Quote of the Day: Faith and Architecture

 

“We did not know where we were, on heaven or on earth.” — Russian Ambassadors upon visiting Constantinople’s Hagia Sophia in 987

A millennium ago, Prince Vladimir was the leader of the Kievan Rus’, the predecessors of the current Russian state. He was a rather nasty fellow, even among pagan autocrats, but he knew the times were changing. If he wanted to keep his newly conquered country unified, he needed to establish some level of civilized culture.

The first step was to decide on a single faith — not the current fractured collection of gods and the occasional monotheist deity. Time for some comparative religion!

He sent ambassadors to research Islam, the newest religion, which seemed on the rise. The Prince was horrified that Muslims couldn’t consume pork or, even worse, alcohol. What’s life without bacon and a stiff drink? No dice, said the prince.

What about Judaism? Again, the pork ban was a sticking point, but the Prince was more troubled that the Jews had lost their home city, Jerusalem. The warlike leader didn’t want to serve that kind of God.

German Catholics were next on the list, but his ambassadors described it as plain, austere, and dour. (Maybe if they had visited Rome, they would have had a different perspective.) Sounds like a drag, the Prince thought, and he scratched option number three off the list. Only one faith remained, so he sent an embassy to Constantinople.

Byzantine Emperor Basil II rolled out the proverbial red carpet for the ambassadors, inviting them to the Hagia Sophia; in English, “Holy Wisdom.”

The massive church was the most impressive edifice on earth, inspiring awe the world over. Emperor Justinian I commissioned the architectural marvel 450 years earlier, charging the architects with creating a structure unlike anything that had ever existed. Upon completion, the emperor exclaimed, “Solomon, I have outdone thee!” The Hagia Sophia remained the largest cathedral for the next 1,000 years.

The central dome measures more than 100 feet across and stands nearly 200 feet above the floor. Massive chandeliers are suspended above the ground and huge windows draw in sunlight to reflect on the golden walls. Nearly every surface was covered in elaborate icons representing Christ and the saints.

In case the Russian ambassadors weren’t already impressed, the emperor brought them to witness the elaborate Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church. Between the angelic choirs, heady incense, and reverent worship, the Prince’s embassy was astonished:

And we went into the Greek lands, and we were led into a place where they serve their God, and we did not know where we were, on heaven or on earth; and do not know how to tell about this. All we know is that God lives there with people and their service is better than in any other country. We cannot forget that beauty since each person, if he eats something sweet, will not take something bitter afterwards; so we cannot remain any more in paganism.

Upon hearing from his ambassadors, Vladimir sent away his pagan wives, asked to be baptized, and requested that the Emperor’s sister Anna be his bride. She arrived with several priests to further instruct him in his newfound faith.

Vladimir baptized his 12 sons and many among the aristocracy. He destroyed the pagan idols and tossed the statue of the Kievan’s supreme god into a river. Vladimir then told all the residents of Kiev to come to the Dnieper River to be baptized en masse. To this day, the Russian Church remains the largest Orthodox communion on earth.

Now, that is good architecture.

Published in History, Religion & Philosophy
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 42 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    And this is a long video (about an hour) of Kallistos Ware on his conversion.  Well worth it, but long:

    • #31
  2. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    One such work translated to English was translated by none other than @seawriter ‘s brother.

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0884650464/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

     

    Yup – that’s my brother Father George.

    • #32
  3. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    The history of Orthodoxy versus Catholicism is pretty complicated. There are of course two sides of every history. The big difference that I see is that Orthodox Churches tend to be national faiths. For example the Greek Orthodox Church does not recognize the Primacy of the Russian Patriarch, and neither does the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

    The history of resistance against Islam from Constantinople is somewhat overblown. When the Normans were asked to assist the Eastern Emperor against Islam the Normans did all the fighting and dying. At the same time they were betrayed by the court who were negotiating with Islamic forces,  and of course the Emperor was the head of Orthodox Church, much like Henry VIII was head of the Church in England. The Normans decided to sack Constantinople themselves after being betrayed.

    The great victories over Islam, Lepanto, the siege of Malta, the siege of Vienna were due to Rome, not Constantinople.

    • #33
  4. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    For example the Greek Orthodox Church does not recognize the Primacy of the Russian Patriarch, and neither does the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

    That is because the patriarchs are all co-equal.  Orthodoxy is conciliar in nature.  That does make it a bit fractious at times, of course, but also allows each patriarch to be more pastoral and directly involved in his territory.

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    When the Normans were asked to assist the Eastern Emperor against Islam the Normans did all the fighting and dying. At the same time they were betrayed by the court who were negotiating with Islamic forces

    Yes – but why?  You are referring to the siege of Nicea – not long occupied by the Turks at that point (I think only about 10-20 years at the time), and so its population was majority Christian.  The Crusaders were set to loot, plunder, and pillage the city if they took it.  When the crusaders moved on to Antioch, this is what they, in fact, did – spend days looting a predominantly Christian city.  Moreover, the emperor had specifically asked for help, only to learn that the crusaders were not interested in helping, but creating their own domains.

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    The Normans decided to sack Constantinople themselves after being betrayed.

    Betrayed as much by the Venetians and their paymaster Enrico Dandolo.  And then they threw out the Orthodox clerics, installed Latin ones, and set up a puppet kingdom while they set about looting the city and carting everything back west.  When the Byzantines retook the city 50 years later, it was a shell of itself, and for having the audacity to retake what was theirs, they were cut off.

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    The great victories over Islam, Lepanto, the siege of Malta, the siege of Vienna were due to Rome, not Constantinople.

    Only because they occurred after Constantinople had long fallen.  How many times was Constantinople besieged by Arab and Turkish armies in the prior centuries?  Whose navy tried to keep the seas clear and Italy protected from raids from the 600s through the 800s?  

    • #34
  5. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    For example the Greek Orthodox Church does not recognize the Primacy of the Russian Patriarch, and neither does the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

    That is because the patriarchs are all co-equal. Orthodoxy is conciliar in nature. That does make it a bit fractious at times, of course, but also allows each patriarch to be more pastoral and directly involved in his territory.

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    When the Normans were asked to assist the Eastern Emperor against Islam the Normans did all the fighting and dying. At the same time they were betrayed by the court who were negotiating with Islamic forces

    Yes – but why? You are referring to the siege of Nicea – not long occupied by the Turks at that point (I think only about 10-20 years at the time), and so its population was majority Christian. The Crusaders were set to loot, plunder, and pillage the city if they took it. When the crusaders moved on to Antioch, this is what they, in fact, did – spend days looting a predominantly Christian city. Moreover, the emperor had specifically asked for help, only to learn that the crusaders were not interested in helping, but creating their own domains.

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    The Normans decided to sack Constantinople themselves after being betrayed.

    Betrayed as much by the Venetians and their paymaster Enrico Dandolo. And then they threw out the Orthodox clerics, installed Latin ones, and set up a puppet kingdom while they set about looting the city and carting everything back west. When the Byzantines retook the city 50 years later, it was a shell of itself, and for having the audacity to retake what was theirs, they were cut off.

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    The great victories over Islam, Lepanto, the siege of Malta, the siege of Vienna were due to Rome, not Constantinople.

    Only because they occurred after Constantinople had long fallen. How many times was Constantinople besieged by Arab and Turkish armies in the prior centuries? Whose navy tried to keep the seas clear and Italy protected from raids from the 600s through the 800s?

    As I said there are two sides of every history. I would suggest that the Russian Orthodox Church find a Patriarch who does not have a KGB code name. As one Vatican wag said, referring to Kirill, and Putin; “They only know how to be a Chaplain to the Czar whoever he may be.”

     

    • #35
  6. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    As I said there are two sides of every history. I would suggest that the Russian Orthodox Church find a Patriarch who does not have a KGB code name. As one Vatican wag said, referring to Kirill, and Putin; “They only know how to be a Chaplain to the Czar whoever he may be.”

    Oh on that I can agree, at least as regards Kyrill (that being said, I wouldn’t want his job, it would be like being the Pope during WWII).  Other Patriarchs, however, have been far different, like Saint Tikhon.  He stood up to the communists, but before that he was very very active in assisting with communities in the Orthodox diaspora of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    https://orthodoxwiki.org/Tikhon_of_Moscow

     

    • #36
  7. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Fredösphere (View Comment):

    I have loooong regarded Orthodoxy with fascination. But can someone explain the seeming halt in Orthodox expansion? It seems they’ve lost their knack for speaking to cultures not already in their camp. The Orthodox experience in the Americas is especially disappointing.

    This is one of those questions whose answers could fill several books, but I can summarize some of the key ones:

    These things are changing, however. The liturgies are often in English now. There are a number of wonderful Orthodox works now translated into English, and entirely new works authored every year. Ancient Faith Radio is an active and prolific podcasting / internet radio service, with a publishing house as well.

    There are Orthodox missionaries now too coming out of America, but their numbers are small.

    I wonder. A friend went from atheism, after Catholicism, to Orthodoxy. His priest is a convert. almost all the members of the parish are new to the faith. So, I wonder if Orthodoxy, so long as it is seen as orthodoxy, will draw in the unchurched and those fleeing dead and dying Protestant churches? There is a marked contrast between services centered on trite praise songs backed by amplified bands and a formal liturgy.

    • #37
  8. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    I wonder. A friend went from atheism, after Catholicism, to Orthodoxy. His priest is a convert. almost all the members of the parish are new to the faith. So, I wonder if Orthodoxy, so long as it is seen as orthodoxy, will draw in the unchurched and those fleeing dead and dying Protestant churches? There is a marked contrast between services centered on trite praise songs backed by amplified bands and a formal liturgy.

    Half of my parish are converts, including the priest.  One of our deacons used to be a Presbyterian minister.  Those “born into the faith” are nearly all immigrants, or their children.

    But we should be careful to distinguish why people come to faith, and why they stay or change their churches.  There are a number of Protestant churches that are thriving, while others die out.  The same can be said of Catholic and Orthodox churches too.  Service styles are often a factor, but more important still is whether a church is actually tending its flock.  I’ve seen churches who did place such a high emphasis on their music (and their music director’s ego, if I may be so bold) that they lost many many people.  I’ve seen others who, despite not having music to my taste, made every effort to minister to their people.  Lots of factors at play. 

    • #38
  9. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    I wonder. A friend went from atheism, after Catholicism, to Orthodoxy. His priest is a convert. almost all the members of the parish are new to the faith. So, I wonder if Orthodoxy, so long as it is seen as orthodoxy, will draw in the unchurched and those fleeing dead and dying Protestant churches? There is a marked contrast between services centered on trite praise songs backed by amplified bands and a formal liturgy.

    Half of my parish are converts, including the priest. One of our deacons used to be a Presbyterian minister. Those “born into the faith” are nearly all immigrants, or their children.

    But we should be careful to distinguish why people come to faith, and why they stay or change their churches. There are a number of Protestant churches that are thriving, while others die out. The same can be said of Catholic and Orthodox churches too. Service styles are often a factor, but more important still is whether a church is actually tending its flock. I’ve seen churches who did place such a high emphasis on their music (and their music director’s ego, if I may be so bold) that they lost many many people. I’ve seen others who, despite not having music to my taste, made every effort to minister to their people. Lots of factors at play.

    I avoid any Catholic parish that has guitar stands anywhere near the altar. I have six days a week to seek entertainment.

     

    • #39
  10. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    I wonder. A friend went from atheism, after Catholicism, to Orthodoxy. His priest is a convert. almost all the members of the parish are new to the faith. So, I wonder if Orthodoxy, so long as it is seen as orthodoxy, will draw in the unchurched and those fleeing dead and dying Protestant churches? There is a marked contrast between services centered on trite praise songs backed by amplified bands and a formal liturgy.

    Half of my parish are converts, including the priest. One of our deacons used to be a Presbyterian minister. Those “born into the faith” are nearly all immigrants, or their children.

    But we should be careful to distinguish why people come to faith, and why they stay or change their churches. There are a number of Protestant churches that are thriving, while others die out. The same can be said of Catholic and Orthodox churches too. Service styles are often a factor, but more important still is whether a church is actually tending its flock. I’ve seen churches who did place such a high emphasis on their music (and their music director’s ego, if I may be so bold) that they lost many many people. I’ve seen others who, despite not having music to my taste, made every effort to minister to their people. Lots of factors at play.

    I avoid any Catholic parish that has guitar stands anywhere near the altar. I have six days a week to seek entertainment.

     

    My parents’ parish church now has, I think, 5 masses from Saturday through Sunday.  Some are traditional, some have bongos and guy in a flannel shirt playing guitar.  They always aim for the traditional masses.

    • #40
  11. Jon Gabriel, Ed. Contributor
    Jon Gabriel, Ed.
    @jon

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    As I said there are two sides of every history. I would suggest that the Russian Orthodox Church find a Patriarch who does not have a KGB code name. As one Vatican wag said, referring to Kirill, and Putin; “They only know how to be a Chaplain to the Czar whoever he may be.”

    I’ve attended Greek and Antiochian services, but have avoided Russian Orthodox for that reason. I’m sure there are many fine priests and congregations, but the official structure seems too cozy with Putin.

    • #41
  12. milkchaser Member
    milkchaser
    @milkchaser

    Judge Mental (View Comment):
    A closer parallel to your previous comment would be to berate them for not having female combat troops and embracing the gay lifestyle, or even for using single shot muskets when M-16s would be so much more effective.

    Gosh, I don’t see that at all. In my mind, the analogy is that the people forced into a religion without choice were suffering and the Continental soldiers serving at Valley Forge were victims of the weather and privation. We might be sympathetic to both.

    My criticism is of the tyrant, not the people forced to pretend to believe as he chose for them.

    • #42
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.