How should we think about astrology , you talk about it being understood epithemetically? So did the wise men who found Christ use knowledge of the stars to find him? Did they know what they would find? Can we use astrology to predict things ?
Hey Jack, that’s a huge topic, and hopefully I can write about it one day. For now it’s best I just quote the main Orthodox hymn for Christmas: “Thy Nativity, O Christ our God, hath shone to the world the light of knowledge. For thereby those who worshiped the stars were taught by a star to adore Thee, the Sun of Righteousness, and to know Thee the Dayspring from on high. O Lord, glory to Thee!” Besides that, I can say there are certainly meaningful patterns to be found in the stars, but generally speaking astrology has at best a corrupted mode of perceiving them. So, no, I do not think we can use astrology to predict things. Even angels can't know the future without divine revelation, as I've written about elsewhere.
The Lord communicates with us, calls to us, in a hierarchy of ways. Occurrences in nature like this rank lower than the revelation received, for example, through Scripture or through the other traditions of the Church. Insofar as it confirms what we know through surer theological sources, or indicates something that can be confirmed by those sources, we can hold it up and commemorate it — but never so as to eclipse the Gospel truth in our mind's eye.
That said, consider the list of objections the Eastern Church had against Rome at the time of the Great Schism, marked by this supernova, one item of which is opposition to the enforcement of a celibate priesthood. To enforce such a thing is completely to misapprehend the nature of Christ's mission in the world — and the nature of Christ Himself. It may make administration easier; unwed to their communities, priests can be picked up and moved around by the bishops at will. But it thereby sets up a strict dichotomy of clergy and laity that are not wedded with each other. Since the Church is the Body of Christ, made in His likeness, this dichotomy analogically embodies a Nestorian Christology, whereby you have two distinct natures of Christ with no hypostatic unity. (Nestorianism is a common pattern in Western Christianity.)
Now think of Martin Luther. I think we can safely conclude from the evidence that the Lord was calling him to be a married priest. But the Roman Church iniquitously did not offer him that path. The conflict that ensued inside him exploded around him and divided the Western Church into two dialectical halves, one emphasizing unity and one emphasizing plurality. None of this dialectical development would have taken place if not for the problems highlighted by the Eastern Church at the time of the Great Schism. It's all consequent to what happened under the sign of that supernova.
As St Ephrem the Syrian might have said, "nature as scripture":
- “Wherever you turn your eyes, there is God’s symbol; / whatever you read, you will find there His types. / Look and see how Nature and Scripture are linked together. / Praise for the Lord of Nature, glory for the Lord of Scripture.” (Hymns on Paradise)
- “The keys of doctrine that unlock all of Scripture’s books have opened before my eyes the Book of Creation… a book which, above its companions, has in its narrative made the Creator perceptible and transmitted His actions; it has envisioned all His craftsmanship, made manifest His works of art.” (Hymns on Virginity)
Tangential, but what do you think about married bishops? I've always found it a little strange that contemporary practice is at odds with NT prescription. To my knowledge (in terms of material causality, to use your caveat) the reason for bishop's celibacy came from nepotism related to misuse of ecclesiastical property, but I've never thought about the symbolism.
I would not attribute the establishment of a celibate episcopacy to what you said. It was a development in harmony with the Church's own nature once the Church was placed in an approving imperial context. This happens via monasticism as the preeminent witness to the faith in a world that no longer costs you a place in society, or among the living, for believing. The hierarchical distinction between monasticism and marriage I think was always there, but Roman persecution compacted it, in which context married bishops are fine. I think I have a line in my Barbie article that addresses this, why we draw bishops from the monastic ranks. It has to do with the nature of the Christological hierarchy between monasticism and marriage. Marriage requires a principle higher than it to look up to so as not to be merely the engine of a pointless cycle of birth and death. At any rate, it's essential to have a married priesthood to testify to the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of Christ. And under imperial persecution, it's less necessary that outward ecclesiastical form be maintained, seeing as it flows inwardly so much more freely; the point of distinguishing between married and monastic in such a context is moot, as the two interpenetrate each other spiritually. For now we still consecrate bishops in cathedrals, and as long as we're still free to do that (as opposed to underground), those bishops shouldn't be married.
I noticed this coincidence several years ago and was also gobsmacked to realize that the Crab Nebula is ~6500 (plus or minus 1500) light years away from the earth, meaning that it happened at the same time the earth was created according to the Church. So, while it appears utterly desolating to us, we continue to have faith that *all* things have been ordained, even from the creation of the universe by God for the good of those who love Him.
Mind blown! Thank you!
How should we think about astrology , you talk about it being understood epithemetically? So did the wise men who found Christ use knowledge of the stars to find him? Did they know what they would find? Can we use astrology to predict things ?
Hey Jack, that’s a huge topic, and hopefully I can write about it one day. For now it’s best I just quote the main Orthodox hymn for Christmas: “Thy Nativity, O Christ our God, hath shone to the world the light of knowledge. For thereby those who worshiped the stars were taught by a star to adore Thee, the Sun of Righteousness, and to know Thee the Dayspring from on high. O Lord, glory to Thee!” Besides that, I can say there are certainly meaningful patterns to be found in the stars, but generally speaking astrology has at best a corrupted mode of perceiving them. So, no, I do not think we can use astrology to predict things. Even angels can't know the future without divine revelation, as I've written about elsewhere.
This is wild, I don't even know what to do with this information but I'll definitely be thinking about it. (I'm protestant exploring Orthodoxy)
The Lord communicates with us, calls to us, in a hierarchy of ways. Occurrences in nature like this rank lower than the revelation received, for example, through Scripture or through the other traditions of the Church. Insofar as it confirms what we know through surer theological sources, or indicates something that can be confirmed by those sources, we can hold it up and commemorate it — but never so as to eclipse the Gospel truth in our mind's eye.
That said, consider the list of objections the Eastern Church had against Rome at the time of the Great Schism, marked by this supernova, one item of which is opposition to the enforcement of a celibate priesthood. To enforce such a thing is completely to misapprehend the nature of Christ's mission in the world — and the nature of Christ Himself. It may make administration easier; unwed to their communities, priests can be picked up and moved around by the bishops at will. But it thereby sets up a strict dichotomy of clergy and laity that are not wedded with each other. Since the Church is the Body of Christ, made in His likeness, this dichotomy analogically embodies a Nestorian Christology, whereby you have two distinct natures of Christ with no hypostatic unity. (Nestorianism is a common pattern in Western Christianity.)
Now think of Martin Luther. I think we can safely conclude from the evidence that the Lord was calling him to be a married priest. But the Roman Church iniquitously did not offer him that path. The conflict that ensued inside him exploded around him and divided the Western Church into two dialectical halves, one emphasizing unity and one emphasizing plurality. None of this dialectical development would have taken place if not for the problems highlighted by the Eastern Church at the time of the Great Schism. It's all consequent to what happened under the sign of that supernova.
As St Ephrem the Syrian might have said, "nature as scripture":
- “Wherever you turn your eyes, there is God’s symbol; / whatever you read, you will find there His types. / Look and see how Nature and Scripture are linked together. / Praise for the Lord of Nature, glory for the Lord of Scripture.” (Hymns on Paradise)
- “The keys of doctrine that unlock all of Scripture’s books have opened before my eyes the Book of Creation… a book which, above its companions, has in its narrative made the Creator perceptible and transmitted His actions; it has envisioned all His craftsmanship, made manifest His works of art.” (Hymns on Virginity)
Tangential, but what do you think about married bishops? I've always found it a little strange that contemporary practice is at odds with NT prescription. To my knowledge (in terms of material causality, to use your caveat) the reason for bishop's celibacy came from nepotism related to misuse of ecclesiastical property, but I've never thought about the symbolism.
I would not attribute the establishment of a celibate episcopacy to what you said. It was a development in harmony with the Church's own nature once the Church was placed in an approving imperial context. This happens via monasticism as the preeminent witness to the faith in a world that no longer costs you a place in society, or among the living, for believing. The hierarchical distinction between monasticism and marriage I think was always there, but Roman persecution compacted it, in which context married bishops are fine. I think I have a line in my Barbie article that addresses this, why we draw bishops from the monastic ranks. It has to do with the nature of the Christological hierarchy between monasticism and marriage. Marriage requires a principle higher than it to look up to so as not to be merely the engine of a pointless cycle of birth and death. At any rate, it's essential to have a married priesthood to testify to the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of Christ. And under imperial persecution, it's less necessary that outward ecclesiastical form be maintained, seeing as it flows inwardly so much more freely; the point of distinguishing between married and monastic in such a context is moot, as the two interpenetrate each other spiritually. For now we still consecrate bishops in cathedrals, and as long as we're still free to do that (as opposed to underground), those bishops shouldn't be married.
I noticed this coincidence several years ago and was also gobsmacked to realize that the Crab Nebula is ~6500 (plus or minus 1500) light years away from the earth, meaning that it happened at the same time the earth was created according to the Church. So, while it appears utterly desolating to us, we continue to have faith that *all* things have been ordained, even from the creation of the universe by God for the good of those who love Him.
Ha! Good, I'm glad someone else has noticed this and thought about it before!