Humanism and Its Consequences

In the spirit of irenic self-critique begun with the last post, I offer a section from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's brilliant and prophetic (and, hence, controversial) Harvard Address of June 8, 1978, sometimes entitled "A World Split Apart":

How has this unfavorable relation of forces come about? How did the West decline from its triumphal march to its present debility? Have there been fatal turns and losses of direction in its development? It does not seem so. The West kept advancing steadily in accordance with its proclaimed social intentions, hand in hand with a dazzling progress in technology. And all of a sudden it found itself in its present state of weakness.

This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very foundation of thought in modern times. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was born in the Renaissance and has found political expression since the Age of the Enlightenment. It became the basis for political and social doctrine and could be called rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the proclaimed and practiced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man as the center of all.

The turn introduced by the Renaissance was probably inevitable historically. The Middle Ages had come to a natural end by exhaustion, having become an intolerable despotic repression of man's physical nature in favor of the spiritual one. But then we recoiled from the spirit and embraced all that is material, excessively and incommensurately. The humanistic way of thinking, which had proclaimed itself our guide, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man, nor did it see any task higher than the attainment of happiness on earth. It started modern Western civilization on the dangerous trend of worshiping man and his material needs. Everything beyond physical well-being and the accumulation of material goods, all other human requirements and characteristics of a subtler and higher nature, were left outside the area of attention of state and social systems, as if human life did not have any higher meaning. Thus gaps were left open for evil, and its drafts blow freely today. Mere freedom per se does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and even adds a number of new ones.

And yet in early democracies, as in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted on the ground that man is God's creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding one thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual be granted boundless freedom with no purpose, simply for the satisfaction of his whims. Subsequently, however, all such limitations were eroded everywhere in the West; a total emancipation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were becoming even more materialistic. The West had finally achieved the rights of man, and even to excess, but man's sense of responsibility to God and society had grown dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistic selfishness of the Western approach to the world has reached its peak and the world has found itself in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the celebrated technological achievements of progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the twentieth century's moral poverty, which no one could have imagined even as late as the nineteenth century.

It is particularly interesting to read these remarks side by side with St Athanasius's words about the Fall of man here.

You will find the full text of this speech, and much much more, in The Solzhenitsyn Reader, which I have already encouraged you all to acquire. This is a book that you should all have at arm's reach.

Christianity, Capitalism, and Conservatism

Fr Andrew Phillips writes:

The aim of Western Capitalism is economic growth. This is its be-all and end-all, for economic growth brings money and Capitalism is the ideology of capital, of, in other words, money. But in the Gospel, this is called Mammon, which is opposed to God. From an Orthodox Christian standpoint what is missing in Western Capitalism and its humanist freemarket economics is the concept of man as a spiritual being and the contentment or inner happiness that spiritual life brings. The Market Economy unquestioningly presumes that economic growth means human contentment, inner happiness, because it sees man only as a material being with material needs. Given the record of Capitalism, family breakdown, abortion, crime, worker exploitation, drugs and pollution, it is clear that Capitalism does not bring man contentment, suggesting that man is not only a material being but also a spiritual being. Indeed Capitalism is dedicated to creating new material wants, making contentment impossible. Neither in the modern West, nor in East Asia, are the values of Capitalism conducive to the spiritual life of man and his inner happiness (though it could easily be argued that they are much more conducive to human happiness than Communism).

I can also not help but reproduce an entire blog post by the estimable Fr Jonathan Tobias:

Your’e not a conservative if …

So much has been written, and spoken, on what makes for conservatism, that we are all hopelessly dogpaddling in a swamp of contradictory ambiguities.

“Conservatism” or “conservative” are terms used by everybody, but meant clearly by almost nobody. Usually, the word means something fuzzily right of center. Russell Kirk did a nice job in attempting a positive definition in his worthwhile book, The Conservative Mind, but even he came to grief when he had to deal with tough nuts like GK (Chesterton) and his buddy Hillaire (an odd couple melded by a Shavian pejorative, “Chesterbelloc”).

They had the temerity to rail, while railing against the Fabians, about usury – surely a Brahmin holy cow that waddles, festooned and feted, in the marketplace. What’s more, they promoted something as deeply disturbing as “distributism.” Even the sound of the word inflicts spiritual agonies on any right-thinking Republican.

Kirk choked on calling Chesterton and Belloc “conservative,” yet their conservatism is unquestioned by Kirk’s counterparts on the other side. Counter-inhibitional anti-western egalitarian hyper-materialistic de-mythologizing tenure-lusting mummers (i.e., the New Human) positively hate GK, with one of their few cogent thought-processes they still possess (they would hate Belloc too, but he has passed, as so much has, out of their ADD span).

The Republican Party has done more than any other to destroy the good offices of the word. The GOP has managed to plop in a black pot, for a gloppy stew besmirched with a secret sorrow, the following ingredients of “Conservative Soup”:

• No new taxes.
• Less regulations for business.
• More opportunities for defense contractors.
• No interference with the marketplace, but donations are welcome.
• God-status for successful corporations.
• Pro-life and pro-church statements to keep poor Republicans happy, for now.

Kirk went out of his way to emphasize the tradition-preserving agenda of Conservatism, and its equally important task of strengthening the sociological function of the inhibition of destructive instincts (i.e., Freud’s understandings of sex and aggression).

But where, O Kirk, is the cultural preservation in today’s Republican scheme? Why is Leo Strauss paid more attention, in Cheney’s circles, than T. S. Eliot?

Yes, yes, yes -- the Democrats are just as transgressive, to be sure. Distributists and Christian social workers are just as disconsolate with the burros as Christian Conservatives should be with the olifants.

So, disappointed by Kirk, and in the absence of a decent positive declaration, I thought I might pitch a list of negative declamations. I’m taking the easy road here, because it’s always abler to know what you aren’t than to know what you are.

You’re NOT a conservative if …

… you think that you have a right to be happy, or to pursue happiness. Happiness is a pleasantry, but to make it a “right”? To objectify it as a “pursuit” or a “goal”? Are you not of greater worth than these?

… you believe that church is what you choose, or that you can change Sunday mornings (or Saturday nights) like channels on the remote.

… you hope that the poor will be cared for by the marketplace, or the state. Gee whiz, if you don’t care for the poor at all, or if you think that the poor are poor because it’s their fault and it’s no skin of your nose if they are (shrug, Atlas), you’re not just not conservative, you’re kind of a, lessee, a monster.

… you equate stewardship of the land with Greenpeace eco-warriorism, or dismiss it as an automatic ungodly coalition with Al Gore. Remember, my Patriarch is the Green Patriarch well-named, and he’s more conservative than any Republican, Russophile, or protestant monk at Esphigmenou.

… you confuse conservatism with libertarianism. It’s high time that Christian politics shake itself from its bribed and feted slumber (a doldrum banquet was put on at the Ritz for us fundy bumpkins, to impress and suppress), as for decades we were told that there is a Christian “right” to unhindered profiteering, community-busting agribusiness and gun-toting. There isn’t. Recreational drugs should be illegal. So should automatic weapons. So should executive salaries that are calculated in multiples of their employees’ by the second power.

… you replace creeds with consensus statements, hymns with choruses, sanctuaries with multi-purpose rooms, sinners with seekers, the Trinity with a Higher Power, beatitude with "be happy attitude." Awful, just downright offal.

… you give the power to declare war to the Executive. Which has been done.

... you think that suburbs, malls, Hamburger Helper, WalMart, and movies like "Talladega Nights" are natural.

… you prefer the rights of capital over the customs of clan and land. If you do, then you’re a capitalist, not a conservative. The two, I’m sorry to say, are not the same.

… your worldview has been determined by your latest neo-quasi-Christian therapy, and you understand and identify yourself by the advertisements of whatever sexy movement you’re paying dues to. Neocon, e.g. Emergent, e.g.

… you don’t need to be saved by Christ crucified anymore.

Now, if you are any of these, you could be many things, and I don’t deny it. You could even be Christian, for that matter. You could be, and probably are, much nicer than I. You could be a soccer mom, a Nascar dad, a member of a NCC commission on bioethics or a multicultural specialist. I could probably like you, even though you probably wouldn’t like me.

Though a conservative you would not, could not, be.

Amen, Father! If you haven't yet discovered Fr Jonathan's amazing blog, Second Terrace, then forget about this sorry attempt at a web log, and go read his instead.

Churchill is famously reputed to have quipped that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Very much the same thing could be said about free-market capitalism. It may very well be the economic system must conducive to liberty; there is good evidence that planned economies not only don't work, but are also frequently correlated with political oppression. That said, capitalism should not be regarded as a Christian good, or as the foundational tenant of conservatism (as it is, for instance, among libertarians). Since the world has rejected God as its King, we have to do our best to govern ourselves as prudently as possible in a fallen world (cf., I Sam 8:4-8). But to elevate strategies of trade into a good in and of it self is to reject Christ's liberating call to poverty, self-renunciation, charity, and non-acquisitiveness. 

The above icon depicts a Radical forcibly evicting from the Temple the bankers who maintained a monopoly over currency exchange. Christ here is overturning the tables or "trapeza," which is the Greek word for "bank."

The Russian Christ

A few years ago I was asked to assist a non-Orthodox student writing a senior thesis on the connection between Orthodoxy and Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov. We exchanged a number of emails and met face-to-face once. Below is one of our written dialogs; the sections in italics are my words, those in plain font his. I reproduce the exchange as written, and therefore apologize for parts that may be a bit cryptic.

-----

What is the actual object of this study: to understand Dostoevsky or to understand Orthodoxy? Is the primary objective to understand Dostoevsky through the prism of Orthodoxy, or to understand Orthodoxy through the prism of Dostoevsky’s works? One faces an immediate hermeneutical problem: are we reading Dostoevsky as theology or as literature? That is, is the objective to compare Dostoevsky’s ideas with normative Orthodoxy on the level of doctrine, or to give an “Orthodox” reading of Dostoevsky as literature? If one is comparing Dostoevsky’s ideas with normative Orthodoxy on the level of doctrine, then points of divergence are immediately visible: Hackel examins many of these. Dostoevsky was not, and never claimed to be, a theologian; the roots of his thought are to located much more within the tradition of Russian religious philosophy (e.g., Soloviev) and within currents of European literature (e.g., Victor Hugo) than within the tradition of the Orthodox Church (as expressed, for instance, in patristic, liturgical, devotional and doctrinal works). If one reads Dostoevsky as literature and overlooks many of the surface differences between Dostoevsky’s writings and Orthodox Christian doctrine, reading his works not as theological treatises but rather as works of imaginative literature, then some deeper connections emerge, especially on themes relating to redemptive suffering and compassionate love. A case in point would be Myshkin’s speeches about the “Russian Christ” in The Idiot: taken literally, this is incompatible with Christianity; taken as a literary statement, it can interpreted more liberally. What sources are being used? If one is comparing Dostoevsky’s thought to Orthodoxy, what does one take as the criterion of normative Orthodoxy? (For that matter, how can one determine what Dostoevsky’s thought really is?) If one is studying how Orthodox thinkers have read him as literature, what sources is one using? Very little criticism of either variety exists in English, and even there one will find a variety of approaches and conclusions.

1. How do you feel Zosima’s this idea of boundless, inexhaustible love relates to Russian Orthodoxy?

On a doctrinal level there is nothing unique about “Russian Orthodoxy” as vis-à-vis other local Orthodox Churches (e.g., Greek Orthodoxy, Serbian Orthodoxy, etc.)

i. Is it something only God can have?

God alone has this love by nature, but it can be acquired by man by grace. We are called to share all God’s attributes, to become all that God is, without becoming God Himself. Some contemporary Orthodox theologians, especially John Romanides and his “school,” speak of man’s goal in the Christian life as turning away from egocentric, limited, conditional love and towards an unconditional love of all. See also St. Isaac the Syrian.

ii. How do you feel about the idea that people can buy the whole world with love, redeeming not only their own sins, but also those of other people?

What does it mean to “buy the whole world with love”? Christ alone can redeem, although we can share with others the same love that God shares with us.

iii. How does this idea of self-redemption, and even redemption of others, fit in the Orthodox tradition?

Again, Christ alone is the Redeemer; there is no place for self-redemption or, strictly speaking, for redeeming others. God and man cooperate in man’s salvation, but man’s own efforts can serve only to make him a worthy vessel for God’s grace.

2. How do you feel that Zosima’s healings fit within the religion?

See Jean-Claude Larchet, “The Theology of Illness,” esp. part three. Christ Himself is the one Physician, but all those who have put on Christ can extend this healing ministry to others?

i. And why would other monks criticize him for the same?

The monk who objects on p. 55 is likely either suspicious of Zosima’s sanctity, thinking that his boldness is an act of pride, indicating that he has fallen into spiritual deception (prelest). In other sections of the book, Ferapont represents the antithesis of Zosima, whose interest is only in external asceticism, to the exclusion of inner prayer.

3. Zosima claims that “people are created for happiness” (55) and that if people are completely happy, they have fulfilled God’s commandments. How closely does this idea relate to Russian Orthodox doctrine?

Again, “Russian Orthodox doctrine” is a misnomer: there is only Orthodox doctrine; it is Orthodoxy of doctrine and union of prayer and Eucharist that unite the Orthodox Churches. We are all called towards happiness in the sense of eternal blessedness, eternal communion with God – which is quite different from a sense of earthly happiness or contentment. Zosima’s statement that “he who is completely happy can at once be deemed worthy of saying to himself: ‘I have fulfilled God’s commandment on this earth.’ All the righteous, all the saints, all the holy martyrs were happy” is inconsistent with Orthodox tradition. One will not find in the either patristic or hagiographical writings such a statement of accomplishment: the saints recognized that each day was a new beginning, that repentance was something that needs continual renewal. There is a story from the desert fathers of a monk, highly respected by all his brethren who, on his deathbed, confessed that he had not yet begun to repent.

4. How do Zosima’s ideas on the relationship between church and state and ecclesiastical and governmental courts reflect the Orthodox tradition ?

The classical model of church state relations (a thoroughly anachronistic term) within the Orthodox tradition is that of Byzantine symphonia or harmony between Church and government, and Patriarch and Emperor. This model was held, at least in principle, by Russian rulers under Peter the Great, who undertook a vast project of secularization. This question is not, strictly speaking, a doctrinal one. Zosima’s idea of punishment by excommunication is an idealistic one: one rather doubts that the average criminal would care. In a very real way, however, such discipline already exists within the Church.

5. He repeatedly suggests that all people are guilty for all people’s sins. By making ourselves guilty before and for all people, he claims we are able to have paradise on earth. How do you view this idea that we are guilty for each other’s sins?

One can speak of the consubstantiality of mankind (i.e., we are share the same substance or nature); moreover, all of our actions affect others in unseen ways – none of us are truly “individuals.” One can also speak of a “generational” sin by which the sinfulness of man accumulates and is passed down in increasing measure from generation to generation. But this is a far cry from claiming universal guilt or claiming that everyone is responsible for the sins of all others.

6. If there is another area or point you feel is critical to a proper understanding of Zosima’s relationship to Russian Orthodoxy, please explain. Feel free to include as many or as few areas as you would like.

In order to understand Dostoevsky’s portrayal of Zosima, I’d suggest following three lines of inquiry: first, studying Dostoevsky’s literary style, his manner of narrative, asking how Zosima functions as a literary device (see, for instance Bakhtin’s “Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics”); second, studying the roots of Dostoevsky’s thought by placing him in his historical context and considering his philosophical and literary influences (e.g., Soloviev, Fedotov, and other Russian religious philosophers, for which see Alexander Schmemann, “Ultimate Questions: An Anthology of Modern Russian Religious Thought,” and Paul Valliere, “Modern Russian Theology – Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov: Orthodox Theology in a New Key”); third, by studying the Orthodox tradition that Dostoevsky was attempting to portray, especially modern Russian Orthodox monasticism and the institution of Eldership (see handouts), as well as basic Orthodox Church history (Alexander Schmemann, “The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy”) and theology (Vladimir Lossky, “The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church”).

Batman in Syriac

Batman: "Go! After him Robin!"
Robin: "He's mine!"

For an explanation of this silliness, see here.

Plato, Redeemed

From Fr Andrew Louth's excellent new book, Greek East and Latin West: The Church AD 681-1071 (The Church in History, Vol III):

A further anathema [of the Fifth Ecumenical Council] makes clear the acceptable limits of philosophical training:

"On those who pursue Hellenic learning and are formed by it not simply as an educational discipline, but follow their empty opinions, and believe them to be true, and thus become involved in them, as possessing certainty, so that they introduce others to them, whether secretly or openly, and teach them as indubitable: Anathema!"

The reminiscences of the condemnation of Origenism make clear that this condemnation was in part the recrudescence of an ancient antagonism between the heritage of classical philosophy and the tradition of the gospel. It is important to realize, however, that this antagonism is much less clear-cut than it might seem. The anathemas cited envisage a form of Platonism, and make specific mention of it. John Mauropous, the teacher of Michael Psellos, is famed among other things for poems beseeching God's mercy on Plato (and Plutarch), because "both of them in word and character adhere closely to your laws." But it was not only representatives of the "outer wisdom" like Mauropous who revered Plato: St Athanasius had called him "that great one among the Greeks," while among the writings ascribed to the seventh-century abbot of Sinai, Anastasios, there is a story which relates that it was the custom of a certain learned Christ to curse Plato daily, until eventually Plato himself appeared to him and said, "Man, stop cursing me; for you are merely harming yourself. I do not deny that I was a sinner, but, when Christ descended into hell, no one believed in Him sooner than I did."

The above fresco, from the Sucevita monastery in Romania, depicts the Hebrew prophets and Greek philosophers together; Plato is the second from the right.

Mercy and the Kingdom

No single phrase is repeated more often in divine worship the "Lord, have mercy" (Kyrie eleison in Greek, Gospodi pomiloi in Slavonic). For an explanation of these simple and essential words, we turn to St Nicholas Cabasilas' A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy:

The meaning of the prayer for God's mercy after every petition

There is another question to be asked: why is it that, whereas the priest asks them to pray for so many different things, the faithful in fact ask for one thing only – mercy? Why is this the sole cry they send forth to God?

In the first place, as we have already said, it is because this prayer implies both gratitude and confession. Secondly, to beg God's mercy is to ask for His kingdom, that kingdom which Christ promised to give to those who seek for it, assuring them that all things else of which they have need will be added unto them [Matt 6:33]. Because of this, this prayer is sufficient for the faithful, since its application is general.

How do we know that the kingdom of God is signified by His mercy? In this way: Christ, speaking of the reward of the merciful, and of the recompense of kindness which they will receive from Him, in one place says that they shall obtain mercy, and in another that they shall inherit the kingdom; thus proving that God's mercy and the inheritance of the kingdom are one and the same thing. "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy," He says [Mat 5:7]. And elsewhere, as if to explain Himself and to show what it means to obtain mercy, he declares: "Then shall the King say unto them on His right hand (by whom he means the merciful): Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" [Matt 25:34].

Moreover, if, among the actions of merciful men, one wishes to contemplate the aim of the divine mercy, he will find that it corresponds exactly to the kingdom itself. For what is the character of the merciful man? "I was hungered, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty and ye gave me drink" [Matt 25:35]. Therefore those to whom Christ shows mercy He will admit to a share at His own table. And what table is this? "That ye may eat and drink at my table in My kingdom" [Lk 22:30]. And that you may know the splendour of that table, and may realize that it is a table not of servants but of kings, know that he who waits upon it is the Lord of all. "He shall gird Himself, and make them sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them" [Lk 12:37].

Likewise, if I may recall that other saying: "I was naked and ye clothed me" [Matt 25:36], the Lord will clothe him to whom He shows mercy. And will He not give him a royal garment? He will clothe him in His own garments; and nothing of His is base, for He is a king – just as nothing of ours is royal, since we are slaves. This garment is the wedding-robe which will ensure for those who wear it admission to the kingdom; the King will find in its wearers no fault for which they can be cast forth from the marriage chamber.

What more? He will open His doors to them and lead them into His house to rest. "I was a stranger, and you took me in" [Matt 25:35]. Those who have been counted worthy of such favour are servants no longer, but sons of God. "The servant abideth not in the not in the house forever; but the Son abideth forever" [Jn 8:35]. Now the sons are heirs not only of the kingdom but of Him Who is the heart of the kingdom. "Heirs of God, co-heirs with Christ," says St Paul [Rom 8:17].

That is why, in asking Christ for mercy, we are asking that we may obtain the kingdom.

St Nicholas writes that "this prayer implies both gratitude and confession." It is noteworthy that the roots of our English word "mercy" likewise reflects both senses of the word: the Middle English comes from the French merci, which means both "pity" and "thanks."

For further reflection on this most essential of prayers, see this essay.

The above icon depicts the parable of the wise and foolish virgins.

John Henry Newman on St Mark of Ephesus

Today the Orthodox Church celebrates the memory of St Mark (Evgenikos), Metropolitan of Ephesus, justly famed for his refusal to compromise at the Council of Florence in 1439. I have always been particularly interested in St Mark's treatment of the question of purgatory, inasmuch as it is one of the clearest statements of Orthodox belief on the nature of the afterlife ever made, especially in his Encyclical of 1440. The following extract concerning the debates about the doctrine of purgatory at the Council of Florence comes from an unlikely source: the Oxford Movement's Tract number 79, On Purgatory (Against Romanism, No. 3), published in 1840. It was printed anonymously, but has since been established as the work of the great John Henry Newman. Of particular interest is his use of a first-hand account of the council written by the Greek ecclesiarch Syropulus (or Sguropulus), one of the Patriarch's five attendants.

The issue of purgatory was raised at the Council's fifth session. The Latins put down their argument on paper, and asked the Greeks to do the same. The latter, unfortunately, were divided among themselves. The Byzantine Emperor asked St Mark of Ephesus to draw up a statement of the Greek position, but the latter refused to do so unless it were submitted precisely as he had written it, knowing that the Emperor himself and many of the other Greek delegates were prepared to compromise, and would edit whatever he wrote. St Mark did later agree to compose a statement, as did the more compromising Bishop of Nicaea. The Emperor then took both and collated them into one, picking and choosing what he liked best. This Greek reply was given to the Latins, who in turn replied, and discussion continued. It is here that we pick up (words in italics are those of Syropulos; those in plain font are those of Newman):

"Meanwhile in private conversations the Latins begged the Bishop of Ephesus to propound plainly the doctrine which our Church holds concerning souls departed hence. But he did not state it, being hindered by the Emperor. And in proportion as they perceived him resisting, and not wishing to set forth our Church doctrine on the matter, so much the more did they press him, and intreat him, and remonstrate with him, and asked what he meant by his reserve, saying that every regular member of any Church was bound, when asked what was the Church's view on any question, at once to give it without hesitation or ambiguity. But the Bishop had his mouth stopped by the royal command."

John, a Spanish Bishop, then entered into a discussion with the Bishop of Ephesus with great dialectic skill, and Bessarion deserted to the Latins; at length, however the Emperor consented to Mark's speaking out' and he put the Latins into full possession of the Greek notions on the subject of Purgatory. The next sentences run as follows:—

"Our allowance was expended, and nothing more was given us in spite of our frequent demands: but, when we yielded to their demand and told them our Church's opinion on the question in discussion, then they gave us three months' allowance on the 30th of June, 689 florins." 5. ß. 18.

This was all that passed on the subject of Purgatory, before the final decree, which, as in other points, so in this, was overruled by the determination of the Latins and the need of the Emperor. But here let me instance another hardship inflicted on the Greeks, for which I have already prepared the reader.

"We sat down in sorrow, not only because of existing and expected perils, but for the loss of our liberty, for we were shut up as slaves. And when three months and more were passed, and all were indignant at our dependence upon strangers, the straits we were in, and our want of provision, ..... three clerics, under the spur of necessity, found an escape....... But the Patriarch learning it, and being indignant at it, wrote at once to the Doge of Venice, who found out the men and sent them to him."

After many months discomfort from the causes that have been enumerated, the Greeks came to an understanding with the Latins: indeed, from the first, they had very little trust or attachment to their view. Their doctrine is said to have been, that the souls of imperfect Christians went to a place of darkness and sadness, where they were for some time in affliction and deprived of the light of God's countenance, in which state they were benefited by Eucharistic offerings and by alms; to this the Latins wished to add, that souls without stain enter at once into heavenly glory, while those who have repented of sin but have not had time to complete the necessary penance, are consigned for a longer or shorter time to purgatorial fire. This was the difference between the Churches, and they compromised the matter thus: the Latins did not press the doctrine of fire, and the Greeks gave up—not a word, but a truth,—they allowed, contrary to the belief with which they had come to the Council, that those who are not in Purgatory are immediately beatified, and enjoy the sight of God.

It may be objected, and readily admitted, that the narrative of which the above are extracts, is drawn up by a writer unfriendly and unfair to the Latins. But it would seem to prove as much as this, viz. what was the popular view in Greece on the subject of these discussions and their termination, immediately upon it

A high ecclesiastic, as Syropulus was, would hardly have ventured to have set himself against a recent and solemn act of his own Church sanctioned by the Court, unless he had had a strong feeling with him. The very fact of his opposition proves that the conduct of the Greeks at Florence was but the act of a party at most in the Church; while the line of the history, their sufferings and compelled decision, is too clearly guaranteed to us as true by the known circumstances of the case. But we need not thus painfully deduce the real dissatisfaction of the Greek Church with the articles imposed upon its delegates at Florence. On their return home, they had to encounter so general an indignation and resentment at their conduct, that they were obliged at once to recant and confess their weakness, and throw themselves on the mercy of their brethren. Mark of Ephesus had not signed the decree, and became a rallying point for all who held by the popular religion; while the successor of the Patriarch was deserted even by his cross-bearers, and presided in an empty Cathedral. The feeling spread north and south; the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem assembled a numerous Council, and disowned the acts of their representatives in Italy; and Isidore, the Primate of Russia, on returning to his country, was synodically condemned and imprisoned in a monastery.

Again, it may be objected that the great article of difference between Greeks and Latins was the question of the procession, not that of Purgatory, and after all, that the real point of repulsion between them lay in national jealousies; whereas they agreed together, as the Council shows, or at least with the slightest difference, on the question in which we are concerned, while the subsequent resentment of the Greeks at home had little or no reference to it; and that their agreement under such circumstances was only the more remarkable. It may be replied, that the object of the foregoing account has been to shew that the Greeks at Florence were not trustworthy, that they had neither the ease of circumstances, the learning, or the composure of mind to be witnesses of the traditionary and universal doctrine of their Churches. If this is proved by after circumstances, by the popular indignation as regards one doctrine, it takes all credit from their testimony as regards another. Moreover as regards the doctrine of Purgatory, they did not agree with the Latins in an important point, yet that point they gave up to them; most unfaithfully, considering them as stewards of Gospel truth; and, had they discerned the bearings of the Latin doctrine, which doubtless they did not, most treacherously. They admitted, against the national belief, the beatification of souls under specific circumstances, before the judgment, and in so doing they admitted practically almost as: much, as if they had subscribed to the doctrine of purgatorial fire. For, as the mention of fire on the; one hand is definite, and ascertains Purgatory to be strictly a place of punishment, which the general expressions of the Greeks did not strictly imply, so in like manner to separate off from it all the perfected saints, and transfer them to a better and heavenly state, does in effect sink it, by the contrast, to a place of privation and suffering. The presence of the souls of all saints, (to speak in general terms, that is, not to include the Martyrs whom the early Church has excepted) in Hades, Paradise, or Abraham's bosom, or by whatever other name we designate the Intermediate State, is our guarantee for the substantial blessedness of that State. We cannot spare the higher Saints from Paradise, in that they are our pledges for its heavenly character in the case of all believers. Thus as regards their own doctrine, the Greeks made most important admissions to the Latins, for making which they had no warrant, and therefore cannot be considered of authority in witnessing a Purgatory at all, any more than in the account they gave of it.

Newman's argument in this section is that the statements made by the Greeks (excepting St Mark) are inconsistent with the teaching of the Orthodox Church, and therefore not authoritative. We certainly agree with this position. The Church sings the following liturgical hymns in St Mark's memory:

Troparian, tone 3

Holy Mark, in thee the Church has found a zealot by thy confession of the sacred Faith;/ for thou didst champion the Fathers' doctrine/ and cast down the pride of boastful darkness./ Pray to Christ our God for those who honour thee, that we may be granted the forgiveness of sins.

Kontakion, tone 3

As one clad in invincible armour,/ thou didst cast down the pride of the Western rebellion;/ thou didst become an instrument of, the Comforter/ and shine Forth as Orthodoxy's defender./ Therefore we cry to thee: Rejoice, O Mark, boast of the Orthodox.

For more on the Orthodox teaching on the nature of heaven and hell, see my summary here.

NB: This tract was written by Newman while still a member of the Church of England. After his conversion to Rome he naturally changed his position, as these sermon notes testify.