posed the issues facing Evangelicals ((it covers such a broad range of Protestants) as questions. It was "Nicholas" who raised these. HJ adds, he too has not encountered the reaction of which he speaks of - although HJ has from atheists.
As for the dogma of Mary's Immaculate Conception and Church infallibility, perhaps that's one for another day!
HJ,
DeleteGadjo Dilo - for it is I - thanks you for your considered and level-headed response. It would be good to see Carl here... one hopes that he is well.
Ah ... 'tis HJ's oversee friend. Glad to oblige. HJ is known for his "considered and level headed" responses! You'll notice HJ did say Nicholas' comments may be overstated.
DeleteMeant to add, yes, I too miss Carl.
DeleteI understand that in past he has sometimes tuned in without necessarily commenting. Apropo of nothing much, I'm sure that many here are familiar with Pints With Aquinas, where one has just listened to a interview with Dr Scott Hahn about his conversion from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism - clearly an intelligent and very interesting chap.
DeleteYes, all Christians are called to 'evangelise', but 'evangelical' in this sense is reserved for a modern school of Protestant thought that emerged in the 18th century and was popularised by the likes of Wesley and the Methodist movement. In its wider sense, 'evangelical' simply means 'of the euaggélion' the gospel, or good tidings (eu - good; angellō- to herald; the same sense preserved in the English gospel, literally gods (good) spel (story, message)). So the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience taken by those living the consecrated life are called the evangelical counsels, but have no relation to anything in evangelicalism (Luther thought that they were supererogatory). But the article means the former.
DeleteNicholas is American, and as such is likely to be referring to 'a certain strain of evangelicalism', that is, American fundamentalist evangelicalism (extreme biblical literalism) that has come to dominate a lot of religious discourse in the online and, to a lesser extent, academic spheres. It's this form of evangelical Christianity that Dawkins and the 'new atheist' movement, attacks - and it's an extremely fundamentalist form of Christianity that appears to be a parody of Christianity even to many Christians, which is why it's such low hanging fruit for Dawkins et al.
Fundamentalist evangelicalism is over-represented online and I believe that the arguments in Nicholas' article hold true for this kind of evangelical. I recall an argument on Cranmer's with one such person, for whom the existence of dinosaurs in prehistory was a faith-destroying matter because it wasn't in the Bible. Instead, they insisted that dinosaurs and man co-existed in the early medieval era. As Augustine wrote, denying science in such a way makes the faith look ridiculous: 'people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions and . . . the writers of Scripture are criticised and rejected as unlearned men'. It is utterly conceivable that the Shroud would pose an existential threat to this kind of fundamentalism, which feels its faith undermined by dinosaurs, an ancient earth, carbon dating, archaeology, literary criticism, and so on.
It's probably also worth mentioning that the denouncement and destruction of relics was ingrained in the DNA of the Reformation, so it's unsurprising that there is a knee jerk, if illogical, rejection of the Shroud among its most fundamentalist adherents.
I believe you're thinking of HJ's old adversary, "Martin."
DeleteHere’s a recent and short article by Trent Horn who discusses "liberalism' v "conservative" in the Catholic Churches but makes references American Fundamentalism.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/liberal-catholics-conservative-catholics?_gl=1*1eq150c*_up*MQ..*_ga*NTI2NTg2MzMwLjE3MjQwNTE3NDE.*_ga_C1P2JNZ1YB*MTcyNDA1MTc0MC4xLjAuMTcyNDA1MTc0MC4wLjAuMA
A lady never tells; I can neither confirm nor deny who it was ☺️
DeleteInsightful article. It seems rather ingrained in the American culture (and, increasingly, ours) to view everything, including one's religion, through a partisan political lens. One's faith should surely shape one's politics, not the other way around.
This is an interesting article on American religion. The original is behind a paywall, the annotations on this one aren't mine:
https://readwise.io/reader/shared/01gqqxqp51fbhvmhskzje89cg6/
Lain, I've been reading through some of the articles on "Orthodox Reflections" and it seems to be the equivalent in American Orthodoxy of some of the more right-wing (reactionary) American Catholic websites.
ReplyDeleteIt's clearly pro-Russian Orthodoxy and anti-Greek Orthodoxy. Here's an example by a chap called "Peter."
Some Orthodox commentators now view the Patriarchate of Constantinople as having strayed so far from traditional Orthodox values that they liken it to a “Babylonian harlot”. As divisions deepen and controversies multiply, many faithful Orthodox Christians are left questioning the wisdom and motivations of their hierarchs. The controversial strategies deployed by these leaders have not only jeopardized their own standing, but have also cast a shadow over the future coherence and integrity of Orthodoxy in America and beyond. All this suggests that American Orthodoxy may need to choose a different course to maintain its spiritual principles.
https://orthodoxreflections.com/archbishop-elpidophoros-misplaced-priorities/
@Jack, since you’ve introduced the question of American Orthodoxy, I have a question about that. The only Orthodox people I’ve ever known personally IRL, here in Brazil, are Orthodox for reasons of their family background — they are the children or grandchildren of families who originally moved here from Russia or Syria or Romania.
DeleteI have the impression that, in the United States, there are Orthodox churches that celebrate the liturgy in English and that attract a significant number of worshippers from demographics that have no historical connection with Orthodoxy. Is that correct? And, if so, a follow-up question: What, if any, is the allegiance of these English-speaking churches to one or other of the autocephalous hierarchies in eastern Europe and the Middle East?
As I understand it, there is an autocephalous church named the Orthodox Church in America, but it coexists alongside other churches that are affiliated in some way to a parent church in another country. I don’t know what the proportions are: is the OCA comparatively large within American Orthodoxy, or only a small minority?
With war now raging between Russia and Ukraine, would we expect to see, somewhere in the United States, two worshippers standing side by side in the same Orthodox church, one of them a strong supporter of the Ukrainian side and the other one an equally strong supporter of the Russian side? And if not, why not?
And, similarly, might we see two priests serving in the same Orthodox parish, one pro-Russia and the other priest pro-Ukraine? If not, what steps would the hierarchy have taken to prevent that from happening?
HJ wouldn't know where to begin to address those issues. Ray. From his own observations of American bloggers who've made the transition from Western Christianity (Protestant and Catholic) to Eastern Orthodoxy Christianity, he's detected a trend from 'Reformed Protestantism' to Catholicism and then to Orthodoxy. A move from a more intellectual faith towards a more meditative/mystical disposition. How much national politics plays into this is difficult to discern. National politics and identity has always played a part in Church history and the tensions between the 'First,' 'Second,' and 'Third Rome' isn't a new one. We're seeing the fruits of this most vividly in Ukraine today.
Delete@Jack @ Ray - yes, you're right. The Russian/Greek animosity dates back to the fall of Constantinople and the belief that Russia should be the 'third Rome'. Then American politics gets added into it, as American sites dominate the Orthodox online Anglo-sphere space, just as they do the Catholic one.
DeleteFrom what I've seen, many conversions in America (or the ones who come online to talk about it) are driven by a dissatisfaction with the superficiality of American Protestantism (that it lacks depth, mystery or tradition), or the increasingly 'woke' leanings of the churches. Orthodoxy appeals because: a) it's very masculine, it has beards and emphasises the challenge of the ascetic life (which many online take too far). B) It's perceived as 'based' - conservatives find its values agree with theirs contra liberalism. The Russians are seen as holding these values most strictly. As one writer put it: 'For a certain segment of American Orthodoxy’s convert population, Vladimir Putin’s illusionary “Holy Russia” redux has become the Orthodox Mothership patrolling the globe ensuring purity of belief in Russia’s divine mission against the horrors of liberalism.' And c) the aesthetic appeals to the counter-cultural. Interestingly, a lot of metal-heads and goths have become Orthodox, because what's more metal than lots of skulls and dressing in black?
Unfortunately a lot of these converts have brought with them their, predominantly Calvinist, evangelical world views. This leads to purity codes, triumphalism and an unyielding adherence to 'the rules' which is foreign to Orthodoxy - I've lost count of the number of times I've seen people quoting 'the canons' online at someone in the same way a fundamentalist would quote the Bible (even though interpreting the canons is for the bishop and not the laity - armchair canon lawyers are never fundamentalist about that rule...)
@Ray - it helps to think of the jurisdictions not as different churches but as something like different dioceses. In an ideal world with a unified Church, there would be no need to have different Churches in the same country. If the Schism hadn't occurred, we in Britain would simply be under the Patriarch of Rome (from the EO point of view). America would also have its own church.
DeleteBecause of the Schism and the mess of history, Orthodox immigrants to America took their churches with them as there was no Orthodox Church in America. So you have Russian, Greek, Romanian etc. Orthodox arriving there with their own priests and hierarchies. Although immigrant communities tend to remain within their ethnic groups, there is nothing to stop a lay person from changing jurisdictions, just as a Catholic could change dioceses. You aren't Russian or Greek Orthodox any more than someone is English Catholic. You're simply Orthodox. If you're clergy or a religious, then things are more complicated, as it is with Catholic priests incardinated to a diocese. To view one ethnic church as superior is Phyletism, which was condemned as a heresy in 1872 at a local council in Constantinople.
The Orthodox Church in America (OCA) was originally the Alaskan mission of the Russian Orthodox Church established in the late 18th century, and grew from there. The Russian church was thrown into disarray in 1917 with the Russian Revolution, and Patriarch Tikhon directed all Russian churches outside Russia to become self governing until communications with the mother church could be restored. When this was restored in 1970, the American diocese was granted autocephaly and became the OCA, with a mission to assume an American identity (which has always been orthodox praxis when arriving in new lands). The OCA is the second largest jurisdiction in America by members, after the Greek Archdiocese.
There are definitely people who worship in the same church who take different sides on the Ukrainian war. There are in my church. It's not at all uncommon to have Russians married to Ukrainians or vice versa which, as you can imagine, is very difficult. As for priests, I know that some have left Russian parishes for Constantinople over the war and its other issues. If two members of clergy in the same church have disagreements about the war, one would hope that they were mature enough to put them aside to serve Christ, who is their first and only allegiance.
Thank you, Lain! That's very illuminating.
DeleteIf I may go off topic for a moment ... The word “autocephalous” reminds me of something I read many years ago in a book by Conor Cruise O’Brien, a senior official in the Irish Foreign Ministry. At one point he recalls a UN meeting in New York where a British official used the term “self-governing district” and was then asked a question about the same “autonomous” district. In reply, he strongly denied that he had used the term “autonomous”. His words were, “When I say ‘self-governing’ I mean ‘self-governing’, not ‘autonomous’.” The simultaneous translation into French rendered his words as “Quand je dis ‘autonome’ je veux dire ‘autonome’ et non pas ‘autonome’.”
DeleteConor Cruise O'Brien is not fondly remembered, even in Ireland. Everything about him was screaming, "look how clever I am." He was a prototype for for the type of repellent creature who just "knows better" than you do -- or indeed, than the system of culture and government built over centuries does -- and which infests all our countries in the west these days.
DeleteI find myself, a born-and-bred Ulster Prod, largely in agreement with this article.
ReplyDeleteAh, but you are a reasonable Prod, Neanderthal. Are you Episcopalian?
DeleteBear in mind, Catholics, more so Eastern Orthodox, see icons as channels of grace - “windows into heaven” - the image we view also views us. An icon in image form can be the Word of the Gospel. That's why we venerate them. I think there are many Protestants who would take issue with this.
I wonder if some of that is due to the Reformation originating among the literate classes. It was a movement that was largely enabled by the printing press and emphasised personal literacy and disliked images from the start. Although the 'graven images' objection is, incorrectly, often raised, I think that there's a bias in the Reformers that regards those who could read the word of God as superior to the illiterate and superstitious masses to whom the Bible stories were communicated through wall paintings, stained glass and icons. Images are the gruel dished out by tricksy Catholics to those deprived of the real food of the written word. I think that bias still remains, implicitly or explicitly, in some strands of Protestantism to this day.
DeleteOthers, of course, have no issue with stained glass, statuary, icons and the like; even if icons tend to be viewed as no more than devotional art.
C of E.
Delete