loss of grace

[Suaidan]

Well, I can understand signing yourself if you're walking by a church containing the relics of pre-schism, Orthodox saints, that just happens now to be a RC Church, certainly if the church itself pre-dates the schism. Signing yourself just before any church, though, seems odd to me. Perhaps you are acknowledging the image of the Cross that you find on most churches. Doing it just because it is the prevailing custom doesn't seem very Orthodox behavior, however, and I find it hard to believe that St John would do something like that just to conform to the heretical society he was living in.

Do you have any evidence concerning why St John did this, or are we just speculating pointlessly?

I would venture we are speculating pointlessly, but since this occurred, I believe in France, it is worth noting that a great number of the major Churches of France are to my knowledge pre-schism in origin. If Saint John checked Westminster Abbey, I would be very surprised if he wasn't interested in what relics were available and where in France.

That said, I would rather assume that there were genuine relics somewhere in a Church that venerated relics and leave it at that. If you aren't going in to check (and if they are RC, you probably shouldn't anyway), I don't see a reason why-- in our increasingly secular society, we absolutely shouldn't make a sign of the cross passing an RC Church (since there are so few Orthodox Churches to begin with) making a positive assumption. I say this because the opposite (shucking our tradition altogether, except for the few Churches we are sure are Orthodox) is to in practice almost never say the sign of the cross before a church at all, guaranteeing the loss of another pious tradition. Or do we make the sign passing NC churches? What's the difference? A heretical schismatic is a heretical schismatic. So I assume we shouldn't cross ourselves there either. Or should we--because they look like us? How about uniate churches?

All I am saying is that (and this is just my opinion, and I am not speaking for anyone else here) is that we begin to lose our sense of the sacred around us when we begin to start trying to whittle down the number of places we have to make the sign of the cross. I think that says less about grace, relics and demons inside the building than it does say about ourselves.

[jgress]

Well, if confessors of the True Orthodox Church told their spiritual children to avoid even looking at schismatic churches (there was a Russian Catacomb saint I think who did this, can't remember who), I think that raises some questions about your position. I didn't totally understand what you were talking about, but I think you're trying to say that we should make the sign of the cross out of veneration for holy objects and places, regardless of whether the people attending that church are in the True Church or not. I see your point But at the same time you have to recognize that just because there are holy icons or relics in a church does not mean God is continuing to send down his Holy Spirit on the mysteries being performed there. It's not just holy objects that make a Church, you also need living people, and what those people confess determines the ecclesial status of that church.

So I guess we can't conclude very much about when to sign yourself when passing a heretical church, and when not to. If St John did it, I would say he offers a pretty good example of Orthodox praxis in other respects, so it's probably all right to follow him in this respect, providing that you are doing it out of respect for the holy things contained in the church.

It is hardly surprising that our sense of the sacred is hindered by the times and places we live in. Our society is barely even Christian anymore, let alone Orthodox, let alone True Orthodox. Certainly a way to counter that is to make the sign of the cross frequently: at meals, at work, getting up and going to bed, all that stuff. Trying to be aware of genuinely sacred things that we encounter is also important. But I don't think we should take this as an excuse to let ecumenism in through the backdoor, treating heretical and Orthodox churches as if they were just the same. The fact that most Christian denominations are under siege in some way is one of the main psychological factors driving ecumenism, the idea that we need to forget our differences to face the common enemy. The only enemy, however, is betrayal of the Truth itself.

[Suaidan]

Well, if confessors of the True Orthodox Church told their spiritual children to avoid even looking at schismatic churches (there was a Russian Catacomb saint I think who did this, can't remember who), I think that raises some questions about your position.

I'd have to see the quote. I've often heard not going inside. But looking is new.

I didn't totally understand what you were talking about, but I think you're trying to say that we should make the sign of the cross out of veneration for holy objects and places, regardless of whether the people attending that church are in the True Church or not. I see your point But at the same time you have to recognize that just because there are holy icons or relics in a church does not mean God is continuing to send down his Holy Spirit on the mysteries being performed there.

Did I ever imply I believed this?

It's not just holy objects that make a Church, you also need living people, and what those people confess determines the ecclesial status of that church.... But I don't think we should take this as an excuse to let ecumenism in through the backdoor, treating heretical and Orthodox churches as if they were just the same. The fact that most Christian denominations are under siege in some way is one of the main psychological factors driving ecumenism, the idea that we need to forget our differences to face the common enemy. The only enemy, however, is betrayal of the Truth itself.

I think you are reading way too many things into what I said that I didn't say. Ecumenism should never become a "catch-all" excuse for a general decline of our spiritual awareness of the world around us. The simple fact is that St John made the sign of the cross passing Papal churches and so your "quote" of the New Martyrs and discussions of ecumenism are condemnations of his behavior, not mine (most of the time I don't cross myself in front of Papal churches unless I call to mind St John) though he can unfortunately not defend himself on this list.

And-- I am being frank here-- I think the idea that St John was simply guarding himself from the demons residing in Papist churches sounds absolutely twisted. This is what Jehovah's Witnesses teach about non-witness churches (thus I can scare most away by simply opening the door of my chapel). If we can only see things in dark tones, without recognizing any good anywhere except amongst "ourselves and our own" (NOT GOD AND HIS OWN, but ourselves and our own) then we have already opened another door that most True Orthodox must equally guard themselves from opening-- that of sectarianism.

And that saddens me, because no matter what is insinuated of me because of it, I can-- and will-- make the sign of the cross anywhere I feel obliged to do and we should never feel afraid to say it because of ecumenism, sectarianism, whatever.

[jgress]

It's quite possible I misunderstood your real points. But thanks for clearing up that you did not intend to argue that crossing yourself in front of heretical churches implied any endorsement of heresy. I suppose it follows from this that you don't think St John intended any such thing either.

However, I never really understood what you thought St John's real reasons for doing so were. At first you seemed to be saying it was because RC Churches contained relics of true Saints, unlike Westminster Abbey. Later, however, you seemed to be suggesting that one should cross oneself in front of a heretical church simply because it is SOME kind of church, even if not Orthodox, and any church will do in our secular days, implying that this was the reason St John did so, too. I had to take objection to that, since it did seem to be introducing ecumenism through the backdoor, and I find it hard to believe, absent evidence to the contrary, that St John crossed himself in front of RC churches simply because heretical churches were "good enough".

I suppose it would be good to know if St John crossed himself before any RC Church, or just some ones, and if he ever gave a reason. The very fact that this behavior of his was recorded implies that somebody noticed it, thought it was curious and remembered it or wrote it down. If others thought it curious, I imagine St John knew people would find it curious and have some explanation ready for it.

I don't think it's about whether or not you should make the sign of the Cross. I find it hard, almost impossible to imagine a situation where it would be WRONG to make the sign of the Cross (with the exception of certain times in the divine services, when such an action might distract other worshipers, e.g. during the Six Psalms). But I think it is sometimes valid to consider the reason for doing so. You say you cross yourself before any Church, Orthodox or heretical, because you believe a great saint did so, without really knowing the reason. Well, if that's all there is to it, it seems a fairly pious motive. If you do so because you believe all churches are equal, regardless of doctrine, well then that's not a good reason to do so.

The argument that we need to be more aware of the sacred, I think, is a very good one. But we should be careful about how we act on this argument. You warn about sectarianism; I warn about syncretism. To be quite honest, I think syncretism is by far the greater spiritual danger today. Yes, there are sects and cults, but the vast majority of people fall into the opposite extreme.

[Suaidan]

It's quite possible I misunderstood your real points. But thanks for clearing up that you did not intend to argue that crossing yourself in front of heretical churches implied any endorsement of heresy. I suppose it follows from this that you don't think St John intended any such thing either.

I am at a loss. I realize that some on the board think I am some sort of closet ecumenist and that I would actually defend endorsing heresy. But you seem to be intent on implying that I was in some way unclear when anyone reading this exchange as it stands could see otherwise. That said, it could always be changed later.

However, I never really understood what you thought St John's real reasons for doing so were. At first you seemed to be saying it was because RC Churches contained relics of true Saints, unlike Westminster Abbey.

That would be half correct, as I believe I noted this was speculation.

Later, however, you seemed to be suggesting that one should cross oneself in front of a heretical church simply because it is SOME kind of church, even if not Orthodox, and any church will do in our secular days, implying that this was the reason St John did so, too.

No, I never said anything of the sort. Assuming the first premise above (some RC Churches contain true relics) I said that the sense of the sacred is preserved if we assume the best of these spaces without going into great detail. I never said they were "some kind of church", or that "would do", or anything of the sort. Further, I flatly denied your implication (out of nowhere) that it was suggested that there are true mysteries in false churches. You've made a lot of assumptions and implications about my beliefs and things I've said, and I haven't said them.

I had to take objection to that, since it did seem to be introducing ecumenism through the backdoor, and I find it hard to believe, absent evidence to the contrary, that St John crossed himself in front of RC churches simply because heretical churches were "good enough".

I never implied such a thing, but I would never take it to the other insane extreme that he was protecting himself from demons that had made their home in the buildings.

I suppose it would be good to know if St John crossed himself before any RC Church, or just some ones, and if he ever gave a reason. The very fact that this behavior of his was recorded implies that somebody noticed it, thought it was curious and remembered it or wrote it down. If others thought it curious, I imagine St John knew people would find it curious and have some explanation ready for it.

I have no answer.

You say you cross yourself before any Church, Orthodox or heretical, because you believe a great saint did so, without really knowing the reason. Well, if that's all there is to it, it seems a fairly pious motive.

No, I don't, and I didn't. This discussion is taking a truly disappointing turn because you seem intent on putting words in my mouth. I would advise you to reread what I wrote. If St John made the sign of the cross before a mosque (and I don't believe he'd ever do that) I wouldn't do that (of course he probably wouldn't be a saint then either).

If you do so because you believe all churches are equal, regardless of doctrine, well then that's not a good reason to do so.

One can get away with many wrongs by qualifying with the word "if". And I further note that anything that takes one away from the Church is just as much from the devil, regardless of personal preference.

I have little interest in continuing, particularly if I have to answer for what appears to be another round of intentional misquotation of my own words. I am sorry I chimed in with my opinion. I get the distinct sense that perhaps it's not welcome here anymore (not that I would know why or anything.) Honestly, there are much bigger things on my plate right now; this is an unwelcome distraction.

[jgress]

Here is the original post that set this confusion off:

"That said, I would rather assume that there were genuine relics somewhere in a Church that venerated relics and leave it at that. If you aren't going in to check (and if they are RC, you probably shouldn't anyway), I don't see a reason why-- in our increasingly secular society, we absolutely shouldn't make a sign of the cross passing an RC Church (since there are so few Orthodox Churches to begin with) making a positive assumption. I say this because the opposite (shucking our tradition altogether, except for the few Churches we are sure are Orthodox) is to in practice almost never say the sign of the cross before a church at all, guaranteeing the loss of another pious tradition. Or do we make the sign passing NC churches? What's the difference? A heretical schismatic is a heretical schismatic. So I assume we shouldn't cross ourselves there either. Or should we--because they look like us? How about uniate churches?"

While at the beginning you seem to be arguing that this is about the relics, by the end of the paragraph it is no longer clear that this is your main argument. Instead it seems to be "sign the cross before any church since otherwise we'll lose the tradition". You rightly note that signing yourself in front of a mosque is clearly wrong. But if it's just a heretical church, then it's ok? No, it's clear now that is not what you intended, but the way you phrased things led to the misunderstanding. You have a tendency to be unclear, I might add, which invites misunderstanding. Make sure your arguments are clear and coherent and you will avoid this kind of grief.

Some mosques do have relics of saints, by the way, such as the Umayyad mosque in Damascus, which contains relics of St John the Forerunner. But those are the exception rather than the rule.

[Suaidan]

Here is the original post that set this confusion off:

"That said, I would rather assume that there were genuine relics somewhere in a Church that venerated relics and leave it at that. If you aren't going in to check (and if they are RC, you probably shouldn't anyway), I don't see a reason why-- in our increasingly secular society, we absolutely shouldn't make a sign of the cross passing an RC Church (since there are so few Orthodox Churches to begin with) making a positive assumption. I say this because the opposite (shucking our tradition altogether, except for the few Churches we are sure are Orthodox) is to in practice almost never say the sign of the cross before a church at all, guaranteeing the loss of another pious tradition. Or do we make the sign passing NC churches? What's the difference? A heretical schismatic is a heretical schismatic. So I assume we shouldn't cross ourselves there either. Or should we--because they look like us? How about uniate churches?"

While at the beginning you seem to be arguing that this is about the relics, by the end of the paragraph it is no longer clear that this is your main argument. Instead it seems to be "sign the cross before any church since otherwise we'll lose the tradition".

What you left out of the argument, of course, was the beginning-- is that in France, where I understand this occurred, a great number of the RC churches-- certainly the major ones-- in fact were pre-schism and thus had pre-schism relics. My point is that if you consistently put the ideological-religious position of the worshippers in the building where there are perfectly good relics, and use that as the criteria for determining when to make the sign of the cross we either become in practice (a) inconsistent or (b) forced only to make the cross before churches of our own tiny jurisdictions.

You rightly note that signing yourself in front of a mosque is clearly wrong. But if it's just a heretical church, then it's ok?

AGAIN! No, I said that it's possible (and I believe) that St John was showing reverence towards relics in the RC churches. Not any heretical church indiscriminately, and I am sure that you understand the difference. I personally find it hard to believe that distinction is lost on you.

No, it's clear now that is not what you intended, but the way you phrased things led to the misunderstanding. You have a tendency to be unclear, I might add, which invites misunderstanding. Make sure your arguments are clear and coherent and you will avoid this kind of grief.

I think I was quite clear. Nowhere did I state a number of the things that you implied were present in my arguments. I have a feeling I will not avoid this kind of grief for some other underlying reason.

Some mosques do have relics of saints, by the way, such as the Umayyad mosque in Damascus, which contains relics of St John the Forerunner. But those are the exception rather than the rule.

Show me a map so I know which ones I should cross myself in front of. Of course, the foregoing is probably enough to accuse me of wanting to cross myself in front of all the mosques so I should probably note that was sarcasm.

Ah, precision. We use it sometimes when we want to avoid the heart of an issue. If something is not explicitly stated, we can play games with it.

I really don't have much else to say here. If I defend myself against the charge of ecumenism, you will say I am unclear, and therefore (a) could be an ecumenist or (b) could be an idiot.

I'm sick of this discussion. Thanks.