Even though my journey is very different from yours, many elements ring true and relatable to me as well. Glory to the Lord! May the Lord lead Asia to Orthodoxy!
God bless your journey! Since the last time you posted, I have made the jump from orthodox inquiring to catechumenate. Glory be to God!
Can you elaborate more on the bit about how the Philokalia goes against the medieval western practice of "proactively imagining visual images in one’s mind during prayers in order to ecstatically embody the pains and joys of the saints"? I am formerly a Protestant Christian, and this is a practice that I have inadvertently been doing for years
When doing your task [of prayer], you see light or fire outside [yourself] or in, or a face—of Christ, for example, or an Angel, or someone else’s—do not accept it, in order not to suffer damage. And yourself do not make images; and those that come on their own—do not accept them, and do not allow your mind to keep them. (Philokalia 5:233)
[N]ever accept if you see anything physical or spiritual, inside yourself or out, even if it is an image of Christ, or an Angel, or some Saint, or a light appears to you and shows in your mind. The mind itself has a natural power of imagination and can easily create a phantom image of a thing, which it desires… In the same way, a recollection of good or bad things usually shows their images in the mind and leads the mind to imagination… (Philokalia 5:224)
In my own words:
I was taught that in prayer, we try to concentrate on the words of the prayers and unite our minds with it. I read that we should not allow our minds to be distracted, wandering on other things including random thoughts and imaginings.
Thanks for sharing; a few questions if you have time. How did you know that your preference for Orthodoxy wasn’t merely a personal or aesthetic preference and that it was a recognition of a greater truth? Did the ROCOR priest who baptized you explain the baptism as a conditional baptism? How did you get comfortable picking the Russian side over the Greek side in the current schism?
(1) I am not the type of person who would stake my life and soul on core ideologies due to what I'd consider at the time arbitrary preferences. Since "Byzantine Catholicism" already exists, you can already kind of get Greco-Russian style religion in Roman Catholicism already. For me it was more about learning about the history of the Papacy, comparing it with the modern Roman Catholic Papal dogmas, and checking out whether that really held up to scrutiny.
(2) Unfortunately, I do not think that it is obvious that the Roman Catholics have a sacramentally valid baptism. I was taught in the past that some leniency was given to heterodox groups that possessed the proper form (manner of doing things) of baptism, but the modern Roman Catholics have mostly lost that too and do not baptize physically in the apostolic manner. (And I know this personally to be true about my own Roman Catholic initiation, which was not done in the way the Early Church would have done it.)
Relatedly, the Council of Florence clearly dogmatized a version of the Filioque that is unambiguously in contradiction with the teachings of Church Fathers like St. John of Damascus. To me (this is my own opinion) when Roman Catholics baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they do not do so with the same understanding as was held by the Ancient Church.
There are very talented people who have discussed this topic in great detail who are better than I, like Fr. Peter Heers, who has written about this question extensively for those who are interested in learning more.
(3) As an Orthodox Christian in ROCOR, I was taught that the relationship with the Greeks is a fracture of brotherly relations, not a full blown schism like the East-West Schism. I was also taught that these types of controversies were not uncommon in the First Millennium Church, such as with the Meletian schism. In the Russian tradition we have quite a few people, including myself, who visit and attend services at Greek churches from time to time.
Regarding the issue itself, when I think about contemporary problems, I don't pick a side immediately but, if I am interested in knowing, I look at the material facts closely and see what is happening in history. For example, rather than looking at legal documents and abstract theories, I prefer to read about issues like churches being confiscated, or the number of bishops who approved versus disapproved, and what people say with their boots on the ground. To me, that kind of investigation is more productive.
I asked this already on X and I will ask it again - why does St John of Damascus, who ERRONEOUSLY claims that we do not say that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, trump numerous other Saints and councils, who DO SAY that the Holy Spirit is from the Son??
Is St John of Damascus somehow more authoritative than Sts Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, and several others who DID SAY that the Holy Spirit is from the Son?
And while St John of Damascus was in material error regarding this question, he was not in a formal error, because in other places he plainly says that the Son has a role in the production of the Holy Spirit, which if not in words, at least in substance means the same as the filioque, and which teaching is contradicted by the eastern "orthodox" council of Blachernae, which contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers dogmatized for the "orthodox" church that the Spirit is produced by the Father ALONE, without any mediation of the Son.
Thanks for sharing. I am sincerely sorry for the negative experience you made with Roman Catholicism. Since I love the Church Fathers and can relate to the feeling of spiritual emptiness you encountered in many Catholic churches, I don't want to argue about these kinds of topics. But, because you were talking about Romanides and the "Frankish domination" of the Catholic Church, I'd like to know, what the Eastern Orthodox in general think of the fact that the actual Patriarch of the ROC is a former KGB agent with a very dubious past (even the one before him was a KGB agent), that the ROC right now is a de facto state church, that there was an actual Ottoman domination of Eastern Orthodoxy (which mirrors the history of Roman Catholicism). All of this is true, and yet no Eastern Orthodox ever answers my questions.
1. The Church is not defined solely by its hierarchy. Throughout history—such as during the Arian and Iconoclast controversies—many bishops acted under political pressure, yet the Church prevailed through the faith and steadfastness of the laity. Even among the apostles, there was Judas, and those he baptized were still considered fully orthodox, the validity of sacraments does not depend on the moral standing of clergy.
2. As Orthodox Christians, and specifically within ROCOR, we criticize the Russian Orthodox Church leadership’s political involvement. Historically, patriarchs under Turkish rule were forced to cooperate under threat; if the Ottomans were dissatisfied, they would simply execute the patriarch and choose another willing bishop. Thus, church hierarchies in both East and West have often acted under duress, which is nothing new. In fact, churches have always tried to do their best under worldly pressure.
You do know that I can see your previous posts, right? In the previous comment you said that "the Carolingian Franks CHANGED THE THEOLOGY starting in the 800s". Now you are claiming that they only forced the Pope to add the filioque into the creed, "not that they invented it".
In the previous post you wrote that "St. Augustine isn't even in continuity with the Cappadocians on Trinitarian doctrine". Now you are claiming that he didn't teach the filioque at all, but merely "temporal sending of the Spirit from the Son".
You have such a problem with lying, that you constantly contradict yourself. So, if you could tell me without contradicting what you position is - did St Augustine teach the filioque OR taught merely a temporal procession (both can'tbe true), then I will maybe bother responding to you. But until then I am losing my time with you.
I loved your synopsis of several years' journey. Thanks for sharing, and may our Church increasingly be able to offer its healing to Asians worldwide.
One thing I wondered was how you dealt with learning of Caesaropapism and the sordid affairs of the Byzantine empire as someone entering a Church whose bishops were products of the same machinations that polluted Rome's lineage. Is it less scandalizing for you because we don't put as much stock in any particular bishop as infallible?
I like how you've moved the dial away from condemning Roman Catholicism here. I think this is a really important point—loving our faith doesn't mean we have to pour scorn on others. Does it mean we have to change our faith to move closer to other ones? Imo, no. But we should be respectful, too. It's something I've tried to do in the articles covering my own conversion.
I feel similar regarding your experiences with the Tradcath community. There are a lot of mental constructions and endless cycles of unproductive discourse that are very unhelpful.
It is really a blessing that you were able to inquire into Orthodoxy with a neutral attitude and with an open mind. I struggled with this because of the anti-Orthodox polemics that have become common in our age.
Agree with "can't put my finger on it, but something different" about Orthodox hymns vs Roman Catholic ones.
Yes, focus on Christ as a "penal sacrifice" is sadly so common in the west compared to the Resurrection as trampling down death by death.
I am so glad to hear that you benefited from Fr Seraphim's writing, and some of my friends including me think that he is a saint.
Absolutely amazing to hear the providence of your history with the Carpatho-Rusian Christians.
I don't think there was a single Church Father who taught palamism.
Also, if in your becoming eastern "orthodox", you had to completely reject the theology of (one of) the greatest Church Father(s), St Augustine, whose theology was approved by the pre-schism Popes and Councils, and was THE THEOLOGY of the pre-schism western Church, what better sign do you need that you have departed from the 1st millenium Church?
I've read several writings from these Fathers, and especially St Dionysius and the Cappadocians clearly contradict palamism.
As I said, the pre-schism church approved the theology of St Augustine. If your position was correct (and it clearly isn't), then the schism would already materially exist from the time of St Augustine, and would be only formalized in 1054.
This position is untenable and completely destroys the notion of a unified 1st millenium church, and makes a mockery of the declaration of the 5th ecumenical council, which made a list of Fathers, including both the Cappadocians and St Augustine, and declared that "we follow these Fathers in all ways".
Nothing in the Trinitarian theology of St Augustine contradicts anything defined by the First Council of Constantinople. And if by "monarchia" you mean the eastern "orthodox" teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, without any mediation of the Son, then no, the Cappadocians do not teach that. On the contrary, both St Basil and St Gregory of Nyssa say, that the Son is the CAUSE of the Holy Spirit.
And can you please make up your mind about who supposedly "invented" the filioque? Because one time you say it was St Augustine. At another time the Franks. Then again the Council of Lyon. And then the Council of Florence. The truth is of course that the filioque was invented neither at Florence or Lyon, nor by the Franks or St Augustine, but is the doctrine taught in Scripture and by the close to unanimous consent of the Fathers.
If you think that any Church Father taught palamism, then PROVE it. Give me the exact quote, where any Church Father teaches what Gregory Palamas taught, that is that there is a real distinction in God between his essence and his uncreated attributes or energies, and that these energies can be perceived by our bodily senses.
As a former Roman Catholic now Orthodox, I really appreciated this reflection. Definitely could sympathize with a lot of what you felt. Thank you.
Even though my journey is very different from yours, many elements ring true and relatable to me as well. Glory to the Lord! May the Lord lead Asia to Orthodoxy!
God bless your journey! Since the last time you posted, I have made the jump from orthodox inquiring to catechumenate. Glory be to God!
Can you elaborate more on the bit about how the Philokalia goes against the medieval western practice of "proactively imagining visual images in one’s mind during prayers in order to ecstatically embody the pains and joys of the saints"? I am formerly a Protestant Christian, and this is a practice that I have inadvertently been doing for years
Glory to God! Thank you and God bless, I hope that your catechumenate will be fruitful indeed!
Here is a very good article that summarizes everything about mental visualization in prayer. https://www.pravmir.com/article_545.html
Some short quotes:
When doing your task [of prayer], you see light or fire outside [yourself] or in, or a face—of Christ, for example, or an Angel, or someone else’s—do not accept it, in order not to suffer damage. And yourself do not make images; and those that come on their own—do not accept them, and do not allow your mind to keep them. (Philokalia 5:233)
[N]ever accept if you see anything physical or spiritual, inside yourself or out, even if it is an image of Christ, or an Angel, or some Saint, or a light appears to you and shows in your mind. The mind itself has a natural power of imagination and can easily create a phantom image of a thing, which it desires… In the same way, a recollection of good or bad things usually shows their images in the mind and leads the mind to imagination… (Philokalia 5:224)
In my own words:
I was taught that in prayer, we try to concentrate on the words of the prayers and unite our minds with it. I read that we should not allow our minds to be distracted, wandering on other things including random thoughts and imaginings.
I see i see; this is pretty radical news to me; Lord have mercy
Thanks!
Make sure to ask your priest, he can give you deeper advice for your personal situation!
You've very different experiences with Orthodox Catholics, cradle and western convert alike, than I.
Thanks for sharing; a few questions if you have time. How did you know that your preference for Orthodoxy wasn’t merely a personal or aesthetic preference and that it was a recognition of a greater truth? Did the ROCOR priest who baptized you explain the baptism as a conditional baptism? How did you get comfortable picking the Russian side over the Greek side in the current schism?
Thank you for reading.
(1) I am not the type of person who would stake my life and soul on core ideologies due to what I'd consider at the time arbitrary preferences. Since "Byzantine Catholicism" already exists, you can already kind of get Greco-Russian style religion in Roman Catholicism already. For me it was more about learning about the history of the Papacy, comparing it with the modern Roman Catholic Papal dogmas, and checking out whether that really held up to scrutiny.
(2) Unfortunately, I do not think that it is obvious that the Roman Catholics have a sacramentally valid baptism. I was taught in the past that some leniency was given to heterodox groups that possessed the proper form (manner of doing things) of baptism, but the modern Roman Catholics have mostly lost that too and do not baptize physically in the apostolic manner. (And I know this personally to be true about my own Roman Catholic initiation, which was not done in the way the Early Church would have done it.)
Relatedly, the Council of Florence clearly dogmatized a version of the Filioque that is unambiguously in contradiction with the teachings of Church Fathers like St. John of Damascus. To me (this is my own opinion) when Roman Catholics baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they do not do so with the same understanding as was held by the Ancient Church.
There are very talented people who have discussed this topic in great detail who are better than I, like Fr. Peter Heers, who has written about this question extensively for those who are interested in learning more.
(3) As an Orthodox Christian in ROCOR, I was taught that the relationship with the Greeks is a fracture of brotherly relations, not a full blown schism like the East-West Schism. I was also taught that these types of controversies were not uncommon in the First Millennium Church, such as with the Meletian schism. In the Russian tradition we have quite a few people, including myself, who visit and attend services at Greek churches from time to time.
Regarding the issue itself, when I think about contemporary problems, I don't pick a side immediately but, if I am interested in knowing, I look at the material facts closely and see what is happening in history. For example, rather than looking at legal documents and abstract theories, I prefer to read about issues like churches being confiscated, or the number of bishops who approved versus disapproved, and what people say with their boots on the ground. To me, that kind of investigation is more productive.
Best wishes to you.
Thanks again for this thoughtful reply!
I asked this already on X and I will ask it again - why does St John of Damascus, who ERRONEOUSLY claims that we do not say that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, trump numerous other Saints and councils, who DO SAY that the Holy Spirit is from the Son??
Is St John of Damascus somehow more authoritative than Sts Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, and several others who DID SAY that the Holy Spirit is from the Son?
And while St John of Damascus was in material error regarding this question, he was not in a formal error, because in other places he plainly says that the Son has a role in the production of the Holy Spirit, which if not in words, at least in substance means the same as the filioque, and which teaching is contradicted by the eastern "orthodox" council of Blachernae, which contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers dogmatized for the "orthodox" church that the Spirit is produced by the Father ALONE, without any mediation of the Son.
Thank you very much for your frank and serious story - your personal experience will be very convincing for others!
Thanks for sharing. I am sincerely sorry for the negative experience you made with Roman Catholicism. Since I love the Church Fathers and can relate to the feeling of spiritual emptiness you encountered in many Catholic churches, I don't want to argue about these kinds of topics. But, because you were talking about Romanides and the "Frankish domination" of the Catholic Church, I'd like to know, what the Eastern Orthodox in general think of the fact that the actual Patriarch of the ROC is a former KGB agent with a very dubious past (even the one before him was a KGB agent), that the ROC right now is a de facto state church, that there was an actual Ottoman domination of Eastern Orthodoxy (which mirrors the history of Roman Catholicism). All of this is true, and yet no Eastern Orthodox ever answers my questions.
1. The Church is not defined solely by its hierarchy. Throughout history—such as during the Arian and Iconoclast controversies—many bishops acted under political pressure, yet the Church prevailed through the faith and steadfastness of the laity. Even among the apostles, there was Judas, and those he baptized were still considered fully orthodox, the validity of sacraments does not depend on the moral standing of clergy.
2. As Orthodox Christians, and specifically within ROCOR, we criticize the Russian Orthodox Church leadership’s political involvement. Historically, patriarchs under Turkish rule were forced to cooperate under threat; if the Ottomans were dissatisfied, they would simply execute the patriarch and choose another willing bishop. Thus, church hierarchies in both East and West have often acted under duress, which is nothing new. In fact, churches have always tried to do their best under worldly pressure.
You do know that I can see your previous posts, right? In the previous comment you said that "the Carolingian Franks CHANGED THE THEOLOGY starting in the 800s". Now you are claiming that they only forced the Pope to add the filioque into the creed, "not that they invented it".
In the previous post you wrote that "St. Augustine isn't even in continuity with the Cappadocians on Trinitarian doctrine". Now you are claiming that he didn't teach the filioque at all, but merely "temporal sending of the Spirit from the Son".
You have such a problem with lying, that you constantly contradict yourself. So, if you could tell me without contradicting what you position is - did St Augustine teach the filioque OR taught merely a temporal procession (both can'tbe true), then I will maybe bother responding to you. But until then I am losing my time with you.
I loved your synopsis of several years' journey. Thanks for sharing, and may our Church increasingly be able to offer its healing to Asians worldwide.
One thing I wondered was how you dealt with learning of Caesaropapism and the sordid affairs of the Byzantine empire as someone entering a Church whose bishops were products of the same machinations that polluted Rome's lineage. Is it less scandalizing for you because we don't put as much stock in any particular bishop as infallible?
I like how you've moved the dial away from condemning Roman Catholicism here. I think this is a really important point—loving our faith doesn't mean we have to pour scorn on others. Does it mean we have to change our faith to move closer to other ones? Imo, no. But we should be respectful, too. It's something I've tried to do in the articles covering my own conversion.
Glory to God!
I feel similar regarding your experiences with the Tradcath community. There are a lot of mental constructions and endless cycles of unproductive discourse that are very unhelpful.
It is really a blessing that you were able to inquire into Orthodoxy with a neutral attitude and with an open mind. I struggled with this because of the anti-Orthodox polemics that have become common in our age.
Agree with "can't put my finger on it, but something different" about Orthodox hymns vs Roman Catholic ones.
Yes, focus on Christ as a "penal sacrifice" is sadly so common in the west compared to the Resurrection as trampling down death by death.
I am so glad to hear that you benefited from Fr Seraphim's writing, and some of my friends including me think that he is a saint.
Absolutely amazing to hear the providence of your history with the Carpatho-Rusian Christians.
Best wishes!
I don't think there was a single Church Father who taught palamism.
Also, if in your becoming eastern "orthodox", you had to completely reject the theology of (one of) the greatest Church Father(s), St Augustine, whose theology was approved by the pre-schism Popes and Councils, and was THE THEOLOGY of the pre-schism western Church, what better sign do you need that you have departed from the 1st millenium Church?
I've read several writings from these Fathers, and especially St Dionysius and the Cappadocians clearly contradict palamism.
As I said, the pre-schism church approved the theology of St Augustine. If your position was correct (and it clearly isn't), then the schism would already materially exist from the time of St Augustine, and would be only formalized in 1054.
This position is untenable and completely destroys the notion of a unified 1st millenium church, and makes a mockery of the declaration of the 5th ecumenical council, which made a list of Fathers, including both the Cappadocians and St Augustine, and declared that "we follow these Fathers in all ways".
Nothing in the Trinitarian theology of St Augustine contradicts anything defined by the First Council of Constantinople. And if by "monarchia" you mean the eastern "orthodox" teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, without any mediation of the Son, then no, the Cappadocians do not teach that. On the contrary, both St Basil and St Gregory of Nyssa say, that the Son is the CAUSE of the Holy Spirit.
And can you please make up your mind about who supposedly "invented" the filioque? Because one time you say it was St Augustine. At another time the Franks. Then again the Council of Lyon. And then the Council of Florence. The truth is of course that the filioque was invented neither at Florence or Lyon, nor by the Franks or St Augustine, but is the doctrine taught in Scripture and by the close to unanimous consent of the Fathers.
If you think that any Church Father taught palamism, then PROVE it. Give me the exact quote, where any Church Father teaches what Gregory Palamas taught, that is that there is a real distinction in God between his essence and his uncreated attributes or energies, and that these energies can be perceived by our bodily senses.