Topic: About Classical music

[IoanC]

Kontoglou's sharp division between secular and ecclesiastic art is wrong. Even St. John Klimakos disagrees: For lovers of God are moved to gladness, to divine love and to tears both by worldly and by spiritual songs; but lovers of pleasure to the opposite.

That you are moved by two different things is one thing; that you actually believe they are on the same level is another. And St. John does make the distinction between worldly and spiritual.

[Iconodule]

Kontoglou's sharp division between secular and ecclesiastic art is wrong. Even St. John Klimakos disagrees: For lovers of God are moved to gladness, to divine love and to tears both by worldly and by spiritual songs; but lovers of pleasure to the opposite.

That you are moved by two different things is one thing; that you actually believe they are on the same level is another. And St. John does make the distinction between worldly and spiritual.

The distinction is not the same. It is one thing to say they are distinct and of different levels, and another to say that their purposes are completely separate. Kontoglou argues that secular art expresses (and, by implication, inspires) only carnal emotions. By his reasoning secular music could only inspire carnal love, not divine love as St. John says.

[IoanC]

The distinction is not the same. It is one thing to say they are distinct and of different levels, and another to say that their purposes are completely separate. Kontoglou argues that secular art expresses (and, by implication, inspires) only carnal emotions. By his reasoning secular music could only inspire carnal love, not divine love as St. John says.

I will just offer more quotes from The Fathers, and everybody can draw their own conclusions:

CHRYSOSTOM "David formerly sang songs, also today we sing hymns. He had a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but much more in accordance with piety. Here there is no need for the cithara, or for stretched strings, or for the plectrum, or for art, or for any instrument; but, if you like, you may yourself become a cithara, mortifying the members of the flesh and making a full harmony of mind and body. For when the flesh no longer lusts against the Spirit, but has submitted to its orders and has been led at length into the best and most admirable path, then will you create a spiritual melody."

CLEMENT "Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and intent on their idol worshipping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wingless feasts, for they arc more suited for beasts and for the class of men that is least capable of reason than for men. The Spirit, to purify the divine liturgy from any such unrestrained revelry chants: 'Praise Him with sound of trumpet," for, in fact, at the sound of the trumpet the dead will rise again; praise Him with harp,' for the tongue is a harp of the Lord; 'and with the lute. praise Him.' understanding the mouth as a lute moved by the Spirit as the lute is by the plectrum; 'praise Him with timbal and choir,' that is, the Church awaiting the resurrection of the body in the flesh which is its echo; 'praise Him with strings and organ,' calling our bodies an organ and its sinews strings, for front them the body derives its Coordinated movement, and when touched by the Spirit, gives forth human sounds; 'praise Him on high-sounding cymbals,' which mean the tongue of the mouth which with the movement of the lips, produces words. Then to all mankind He calls out, 'Let every spirit praise the Lord,' because He rules over every spirit He has made. In reality, man is an instrument arc for peace, but these other things, if anyone concerns himself overmuch with them, become instruments of conflict, for inflame the passions. The Etruscans, for example, use the trumpet for war; the Arcadians, the horn; the Sicels, the flute; the Cretans, the lyre; the Lacedemonians, the pipe; the Thracians, the bugle; the Egyptians, the drum; and the Arabs, the cymbal. But as for us, we make use of one instrument alone: only the Word of peace by whom we a homage to God, no longer with ancient harp or trumpet or drum or flute which those trained for war employ." (Clement of Alexandria, 190AD The instructor, Fathers of the church, p. 130)

EUSEBIUS "Of old at the time those of the circumcision were worshipping with symbols and types it was not inappropriate to send up hymns to God with the psalterion and cithara and to do this on Sabbath days... We render our hymn with a living psalterion and a living cithara with spiritual songs. The unison voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument. Accordingly in all the churches of God, united in soul and attitude, with one mind and in agreement of faith and piety we send up a unison melody in the words of the Psalms." (commentary on Psalms 91:2-3)

CLEMENT "Moreover, King David the harpist, whom we mentioned just above, urged us toward the truth and away from idols. So far was he from singing the praises of daemons that they were put to flight by him with the true music; and when Saul was Possessed, David healed him merely by playing the harp. The Lord fashioned man a beautiful, breathing instrument, after His own imaged and assuredly He Himself is an all-harmonious instrument of God, melodious and holy, the wisdom that is above this world, the heavenly Word." … "He who sprang from David and yet was before him, the Word of God, scorned those lifeless instruments of lyre and cithara. By the power of the Holy Spirit He arranged in harmonious order this great world, yes, and the little world of man too, body and soul together; and on this many-voiced instruments of the universe He makes music to God, and sings to the human instrument. "For thou art my harp and my pipe and my temple"(Clement of Alexandria, 185AD, Readings p. 62)

"Do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, by singing among yourselves psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." - Apostle Paul

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, as you teach and admonish each other in all wisdom by singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." - Apostle Paul

"Through psalmodizing the turbulence and roughness and disorder in the soul is smoothed away and sadness is overcome." - Saint Athanasios the Great

"Nothing, nothing uplifts the soul so much, and gives it wings, and liberates it from the earth, and releases it from the fetters of the body, and makes it aspire after wisdom and deride all the cares of this life, as the melody of unison and rhythm-possessing sacred songs." - Saint John Chrysostom

"Psalmody, long-suffering, and compassion stop the agitation of anger." - Evagrios the Monk
 
"Psalmody puts the passions to sleep and stills the intemperence of the body." - Saint Neilos the Ascetic
 
"Sometimes suitable psalmody extinguishes anger in a most successful manner." - Saint John Klimakos
 
"According to the Fathers, psalmody is a weapon against evil thoughts." - Saint John Klimakos
 
"God is peace, beyond all tumult and shouting.  Our hymns, accordingly, ought to be angelic, without tumult." - Saint Gregory of Sinai

"A noble horse, when it begins to run, becomes warmed up, and the more it runs the more it is wont to run.  Now by running I mean hymnody, and by the noble horse I mean the mind (nous), which sensing [spiritual] warfare from afar and being prepared [by means of hymnody], remains always invincible." - Saint John Klimakos
 
"The Fathers of the Church, in accordance with the example of the psalmodizing of our Savior and the holy Apostles, established that only vocal music be used in the churches and severely forbade instrumental music as being secular and hedonistic, and in general as evoking pleasure without spiritual value." - George Papadopoulos

"Byzantine melody, holding the very ancient tradition,...always proceeds on one line of sounds (monophonic) and does not employ a harmony in various tones (polyphonic), as is done in the case of European music.  Hence, even when many chant together, they chant exactly the same sounds - there are not different lines of melody, with different tones." - D. G. Panagiotopoulos

"Byzantine Music may or may not be the music of the ancient Greeks, but it is all we know and all that exists from the ancients.  For us, however, if it is not the music of the Greeks then it is the music of the angels."  - Alexandros Papadiamandis
 

[PeterTheAleut]

The distinction is not the same. It is one thing to say they are distinct and of different levels, and another to say that their purposes are completely separate. Kontoglou argues that secular art expresses (and, by implication, inspires) only carnal emotions. By his reasoning secular music could only inspire carnal love, not divine love as St. John says.

I will just offer more quotes from The Fathers, and everybody can draw their own conclusions:

...

A few notes on your selections from the Fathers:
1. Most of these passages focus on the use of instrumental music in church. Recognizing our practice of not using instruments in church, however, the OP asked us specifically to focus our comments on the value of instrumental music outside of church. Very little of what you shared with us addresses that subject.
2. What little you shared that does address music outside of church speaks specifically of vocal music (i.e. singing, specifically of Psalms), the value of which no one is questioning. You haven't shared anything, though, that speaks badly of instrumental music outside of church.
3. The third-to-last quote you presented (from George Papadopoulos), the one that can be interpreted as speaking most clearly against instrumental music in or out of church, is merely a summary of patristic teachings made by a man whom we don't even consider a Father in and of himself. Therefore, I would counsel you and everyone else here to take his comment with a large teaspoon of salt, for he has not the same authority as the Fathers.
4. The last two quotes are merely comments on Byzantine music, the former a musicological analysis and the latter a statement of one's personal love for Byzantine music. There's nothing at all patristic in these two quotes.

In the end, I have to conclude that nothing you've presented from the Fathers condemns the use and enjoyment of instrumental music outside of church, the subject the OP wants us to discuss.

[IoanC]

The distinction is not the same. It is one thing to say they are distinct and of different levels, and another to say that their purposes are completely separate. Kontoglou argues that secular art expresses (and, by implication, inspires) only carnal emotions. By his reasoning secular music could only inspire carnal love, not divine love as St. John says.

I will just offer more quotes from The Fathers, and everybody can draw their own conclusions:

...

A few notes on your selections from the Fathers:
1. Most of these passages focus on the use of instrumental music in church. Recognizing our practice of not using instruments in church, however, the OP asked us specifically to focus our comments on the value of instrumental music outside of church. Very little of what you shared with us addresses that subject.
2. What little you shared that does address music outside of church speaks specifically of vocal music (i.e. singing, specifically of Psalms), the value of which no one is questioning. You haven't shared anything, though, that speaks badly of instrumental music outside of church.
3. The third-to-last quote you presented (from George Papadopoulos), the one that can be interpreted as speaking most clearly against instrumental music in or out of church, is merely a summary of patristic teachings made by a man whom we don't even consider a Father in and of himself. Therefore, I would counsel you and everyone else here to take his comment with a large teaspoon of salt, for he has not the same authority as the Fathers.
4. The last two quotes are merely comments on Byzantine music, the former a musicological analysis and the latter a statement of one's personal love for Byzantine music. There's nothing at all patristic in these two quotes.

In the end, I have to conclude that nothing you've presented from the Fathers condemns the use and enjoyment of instrumental music outside of church, the subject the OP wants us to discuss.

But, there is no "outside The Church". When you go to Church you are one person, and when you come home a different one? Don't we go to Church so that we bring home what we learn there?

[PeterTheAleut]

The distinction is not the same. It is one thing to say they are distinct and of different levels, and another to say that their purposes are completely separate. Kontoglou argues that secular art expresses (and, by implication, inspires) only carnal emotions. By his reasoning secular music could only inspire carnal love, not divine love as St. John says.

I will just offer more quotes from The Fathers, and everybody can draw their own conclusions:

...

A few notes on your selections from the Fathers:
1. Most of these passages focus on the use of instrumental music in church. Recognizing our practice of not using instruments in church, however, the OP asked us specifically to focus our comments on the value of instrumental music outside of church. Very little of what you shared with us addresses that subject.
2. What little you shared that does address music outside of church speaks specifically of vocal music (i.e. singing, specifically of Psalms), the value of which no one is questioning. You haven't shared anything, though, that speaks badly of instrumental music outside of church.
3. The third-to-last quote you presented (from George Papadopoulos), the one that can be interpreted as speaking most clearly against instrumental music in or out of church, is merely a summary of patristic teachings made by a man whom we don't even consider a Father in and of himself. Therefore, I would counsel you and everyone else here to take his comment with a large teaspoon of salt, for he has not the same authority as the Fathers.
4. The last two quotes are merely comments on Byzantine music, the former a musicological analysis and the latter a statement of one's personal love for Byzantine music. There's nothing at all patristic in these two quotes.

In the end, I have to conclude that nothing you've presented from the Fathers condemns the use and enjoyment of instrumental music outside of church, the subject the OP wants us to discuss.

But, there is no "outside The Church". When you go to Church you are one person, and when you come home a different one? Don't we go to Church so that we bring home what we learn there?

I didn't say, "outside THE Church". I said, "outside of church", which most people here understand to mean "outside the communal worship of the local church" (i.e., at home, at work, in our day-to-day lives, etc.). I have no idea what you're talking about now.

[Shiny]

Honestly I don't like alot of classical music. Stravinsky I do find a kinship in. Of course Beethoven is brilliant. Maybe I do like it but haven't given it much thought.

Now back to listening to the Sex Pistols.

[IoanC]

I didn't say, "outside THE Church". I said, "outside of church", which most people here understand to mean "outside the communal worship of the local church" (i.e., at home, at work, in our day-to-day lives, etc.). I have no idea what you're talking about now.

Outside of Church, same thing. What you do in Church should define what you do outside. The Church is the Tradition of Heaven. What, you deify yourself in Church, just so you can delve right back into wordliness? Up to each one of us, but to me it defeats the purpose of calling The Church  -- The Ark of Salvation, or having a Holy Tradition that we preserve and even die for; Or, God offers you His Joy, and you go back and seek  pleasures.

[Hiwot]

The distinction is not the same. It is one thing to say they are distinct and of different levels, and another to say that their purposes are completely separate. Kontoglou argues that secular art expresses (and, by implication, inspires) only carnal emotions. By his reasoning secular music could only inspire carnal love, not divine love as St. John says.

I will just offer more quotes from The Fathers, and everybody can draw their own conclusions:

...

A few notes on your selections from the Fathers:
1. Most of these passages focus on the use of instrumental music in church. Recognizing our practice of not using instruments in church, however, the OP asked us specifically to focus our comments on the value of instrumental music outside of church. Very little of what you shared with us addresses that subject.
2. What little you shared that does address music outside of church speaks specifically of vocal music (i.e. singing, specifically of Psalms), the value of which no one is questioning. You haven't shared anything, though, that speaks badly of instrumental music outside of church.
3. The third-to-last quote you presented (from George Papadopoulos), the one that can be interpreted as speaking most clearly against instrumental music in or out of church, is merely a summary of patristic teachings made by a man whom we don't even consider a Father in and of himself. Therefore, I would counsel you and everyone else here to take his comment with a large teaspoon of salt, for he has not the same authority as the Fathers.
4. The last two quotes are merely comments on Byzantine music, the former a musicological analysis and the latter a statement of one's personal love for Byzantine music. There's nothing at all patristic in these two quotes.

In the end, I have to conclude that nothing you've presented from the Fathers condemns the use and enjoyment of instrumental music outside of church, the subject the OP wants us to discuss.

But, there is no "outside The Church". When you go to Church you are one person, and when you come home a different one? Don't we go to Church so that we bring home what we learn there?

forgive me for this example, but I do not sing lullabies to the kids in Church, nor do I sing the national anthem in Church, nor do I read my history books or books by Dostoyevsky in Church, you understand where I am getting at right? I think that is what Peter is referring to, if I write a poem about the beauty of a green field for instance, does it mean I will can not appreciate it without risking being divided, unless it is in a liturgical music of the church?

I agree with you as we all agree, that we must remain one person in our life in and outside the church services,  we must avoid that which separates us from Christ and causes us to sin. the question then becomes what are those activities that we might not practice as part of the church services however still can use to appreciate the beauty of the created world and our creative potential to glorify God in our day to day life.

Peace  

[PeterTheAleut]

I didn't say, "outside THE Church". I said, "outside of church", which most people here understand to mean "outside the communal worship of the local church" (i.e., at home, at work, in our day-to-day lives, etc.). I have no idea what you're talking about now.

Outside of Church, same thing. What you do in Church should define what you do outside.

Of course it does. I just don't think we agree on what that means. I, for one, don't take this to mean that I should constantly be singing the doxology at work the same way we sing it in church; rather, I see this as an exhortation to make even my work a doxology in and of itself. It's not possible for me to punctuate my work with the seven or so liturgical prayers that are prescribed in our daily cycle of prayer, but I can make my work a prayer. Likewise, I don't see what you say as an exhortation to listen to nothing but church music while I'm at home, at work, on the road, etc.

The Church is the Tradition of Heaven. What, you deify yourself in Church, just so you can delve right back into wordiness?

Yes, my posts do tend to be exercises in wordiness, but I understand what you're saying (I think). Why such the strict dichotomy between churchliness and "worldliness", though? Is the Holy Spirit not capable of transforming something "worldly" and using it as a means to lift our hearts toward heaven?

Up to each one of us, but to me it defeats the purpose of calling The Church  -- The Ark of Salvation, or having a Holy Tradition that we preserve and even die for; Or, God offers you His Joy, and you go back and seek  pleasures.

But who, other than you and those whose writings you have cherry picked for this discussion, is saying that listening to classical music is purely an exercise in seeking carnal pleasure?

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.  ~ Philippians 4:8

Who says that these good and honorable things can only be found in the communal worship of our local churches? Who says that it's impossible for such excellence to be found in classical, instrumental music?

[IoanC]

It is not a dichotomy. Photios didn't say secular music is evil in itself (well, it can be). It's not a matter of which is better, but which is higher, closer to God. So, different levels of the evolution of the soul. And by the way, why exactly do you question the authority of a very well respected iconographer who also endured the test of time? But, if you want to argue with him, I can't stop you. Here is another quote from Mystic Zion:

"Byzantine art (techni) is for me the art of arts. I believe in it as I do religion. I do not deny this, but it even gives me great pleasure when, most of the time, someone uses it as an accusation. Only this art nurtures my soul with its deep and mysterious powers, it quenches the thirst which I feel in the dry desert which surrounds us. Next to Byzantine Art, all other art seems to me light, “distracted by many things,” while only “one thing is needful.” That one thing, when it is perceived by someone, it is understood.

Many times I question myself how man was made worthy by divine grace to reach the unteachable, to express the inexpressible, and to express it with means so practical and simple: neither vain wisdom, neither foresight, neither false transcendence with soft delicateness, neither sentimentalism, theatrical and meaningless. Everything is serious, contemplative enough, mystical worlds revealed under phenomenal worthlessness and simpleness. A trigger descends to the depths of the oceans of the soul and, at the moment when most think it cannot descend another fathom, it reaches a world no one can measure. “Let no profane hand touch” (Canon of the Feast of the Annunciation; Ninth Ode, First Troparion.) Whoever does not understand that mysterious language “setting aside all worldly cares,” will not understand even till the end of his life. The root of his soul will remain dry of the dew of heaven.

The sweetness of this art is apocalyptic. Men who have need of triviality, cannot find anything other than—would be—rational comments, about crooked feet, unnatural bodies and the such, but how can its deep human content, which is the holy of holies, be weighed with such means? And when they praise it, then they say the worst, idiotic comments, generalities."

http://www.psalticnotes.com/articles/zion/zion.html

[PeterTheAleut]

It is not a dichotomy. Photios didn't say secular music is evil in itself (well, it can be). It's not a matter of which is better, but which is higher, closer to God. So, different levels of the evolution of the soul. And by the way, why exactly do you question the authority of a very well respected iconographer who also endured the test of time?

Well respected... by whom? Endured the test of time... He died not even 50 years ago, and I suppose very few people have heard of him, compared to how many venerate the memory of a contemporary who died only one year later: St. John Maximovitch. (I know I'd never heard of Photios Kontoglou until today.) I'm not sure, then, why you grant Mr. Kontoglou so much authority.

BTW, you evidently don't understand what a dichotomy is. A dichotomy isn't a declaration that something is evil. A dichotomy is rather a division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups--in this case, the two mutually exclusive and (IYO) opposite groups "church music" vs. "secular music".

But, if you want to argue with him, I can't stop you.

Yes, I do argue with him, especially considering that his dichotomy between "church music" and "secular music" and his assertion that secular music is incapable of expressing spiritual feelings are just flat wrong.

[IoanC]

It is not a dichotomy. Photios didn't say secular music is evil in itself (well, it can be). It's not a matter of which is better, but which is higher, closer to God. So, different levels of the evolution of the soul. And by the way, why exactly do you question the authority of a very well respected iconographer who also endured the test of time?

Well respected... by whom? Endured the test of time... He died not even 50 years ago, and I suppose very few people have heard of him, compared to how many venerate the memory of a contemporary who died only one year later: St. John Maximovitch. (I know I'd never heard of Photios Kontoglou until today.) I'm not sure, then, why you grant Mr. Kontoglou so much authority.

BTW, you evidently don't understand what a dichotomy is. A dichotomy isn't a declaration that something is evil. A dichotomy is rather a division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups--in this case, the two mutually exclusive and (IYO) opposite groups "church music" vs. "secular music".

But, if you want to argue with him, I can't stop you.

Yes, I do argue with him, especially considering that his dichotomy between "church music" and "secular music" and his assertion that secular music is incapable of expressing spiritual feelings are just flat wrong.

What secular music evokes spiritual feelings? Give an example.
I totally agree with him; secular music cannot evoke spiritual feelings because it doesn't even know what they are. Do you know? You have to be a purified and deified Saint to be an authority. All Saints have driven Church Tradition into what we know as Byzantine art (which by the way is quite complex and big).  Why would God offer such an inheritance with such clear directions?
The reason it's hard to find quotes from Saints that talk about secular music is that they were too busy with what they were doing rather than what they were not doing (it's not easy to follow what the whole world is doing either). Not saying secular music is not beautiful on its own level, that man is not honestly seeking something high. It's not really a dichotomy, it's something interesting, I believe. The thing is byzantine music contains a lot of elements that secular music does, but on a higher, transcended, more refined level. It's really sad, if one listens to Byz music and doesn't realize that those are God's own masterpieces. Many Saints and Elders have talked about the subject, if one is interested there's stuff out there.

[PeterTheAleut]

It is not a dichotomy. Photios didn't say secular music is evil in itself (well, it can be). It's not a matter of which is better, but which is higher, closer to God. So, different levels of the evolution of the soul. And by the way, why exactly do you question the authority of a very well respected iconographer who also endured the test of time?

Well respected... by whom? Endured the test of time... He died not even 50 years ago, and I suppose very few people have heard of him, compared to how many venerate the memory of a contemporary who died only one year later: St. John Maximovitch. (I know I'd never heard of Photios Kontoglou until today.) I'm not sure, then, why you grant Mr. Kontoglou so much authority.

BTW, you evidently don't understand what a dichotomy is. A dichotomy isn't a declaration that something is evil. A dichotomy is rather a division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups--in this case, the two mutually exclusive and (IYO) opposite groups "church music" vs. "secular music".

But, if you want to argue with him, I can't stop you.

Yes, I do argue with him, especially considering that his dichotomy between "church music" and "secular music" and his assertion that secular music is incapable of expressing spiritual feelings are just flat wrong.

What secular music evokes spiritual feelings? Give an example.

You ever listen to J. S. Bach's St. Matthew Passion?
 

I totally agree with him; secular music cannot evoke spiritual feelings because it doesn't even know what they are. Do you know? You have to be a purified and deified Saint to be an authority.

Then Photios Kontoglou must be a purified and deified saint, since you quote him as an authority on this subject.

All Saints have driven Church Tradition into what we know as Byzantine art (which by the way is quite complex and big).

I guess that rules out the whole Slavic tradition of liturgical music and iconography that developed in the second milennium, together with all the saints Russia and the Slavic lands have produced.

Why would God offer such an inheritance with such clear directions?

I don't know. I'm still hoping you'll make this clear to me.

The reason it's hard to find quotes from Saints that talk about secular music is that they were too busy with what they were doing rather than what they were not doing (it's not easy to follow what the whole world is doing either).

Au contraire! Many of our greatest teacher saints were very well versed in the "worldly" arts and were not afraid to use them as a means of communicating the Gospel and high theology.

Not saying secular music is not beautiful on its own level, that man is not honestly seeking something high. It's not really a dichotomy, it's something interesting, I believe. The thing is byzantine music contains a lot of elements that secular music does, but on a higher, transcended, more refined level. It's really sad, if one listens to Byz music and doesn't realize that those are God's own masterpieces. Many Saints and Elders have talked about the subject, if one is interested there's stuff out there.

I'm not saying anything bad about Byzantine music. In fact, I like it for the very reasons you state. Your love for Byzantine music isn't being argued or disparaged here. What is being argued here, once again, is your assertion that "secular" classical music has no place in the life of the Orthodox Christian.

[IoanC]

--That piece by Bach is sentimental, carnal.
--Photios must be a Saint if he is such an authority, but I was referring to the Saints who were teaching us to approach God through psalmody (of whom many I quoted). But you have not listed any spiritual feelings.
--Don't know what Slavic tradition you mean, but if it is the choral stuff that is made up (not inspired) according to secular influences, then it is not the actual music of The Church, but a vainglorious innovation.
--Not sure what is not clear to you, that byz music is our Tradition, and that Tradition is the life of the Church, not just in the church building, but always?
--Just because saints were versed in worldly affairs, doesn't mean they didn't leave worldliness behind, and I don't think you can find any saint who produced a secular piece of art (after becoming a saint, not earlier in his life, or during his purification).
--Not saying secular music has no place in the life of a Christian, just that it loses its value as one sees the riches of the music of the Church. Just like a child, when he grows up, he doesn't want to turn back into a child; childhood seems too simple and mundane for him, not that he hates it. With me, as with Photios, I find that secular music is coarse, heavy and unsuitable to the most fine, fragile, movements of the heart, there's a lot of death in it, just like Apostle Paul was saying -- it evokes feelings of worldly grief, even though it may not seem to, whereas byz music always evokes hope even when Christ dies on the Cross. That's another thing about byz music--it is music of the heart, of pure love, whereas secular appeals mostly to the mind, the senses and the appetites.

[PeterTheAleut]

--That piece by Bach is sentimental, carnal.

You're willing to elevate your personal opinion to the level of absolute truth? By what absolute standards are you able to judge Bach's work sentimental and carnal?

--Photios must be a Saint if he is such an authority, but I was referring to the Saints who were teaching us to approach God through psalmody (of whom many I quoted). But you have not listed any spiritual feelings.

None of the patristic quotes you cited teach us to approach God solely through Psalmody. None of the patristic quotes you cited teach us that we should spend so much of our time listening to Byzantine chant that we have no time for listening to anything else. Please do try to keep on topic.

--Don't know what Slavic tradition you mean, but if it is the choral stuff that is made up (not inspired) according to secular influences, then it is not the actual music of The Church, but a vainglorious innovation.

Again, your personal judgment, and one for which you have provided no patristic evidence.

--Not sure what is not clear to you, that byz music is our Tradition, and that Tradition is the life of the Church, not just in the church building, but always?

Byzantine music is NOT our sole musical tradition, and I challenge you to give us patristic evidence that it is.

--Just because saints were versed in worldly affairs, doesn't mean they didn't leave worldliness behind, and I don't think you can find any saint who produced a secular piece of art (after becoming a saint, not earlier in his life, or during his purification).

Okay. So what? Care to prove yourself right? (You do know that what you say flies right in the face of our early patristic tradition of using Greek philosophy as a way to articulate the Gospel, a tradition that started with St. Paul's preaching and with St. John the Theologian's identification of Christ with the Logos in the first chapter of his Gospel, was developed by St. Justin Martyr, and culminated with the first four ecumenical councils and their developments of such concepts as hypastasis, ousios, and homoousios?)

BTW, it's easy to argue that no saint ever produced a secular piece of art after becoming a saint. All you have to do is call everything he produced sacred by mere virtue of the fact that it was a saint who produced it. That, however, is a logical fallacy that many here will see right through and call BS.

--Not saying secular music has no place in the life of a Christian, just that it loses its value as one sees the riches of the music of the Church.

But that's not the point of this thread.

Just like a child, when he grows up, he doesn't want to turn back into a child; childhood seems too simple and mundane for him, not that he hates it. With me, as with Photios, I find that secular music is coarse, heavy and unsuitable to the most fine, fragile, movements of the heart, there's a lot of death in it,

Okay, if you feel that way, then don't listen to classical music. No one's forcing you to do so, especially since we recognize that each person has his own taste in music and his own reasons for those tastes.

just like Apostle Paul was saying -- it evokes feelings of worldly grief, even though it may not seem to, whereas byz music always evokes hope even when Christ dies on the Cross.

That's a purely subjective statement with which many here will disagree. Just take personal ownership of your subjective opinions and stop trying to elevate them to the level of dogma.

That's another thing about byz music--it is music of the heart, of pure love, whereas secular appeals mostly to the mind, the senses and the appetites.

Prove it.

[Hiwot]

well said Peter


my Dear Ioanc, if Bach is too sentimental for you,or carnal, do not read the song of Songs lol you will be scandalised. lol

thats all I am gonna say except perhaps add this...

<< Psalm 150 >>
King James Version   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.
2Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.

3Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.

4Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.

5Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.

6Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.
 

[dzheremi]

I like many secular/non-religious songs and artists. You can't tell me that no Russian Orthodox person ever listened to Vysotsky or Bulat Okudzhava, or that Syriacs can't also enjoy the folk repertoire of Jalil Maiilo (who was also a priest). And even if none of them enjoy such (or will admit it), they don't have to, because I do. Whatever happened to "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath"? Are we really going to argue amongst ourselves about such petty issues? I could understand it if the songs were spiritually harmful (and, I dunno...maybe some people will now come up with some texts that prove all the artists I just listed are irrevocably damned to hell), but for classical music or traditional folk music, is there some problem with it just because it's not always written or performed by church people, even though it clearly wasn't made in that context to begin with?

I guess I do not understand this mentality that says that every form of art that is made outside of the strict confines of the church is bad, especially considering how we often extol our forefathers for showing the true missionary zeal and genius to adapt those features of the cultures they preached to for heavenly ends, e.g., the discussion that goes on in Coptic circles about the various pre-Christian origins of the Coptic melodies. Clearly if the theories that say that those melodies came from ancient pagan rites are true, then their adapters didn't have this "eww, it's not from the Church, run away from it!" idea that is sometimes popular now. And especially now that our modes of worship are relatively set (i.e., we know what is appropriate for a hymn, both musically and textually), shouldn't we, if we care so much for Church, want to keep certain music to enjoy outside of the Church? I mean, I love Lebanese dabke (the giant mustaches really add to the awesomeness), but I don't want to hear it in church. Ever. At all. I don't even want to hear it around church. But that doesn't mean that I don't thoroughly enjoy it. What's the problem with that?

[IoanC]

I will end this discussion here. Peter, you have not even read the quotes from The Fathers. They all talk about no longer using the ways of this world, and the new way of worshiping God. I am surprised you don't know that our Tradition is Byzantine and has been developing for 2000 years. Maybe you should visit an authentic monastery, or see what they are doing on Mount Athos and why they renounced the world. If you are happy with the cliche, "in the world we cannot live as monks", it's true, but you still have to leave the world behind while you fulfill your duties to the world (in a Christian manner).

I did not steer this thread off topic!  The author was wondering about the difference between classical (which falls under secular) and why The Fathers seemed to talk against it. Well, I offered various quotes from The Fathers and Photios. It's not so much that they are against worldly music, but that they have been instructed by God to a new way of life which also is not compatible with secular influences. Peter, again, you are trying to over-impose your own beliefs, but you have not offered anything of substance in the name of Orthodoxy. I, on the other hand, am trying to confess the Faith, and do so with fear, knowing that this can influence what people believe about God and His Church.

For those interested in Byzantine Music, they can watch this video, and they will see that, at least, I am not alone in my beliefs, if quotes from Fathers and the testimony of our Tradition is not enough: http://youtu.be/ORaox7klCrM

[IoanC]

well said Peter


my Dear Ioanc, if Bach is too sentimental for you,or carnal, do not read the song of Songs lol you will be scandalised. lol

thats all I am gonna say except perhaps add this...

<< Psalm 150 >>
King James Version  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.
2Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.

3Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.

4Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.

5Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.

6Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.
 

Hiwot, are you speaking in the name of Orthodoxy or your Ethiopian Church. No offense, but it makes a ton of difference.
The quotes form The Fathers that I posted, do say that the way of The Old Testament (psalm you quoted) is no longer in effect. The Kingdom of Heaven is a higher reality (even than The Garden of Eden), and it is only accomplished through union with Christ in The Holy Spirit. That's why Orthodoxy may seem strange; it is indeed not something that man alone can reach by use of his mind or powers. God's own Grace is necessary to be lifted up to such an understanding. People who do not believe in Orthodoxy as The Way of life have not understood the true meaning of our relationship with God; they still cling to the way of the world without realizing that they fall under the spell of fear, selfish desire, sentimentalism, idolatry, etc.

[pengupk]

I must say that in a way I agree with IoanC and in a way I don't.

It is the same thing that when we "eat and drink" eucharist, it is different than when we eat our normal food. Those things that have been created by God such as music can work as good things by themselves. But they are not holy or spiritual in the same way as liturgical music is. Both are good. Otherwise we have dualistic world-view which is against the whole main point of christianity. But I must also say that we as christians, should be always aiming as much as we can for the spiritual world and as Seraphim of Platina has said, we can use also the "secular" for our benefit as christians. Both are good gifts from our God. As the Fathers quoted many "secular" philosophists and poetry, as well we can use music to support our spiritual life.

As St Paul said "The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."

There is no law against music that brings us love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control and at the same time we must always be "worried" about our spiritual life and not let any "wordly" pleasures take the place of God and Spirit in us.

I'm sorry if this topic is making us fight against each other, I don't feel that it is worth such a worldly, fleshly thing.

God bless us all.

[IoanC]

It is the same thing that when we "eat and drink" eucharist, it is different than when we eat our normal food. Those things that have been created by God such as music can work as good things by themselves. But they are not holy or spiritual in the same way as liturgical music is. Both are good.

Perhaps, you have not had a chance to read all my posts, but I have addressed this. There is no conflict, and God forbid we fight over something like this. You are not forbidden to listen to secular music; and it doesn't mean that man is not seeking beauty and spirituality in it.
But, if you want to compare, byzantine music transcends secular music, it is indeed a new Way, just like The New Testament is the entrance into The Kingdom of Heaven (beyond The Garden of Eden). Also, byzantine music contains all the elements secular music does, but in a more refined way that one cannot imagine; it is a Mystery that God has to lead us into. So, while I understand while some may be offended, it also has to be told that the way God sees things is often very different than what we are used to in this fallen world.  

[PeterTheAleut]

I will end this discussion here. Peter, you have not even read the quotes from The Fathers. They all talk about no longer using the ways of this world, and the new way of worshiping God.

Yes, I have read them, every one of them, and quite thoroughly. They just don't say what you think they say.

I am surprised you don't know that our Tradition is Byzantine and has been developing for 2000 years.

I am aware that you say our Tradition is Byzantine, but I cannot agree with what you say, since doing so would invalidate the Tradition as it developed in Slavic Orthodoxy. BTW, I asked for patristic evidence to support your claim that our Tradition is Byzantine; so far, you have not fulfilled my request.

Maybe you should visit an authentic monastery, or see what they are doing on Mount Athos and why they renounced the world. If you are happy with the cliche, "in the world we cannot live as monks", it's true, but you still have to leave the world behind while you fulfill your duties to the world (in a Christian manner).

I did not steer this thread off topic!  The author was wondering about the difference between classical (which falls under secular) and why The Fathers seemed to talk against it. Well, I offered various quotes from The Fathers and Photios. It's not so much that they are against worldly music, but that they have been instructed by God to a new way of life which also is not compatible with secular influences. Peter, again, you are trying to over-impose your own beliefs, but you have not offered anything of substance in the name of Orthodoxy. I, on the other hand, am trying to confess the Faith, and do so with fear, knowing that this can influence what people believe about God and His Church.

For those interested in Byzantine Music, they can watch this video, and they will see that, at least, I am not alone in my beliefs, if quotes from Fathers and the testimony of our Tradition is not enough: http://youtu.be/ORaox7klCrM

Again, since nothing you quoted from the Fathers supports your implication that we should listen only to Byzantine liturgical music through the course of our daily lives, I can only conclude that it's merely your opinions you are trying to exalt to the level of dogma.

[PeterTheAleut]

--Don't know what Slavic tradition you mean, but if it is the choral stuff that is made up (not inspired) according to secular influences, then it is not the actual music of The Church, but a vainglorious innovation.

Are you familiar with the tradition of Znamenny chant that was born and developed in ancient Russia before the Westernization mandated by Tsar Peter the [not so] Great? This chant tradition is very similar to the Byzantine tradition from which it inherited many elements, particular its use of a melismatic melody on top of an underlying ison. Here is a good place to start your study of the ancient body of Znamenny chant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Znamenny_chant (Personally, I do prefer this Znamenny Chant over much of the four-part Imperial Court Chant that was introduced into Russian Orthodox worship during the time of the Romanov Dynasty, the choral stuff you call a vainglorious imitation of secular music.)

[PeterTheAleut]

BTW, even though Fr. Seraphim of Platina rarely ever listened to classical music during his years as a monk, he advocated the use of classical music in the formation of children and youths, recognizing how important classical music was to his own pre-monastic formation.

[IoanC]

BTW, even though Fr. Seraphim of Platina rarely ever listened to classical music during his years as a monk, he advocated the use of classical music in the formation of children and youths, recognizing how important classical music was to his own pre-monastic formation.

Fr. Seraphim said it was better to listen to classical music rather than other styles in the formation of children, but not that it is necessary.  However, it is clear that towards the end of his life he gave up classical music in favor of "the music of Heaven" (what would that be? we can all wonder).

Regarding your other post, I had already said that it is not a sin to listen to secular music. I don't know how you understood that I am commanding people to only listen to byzantine.  For this reason, I want to end the discussion, and for the fact that, in my view, you are not discussing on a decent enough level -- you do understand (or don't want to) what The Fathers are saying in those quotes, you are not presenting anything other than your own views, you do not believe that it can be proven that our Tradition is only Byzantine (what, you don't even know that ?!), you keep talking about various trends/innovations that may or may not be Orthodox, and you argue against myself,  Photios and The Fathers. I have not argued, I have only presented, and you jumped on me. If you want to argue against Photios, what are you credentials and how long have you been accepted by The Church for your work for Her? He may not be a glorified Saint, but people are going to trust in what he says 10 times more than what you have to say...

[PeterTheAleut]

BTW, even though Fr. Seraphim of Platina rarely ever listened to classical music during his years as a monk, he advocated the use of classical music in the formation of children and youths, recognizing how important classical music was to his own pre-monastic formation.

Fr. Seraphim said it was better to listen to classical music rather than other styles in the formation of children, but not that it is necessary.  However, it is clear that towards the end of his life he gave up classical music in favor of "the music of Heaven" (what would that be? we can all wonder).

Of course he did! He was a monk. You and I are not monks--at least I know I'm not a monk, I don't know about you. As non-monastics, we're not required to give up the good things we find in the world.

Regarding your other post, I had already said that it is not a sin to listen to secular music. I don't know how you understood that I am commanding people to only listen to byzantine.

Implications... You say

• Secular music arouses carnal emotions, while church music arouses spiritual emotions.
• "What you do in Church should define what you do outside. The Church is the Tradition of Heaven. What, you deify yourself in Church, just so you can delve right back into worldliness?"

How else can anyone draw from these statements any conclusion other than the conclusion that we should listen only to church music in our day-to-day lives outside of church?

[IoanC]

• "What you do in Church should define what you do outside. The Church is the Tradition of Heaven. What, you deify yourself in Church, just so you can delve right back into worldliness?"

How else can anyone draw from these statements any conclusion other than the conclusion that we should listen only to church music in our day-to-day lives outside of church?

Well, you don't need to listen to secular music. If you do it's up to you, and it's your own risk if you think it can equal Byz music in approaching God; actually, the real danger is attachment to the things of the world, and music is an offshoot of that. Again, not trying to promote fear; just asking, if one says that Byz music is truly Holy and Perfect and a product of God Himself, then you wonder why exactly one would choose something different? Now, if you say that secular music is equal to Byz music, I dare to disagree, and it's not so much that I am tying to defend it, but that it's simply not true. The world is simply not on the same level with Orthodoxy, no matter how close or refined it may try to be. If you think about it, why would God even try? He came to rescue us from the world, to offer a New Way, He actually built it for 2000 years, and now turn around and say that Salvation is just as possible in the world, that it doesn't really make that big a difference. Then why invest so much heart and blood in a Tradition of its own? It's not a perfect argument, I know,and you'll probably say so, but these are at least some serious questions that one needs to ask. My last attempt to shed some light by re-quoting The Fathers, instead of negating things, it's more important and of universal value (not just in the church building) what The Fathers do affirm, what they teach us to do, period --

CHRYSOSTOM "David formerly sang songs, also today we sing hymns. He had a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but much more in accordance with piety. Here there is no need for the cithara, or for stretched strings, or for the plectrum, or for art, or for any instrument; but, if you like, you may yourself become a cithara, mortifying the members of the flesh and making a full harmony of mind and body. For when the flesh no longer lusts against the Spirit, but has submitted to its orders and has been led at length into the best and most admirable path, then will you create a spiritual melody."

CLEMENT "Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and intent on their idol worshiping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wingless feasts, for they arc more suited for beasts and for the class of men that is least capable of reason than for men. The Spirit, to purify the divine liturgy from any such unrestrained revelry chants: 'Praise Him with sound of trumpet,"for, in fact, at the sound of the trumpet the dead will rise again; praise Him with harp,' for the tongue is a harp of the Lord; 'and with the lute. praise Him.' understanding the mouth as a lute moved by the Spirit as the lute is by the plectrum; 'praise Him with timbal and choir,' that is, the Church awaiting the resurrection of the body in the flesh which is its echo; 'praise Him with strings and organ,' calling our bodies an organ and its sinews strings, for front them the body derives its Coordinated movement, and when touched by the Spirit, gives forth human sounds; 'praise Him on high-sounding cymbals,' which mean the tongue of the mouth which with the movement of the lips, produces words. Then to all mankind He calls out, 'Let every spirit praise the Lord,' because He rules over every spirit He has made. In reality, man is an instrument arc for peace, but these other things, if anyone concerns himself overmuch with them, become instruments of conflict, for inflame the passions. The Etruscans, for example, use the trumpet for war; the Arcadians, the horn; the Sicels, the flute; the Cretans, the lyre; the Lacedemonians, the pipe; the Thracians, the bugle; the Egyptians, the drum; and the Arabs, the cymbal. But as for us, we make use of one instrument alone: only the Word of peace by whom we a homage to God, no longer with ancient harp or trumpet or drum or flute which those trained for war employ." (Clement of Alexandria, 190AD The instructor, Fathers of the church, p. 130) (yes, you will want to avoid such connotation; they may be obvious to you, but others  may think that the Church is related to these things)

EUSEBIUS "Of old at the time those of the circumcision were worshipping with symbols and types it was not inappropriate to send up hymns to God with the psalterion and cithara and to do this on Sabbath days... We render our hymn with a living psalterion and a living cithara with spiritual songs. The unison voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument. Accordingly in all the churches of God, united in soul and attitude, with one mind and in agreement of faith and piety we send up a unison melody in the words of the Psalms." (commentary on Psalms 91:2-3)

CLEMENT "Moreover, King David the harpist, whom we mentioned just above, urged us toward the truth and away from idols. So far was he from singing the praises of daemons that they were put to flight by him with the true music; and when Saul was Possessed, David healed him merely by playing the harp. The Lord fashioned man a beautiful, breathing instrument, after His own imaged and assuredly He Himself is an all-harmonious instrument of God, melodious and holy, the wisdom that is above this world, the heavenly Word." … "He who sprang from David and yet was before him, the Word of God, scorned those lifeless instruments of lyre and cithara. By the power of the Holy Spirit He arranged in harmonious order this great world, yes, and the little world of man too, body and soul together; and on this many-voiced instruments of the universe He makes music to God, and sings to the human instrument. "For thou art my harp and my pipe and my temple"(Clement of Alexandria, 185AD, Readings p. 62)

"Do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, by singing among yourselves psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." - Apostle Paul

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, as you teach and admonish each other in all wisdom by singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." - Apostle Paul

"Through psalmodizing the turbulence and roughness and disorder in the soul is smoothed away and sadness is overcome." - Saint Athanasios the Great

"Nothing, nothing uplifts the soul so much, and gives it wings, and liberates it from the earth, and releases it from the fetters of the body, and makes it aspire after wisdom and deride all the cares of this life, as the melody of unison and rhythm-possessing sacred songs." - Saint John Chrysostom
 
"The Fathers of the Church, in accordance with the example of the psalmodizing of our Savior and the holy Apostles, established that only vocal music be used in the churches and severely forbade instrumental music as being secular and hedonistic, and in general as evoking pleasure without spiritual value." - George Papadopoulos


[/list]

[PeterTheAleut]

• "What you do in Church should define what you do outside. The Church is the Tradition of Heaven. What, you deify yourself in Church, just so you can delve right back into worldliness?"

How else can anyone draw from these statements any conclusion other than the conclusion that we should listen only to church music in our day-to-day lives outside of church?

Well, you don't need to listen to secular music. If you do it's up to you, and it's your own risk if you think it can equal Byz music in approaching God; actually, the real danger is attachment to the things of the world, and music is an offshoot of that.

If you think that the call to detach ourselves from the things of this world requires a complete separation from and disdain for "secular" culture, then go ahead and separate yourself from the world and live your life as a monk. Most of us, however, are not called to do that and can still draw some benefit from listening to "secular" music. Does "secular" music communicate as well our spiritual desire for God, our contrition and repentance, as does church music? Probably not. I've never argued that it does. However, except for those of us who have separated themselves from the world to pursue the angelic life of the monastery, we live in the world and are exposed to the products of its culture daily, for better or for worse. Since we don't spend every hour of every day in church, we often have to glean whatever good we can find in secular culture and cling to that as much as we can between church services. And yes, though it can only do so imperfectly, as compared to the perfect expression of church music, "secular" music is capable of expressing the same deeper spiritual emotions that church music expresses. I don't need to read those Fathers or modern day saints who support me to know this, for I know this from personal experience.

Again, not trying to promote fear; just asking, if one says that Byz music is truly Holy and Perfect and a product of God Himself, then you wonder why exactly one would choose something different?

Have you read what I posted about Znamenny Chant?

I also wonder how extensively Byzantine Chant,  in its own development, drew upon the music of the secular culture surrounding the Church. I'd be willing to bet it did so a lot more than you would like to think. The Church did not grow up in a vacuum.

Now, if you say that secular music is equal to Byz music, I dare to disagree, and it's not so much that I am tying to defend it, but that it's simply not true.

Never said it is true. My concern has never been that you exalt Byzantine music (or church music in general) to a level higher than that of "secular" music, since I do the same myself. My concern has always been that you see no room for any other kind of music in the daily life of the non-monastic Orthodox Christian.

The world is simply not on the same level with Orthodoxy, no matter how close or refined it may try to be.

Of course not, but the world is not totally devoid of truth, either.

If you think about it, why would God even try? He came to rescue us from the world, to offer a New Way, He actually built it for 2000 years, and now turn around and say that Salvation is just as possible in the world, that it doesn't really make that big a difference. Then why invest so much heart and blood in a Tradition of its own? It's not a perfect argument, I know,and you'll probably say so, but these are at least some serious questions that one needs to ask. My last attempt to shed some light by re-quoting The Fathers, instead of negating things, it's more important and of universal value (not just in the church building) what The Fathers do affirm, what they teach us to do, period --

Merely repeating the same patristic quotes you posted before, this time with all the fancy colors to highlight what YOU want us to see in them, is not going to change the fact that they just don't support your argument that Byzantine music is of such power and truth that we should listen to nothing else.

[IoanC]

Peter, again you are accusing me of things I have not said. You are saying "fancy colors", but that's just an excuse for you to block out what I was saying. Why don't you take those quotes that I highlighted and give us your understanding of them?

[PeterTheAleut]

Peter, again you are accusing me of things I have not said.

I'm not accusing you of saying anything you haven't stated explicitly in any of your posts. I am merely calling attention to the logical implications of what you have said. Again, refer back to the analysis of your statements I posted in Reply #71.

To recap that post, let me expand upon it a bit. You have said the following things in the following replies:

From Reply #41:

From Photios Kontoglou:

"Music is of two kinds (as are the other arts also)—secular and ecclesiastical. ... Secular music expresses worldly (i.e., carnal) feelings and desires. ... However, spiritual feelings are expressed only by ecclesiastical music. ... Ecclesiastical music can also evoke feelings of praise, thanksgiving, and holy enthusiasm. Secular music, on the other hand—even the purest—expresses carnal emotions, even when it is inspired by suffering and affliction. This type of suffering, Paul calls "worldly grief," which "worketh death." [3]

Thus two kinds of music were formed, the secular, which arouses emotion—any kind of emotion—and ecclesiastical music, which evokes contrition. ...

From Reply #52:

What you do in Church should define what you do outside. The Church is the Tradition of Heaven. What, you deify yourself in Church, just so you can delve right back into wordliness? Up to each one of us, but to me it defeats the purpose of calling The Church  -- The Ark of Salvation, or having a Holy Tradition that we preserve and even die for; Or, God offers you His Joy, and you go back and seek  pleasures.

From Reply #59:

Not saying secular music has no place in the life of a Christian, just that it loses its value as one sees the riches of the music of the Church. Just like a child, when he grows up, he doesn't want to turn back into a child; childhood seems too simple and mundane for him, not that he hates it. With me, as with Photios, I find that secular music is coarse, heavy and unsuitable to the most fine, fragile, movements of the heart, there's a lot of death in it, just like Apostle Paul was saying -- it evokes feelings of worldly grief, even though it may not seem to, whereas byz music always evokes hope even when Christ dies on the Cross. That's another thing about byz music--it is music of the heart, of pure love, whereas secular appeals mostly to the mind, the senses and the appetites.

From Reply #63:

I am surprised you don't know that our Tradition is Byzantine and has been developing for 2000 years. Maybe you should visit an authentic monastery, or see what they are doing on Mount Athos and why they renounced the world. If you are happy with the cliche, "in the world we cannot live as monks", it's true, but you still have to leave the world behind while you fulfill your duties to the world (in a Christian manner).

I acknowledge that you have never called secular music evil in and of itself, and I recognize that you have never commanded anyone to not listen to secular music. I have also never accused you of doing either of these two things. I do recognize, however, the logical implications of what you have said. The only logical conclusion I can draw from your statements is that Byzantine church music is superior to secular music and that we should therefore devote our time and attention to listening only to Byzantine church music in our daily lives. THIS is the only accusation (if you wish to call it that) that I am making.

You are saying "fancy colors", but that's just an excuse for you to block out what I was saying.

You cannot read my mind, so please don't tell me that I said something merely as an excuse for not doing something else. I have read your patristic quotes, and I have processed them. I just disagree with your interpretation of them.

Why don't you take those quotes that I highlighted and give us your understanding of them?

I already did. See Reply #48. For your benefit, though, I will summarize my key points:

1. Most of the passages you quote speak of why we do not use instrumental music in our liturgical worship.
2. Those passages that speak of music outside of church speak of the value of singing Psalms, but they say nothing good or bad about "secular" singing or instrumental music outside of our liturgical worship.
3. George Papadopoulos is not a holy Father, so we should take nothing he says as having any dogmatic authority whatsoever.

[IoanC]

Please, take the quotes themselves from The Fathers that I highlighted and interpret them (forget the one that is not from a father, but really, you tend to disagree with everybody). Maybe I am not seeing something, but the quotes talk about Christ Himself putting away the old way of making music, and taking up a new one. It's in The Bible, too. You mean to say that He didn't really mean to do that, that He actually went back to instrumental (and its implications, which contradict the spirit of byzantine music)? Can you blame one for imitating Christ, and doing what The Fathers are doing? And by the way The Saints did not just use byzantine in church, but always. Is it ok to follow their example, if nothing else convinces one's mind that they were simply loving the art more than any other?

[PeterTheAleut]

Please, take the quotes themselves from The Fathers that I highlighted and interpret them (forget the one that is not from a father, but really, you tend to disagree with everybody). Maybe I am not seeing something, but the quotes talk about Christ Himself putting away the old way of making music, and taking up a new one. It's in The Bible, too. You mean to say that He didn't really mean to do that, that He actually went back to instrumental (and its implications, which contradict the spirit of byzantine music)? Can you blame one for imitating Christ, and doing what The Fathers are doing? And by the way The Saints did not just use byzantine in church, but always. Is it ok to follow their example, if nothing else convinces one's mind that they were simply loving the art more than any other?

For one, you are still ignoring my request that you consider Znamenny chant. Frankly, your insistence on lauding the glory of Byzantine chant in the face of my repeated references to a very similar Znamenny chant tradition is rather insulting to those millions of Orthodox who have grown up in the Slavic churches.

You're also ignoring Byzantine chant's roots in the secular music of pre-Christian Greece, which is touched upon in the following articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_music#Origins_and_early_Christian_period

http://www.liturgica.com/html/Byzantine_Chant.jsp

http://stanthonysmonastery.org/music/History.htm

[pengupk]

If I just ask that what do you Peter and IoanC think that how should we as christians not living in monastery do our professions? Are there some jobs that are more "christian" and better for you? That was my original question. I think we all agree that there is good music and bad music and that music for church is better for your spiritual life than, for example Sex Pistols. However, I must also ask from IoanC that what does he think of us working in "secular" music? Are we somehow promoting something evil? Or good? This I would just want to know. And if it is somehow not as good as byzantine music, why should have God give us such a gift? I've read some bits of Fathers and I also know that the quotes you gave are just some. There are also quotes about the good of music. And to Peter I must say that I also think that somehow IoanC is right also. In todays world the music sometimes takes over the place of God and worship and that disgusts me as a musician. Music should praise God, not money or the composer or musician himself.

[IoanC]

If I just ask that what do you Peter and IoanC think that how should we as christians not living in monastery do our professions? Are there some jobs that are more "christian" and better for you? That was my original question. I think we all agree that there is good music and bad music and that music for church is better for your spiritual life than, for example Sex Pistols. However, I must also ask from IoanC that what does he think of us working in "secular" music? Are we somehow promoting something evil? Or good? This I would just want to know. And if it is somehow not as good as byzantine music, why should have God give us such a gift? I've read some bits of Fathers and I also know that the quotes you gave are just some. There are also quotes about the good of music. And to Peter I must say that I also think that somehow IoanC is right also. In todays world the music sometimes takes over the place of God and worship and that disgusts me as a musician. Music should praise God, not money or the composer or musician himself.

I believe that if one works in secular music, it's a matter of spiritual discernment if one continues, or may decide to do something else, such as joining a monastery. Every individual is different and his life is different also. If for one person it puts food on a table, I don't think it's wrong to continue; at any rate, it wouldn't be wise to simply drop everything good that you've worked for an entire life. For such matters it's best to seek the advice of an experienced spiritual father, or more, to compare answers. If one continues the profession, he should strive to perfect himself, and as much as he can his art also, so that people glorify God in what he is doing. My argument was not that secular music/profession it's a sin; I was mostly trying to affirm what Byz music is. Like I said, byzantine music contains all the elements that good secular music does, but on a higher, different and holy level. The two are not in contradiction when secular music applies the rules of asceticism and stays away from sin.

[PeterTheAleut]

If I just ask that what do you Peter and IoanC think that how should we as christians not living in monastery do our professions? Are there some jobs that are more "christian" and better for you? That was my original question. I think we all agree that there is good music and bad music and that music for church is better for your spiritual life than, for example Sex Pistols. However, I must also ask from IoanC that what does he think of us working in "secular" music? Are we somehow promoting something evil? Or good? This I would just want to know. And if it is somehow not as good as byzantine music, why should have God give us such a gift? I've read some bits of Fathers and I also know that the quotes you gave are just some. There are also quotes about the good of music. And to Peter I must say that I also think that somehow IoanC is right also. In todays world the music sometimes takes over the place of God and worship and that disgusts me as a musician. Music should praise God, not money or the composer or musician himself.

I may say more on this later, but I'm in process of shifting to another responsibility at the moment. Let me just say briefly, as an instrumental musician myself, that I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments you express in the final three sentences of your above post. Even in my "secular" orchestral performances, I still strive to keep the praise of God my ultimate goal and recognize the enjoyment of the audience and my own joy as a musician to be merely secondary pursuits.

[pengupk]

Peter: how lovely that you are a musician! Greetings from a chamber music festival from Finland! IoanC: would it be too rude to ask what is your position in orthodox church, are you a monk or layman? I really ask only out of intrest and if you feel that you would not want to answer, Im sorry for causing you to feel uncomfortable. God bless you both and I hope that this topic did not you angry. I hope that God will forgive me if it did.

[IoanC]

Peter: how lovely that you are a musician! Greetings from a chamber music festival from Finland! IoanC: would it be too rude to ask what is your position in orthodox church, are you a monk or layman? I really ask only out of intrest and if you feel that you would not want to answer, Im sorry for causing you to feel uncomfortable. God bless you both and I hope that this topic did not you angry. I hope that God will forgive me if it did.

I am a baptized member of The Church and a layman. Your topic did not make me angry, that would be my fault.
Sorry, if I sounded too fundamentalist!

[pengupk]

Not at all, IoanC! I as a musician and a music teacher feel that we should discuss things like this more often. So often we use our good gifts in a way that is not always good for us. And I sometimes feel disgusted with the western(and maybe it's universal, or more likely human)view of artist as something almost godly. I think that good music is good for us and that we should have much more calmness and spirituality in our lives so we could really live as we were meant to be. And I also think that its not only classical music that is always the "purest" of "secular"music as well as I think that we should much more often really think and question our views of the world, it's so easy to just calm down and relax and think that I'm right and they're wrong, but world is not like that. We should always fight for the good in the world without making us angry or non-lovable towards anyone or anything. So thank you all for your comments, it has been truly interesting!

[Opus118]

Please, take the quotes themselves from The Fathers that I highlighted and interpret them (forget the one that is not from a father, but really, you tend to disagree with everybody). Maybe I am not seeing something, but the quotes talk about Christ Himself putting away the old way of making music, and taking up a new one. It's in The Bible, too. You mean to say that He didn't really mean to do that, that He actually went back to instrumental (and its implications, which contradict the spirit of byzantine music)? Can you blame one for imitating Christ, and doing what The Fathers are doing? And by the way The Saints did not just use byzantine in church, but always. Is it ok to follow their example, if nothing else convinces one's mind that they were simply loving the art more than any other?

For one, you are still ignoring my request that you consider Znamenny chant. Frankly, your insistence on lauding the glory of Byzantine chant in the face of my repeated references to a very similar Znamenny chant tradition is rather insulting to those millions of Orthodox who have grown up in the Slavic churches.

We shouldn't forget about the Georgians being miffed as well.

Georgian chant has a history that reaches back to the earliest Christian times--Georgia being the first country to accept Christianity. Georgian Christianity has a rich history of liturgical worship and theology, and developed it's own specific chant form. Georgian music has a haunting, piercing sound. Its liturgical music offers an Orthodox musical tradition that escapes the polarity between Byzantine chant as preserved in the Greek tradition, the traditional Znamenny chant of Russia.
http://www.liturgica.com/cart/musicInfo.jsp?catNo=AK022

I have one CD of Georgian chant, and it is difficult for me to see the connection between Georgian 3-part polyphony and byzantine chant, although it is presumably there somewhere.

[Iconodule]

But, there is no "outside The Church". When you go to Church you are one person, and when you come home a different one? Don't we go to Church so that we bring home what we learn there?

Quite so, but there are things we do in the world that we wouldn't do in a Church building and vice versa.

Saint Basil the Great exhorted Christians to read pagan Greek literature. Not all of it, of course- some writings are more worthwhile than others, and some are harmful- but he certainly thought it useful and conducive to Christian learning to study Plato, Homer, etc. Sacred Christian learning, of course, he regarded as higher, but this did not mean that we should read only Christian books. He believed study of the classical secular learning could help deepen the faith and provide, as it were, the foliage around the fruit of Christian learning. Even if Christian learning is superior, St. Basil does not advocate abandoning the pagan learning.

On a side note, Kontoglou didn't only paint icons. One of his "carnal" creations:

[IoanC]

But, there is no "outside The Church". When you go to Church you are one person, and when you come home a different one? Don't we go to Church so that we bring home what we learn there?

Quite so, but there are things we do in the world that we wouldn't do in a Church building and vice versa.

Saint Basil the Great exhorted Christians to read pagan Greek literature. Not all of it, of course- some writings are more worthwhile than others, and some are harmful- but he certainly thought it useful and conducive to Christian learning to study Plato, Homer, etc. Sacred Christian learning, of course, he regarded as higher, but this did not mean that we should read only Christian books. He believed study of the classical secular learning could help deepen the faith and provide, as it were, the foliage around the fruit of Christian learning. Even if Christian learning is superior, St. Basil does not advocate abandoning the pagan learning.

The study of secular fields could be useful so you understand a dialect that you are hoping to refute. Otherwise, God does not need anything from the world, His Grace is enough. Not saying we should stop acting in the world, or that God may not choose to use the world as a tool for learning/perfection; in and of itself, the world needs to be left behind,ultimately, period.
The painting you presented, assuming it is by Photios, means nothing because we don't know during what stage of his life he made it. Obviously, it would have been after he declared secular art carnal, or else he would've made no sense. Sad that you find such an argument worthwhile, logical.

[PeterTheAleut]

But, there is no "outside The Church". When you go to Church you are one person, and when you come home a different one? Don't we go to Church so that we bring home what we learn there?

Quite so, but there are things we do in the world that we wouldn't do in a Church building and vice versa.

Saint Basil the Great exhorted Christians to read pagan Greek literature. Not all of it, of course- some writings are more worthwhile than others, and some are harmful- but he certainly thought it useful and conducive to Christian learning to study Plato, Homer, etc. Sacred Christian learning, of course, he regarded as higher, but this did not mean that we should read only Christian books. He believed study of the classical secular learning could help deepen the faith and provide, as it were, the foliage around the fruit of Christian learning. Even if Christian learning is superior, St. Basil does not advocate abandoning the pagan learning.

The study of secular fields could be useful so you understand a dialect that you are hoping to refute. Otherwise, God does not need anything from the world, His Grace is enough. Not saying we should stop acting in the world, or that God may not choose to use the world as a tool for learning/perfection; in and of itself, the world needs to be left behind,ultimately, period.

So you think there's no possibility that in becoming man in order to save man, Christ didn't also seek to redeem human culture and make even what we call secular a means of our salvation? Why do you hold so strongly to such an ascetic view of the world that you deny that worldview based on our belief in the Incarnation of the Word? Asceticism is not a uniquely Orthodox phenomenon, but the dogma of the Incarnation certainly is.

[Iconodule]

But, there is no "outside The Church". When you go to Church you are one person, and when you come home a different one? Don't we go to Church so that we bring home what we learn there?

Quite so, but there are things we do in the world that we wouldn't do in a Church building and vice versa.

Saint Basil the Great exhorted Christians to read pagan Greek literature. Not all of it, of course- some writings are more worthwhile than others, and some are harmful- but he certainly thought it useful and conducive to Christian learning to study Plato, Homer, etc. Sacred Christian learning, of course, he regarded as higher, but this did not mean that we should read only Christian books. He believed study of the classical secular learning could help deepen the faith and provide, as it were, the foliage around the fruit of Christian learning. Even if Christian learning is superior, St. Basil does not advocate abandoning the pagan learning.

The study of secular fields could be useful so you understand a dialect that you are hoping to refute.

How does one "refute" a dialect?

In any case, Saint Basil the Great, in his "Address to young men on the right use of Greek literature," teaches us that there is much that is profitable for Christians in pagan literature: (emphases are mine)

Into the life eternal the Holy Scriptures lead us, which teach us through divine words. But so long as our immaturity forbids our understanding their deep thought, we exercise our spiritual perceptions upon profane writings, which are not altogether different, and in which we perceive the truth as it were in shadows and in mirrors. Thus we imitate those who perform the exercises of military practice, for they acquire skill in gymnastics and in dancing, and then in battle reap the reward of their training. We must needs believe that the greatest of all battles lies before us, in preparation for which we must do and suffer all things to gain power. Consequently we must be conversant with poets, with historians, with orators, indeed with all men who may further our soul's salvation. Just as dyers prepare the cloth before they apply the dye, be it purple or any other color, so indeed must we also, if we would preserve indelible the idea of the true virtue, become first initiated in the pagan lore, then at length give special heed to the sacred and divine teachings, even as we first accustom ourselves to the sun's reflection in the water, and then become able to turn our eyes upon the very sun itself.

If, then, there is any affinity between the two literatures, a knowledge of them should be useful to us in our search for truth; if not, the comparison, by emphasizing the contrast, will be of no small service in strengthening our regard for the better one. With what now may we compare these two kinds of education to obtain a simile? Just as it is the chief mission of the tree to bear its fruit in its season, though at the same time it puts forth for ornament the leaves which quiver on its boughs, even so the real fruit of the soul is truth, yet it is not without advantage for it to embrace the pagan wisdom, as also leaves offer shelter to the fruit, and an appearance not untimely. That Moses, whose name is a synonym for wisdom, severely trained his mind in the learning of the Egyptians, and thus became able to appreciate their deity. Similarly, in later days, the wise Daniel is said to have studied the lore of the Chaldaeans while in Babylon, and after that to have taken up the sacred teachings.

Not saying we should stop acting in the world, or that God may not choose to use the world as a tool for learning/perfection; in and of itself, the world needs to be left behind,ultimately, period.

The world and all created things are to be abandoned in the ascent to God, but that's something different. Your argument that all non-Ecclesiastic art is "carnal" and useless for spiritual growth is in contradiction to Saint Basil and other Fathers (St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example.)

The painting you presented, assuming it is by Photios, means nothing because we don't know during what stage of his life he made it. Obviously, it would have been after he declared secular art carnal, or else he would've made no sense. Sad that you find such an argument worthwhile, logical.

As I said, it was a "side note" and not really an argumentative point. It does show that Mr. Kontoglou did not always make such a silly distinction as he does in the essay your quote.

All the same, the assertion that all non-Byzantine art is "carnal" is wrong and ignorant.

[IoanC]

So you think there's no possibility that in becoming man in order to save man, Christ didn't also seek to redeem human culture and make even what we call secular a means of our salvation? Why do you hold so strongly to such an ascetic view of the world that you deny that worldview based on our belief in the Incarnation of the Word? Asceticism is not a uniquely Orthodox phenomenon, but the dogma of the Incarnation certainly is.

I wouldn't say Christ redeemed human culture. What?! Where did you hear that? That He can also work through human culture and so on, He does so because He has no choice, but this fallen world will never be His construction because it is mixed with sin, it is man-made. Orthodoxy is not man-made, it is Divinely inspired. And by the way, people who do not come to Orthodoxy in this life, they will in the next; they will not enter Heaven playing AC/DC, writing romantic poems, or holding on to, say, capitalism.  (to give random examples).