Fr. Stephen,

Could you explain a bit more what you mean? “Aesthetic” = “concerned with beauty of the appreciation of beauty” (per online dictionary). How is this different from what you are referring to?

I ask because there is some disparaging tone (possibly rightly deserved) about what you call “an aesthetic movement” and I do not know enough history to understand. I do know that what people perceive to be beautiful (and what I have perceived to be beautiful at different stages of life) varies greatly across individuals, cultures and time periods.

But, as seen in the article, Dostoevsky sees it, profoundly. He was amazingly insightful.

PJ, Those are outstanding examples as well. The aesthetics of the 19th century were sheer romanticism. Anglo-Catholicism, when its true history is properly described, was an aesthetic movement. It is, I think, why Newman became a Roman Catholic – he was not an aesthete, but the real thing. I can’t begin to describe the terrible conversations I suffered, and shared, as a High Church Anglican (particularly in my seminary days). The aesthetic judging, the preciousness! It was awful and soul-destroying. I came to loathe it. I can’t bear it when I hear it within Orthodoxy (where it is generally rare but not utterly absent, as it can also be found within Catholicism). Nothing could be a more banal and empty expression of Post-Modernism than a modernist Episcopal liturgy, with all of the medieval trappings and none of the medieval faith.

I have seen plenty of examples of fairly “shabby” vestments on Orthodox priests (especially in the American missions) where we start off with hand-me-downs. I had a set that smelled hundreds of years old (if you get my meaning). But the “shabbiness” (including the make-shift settings we have to use to set up Church in warehouses, store-fronts, etc.), still reveals true beauty – precisely because of that in which it participates! True beauty is never merely on the surface – it is profound and possessed of depth – even infinity. The picture I posted with one of these articles on beauty is of a liturgy in the setting of one of the buildings ravaged by the Soviet period. Yet is beauty is truly profound! Maybe even enhanced for the eye that can see!

I agree. There is a sort of heresy of aestheticism. It’s not uncommon, for instance, among certain liberal and modernistic high church Anglicans, whose liturgies are beautiful but utterly meaningless.

We believe in equality of people before God. We are all sinners and must not judge others. God is merciful even to me ‘the first among sinners’ as we say in our communion prayer. We are all equally undeserving of God’s mercy ,yet we have hope in it. And we have real help in struggling with our sins. We have confession and counsel( not punishment) and communion to heal our diseases. Read St Ephraim’s prayer. God is actively at work within us.
.
If anything can lead a person to humility, it is the hopeful assurance that God Himself is working within us. This is the Prayer of St. Philaret of Moscow

Lord, I do not know what to beg of You;
You alone know what is needed for me.
You love me more than I know
how to love You.
O Father, give to Your slave that for which I do
not even know how to beg.
I do not dare to ask for either a cross
or for consolation;
I am only standing before You
with my heart open to You.
You see my needs, which I do not even know.
See and deal with me according to Your mercy.
Purge and heal me, humble me and raise me;
I am in awe before You
and I am silent before Your will
and unfathomable ways for me.
I am bringing myself as a sacrifice to You;
teach me to pray.
And You,Yourself, pray within me. Amen

Orthodoxy is not legalistic and punitive, but understanding of our frail humanity and our need of healing It may look ritualistic and overly structured, but once you get familiar with it,you find a rich and deep and loving home.

I recommend that you read the Church Fathers. Or listen to the podcast ‘A Word from the Holy Fathers’ on Ancient Faith Radio on the internet. God bless your honest search.