MYSTAGOGY

The Weblog Of John Sanidopoulos

BannerFans.com
  • Home
  • SAINTS & FEASTS
  • RESOURCES
  • BOOKSTORE
  • ABOUT
Loading...

MYSTAGOGY

MYSTAGOGY
My Photo
J.Sanidopoulos
This weblog offers insights and analysis on various matters of life and thought from a 21st century Orthodox Christian perspective, among other things.
View my complete profile
http://www.facebookloginhut.com/facebook-login/ http://www.facebookloginhut.com/facebook-login/

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (324)
    • ►  May (69)
    • ►  April (67)
    • ►  March (77)
    • ►  February (9)
    • ►  January (102)
  • ►  2012 (1047)
    • ►  December (99)
    • ►  November (59)
    • ►  October (69)
    • ►  September (58)
    • ►  August (74)
    • ►  July (116)
    • ►  June (121)
    • ►  May (125)
    • ►  April (138)
    • ►  March (96)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (89)
  • ►  2011 (1427)
    • ►  December (60)
    • ►  November (65)
    • ►  October (84)
    • ►  September (63)
    • ►  August (107)
    • ►  July (40)
    • ►  June (133)
    • ►  May (161)
    • ►  April (198)
    • ►  March (174)
    • ►  February (161)
    • ►  January (181)
  • ►  2010 (2462)
    • ►  December (221)
    • ►  November (211)
    • ►  October (149)
    • ►  September (200)
    • ►  August (187)
    • ►  July (209)
    • ►  June (170)
    • ►  May (199)
    • ►  April (236)
    • ►  March (240)
    • ►  February (227)
    • ►  January (213)
  • ▼  2009 (874)
    • ►  December (160)
    • ►  November (124)
    • ▼  October (140)
      • Orthodoxy and Halloween: Separating Fact From Fict...
      • Christ is the Head of the Church, not the Pope
      • Ukrainian President Calls For Orthodox Unification...
      • Materialists: What Do You Know?
      • Who Explains Whom?
      • Lutherans Embrace Gay Marriage
      • The Future of Abstinence
      • "Curb" Episode Urinates on Jesus to Make Him Weep
      • Why We Celebrate OHI (OXI) Day in Greek Orthodoxy:...
      • The Madness of the World
      • Stories of Simplicity by Elder Paisios the Hagiori...
      • Scary Paranormal Games
      • The Russian Veneration of Saint Demetrios the Myrr...
      • Protestant Hardcore Band Has Video Influenced By O...
      • The United States of Spooks and Spirits
      • American Trends in Religion and Spirituality
      • Self-Help Doesn't Help—And Often Hurts
      • "No Such Thing As Junk RNA"
      • Cleanliness and Godliness
      • ON DEATH by Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh
      • On the Possible Whereabouts of the Shroud in Post-...
      • Documentary on Elder Paisios the Hagiorite (Greek)...
      • The Dark Legacy of Carlos Castaneda
      • On the Possible Whereabouts of the Shroud in Post-...
      • The Historicity of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus
      • Movie: "The Making of a Saint" Focuses on the Cano...
      • "Weeping" Icon of St. Kyriaki is in Fact Defiled
      • Himalayan Ascent to Christ
      • On the Possible Whereabouts of the Shroud in Post-...
      • Ecumenist Bishops Seek to Silence the Faithful
      • St. Gerasimos of Kefallonia and the Demon Possesse...
      • Icon of St. Kyriaki Wept in Nauplion
      • Metropolitan Zizoulas Takes Stance Against Critics...
      • Quran Inscriptions Appear on Little Boy's Body
      • Yulia Tymoshenko Receives the Highest Award of Jer...
      • Take Me Back to Constantinople
      • Did the Kosovan Army Harvest Serbian Organs?
      • Autobiographical Writings of St. John of Kronstadt...
      • The Last Testament of St. John of Rila with Biogra...
      • The Holy Monastery of Mega Spelaion in Kalavryta (...
      • Movie: Mario Bavas' "The Wurdalak" Based on the Sh...
      • A Russian Priest Also A Surgeon
      • Oprah Winfrey Should Apologize for Promoting Dange...
      • Why Did I Leave the Jehovah's Witnesses?
      • Doomsday (False) Prophet, Elizabeth Clare Prophet,...
      • The Cult of Ayn Rand is Re-emerging
      • 15 'Dangerous' Religious Sects Active in Bulgaria
      • The Origins of Modern Day Wicca and Neopaganism
      • My Beef with PETA
      • Handsome Muslim Men Accused of Waging 'Love Jihad'...
      • Meet Moscow's Punk Priest, the Rev. Sergei Rybko
      • Movie Trailer: "Saint Nino"
      • Ukrainian Prime Minister on Orthodox Pilgrimage
      • "12 Byzantine Rulers" Audio Lectures
      • Russian Orthodox Priests Meet British Rock Band Th...
      • On Vigils and Sleep
      • The Scandal of the Orthodox - Catholic Dialogue in...
      • The Orthodox Prosperity Gospel According to Elder ...
      • Orthodoxy in Guatemala: An Interview With Abbess I...
      • The Orthodoxy of Lucian of Antioch
      • The Corruption of Orthodox Iconography
      • Icon of the Mother of God the "Multiplier of Wheat...
      • The Concept of the Divine Energies
      • Has Modern Conservatism Become a Cult?
      • Late Roman Imperial Seal of Manuel I Comnenos Foun...
      • Teleturgics 101: How Not To Baptize :-)
      • The Pop-Culture Wars
      • Homosexuality 'not a civil right'
      • The Dionysian Authorship of the "Corpus Areopagiti...
      • World Won't End in 2012, Mayans Insist
      • Burning Man: “A Creative Celebration of Evolution”...
      • Seventh Day Adventist: Adventist Church Grows to 5...
      • Unification Church: Rev. Moon Turning Over Unifica...
      • Jehovahs Witness: Bulgaria Church Organizes Anti-J...
      • Mad Scientists on the Rise
      • Ten Things You Didn't Know About Ukraine
      • St. Herman Calendar 2010 Now Available
      • A Documentary on Aleister Crowley
      • On St. Symeon the New Theologian's First Vision of...
      • Was Christopher Columbus A Greek-speaking Romaios ...
      • 26 Holy Martyrs of Zographou Monastery
      • Moscow Patriarchate's Position on Shroud of Turin
      • Elder Justin Parvu on the Nature of our Times
      • Prophecies of St. Joachim "Papoulakis" of Ithaka (...
      • The Triumph of the Church: A Proof For Christian V...
      • Sts. Pelagia the Martyr, Pelagia the Righteous and...
      • The Crooked Priest
      • A Monk and A Wolf
      • The Patristic Understanding of the Holy Trinity: A...
      • Swine Flu...in 1976! ("60 Minutes" Expose)
      • Saint Arsenios of Paros and the Restoration of the...
      • Fr. Themi: The Atheist Rocker Who Became an Orthod...
      • Staretz Silouan On How to Benefit the Non-Orthodox...
      • Patriarch Abuna Paulos Addresses Vatican
      • Are U.S. Churchgoers Stingy?
      • Egypt Breaks Ties with France's Louvre Museum
      • Turkey Overlooking Religious Minorities
      • Dracula’s Cellar Found
      • Esphigmenou Monks Convicted
      • Mojave Cross Covered Pending First Amendment Trial...
      • On Scandals in the Church by Saint Ephraim the Syr...
      • TRAILER: Not Evil Just Wrong — new film challengin...
      • Ecumenical Patriarchate to Support Metropolitan Vl...
      • A Question on Vanity
      • Edgar Allan Poe Finally Getting Proper Funeral
      • The Holy Apostles
      • Saint Evdokimos the Newly-Revealed (yet unknown) o...
      • Saint Methodia of Kimolos and her Canonization
      • Greece Votes in Hope of a New ’Change’
      • Paranormal Theories on "Shadow People"
      • Basilica and Martyr Tomb Discovered at Zrze Archae...
      • Envy, Alcohol and Cigarettes Steal Life from Peopl...
      • ISS Crew to Study Epiphany Water
      • "Nail Your Sin": Russian Church Organizes an Event...
      • Russian Church Houses Ostriches
      • Russian Scientist Demands Old Testament Be Seen As...
      • Muslim Threats to Christians Rise in Pakistan
      • Young People’s Ignorance of Religion Worries Exper...
      • Step Aside Lucy; It’s Ardi Time
      • A Zoo in a Russian Church
      • More Protestants Find a Home in the Orthodox Antio...
      • The Authenticity of Dionysius the Areopagite's Wri...
      • Hesychius the Horebite and the Remembrance of Deat...
      • Book Review: "Occult America"
      • Six Little Known Facts About Protestant Fundamenta...
      • The U.S. Visit of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew...
      • Author Urges Parents To Quit Hovering
      • The Temptation of St. Justina and the Repentance o...
      • Saints Cyprian and Justina the Martyrs
      • Colbert v. Dawkins = Priceless
      • Hindu Absurdity of the Week: A "Tongue" Offering.....
      • Telepathy: A Psychological Perspective
      • Psychics and Cold Reading: An Interview with Skept...
      • Richard Dawkins's Jewish Problem
      • Sigmund Freud's Little Intimate Secrets
      • Henry Kissinger and Cyprus: A War Crime?
      • The Key to Subliminal Messages
      • The Miraculous Icon of the Panagia Gorgoepikoos ("...
      • What is Orthodoxy?
      • The Enemy Within: An Interview with Elder Dionysio...
    • ►  September (116)
    • ►  August (86)
    • ►  July (97)
    • ►  June (60)
    • ►  May (42)
    • ►  April (49)

Topics

  • Abortion (1)
  • Alexandros Papadiamandis (1)
  • Almsgiving (4)
  • America (156)
  • Angels (52)
  • Anglicans (3)
  • Annunciation (2)
  • Anthony the Great (3)
  • Anthropology (23)
  • Antiochian Archdiocese of America (10)
  • Apocrypha (1)
  • Apologetics (81)
  • Apostles and Early Church (164)
  • Art (40)
  • Athanasius the Great (3)
  • Atheism-Agnosticism-Skepticism (205)
  • Augustine of Hippo (4)
  • Balkans and Russia (61)
  • Basil the Great (3)
  • Bible (41)
  • Bible Difficulties (1)
  • Biblical and Christian Archaeology (11)
  • Biblical and Christian Archeology (94)
  • Biblical Criticism (30)
  • Bioethics (1)
  • Byzantine Music (1)
  • C.S. Lewis (2)
  • Calendar Issue (2)
  • Canon Law (36)
  • Catholicism and Papacy (158)
  • Celtic Saints (1)
  • Christian Living (171)
  • Christology (63)
  • Church and Society (1)
  • Church History (49)
  • Climate Change (1)
  • Conspiracies (93)
  • Constantine the Great (5)
  • Coptic Church (44)
  • Cross (91)
  • Cults (83)
  • Cyril Loukaris (1)
  • Demetrios of Thessaloniki (2)
  • Demonology (7)
  • Desert Fathers (12)
  • Divine Liturgy (8)
  • Divorce (5)
  • Documentaries (9)
  • Dormition Fast (35)
  • Ecclesiology (84)
  • Ecumenical Patriarchate (158)
  • Ecumenical Synods (7)
  • Ecumenism (105)
  • Elder Aimilianos of Simonopetra (2)
  • Elder Cleopa of Romania (2)
  • Elder Ephraim Katounakiotis (2)
  • Elder Epiphanios Theodoropoulos (2)
  • Elder Eusebius Yiannakakis (1)
  • Elder Iakovos of Evia (1)
  • Elder Paisios the Athonite (32)
  • Elder Porphyrios (7)
  • Elder Sophrony of Essex (6)
  • Entrance of the Theotokos (2)
  • Ephraim the Syrian (2)
  • Eschatology/Death (181)
  • Ethical and Moral Issues (70)
  • Europe (85)
  • Events (14)
  • Family and Parish (81)
  • Famous People (6)
  • Fasting (5)
  • Feasts of the Church (95)
  • Fr. George Florovsky (4)
  • Fr. George Metallinos (1)
  • Fr. John Romanides (7)
  • Fr. Seraphim Rose (1)
  • Freemasonry (1)
  • Funny (48)
  • George the Great Martyr (6)
  • Globalization (1)
  • God (69)
  • Gothic and Horror (38)
  • Great Lent (9)
  • Great Lent and Holy Week (333)
  • Greece and Greeks (212)
  • Greek Archdiocese of America (GOA) (66)
  • Gregory of Nyssa (1)
  • Gregory Palamas (9)
  • Gregory the Theologian (2)
  • Hagia Sophia (7)
  • Halki Seminary (2)
  • Halloween (5)
  • Happiness (1)
  • Health (1)
  • Health and Creation (138)
  • Heresy (100)
  • Holidays (17)
  • Holy Light (1)
  • Holy Matrimony (2)
  • Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) (142)
  • Holy Unction (1)
  • Holy Week (27)
  • Homosexuality (1)
  • Iconography (291)
  • Isaac the Syrian (3)
  • John Chrysostom (6)
  • John Climacus (2)
  • John the Baptist (10)
  • Judging (1)
  • Justin Popovic (1)
  • Lay Holiness (2)
  • Literature (28)
  • Literature and Book Reviews (89)
  • Liturgics (93)
  • Logic / Reason (1)
  • Luke of Crimea (1)
  • Mariology (273)
  • Marital and Relationship Issues (97)
  • Maximus the Confessor (2)
  • Maximus the Greek (2)
  • Medieval History and Theology (58)
  • Meteora (3)
  • Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos (20)
  • Middle East (54)
  • Miracles (449)
  • Missions (104)
  • Modern Saints and Elders (535)
  • Modernity (30)
  • Monasticism (129)
  • Monk Moses the Athonite (6)
  • Moral Stories (2)
  • Moscow Patriarchate (1)
  • Mothers (2)
  • Mount Athos (310)
  • Movies (132)
  • Music (111)
  • My Family and Friends (25)
  • My Writings (1)
  • N.T. - Colossians (1)
  • N.T. - John (2)
  • N.T. - Luke (1)
  • N.T. - Mark (6)
  • N.T. - Matthew (4)
  • N.T. - Revelation (1)
  • N.T. 1 Corinthians (1)
  • N.T. 1 Timothy (1)
  • N.T. Hebrews (1)
  • N.T. Luke (3)
  • Nationalism (6)
  • Nativity and Theophany (234)
  • Nektarios of Aegina (6)
  • Neomartys Under Turks (11)
  • New England (19)
  • New Martyrs Under Turks (1)
  • New Testament (181)
  • New Testament Exegesis (7)
  • Newly-Revealed Saints (3)
  • Nicholas of Myra (7)
  • Nicolae Steinhardt (3)
  • Nikephoros the Leper (1)
  • Nikodemos the Hagiorite (2)
  • Nikolai Velimirovich (8)
  • O.T. - Genesis (1)
  • Old Testament (150)
  • Old Testament Exegesis (9)
  • Oriental Orthodox (2)
  • Orthodox Church In America (OCA) (13)
  • Orthodox Converts (98)
  • Orthodox Diaspora (10)
  • Orthodox Extremism (149)
  • Orthodox Theologians (66)
  • Orthodoxy (39)
  • Orthodoxy in Abkhazia (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Africa (63)
  • Orthodoxy in Albania (13)
  • Orthodoxy in America (142)
  • Orthodoxy in Armenia (18)
  • Orthodoxy in Asia (46)
  • Orthodoxy in Asia Minor (171)
  • Orthodoxy in Australia (6)
  • Orthodoxy in Bulgaria (99)
  • Orthodoxy in Crete (8)
  • Orthodoxy in Cyprus (100)
  • Orthodoxy in Czech Republic (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Estonia (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Ethiopia (8)
  • Orthodoxy in Finland (1)
  • Orthodoxy in France (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Georgia (71)
  • Orthodoxy in Germany (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Greece (454)
  • Orthodoxy In Holy Land (21)
  • Orthodoxy In Israel (140)
  • Orthodoxy in Italy (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Kazakhstan (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Latin America (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Lebanon (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Macedonia (16)
  • Orthodoxy in Mainland Greece (6)
  • Orthodoxy in Moldava (4)
  • Orthodoxy in Poland (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Romania (86)
  • Orthodoxy in Russia (414)
  • Orthodoxy in Serbia (140)
  • Orthodoxy in Syria (5)
  • Orthodoxy in the Cyclades (4)
  • Orthodoxy in the Dodecanese (11)
  • Orthodoxy in the Ionian Islands (3)
  • Orthodoxy in the Saronic Islands (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Ukraine (59)
  • Orthodoxy in Uzbekistan (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Western Europe (73)
  • Ottoman Occupation (7)
  • Paganism and the New Age Movement (98)
  • Paranormal and the Occult (197)
  • Pascha and the Pentecostarion (249)
  • Patriarchate of Alexandria (1)
  • Patriarchate of Antioch (5)
  • Patriarchate of Russia (1)
  • Patristic Writings (16)
  • Patristics (325)
  • Personhood (1)
  • Philanthropy (9)
  • Philosophy (82)
  • Photios Kontoglou (3)
  • Photis Kontoglou (1)
  • Pneumatology (3)
  • Podcast (2)
  • Politics (142)
  • Polls (2)
  • Pop Culture (54)
  • Postmodernism (6)
  • Prayer (3)
  • Prayer / Fasting / Alms (159)
  • Priesthood (8)
  • Prison Ministry (6)
  • Prophecies (56)
  • Protestantism (119)
  • Psychology (73)
  • Religion (85)
  • Religion: Buddhism (19)
  • Religion: Hinduism (40)
  • Religion: Islam (184)
  • Religion: Jews and Judaism (57)
  • Repentance and Confession (3)
  • Roman (Byzantine) Empire (201)
  • Romiosini (34)
  • Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) (6)
  • Saint Nicholas (4)
  • Saints (847)
  • Saints of Africa (1)
  • Saints of America (3)
  • Saints of Crete (8)
  • Saints of Georgia (4)
  • Saints of Ionian Islands (8)
  • Saints of Lesvos (1)
  • Saints of Mainland Greece (15)
  • Saints of Mount Athos (9)
  • Saints of Patmos (1)
  • Saints of Romania (3)
  • Saints of Russia (8)
  • Saints of Scotland (2)
  • Saints of Serbia (4)
  • Saints of the Cyclades (2)
  • Saints of the Dodecanese (1)
  • Saints of the Holy Lnd (1)
  • Saints of Ukraine (5)
  • Scandal (56)
  • Science (2)
  • Science-Intelligent Design-Darwinism (249)
  • Secularism (97)
  • Seraphim of Sarov (2)
  • Sexual and Gender Issues (107)
  • Shrines and Relics (564)
  • Soteriology (80)
  • Spiritual Fatherhood (4)
  • Spirituality (220)
  • Sports (20)
  • sShrines and Relics (1)
  • St. Cyril Loukaris (1)
  • St. John of Kronstadt (1)
  • st. John the Baptist (2)
  • St. John the Russian (1)
  • St. Luke of Simferopol (1)
  • St. Maximus the Confessor (1)
  • St. Nektarios (2)
  • St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite (1)
  • St. Nikolai Velimirovich (3)
  • Strange (36)
  • Sts. Bartholomew and John (1)
  • Substance Issues (14)
  • Symeon the New Theologian (3)
  • Television and Media (45)
  • Television and Media. (1)
  • Theodicy/Evil/Suffering (84)
  • Theology (98)
  • Theophilos of Campania (1)
  • Theotokos Icons (17)
  • Tradition (62)
  • Triodion (8)
  • UFO's and Alien Life (2)
  • Uniates (6)
  • v (1)
  • Vice and Sin (111)
  • video (1)
  • Videos (80)
  • Violence-Crime-Persecution (158)
  • Virtue (117)
  • Youth Ministry (105)

Subscribe To

Posts
Atom
Posts
All Comments
Atom
All Comments

Visitor Map
Create your own visitor map!

Friday, October 16, 2009

On Vigils and Sleep


- When the righteous Akakios, who did his ascesis in a desolate skete of Kafsokalyvia (Mount Athos), was asked to speak on sleep and vigil, he replied: "Half an hour of sleep is enough for a true monk!" He himself either stood up all night long or knelt, praying and chanting with great courage, in spite of the fact that he suffered from a hernia and was very old. He would sleep very little in the mornings, sometimes leaning on his arm or on anything else, long enough not to lose clarity of mind from extreme sleeplessness. He viewed sleep as a treacherous and undermining enemy of the soul. He said that nothing increases sinful desires more than excessive sleep. And nothing subdues them as much as sleeplessness.

- One monk made a bed with thick, knotted tree branches nailed sparsely together, without a mattress, so that he could not rest his body as well as it would have liked, and so that he could be awakened easily. He slept no more than four hours a day.

- Even the blessed St. Gregory Palamas had an ongoing battle against the flesh and sleep. For three whole months in his hermitage above the Holy Monastery of Lavra he remained sleepless and in prayer. He did, however, then interrupt this ascetic labour so that his mind might not be harmed by too extended a vigil.

- The Athonite Russian, St. Silouan the New, who was canonized in 1987, was born in 1866 and died in 1938. He was a monk of St. Panteleimon's Monastery. He lived a righteous and pure life of universal love, unceasing prayer, and humility. His life came to a peaceful end in peace, and he left behind the memory of a holy man. His biography was written by Archimandrite Sophronios, the hegumen of the Holy Patriarchal and Stavropegic Monastery of the Honoured Forerunner in England.

St. Silouanos, among his many virtues, laboured especially for sleeplessness, as he knew from experience how much it contributes to attaining cleansing of mind, uplifting in prayer and cultivation of joyful mourning. He would not lie on a bed to sleep; instead he would spend the entire night praying, either standing up or sitting on a stool. He would sleep for only fifteen to twenty minutes and then rise again to pray. He would rest again later, intermittently. His entire sleep in twenty-four hours would total only two hours.

- We asked the blind elder Simeon the Kafsokalyvitan: "How can the soul be cleansed from impure thoughts, desires and other passions?" and he replied: "By not knowing what it is like to get any sleep."

- In an Iviritan skete there lived a most pious hieromonk, Gerasimos the Hymnographer. When he was to celebrate the Divine Liturgy the next day, he would stay awake all night long in reading and in prayer. God took him away at a young age. His brief life had been very full, for he had pleased the Lord.

- A struggling hermit said: "By sleeping a lot, our mind becomes opaque."

- Hadji-Giorgis rested standing up at his bench in the church all night long. He hardly knew his cell. He devoted his entire days to his suffering brothers and his nights to prayer.

- One day a young monk asked Father N., who was 86 years old: "Elder, how many hours should a monk sleep?"

"Listen, my brother: St. Theodore the Studite and St. Symeon the New Theologian say that four to five hours a day should be enough sleep. But Abba Arsenios in the Gerontikon declares that for a labouring monk, one hour of sleep should be sufficient. St. Akakios the Kafsokalyvitan used to say that 'I find half an hour of sleep not enough, but if the saints say so ... we should try it'."

"And you, how long do you rest?"

"My brother, what is the need for such a question?"

"For my benefit and for the love of Christ, tell me."

"I'll tell you. One hour in twenty-four is enough."

"Do you sleep one hour through or with interruptions?"

"With interruptions of course! A quarter of an hour, here or there."

"And how is your time spent?"

"Unfortunately, now that I have a double hernia, I do not stand to read the Psalter or the Gospels and to say the Jesus Prayer."

"The entire Psalter and New Testament?"

"Naturally, the entire ones."

"Every day?"

"Every day, every day. The only thing is, I cannot read standing up any more. That is what happens with old age."

- An elder said: "Sleep should become a servant, not a master."

- An Hagiorite conclusion:
It is not possible for a spiritual life to exist without vigil. According to his contemporaries, Elder Artemios the Gregoriatan never sat down on his chair during any service, including the all-night vigils. Until his death, he remained an upstanding steadfast pillar of the Church and of prayer.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 11:14 PM 1 comment: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Monasticism, Spirituality
Reactions: 

The Scandal of the Orthodox - Catholic Dialogue in Cyprus (16-23 October)


Most Orthodox in the West are unaware of the great scandal the Orthodox - Catholic Dialogue in Cyprus (16-23 October) is causing throughout the Church of Greece. Since the Church of Greece has no real voice in America, most Greeks being subject under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, I feel it is my duty to bring awareness to this very important issue that affects world Orthodoxy.

Thanks to the highly informative www.oodegr.com website, many of the most important texts circulating over this issue have been translated into English. The links are provided below with some of my own commentary.

It was announced back in June that the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox would be meeting between October 16-23 in Cyprus "to examine a crucial aspect of relations between East and West: The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church During the First Millennium". It is to be represented by 30 Orthodox and 30 Catholics.

What differentiates this dialogue from others is the topic of the role of the papacy. It is this topic which is a cause of concern to many Orthodox as there can be no compromise on this subject either from an Orthodox or a Catholic perspective. This concern is best expressed in the following article:

On the Recognition of Universal Primacy for the Pope of Rome During the First Millennium

When this dialogue was announced, the Holy Synod of Bulgaria immediately made its disapproval known:

A Bulgarian "NO" to the Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue

Together with the announcement of this dialogue, the following document was circulating throughout Greece to various clergy and theologians and was fairly well-received:

A CONFESSION OF FAITH: Against Ecumenism

Rumors began circulating that there was a secret intention behind the dialogue in Cyprus. It is believed by some that a statement of union will be signed sort of like that of Balamand back in the 1990's which caused a great disturbance in the Church. One particular hierarch responded:

Announcement by Metropolitan Andrew Regarding the Committee for the Dialogue with the Latins in Cyprus

An official position was also taken by the entire Athonite community:

The Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain on the Dialogue with the Papists

Between the Confession of Faith being circulated and widely accepted, together with the rumors and the protests of clergy and hierarchs, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew responded with a stern letter:

Your Holiness, WHAT "pan-Orthodox decision"?

Among the hierarchs mentioned by Patriarch Bartholomew was the vocal Metropolitan of Piraeus Seraphim. To understand his views on the matter, here is a link of his recent letter to the Archbishop of Athens:

Metropolitan Seraphim's Letter to Archbishop Hieronymos: Regarding the Committee for the Dialogue with the Latins in Cyprus

To prevent schism and encourage the proper and concentual ordering of this dialogue, at least one Metropolitan proposed the dialogue be postponed:

Metropolitan Seraphim of Ioannoupolis Proposes the Postponement of the Cyprus Convention

Greek theologians were also expressing concern:

The Pancyprian Union of Greek Theologians Expresses Its Concern Regarding the Dialogue with the Latins in Cyprus

Together with the stern letter of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, a letter was also sent by Metropolitan John Zizioulas from the Ecumenical Patriarchate to all the Metropolitans of Greece regarding the ecumenical dissent of many throughout Greece:

The Letter by Bishop John Zizioulas of Pergamon to all Metropolitans of the Church of Greece

Finally, just last week, eminent clergy throughout Greece responded by drafting a statement and censured both Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Metropolitan John Zizioulas for encroaching on their right to dissent.

A Letter by the Clergy to the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece Concerning the Letter by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew

With heated tensions, the dialogue is set to begin today. Let us pray that our leaders be given the wisdom to guide us into all truth, and avoid all compromises and schism for the sake of the unity of the Body of Christ and our witness to the world.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 10:32 AM 13 comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Catholicism and Papacy, Ecumenism, Orthodoxy in Greece
Reactions: 

The Orthodox Prosperity Gospel According to Elder Paisios the Athonite: "Injustice is a Sin, and the Just Are Rewarded"


Injustice Draws the Wrath of God

It is important for a man to have God's blessing. It is great wealth! What God blesses will stand firm; it will not crumble. Whatever is not blessed, will crumble. Injustice is a great sin. All sins have some "ex­tenuating circumstances", but injustice has none. Injust­ice draws the wrath of God. It is a tremendous thing! Those who commit injustice set their heads on fire. You see them do all kinds of injustices, and then their loved ones die and they seem not to care at all. How can people who are so unjust prosper? They do the things they do, they give the devil rights over them, and for this reason they suffer so much, they get sick and so on and then they come to you and say, "Pray that I get well!"

Most bad and harmful things happen when we wrong other people. For example, when a fortune is made un­justly, the owners may live a few years like royalty, but, in the end, they will spend all their money on doctors. Remember the saying: "What is gathered by the wind is also scattered by the wind." Or remember what the Psalm says, “Better is a little that the righteous hath than the abundance of many wicked” (1). What they collect is spent, blown away. Rarely will an illness, a bankruptcy and so on be sent as a trial from God. In such cases, one's reward will be great, and he will later become richer, as hap­pened with Job. Some people are buried and their bodies do not decompose; it's usually because they have done some kind of injustice.

The Unjust Person Is Tormented

An unjust person and in general all those who commit injustice and do not ask for forgiveness, end up haunted by their conscience and the indignation of those they have treated unjustly. For if the wronged do not forgive and complain, then the unjust are tormented and suffer very much. They cannot sleep. They feel like they are at the mercy of crashing waves that twist them around from every side. It's a mystery how the perpetrator is informed of this! When we love somebody and think about him in a good way, he knows it. So too, in this case, the victim's pain tears the unjust into pieces! It does not matter where he may be, in Australia or in Johannesburg; as long as the person he has treated unfairly is indignant with him, he cannot find peace.

- And what happens if he is insensitive?

- Do you think that insensitive people do not suffer? The best they can do is resort to some sort of entertainment to be distracted. Then again, those wronged may have forgiven the offender but still harbour some resentment. In this case, the victim suffers to a degree, but the wrongdoer suffers to an even greater extent from his victim's indignation. But if the perpetrator seeks forgiveness and his victim refuses to forgive him, then it's the victim that suffers. There is no greater fire than the inner burning of the soul by the conscience. Unless one repents in this life for the injustices he has committed and makes reparation, his soul will be tortured and eaten away by woodworm and in the eternal life by the "sleepless worm". Even if he has no other way of showing repentance, the least he can do is have the right intent.

I remember how this one lawyer, who committed many injustices, suffered at the end of his life. He practised his profession in a province with many stockbreeders. Naturally, their herds would damage the fields, and many shepherds would hire him because he could convince the Justice of the Peace or the agronomist with his cunning arguments. The poor farmers could rarely find justice for damage done to their crops, and they even found themselves in trouble. Everyone knew this lawyer and no honest man went near him. I should tell you about the advice that a Spiritual Father gave a sensitive shepherd.

This shepherd had a small herd and a sheep dog. The dog had given birth to puppies and he gave them all away except one that he kept for the mother. It happened that this ewe had gone missing leaving behind its little lamb that was still suckling. With its mother missing, the little lamb would run after the dog to find nourishment, some­thing that relieved it as well. Thus, the two animals had got used to each other and one would find the other. As hard as the poor shepherd tried to separate them they would not part. Because the shepherd was a sensi­tive man, he thought of asking his Spiritual Father if the lamb's meat would be edible or not. Knowing how poor the shepherd was, the Father thought for a while and then said to him, "My son, this lamb is not edible because it fed on the dog's milk, but you know what you should do? Since all the other shepherds bring gifts of lambs and cheese to this certain lawyer, you should bring him this lamb to eat. He is the only one who has a blessing to eat it, since everyone knows what an unjust man he is."

When this unjust lawyer reached old age, he became bed-ridden and suffered from nightmares for years and could not sleep. He also suffered a stroke and could not even speak. The Father tried to make him at least write down his sins, but he had lost control of himself. The Spiritual Father was thus forced to read him the blessing of the Seven Youths (2) so that he could close his eyes and get some sleep. He would even read exorcisms to give him a little peace, until finally the man passed away and was laid to rest. May God grant him the true rest.

- Geronda, many people believe that they are under a magical spell. Is it really possible to put a spell on some­one?

- If a person repents and goes to confession, such spells are not effective. For witchcraft to stick, a person must be guilty of some injustice, such as harming someone or fooling a girl. In this case, he must repent and ask for for­giveness, confess, settle spiritually and restore the wrong he has done. Otherwise, even if all the priests in the world would read an exorcism for him, the spell would still not go away. But even if no witchcraft is involved, the resentment borne by the soul he has treated unjustly is enough to torment him.

There are two forms of injustice: material and moral. Material is when we harm another person with regard to material things. Moral injustice is when the wrong is of a moral nature, such as when a man deceives a woman; and if she happens to be an orphan, the burden on his soul is five-fold. Do you know that bullets will go after wrong­doers in war? There you can clearly see the justice and protection of God. There's no room for dishonour in war. A bullet will find its way to an immoral person.

Once, my company was on its way to replace a bat­talion. On the way, we got hit and returned fire. I remem­ber that one man from my company had actually com­mitted a dishonourable act the day before. He had raped a pregnant woman, poor woman. And guess what? He was the only one who got killed that day! Horrible, isn't it? Everybody was saying, "This beast deserved to die." In the end, the devious and cunning try to escape one way or another, but they are not spared. We know from experi­ence that those who truly believe and, as a result, live an honest, Christian life, have their honest bodies protected from enemy fire; it's like they carry a relic of the Holy Cross and even more than that.

One’s Descendants Are Also Tormented by Injustice

- Geronda, when I left to join the Monastery, my family was unjust to me. Should I ask for what legally belongs to me?

- No, that's not the proper thing to do.

- I fear that something bad may happen to them as a result of this injustice.

- Now, this is what I call pure philotimo. If I were you, I would tell them, "I want nothing for myself. But I would like you to give the share that is rightfully mine to the poor, with your own hands, starting with our poor rela­tives. I am asking for this because I don't want the wrath of God to fall on your children". You see, sometimes a father may give away his fortune for the good of his soul, to create a charitable institution for example, and leave nothing to his own child.

The grandparents in a family may have done some­thing wrong and still live a good life, without conse­quences. But their children or grandchildren may suffer. They become sick and are forced to give the money their ancestors made unjustly, to doctors, to pay back the injus­tices of their grandparents.

A family I once knew was going through many dif­ficulties. The head of the family got very sick first, went through a lot, was bed-ridden for a few years, and then passed away. Then his wife died and later his children, one after the other. His fifth and last child passed away recently. Even though they were a very rich family, they lost everything and ended up poor, because they had to sell their property to pay the doctors and the various ex­penses. I used to wonder why all these horrible things, sickness and accidents, were happening to them. I hap­pened to know some of the members of the family and it did not seem to me to be the good kind of trial, the kind that God sends to those He favours. Rather, it seemed to me that God's spiritual laws were put into effect. I wanted to be certain, so I tried to find out more about the family from reliable sources, namely, some old folks who lived in the same town.

I learned that the man had inherited a certain fortune from his father which he increased by doing all sorts of wrong things. So, if a widow, say, were to ask him for a loan to pay for her daughter's wedding, and promised to return the money once she had harvested the crops, he would ask for a piece of land she owned. And, as she was in great need, she would have to sell him the land at any price he offered. Another man would ask him for a loan to pay the bank and promise to repay him after having harvested the cotton. He would demand the poor fellow's land and would get it for nothing, as the farmer was afraid the bank would come after him. When someone else asked him for a small loan to pay the doctors, he would seek to take his cow from him, for pennies. This is how he made his fortune. The pain he caused to all these poor people was returned not only to him and his wife but also to his children. So, the spiritual laws came into effect and caused them to suffer the very same things that their ac­tions had caused to others. In order to pay all their medi­cal expenses, and so on, they sold their land for nothing and after becoming poor, they left this life for good one after the other. God, of course, with His love and sense of justice will judge them accordingly. The others who were harmed, all the poor folk who were forced to sell out their belongings to pay off the doctors, all these people will be rewarded for the injustices they endured. And, of course, the unjust will also pay their due.

The One Who Wrongs Us Is Our Benefactor

- Geronda, how should we consider someone who treats us in an unfair way?

- How should we consider him? We must treat him like a great benefactor who makes deposits on our behalf in God's Savings Bank. He is making us eternally wealthy. This is not a matter of minor importance. Are we not sup­posed to love our benefactors? Shouldn't we express our gratitude to them? In the same way, we must love and feel grateful to the person who has treated us unjustly, because he benefits us eternally. The unjust receive etern­al injury, whereas those who accept injustice with joy will be justified eternally.

A pious family man had suffered many injustices in his work. But he was full of kindness and endured it all without complaining. He came to the Kalyvi once and told me all about it and then asked me, "What do you advise me to do?"

"What you should do," I said, "is to expect the divine justice and the divine return and to be patient. Nothing is lost. In this way, you are putting 'money' in God's 'Savings Bank'. You will surely receive dividends in the next life, for all the trials you are going through now. You should know that the Good Lord rewards the unfairly treated person even in this life. And if He does not always reward him, He will surely do so with his children. God knows. He has providence for His creature. Where there is patience, things fall into place. God provides. We need patience, not logic. Since God is watching, He is observing us, we must surrender unconditionally to Him. You see, the Righteous Joseph did not say a thing when his brothers sold him into slavery. He could have said, 'I am their brother'. But he said nothing, until God spoke and made him king (3). But when one has no patience, he suffers. From that point on he wants things to come his way, as it suits him, and as is comfortable for him. But, of course, he does not find comfort that way, and things don't come out the way he wants them to come."

When someone is wronged in this life either by men or by demons, God does not worry, because the soul bene­fits as a result. Many times, however, we say that we are wronged, while in reality we are the ones causing the harm. We must be careful to distinguish the two.

"Render Therefore to All Their Due” (4)

- Geronda, when we purchase something for the Monastery, some people don't want to issue us a receipt. What must we do?

- They should always issue you an invoice and you should limit your needs and demands. This is what I would do. God will provide for what you need. If we monks ask people not to issue invoices, we make others sin. They think to themselves, "Since the Monasteries are doing it..." When we, who are supposed to obey the commandments of God, operate in this fashion, what will people think? Won't they be scandalized? The Holy Scripture reads, "Render therefore to all their due". Even when I send a letter with a person and not through the post office, I still put a stamp on it. Lay people may justify their ac­tions, but if the Monasteries act like them, there will be little honesty left and the Gospel will be put aside. When we do not give from our possessions - and if any one would sue you and take thy coat, let him have thy cloak as well (5) - we are giving a negative sermon, a negative ex­ample, that allows the secular people to find an excuse for their faults. They are looking for a way to comfort their conscience. We must be careful because we will have no justification for our actions on the Day of Judgment. Our goal should be primary to defend the spiritual principles and not only the material things. When, for some reason, they do not give you an invoice, you must consider this a spiritual loss.

- Geronda, it happens sometimes that someone gives a small amount as a donation to the Monastery and wants a receipt for a bigger amount in order to present it as a tax-deductible expense. What must we do in this case?

- You must tell them, "We don't issue receipts for a big­ger amount. If you don't agree, we will return your money and you may find someone else who may accommodate you." Be careful not to catch this disease.

- Geronda, a workman asked us to fire him so that he would collect unemployment benefits while still working for us.

- Oh no, that is not right. Even a person with only a bit of conscience left in him would not do such a thing. It does not become a Monastery to get involved in such matters. It is better that you pay the workman a double wage, even if you are in financial difficulty, in order to discourage him from such behaviour. It's that serious. Blessed deeds bring more blessings, while injustice brings disaster. You should be very careful with these matters. Avoid bargaining with the workmen either. This is why we have fires and other catastrophes in Monasteries.

An employee takes an oath to perform his job in an honest way. For us monastics, this oath is twice as de­manding. The promise we make is spiritual, and if we break it, the sin for us is twice as bad. Be careful to strike a balance, and create a different, a higher standard. I de­tect a wound swelling. It will break and clear up. God will not give His Grace in a wrong situation, because the only one being helped in that case would be the devil. Be careful to put sincerity and honesty first. Otherwise, you will end up like a drunken man who cannot walk straight. Can anyone in that condition stand on his own two feet? God's wrath will come and we'll be put to the test. In the first phase, gold will be separated from brass. In the sec­ond phase, it will become clear how many carats of gold each one of us is worth.

The world is full of lies. People now grow into liars. They have made up a new kind of conscience. I will not become a liar and turn into something I am not, because society demands it. I'd rather tell the truth and suffer. One must be careful not to enter in the orbit of secularism. Of course, our financial system today is of little help. People are forced to declare a smaller income.

Once, I scolded some income tax officials who hap­pened to be believers. "What are you doing?" I asked them. "You must make sure to keep some of the yeast intact. I know of too many things that go wrong! Some­one comes to the Revenue Service and says, 'I have an income of one million drachmas.' The official declares that the man has an income of three million drachmas. He assumes that he is revealing only a part of his income, as is common practice, and that this hike will make up the difference. If, however, he is dealing with a conscientious person, tripling his income in this manner will backfire; it will make the man cheat on his taxes the next year. In other words, instead of helping change the situation for the better, you are making things worse." "But we don't know when they are telling us the truth," the income tax person said. "When you start leading a spiritual life, you will know," I replied. "Then you will be able to under­stand and discern the difference. God will inform you, and you will know."

How the World Has Cheapened

People's malice has exceeded all bounds. They try to deceive one another and they consider it to be an achieve­ment! Our world has become so cheap! Everything they make these days is a fake. And imagine that today people make more money than their parents and grandparents who were poor and only made a little. The quality of most things is so cheap. One day someone brought me some tomato plants. Each plant was inside a very small bag containing coarse soil, and some coarse sand to keep the moisture. They didn't even bother to pour some water or manure; they had sprinkled some on the top like salt and pepper! When I took them out of the bag, I realized that their roots were rotten. I had to put a layer of soil on top, so that the plants could grow new roots.

They are so clever in tricking people! Listen to this. Someone had brought me a big box with pastries. "I will open it," I said to myself, "when I have a large company.
If I open it now, it will attract ants." So, one day, I had a large gathering and I figured that the box should be enough and I should even have some left-over. As soon as I opened it, I saw that it was full of wrappings ... and the actual container with the sweets was so tiny. The rest of the box was empty. Another time, they brought me a fancy box with pastries, all wrapped in ribbons. "I will keep it," I thought, "for the students of the Athonias Academy” (6). Well, inside there were Turkish delights, stale and hard as a rock! I would never treat people with this kind of sweet!

- Geronda, don't they see that this is a type of injus­tice?

- No! They consider it to be an achievement. Sin has become fashionable nowadays and cheating someone is considered to be a sign of cleverness. Unfortunately, the secular spirit sharpens the mind in deception and peo­ple consider it a clever achievement to wrong their fel­low human beings. There's even an expression, "He's as smart as a devil; he gets things done." Inside, of course, the man suffers from the checks of his conscience, his little hell.

The Just Person Has God on His Side

Not all people fit well in the world today, especially those who want to lead spiritual and honest lives; they seem to have such a hard time.

- Geronda, why don't they fit?

- When someone is sensitive and finds himself in a harsh environment and people make his life hell, how can he put up with it? Either he has to begin cursing, or he must leave. But that's difficult because one needs to make a living. His boss tells him, "I trust you because you don't steal, but put some rotten produce among the fresh. Take these fresh clover bales and stick some fermented ones in the package." He even makes him manager in order to keep him on the job and the poor man has to do as told to stay employed. And of course, he cannot sleep at night and starts taking sleeping pills. Do you know how hard life is for honest people? They run into all kinds of difficulties and have to take all kinds of abuse from their employers. Life becomes hell for them. And they cannot quit because they have a family to feed. If they stay on, it's trouble everyday. They are between a rock and a hard place. Wherever they turn their eyes, they see a dead end. It makes one go crazy. So, they carry on and try to man­age as best they can.

In another case, one employee did all the work while another colleague would only show up to collect his pay check. I know of someone who was department head somewhere. When the new government came to power, they removed him from the post and replaced him with a party member who had not even graduated from High School. They made him department head but he knew nothing about the work and so they could not really send the previous manager away to some other position. What did they do? They just added a second desk in the office. The old boss did the work and the new one was just sitting there smoking, chatting and drinking coffee ... and being completely shameless. And in addition to this, he would say whatever came to his mind while all responsibility fell on the other employee who was doing all the work, until he finally couldn't put up with the situation anymore and left the job, the poor soul. "Maybe I should go some­where else, there's not enough space for two desks," he said one day and got up and left, because the new head was making his life hell. We are not talking about one or two days. It is unbearable to have someone like that over your head every day.

The just person is usually given the worst position, or may even lose his position to others. They abuse him and step all over him. Don't we have the saying, "They walk over corpses; they stop at nothing?" But the more people push the just and righteous person down, the more the Good God lifts him up, like a cork. It's not easy though and it takes a lot of patience. Patience clears up so many things. The person who wants to live a virtuous life and be honest in his work, be it a labourer, a merchant, or whatever else, must accept the fact that, once he begins work, he may have to reach the point of not being able to even pay the rent, for example, if he has a store, for the blessing of God to come to him. But he should not have this as his goal: "If I should reach that point, then I will surely have plenty of customers." One must not think that way or aim at that, because then, God will not bless him. But when he decides to live as God wills and resolves not to cheat or overprice things, God will not abandon him.

Another person may gain much profit by overpricing. At first, he makes a lot of money and becomes rich, but then people find out that he is dishonest, and his busi­ness goes stony broke. On the other hand, the honest mer­chant gains customers and hires more employees. So he is tested in the beginning, but wins in the end. The good person is tried and tested by evil and cunning people; he has to pass through the card (7).

When someone follows the devil's path, and comes up with tricks and all kinds of deceptive schemes, God will not bless his work. Schemes of deception don't work; they appear to flourish, but they collapse in the end. It's important that we start with God's blessing in everything we do. A just man has God on his side. And if he has some boldness before God, then miracles hap­pen. When someone lives according to the Gospel, he is entitled to divine help. He walks with Jesus Christ. What can we say? The man has earned His blessing. This is the foundation of it all. Once that is given, there is nothing to fear. The important thing is that Christ, Panagia and the Saints should find rest in everything we do, and when that happens, we will have their blessing and the Holy Spirit will overshadow us. Honesty is the most precious Holy Cross. If someone is dishonest even if he has a piece of the Honorable Cross on him, it's like he has nothing. But if one is honest, he has God's help even though he doesn't have a piece of the Honorable Cross. Now, if he has both, well, then he's got everything!

The Just Person Is Rewarded in This Life

I have seen injured souls who have endured injustice with good thoughts, and have been showered with God's Grace in this life. Many years ago a pious, simple and good-natured Christian man came to see me. He asked me to pray so that Christ may enlighten his children when they grow up, to endure without grudges a great injustice done against them by their relatives. He told me the af­fair. As far as I could see, he was really a man of God.

He was the oldest of five children. After the untimely death of his father, he stood by his younger siblings like a good father. He worked hard, increased the family for­tune, bought more property, land and so on, and helped his two sisters get married. His younger brothers got mar­ried too and they took all the good fields, the olive groves and so on, leaving him with a few useless, barren and sandy fields. In the end he got married too, and had three children. By that time, he was older, and was worried about his children, that they may be bitter over the in­justice when they would grow up. He used to say to me, "I am not concerned about it for myself, because I read the Psalter. I do one reading in the afternoon and two be­fore dawn. I almost know it by heart. You don't read any­where in the Psalms that the unjust prosper. God looks after the just. You see, Father, I am not sad for the land I lost, but for my brothers who are losing their souls." He went away at that time, and visited me again some ten years later.

He was very happy: "Remember me, Father?" he asked, "remember me?" "Of course," I replied and asked how he is doing. "I am wealthy now," he said. "And how did you get rich, my good brother?" I asked him. "Well, all that useless, sandy land of mine appreciated greatly because of its location on the beach. This time, I have come to ask your advice about how I should spend my money." "You should make sure your children have a home to stay and put aside enough money for their edu­cation." "I have enough for that," he said, "and more." "Well, then give some to your poor relatives and to other poor people that you know." "I have done so, Father," he said, "but it's still a lot." "Then, you should give some to repair the Church in your village and the Chapels in the countryside." "I have done that too," he said, "and I still have plenty." "Then," I told him, "I pray that Christ guides you to do good to those who really need it." I asked him about his brothers. He started weeping. "I don't know, Father, I have lost track of them. They sold their land in the village, the olive groves and the fields, and I have no idea where they are now. They had gone to Germany first, then to Australia and that's the last I've heard of them." I was sorry I had asked about his brothers. I hadn't realized how sad he would get. I tried to console him and he left at peace. I told him that we should both pray to get good news from them. Later I remembered the Psalm, "I have seen a wicked man overbearing, and towering like a cedar of Lebanon. Again I passed by, and, lo, he was no more; though I sought him, he could not be found" (8). That's exactly what happened to this man's brothers.

There's nothing worse than the injustice. Make sure you have God's blessing in whatever you do.
_________________

1. Ps 37:16

2. Seven Youths of Ephesus (252 A.D.). Their Feast Day is commemorated on 22 October and 4 August.

3. Cf. Gen 37:20 f.

4. Rom 13:7.

5.Mt 5:40.

6. The Athonias was established in 1748 on Mount Athos as an Academy of Greek studies. Today it functions as an Ecclesiastical High School.

7. Card is a wire-toothed brush or a machine fitted with rows of wire teeth, used to disentangle fibres, as of wool, prior to spinning.

8. Ps 37:35-36.


(ELDER PAISIOS OF MOUNT ATHOS SPIRITUAL COUNSELS "WITH PAIN AND LOVE for Contemporary Man", Part 1, Chapter 4, p. 87-104, Holy Monastery "Evangelist John the Theologian" SOUROTI, THESSALONIKI, GREECE)
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 9:33 AM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Family and Parish, Modern Saints and Elders, Politics, Spirituality
Reactions: 

Orthodoxy in Guatemala: An Interview With Abbess Ines


Abbess Ines is the head of the only Orthodox parish in Guatemala – the Monastery of the Holy and Life-Giving Trinity, the “Lavra of Mambre”, under the Patriarchate of Antioch. She comes from an influential and well known family in Guatemala which has produced many outstanding individuals. When [then Catholic] Sister Ines was 36 years old, she made an extreme change in her life, leaving a Catholic monastic order and becoming an Orthodox nun.

Holy Trinity Monastery was founded by Mother Ines and Sister Maria Amistoso in April of 1986. In 1989, the engineer Federico Bauer donated a piece of land on the shores of Lake Amatitlan, not far from Guatemala City, to the monastery. The land is 1188 meters [about 3900 feet] above sea level and is located near Pacaya, one of the most active volcanoes in Central America.

On the day of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker in 1995, the “Act of Creating an Orthodox Church in Guatemala” was signed by Bishop (now Metropolitan) Antonio Chedraoui of Mexico, Venezuela, Central America and the Caribbean (of the Antiochian Patriarchate), and also by the head of the monastery, Mother Ines and her nuns, and 25 parishioners.

Buildings rose on the site donated by Federico Bauer and the consecration of the monastery took place in November, 2007, with 18 participating clerics, who came to Guatemala especially for this occasion.

The iconography in the Monastery church is being done by Russian masters from the International School of Icon Painting, based both in the town of Kostroma in Russia and in the USA.

In 1996, the government of Guatemala gave the monastery control of an orphanage built to house 800 children, the “House of Rafael Ayau” in the country’s capital, Guatemala City. At present they have just over 100 boys and girls – from newborn babies to 16 year old adolescents. The workers at the orphanage give the children a high-school education and familiarize them with basic Orthodox concepts. They also give them professional skills. Soon, the orphanage will be moved to the monastery.

In February of 1997, the church of the Transfiguration of the Lord was blessed in the orphanage building. In the absence of a priest, the services are led by a reader [called Reader’s Services]. Two children’s choirs sing antiphonally, where one choir sings one stanza, and then the other choir sings the next stanza. The exclamations and the dismissal are read by Mother Ines. The parish is made up of Guatemalans, Arabs, Greeks, Russians, and Ukrainians.

Holy Trinity Monastery has fairly large agricultural holdings, where rabbits and fish are raised and vegetables are grown. All that they produce goes to the orphanage.

In July of 2009, Mother Ines came to Russia to visit the holy places and to broaden her ties to the Russian Orthodox Church. The Abbess was accompanied Sister Maria and two teenagers from the orphanage.

This conversation with Mother Ines took place during that visit, on a trip from Sretensky Monastery to the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra. [lavra: a large monastery]


Abbess Ines, Sister Maria, and two of the “graduates” of the orphanage, Reina and Edgar Rolando

– Mother Ines, how did you become acquainted with the Orthodox faith?

– When I was 20 years old, I became a Catholic nun, and entered a monastery under the order of the Dormition of the Holy Theotokos. They gave me to read the conversations of St. Seraphim of Sarov with Nicholas Motovilov, and the texts of the Orthodox Liturgy. What I read astonished me to the depths of my soul. One of the nuns showed me several Orthodox icons, including a reproduction of Andrei Rublev’s “Holy Trinity.” I was interested, and I burned with a desire to find the roots of all of this. From that time, I began saying the “Jesus Prayer” [“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”].

I studied theology for ten years – with the Salezians in Guatemala, with the monks of the Holy Spirit in Mexico, with the famous theologian Jean Daniélou in France, and with the Jesuits in Belgium and El Salvador. I continued to be bothered by one question: where are the treasures to be found that I came across at the beginning of my Monastic life? Once, in Brussels, the nun who was in charge of my spiritual growth brought me to a Russian Paschal [Easter] service. It was held in a chapel on the second floor of a private home, but even then, I did not find an answer to my question.

I did not want to serve in Latin America: in those years, because of the spread of “liberation theology”, Church-government relations had become seriously strained. I received permission to go to the Philippines. There, to my amazement, I met more Sisters of the Dormition, who were seeking the same thing I was. We found out about Eastern Rite Catholics, and considered reforming our community to use the Eastern Rite. Unfortunately, most of the Sisters left, and several got married. Only the native-Philippine Sister Maria and I remained. The nuns of my order, which has great influence in the Philippines, asked me to leave the country, because they thought I was spreading revolutionary sentiments.

I went to Jerusalem, where I finally came into contact with real Orthodoxy. Sister Maria came to me from the Philippines, and together we traveled across the Holy Land, started to learn different liturgical services, and talked to priests.

– How did your family take your conversion to Orthodoxy?

– My father is a very educated person, but when I told him that I want to join Orthodoxy, he said “What do you mean? This does not exist in nature!” Nevertheless, our conversation intrigued him. In a few weeks, Dad went to Turkey. When he got there, he hailed a cab, and told the taxi to take him to an Orthodox church where he could see an Orthodox service. After that, he went by ship to the Holy Land, where he did the same thing. From that time, Orthodoxy became for him a reality.

My mother supported my decision right away. She was interested in Russia, and read a lot about it. She read a book about the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church in Alaska with great interest. When the Antiochian Bishop Antonio Chedraoui, during his first visit to Guatemala, received some Arabs into Orthodoxy, my mother also went forward and was received into the Orthodox Church through chrismation. Later, my father also became Orthodox.

– How did you join the Antiochian Church?

– Sister Mary and I decided to form an Orthodox monastery in Guatemala. On our way from Israel, we stopped in the Swiss town of Chambésy [not far from Geneva], where we visited Metropolitan Damaskenos Papandreu of Switzerland (Patriarchate of Constantinople). He blessed the opening of our Monastery, and said that we had to join a jurisdiction of one of the Orthodox patriarchates. To do this was not easy. The Orthodox Churches that had a presence in Latin America then did not have a particular interest in the local population. The Patriarchate of Constantinople served the Greeks, the Patriarchate of Antioch – Arabs, the Russian Patriarchate – Russians. Only after asking for ten years did we get accepted by the Antiochian Church’s Metropolitan Antonio (Cherdaoui).

For the registration of a parish, we needed 25 signatures of Guatemalan citizens. We did not have that many parishioners. So my relatives, the relatives of another nun, Sister Ivonne, and our friends also signed the petition.


– Why did your community choose the ancient Russian style when building your church?

– We sincerely love Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church. The crosses on our cupolas are Byzantine, but everything else is Russian: the architecture, the icons, and the frescos. People, when they see the Russian cupolas, understand right away that there is an Orthodox church before them. Our parish keeps to Russian traditions in the services, keeps to the Julian calendar; and the nuns wear the Russian monastic habit.

– Where is the monastery?

– We built the monastery 20 kilometers [about 12½ miles] from Guatemala City, on the top of a hill. Around us there are woods, and not far away, Lake Amatitlan. It is a very beautiful place, although it’s true that it is not entirely fitting for a holy monastery because we are so close to the city and come across the problems that exist in any suburb of a large Latin American city–overpopulation and the drug trade.

– How large is the Sisterhood?

– Three nuns live in the monastery. Besides me, there is Sister Maria Amistoso, who is a native of the Philippines, and Sister Ivonne Sommerkramp who came to the monastery five years after it was founded. She is a Guatemalan with German roots. Earlier, we had more nuns.

– Who performs services?

– We do not have a permanent priest yet. Two times a month, groups of missionaries and volunteers come from places such as the USA, Norway, Japan and other countries; and those groups always have a priest. Russian priests have also been with us: Protopriest Basil Movchanuk – head of the church of Sts. Peter and Paul in Yartsevo, in the Smolensk region; and Protopriest Igor Kropochev – a helper for the missionary department of the Kemerovo diocese.

The katholikon of the Monastery of the Holy and Life Giving Trinity, the “Lavra of Mambre”

– Tell us about the monastery’s orphanage please.

– Our orphanage, the oldest and largest in our country, is located right in the heart of Guatemala City. My ancestor, Rafael Ayau, organized it in 1857. He was a philanthropist, and a very pious person. Monks from the charity organization “Caridad” took control of the orphanage from [my ancestor] don Rafael when he, from France, invited them to do so. In 1960, the government deported the members of “Caridad”, and the government itself took over the care of the orphanage. After 40 years, President Alvaro Arsu handed over control of the orphanage, which was in terrible shape, to our monastery. It is unlikely that any other politician would have done that; they are afraid of Orthodox people. Arsu was not afraid, because there were some Orthodox people in his family.

Because of changes in the social laws, our orphanage began to look more like a boarding school. In twelve years, over 1000 children from poor and underprivileged families have gone through our orphanage. All of them are raised in the Orthodox spirit. Many of them return to their parents, but do not break their ties to the monastery, and continue to go to liturgy on Sundays. Over 300 of our orphans have been adopted by Orthodox families, mostly in the USA.

The Russian ambassador to Guatemala, Nicholas Vladimir, had told me that the Russian government grants stipends for higher education in Russia to young people from other countries, and we have taken advantage of that opportunity. Two of our children, Reina and Edgar Rolando, have come with us to Moscow. They will start studying Information [Computer] Science and Engineering at a Russian university in September.

– How are your monastery’s relations with the Catholic Church?

– We have a warm, friendly attitude towards them, but the Catholic Church has been quietly waging war against us, warily, secretly. For example, after we sent our petition to register the parish with the [Guatemalan] Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we did not know what happened to it for several years. When President Arsu asked the monastery to take the orphanage under its wing, I said that we could not do it, because we did not officially exist. The President entrusted his lawyer with solving the problem. As it turned out, our documents had been located in the curia the entire time; Catholics had spirited them away. Fortunately, President Arsu then gave the Holy Trinity Parish the status of a jurisdictional body by special decree.

Protestant denominations, of which there are hundreds now, do not worry the Catholics. Orthodoxy puts fear into them. There are several reasons for this, but, the biggest reason is that the Catholic hierarchy fears that the Orthodox Church will convert some of their flock. The Cardinal of Guatemala admitted this to the Russian ambassador.

Nonetheless, it is impossible to escape contact with the Catholic Church. Catholicism dominates Guatemala. My father is a public person; I was a Catholic nun for 16 years; the Cardinal is the cousin of my godfather, and has known me since childhood.

– What are Orthodoxy’s prospects in Guatemala, in your opinion?

– I am convinced that Orthodoxy has a great future in our country. Two priests, one 20 years ago, and another recently, [unofficially] converted to Orthodoxy from Catholicism, and brought their flocks with them. In total, that is over 100,000 people. They consider themselves Orthodox, though they have not been officially joined to the Orthodox Church, and, from my observations, know very little of Eastern Christianity. Among them are Ladinos (descendants of the Spanish) and Indians. Both groups intend to ask for entrance into the Russian Orthodox Church.

– What are your impressions of Russia from your visit?

– I have no words to describe the feelings that I have when I am here. I am astonished by everything: the architecture, and the interior decoration of the churches and monasteries, the architecture of the cities and towns, the nature [flora and fauna]… I especially notice the piety of the people, their deep faith, which they have preserved through decades of the godless Communist regime.

Interview conducted by Miguel Palacio.

Translated into English by Adrian Fekula. Translation edited by Br. James Hazen

Мигель Паласио

16 / 07 / 2009

Source
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 8:49 AM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: America, Antiochian Archdiocese of America, Catholicism and Papacy, Missions, Orthodox Converts
Reactions: 

Thursday, October 15, 2009

The Orthodoxy of Lucian of Antioch

St. Lucian (Loukianos) of Antioch (Feast Day - October 15)

You know we are living in evil times when scholars seek to exonerate people like Origen of Alexandria and condemn St. Lucian of Antioch for being a heretic. Honest scholars know they have no basis for their speculations, but since they consider themselves better arbiters of Orthodoxy than the Church Fathers we are expected to take their speculations as fact. The philosophy they base their speculations on are that "history is written by the winners" and for this reason any Orthodox history is to be distrusted at the expense of the "underdog".

The underdogs in this case are the heretical Arians who claimed as the teacher of their heresy to be Lucian of Antioch. However the Orthodox also claim him as one of their own. For contemporary scholars, the claim of the Orthodox must be immediately dismissed if the underdog heretics oppose the Orthodox view of history. Because Lucian left no writings, the claims of neither can be objectively justified. The only thing that can be objectively established is that Lucian lived an exemplerary holy life and after being accused of heresy was received back into the Church communion and valued this communion till the end of his martyric life for which he suffered the torture of hunger till death for the glory of God. Heresy is something he tried to avoid and based his entire ministry in combatting. This is why he opposed the philosophical speculations of the Alexandrian School, this is why he revised the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, and this is why he submitted himself to the Church when he was (probably falsely) accused of Monarchianism.

He was accused of being the father of Arianism based on an encyclical of 321, promulgated by Alexander of Alexandria, that associates Lucian with Paul of Samosata. But Henry Melville Gwatkin responds: "It was no love of heathenism, but a real difficulty of the gospel which led him to form a new theory. His aim was not to lower the person of the Lord or to refuse him worship, but to defend that worship from the charge of polytheism. Starting from the Lord's humanity, he was ready to add to it everything short of the fullest deity. He could not get over the philosophical difficulty that one who is man cannot be also God, and therefore a second God" (Studies of Arianism, London, 1900).

Lucian was reconciled with the Orthodox Church in 285, before Arianism was declared a heresy. Church authorities officially accepted a conciliatory statement of belief by Lucian in 289 and, posthumously, in 341, at an ecclesiastical council in Antioch. At the Council of 341 a Creed written by Lucian was presented that defended his Orthodoxy (can be read here) and was preserved by Rufinus (Historia Eccles., IX, vi). In his History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff offers the explanation that Lucian was “a critical scholar with some peculiar views on the Trinity and Christology which were not in harmony with the later Nicene orthodoxy, but that his heroic defense of the Church and his martyrdom under the Romans restored his legitimacy in the Church." Though this may initially have been true of Lucian, I would go further and accept the decision of the Council of 341 which defended the Orthodoxy of St. Lucian and vindicated him of the accusations of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Though he cannot be viewed as a Father of the Church, he certainly deserves to be acknowledged as a Saint worthy of veneration and emulation according to the tradition handed down concerning him by the Church.

St. Nikolai Velimirovich gives us this brief biography of St. Lucian:

Born of noble parents in Syrian Samosata, he received in his youth a very wide education, both secular and spiritual, and was a man eminent both for his learning and for his strict ascetic life. Giving his goods away to the poor, he supported himself by the writing of works of instruction, feeding himself thus by the work of his hands. He did a very great service to the Church in the work which he undertook of the correcting of the Hebrew text of the Scriptures in many places, texts which heretics had taken the opportunity to twist and corrupt according to their wicked teaching. Because of his learning and his great spirituality, he was ordained priest in Antioch. In the time of Maximian's persecution, when St Anthimus of Nicomedia and St Peter of Alexandria were put to torture, St Lucian was also on the list of those whom the Emperor wanted to have killed. Lucian fled the city and hid, but a jealous heretic priest, Pancratius, revealed his whereabouts. The persecution was terrible at that time, and not even tiny children were safe. Two boys, who would not eat food offered to idols, were thrown into a bath of boiling water, where, under torture, they gave their holy souls into God's hands. A disciple of Lucian's, Pelagia (see Oct. 8th), to preserve her virginal purity from the dissolute authorities, gave her soul into God's hands, and her body fell from the roof of her house. Lucian was taken to Nicomedia. to appear before the Emperor. On the way, he managed to bring forty soldiers to Christ by his counsel, and thev all died a martyr's death. After interrogation and flogging, St Lucian was thrown into prison, where he was tortured by hunger. 'He scorned hunger', writes St John Chrysostom of Lucian. 'Let us also scorn luxury and destroy the lordship of the stomach; that we may, when the time comes for us to meet such torture, be prepared beforehand, by the help of a lesser ascesis, to show ourselves worthy of glory in the hour of battle.' He received Communion in prison on the Theophany, and on the following day gave his soul into God's hands, on January 7th, 312.

Eusebius writes of St. Lucian (Church History VIII.13.2):

"Among the martyrs at Antioch was Lucian, a presbyter of that parish, whose entire life was most excellent. At Nicomedia, in the presence of the emperor, he proclaimed the heavenly kingdom of Christ, first in an oral defense, and afterwards by deeds as well."

Creed of St. Lucian

We believe, in accordance with the evangelic and apostolic tradition, in one God the Father Almighty, the Maker and Provider of all things.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ His son, the only-begotten God, through whom all things were made, who was begotten of the Father before all ages, God of God, Whole of Whole, One of One, Perfect of Perfect, King of King, Lord of Lord, the living Word, Wisdom, Life, True Light, Way, Truth, Resurrection, Shepherd, Door, unchangeable and unalterable, the immutable likeness of the Godhead, both of the substance and will and power and glory of the Father, the first-born of all creation, who was in the beginning with God, the Divine Logos, according to what is said in the Gospel: 'and the Word was God' through whom all things were made and in whom 'all things consist': who in the last days came down from above and was born of a Virgin, according to the Scriptures, and became man, the Mediator between God and man, and the Apostle of our Faith, and the Prince of Life; as He says: 'I have come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me'; who suffered for us; and rose for us the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and again is coming with glory and power to judge the living and the dead.

And in the Holy Spirit given for consolation and sanctification and perfection to those who believe; as also our Lord Jesus Christ commanded His disciples, saying: 'Go ye, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' -- clearly of a Father who is really a father, and of a Son who is really a son, and of the Holy Spirit who is really a holy spirit, these names being assigned, not vaguely nor idly, but indicating accurately the special personality (hypostasy), order, and glory of those named, so that in personality they are three, but in harmony one.

Having then this faith, having it both from the beginning and to the end, before God and Christ we anathematize all heretical false doctrine. And if any one, contrary to the right faith of the Scriptures, teaches and says that there either is or has been a period or time or age before the Son of God was begotten, let him be accursed (anathema). And if any one says that the Son is a creature as one of the creatures, or generated as one of the things generated, or made as one of the things made, and not as the Divine Scripture have handed down each of the things aforesaid, or if any one teaches or preaches a gospel other than we have received, let him be accursed.

For we truly and clearly both believe and follow all things from the Holy Scriptures that have been transmitted to us by the Prophets and Apostles.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 2:53 PM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Heresy, Patristics, Saints
Reactions: 

The Corruption of Orthodox Iconography


"They shall not profane the holy things of the people of Israel, which they offer to the Lord." - Leviticus 22:15

Orthodox Christians hold their iconography to be sacred and should treat them as they would the one depicted. For this reason we bow to them, kiss them, pray before them and we would even suffer and die for them as was done during the period of Iconoclasm.

Last Sunday (October 11) we not only celebrated the Sunday of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod which is a celebration of the Orthodox doctrine of iconography, but also that of the Miracle of the Icon of our Lord Jesus Christ in Beirut. If there is one lesson we should learn from these two commemorations, it is how to properly treat an icon.

There is a massive corruption of Orthodox iconography going on in our days that most of us are guilty of taking part in through one way or another. The ways this is done are many. Below I offer a few examples. I'm probably going to have many who disagree with some of my views below, but they are just my own personal opinion to uphold the sacred value and reverence of Orthodox icons.

Mass Produced Icons

In our modern era, with computer programs and machinery that allow for great mass production, icons have severely been cheapened to the point where most Orthodox must confess that they have been iconoclasts themselves unwittingly.

For example, when I was a child my parish would post a colored icon on the cover of our weekly parish bulletin and yearly calendar, which they still do. Usually the bulletin would advertize the goings on of the parish for that week and on the back there was a short description of the icon. Because the contents were exclusive to the week, I can almost guarantee that the bulletin everyone in my parish received made its way into the trash if not right away then surely by weeks end. I know ours did. During social hour I would see some on the floor and people stepping on them, or on the tables and people using them as place mats for their coffee and pastry. By the time we were done with them, these icons were stained, ripped and trashed without any regard for the one depicted.

As I got older I began to reflect on these things. I believed it was inconsistent for me to venerate icons in my church and burn my oil lamp and incense before my personal icons, while I mistreated the mass produced paper ones which only served a temporary purpose. After all, there are many reported miracles of copies of icons as well as their originals. I thus began a personal revolt at this point. Everytime I received something with an icon on it that was to be discarded, I set aside and before discarding I would cut out the icon and keep it near my other icons. If some were ripped I put them aside and respectfully burned them at a certain point, as the canons advise. This is something I would encourage everyone to do as well to preserve the sacred nature of the image, tedious as it may seem.

Photoshopped Icons

It used to be that iconographers would keep a fast througout the period when they painted icons and they would unceasingly pray due to the sacred nature of their work, and this in turn would sanctify the icon and gain the approval of the one depicted. Today with photo editing programs and the simple click of a button we can do what we want with ease to corrupt this sacred art. There is a blasphemous trend today to photoshop icons. It seems only the non-Orthodox are doing this to make some sort of a cultural or political statement, such as when Harry Potter and Barrack Obama were photoshopped onto what was an image of Christ. Before the trend catches on I would advise Orthodox Christians to abstain from this practice for whatever reason.

Icon Jewelery

I wouldn't say all icon jewelery is bad. For example, an icon pendant or even a button pin is fine. Some however go too far and it seems to me that they are only made for sellers to make a quick buck. For eample, I've seen icon earings and bracelets. The former aren't seen so much but the latter have become a popular trend among Orthodox. Members of my own family wear them and not too long ago I went to eat at a local restaurant where the hostess was a Greek Orthodox widow who wore an icon bracelet on each wrist. What I find improper with the whole thing is that it is usually worn as a sort of good luck charm, and everytime they drop their hands on a table they smash the icons as well. Pendants and button pins can be properly treated, but I see no point in earings and bracelets which are more fashion statements than anything. It is a fashion trend that has sprung from Orthodox, even the non-practicing, wearing prayer ropes - as if everyone is a practicing hesychast!

Icons on Accessories

To make a quick buck retailers and vendors have also resorted to putting icons on various accessories. Again, some I think can be used properly but others are not only improper but pointless. Of the many that I find to be improper are icon cookie stamps, candy moulds, business cards, key chains, mousepads, mugs, and a few others. Why would you want to eat something with an icon on it? Or print an icon on something someone is going to surely discard? Or treat an icon the way you treat your keys? Or roll your computer mouse all around it? Or use your lips on an icon not to kiss it but to drink coffee or soda from it? Before we buy such things we need to first think how we are going to treat these icons and if it falls in line with the way icons should be treated.

Purchasing Currupt Icons

Yes, there are corrupt icons out there. Some icons are painted by schismatics that we should avoid purchasing as much as possible. Others are outright heretical and blasphemous.

The group that produces the so-called Monastery Icons are one which all Orthodox should avoid. Not only are they terrible pieces of art, but this group is a New Age cult that does not paint icons in a traditional manner nor do they treat them so. In their worship they mix Hindu rituals with Christian ones. For further reading on this heretical group, see here, here, and here.

Following the tradition of Monastery Icons, there are many non-Orthodox iconographers out there who have produced icons of people that are far from being saints and deserve iconographic depiction. Some may have been great political leaders or heros, but the deified and grace-filled depiction of these personages is improper and should not be purchased by Orthodox Christians. One such group of many is the Episcopalian Grace Cathedral who paint icons of literary figures and civil activists. Others may depict pop culture personalities.

Commissioning Corrupt Icons

The commissioning of icons for a sacred purpose is a good thing. Sometimes however we let our passions get in the way. For this reason we must be very careful when we commission icons to make sure it falls within the boundaries of a traditional format. The sacred art of iconography is not about producing original works for the sake of beauty or art, but as a means of sanctification. What we choose to sanctify however should be carefully chosen. For example, depicting the Theotokos over a soccer field to celebrate the winning of the 2002 Euro Cup is a bad idea.

Conclusion

In so many ways within our contemporary society even the most devout Orthodox Christians have lost a sense of what is sacred. The examples above are just one way this is done. For the most part, I'm sure it is not the original intention of anyone to corrupt Orthodox iconography. Most have probably never even considered it. Since I have I thought it was my duty to enlighten others and hopefully we can give greater consideration to what is holy in our lives and the means through which we can be sanctified by them or even, for that matter, be corrupted by the improper use of them.

Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 1:09 AM 21 comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Family and Parish, Iconography, Secularism
Reactions: 

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Icon of the Mother of God the "Multiplier of Wheat"


The Icon of the Mother of God, the "Multiplier of Wheat", was painted at the blessing of the Elder Ambrose (October 10) of the Visitation Optina wilderness monastery. St Ambrose, a great Russian ascetic of the nineteenth century, was ardent with a childlike faith towards the Mother of God. In particular, he revered all the Feastdays of the Mother of God, and on these days he redoubled his prayer. With the icon, "Multiplier of Wheat," St Ambrose blessed the Shamordino women's monastery established in honor of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God, which he had founded not far from the Optina monastery.

On this icon, the Mother of God is depicted sitting upon the clouds, and Her hands are extended in blessing. Beneath her is a compressed field, and on it amidst the grass and flowers stand and lay sheaves of rye. Elder Ambrose himself decreed the day of celebration, October 15, and called the icon "Multiplier of Wheat", indicating by this, that the Most Holy Theotokos "is a Helper for people in their labors for the acquiring of their daily bread."

Before his blessed repose, St Ambrose ordered many copies of this icon and sent them to his spiritual children. For the Akathist to this icon, the Elder composed a particular response, "Hail, Full of Grace, the Lord is with You! Grant unto us unworthy ones the dew of Your grace and the showing forth of Your mercy!"

St Ambrose's burial took place on October 15, the Feastday of the icon (he reposed on October 10). The first miracle from the holy icon was witnessed in 1891, when throughout Russia there was a famine because of crop failure. In the Kaluga district and on the fields of the Shamordino monastery, however, grain was produced. In 1892, already after the death of St Ambrose, his attendant John Cherepanov sent a copy of the icon to the Pyatnitsa women's monastery in Voronezh district. In this locale there was a threat of drought and famine, but soon after a Molieben was celebrated before the icon "The Multiplier of Wheat", rain fell and ended the drought.

Source
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 7:22 PM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Iconography, Mariology, Modern Saints and Elders, Orthodoxy in Russia
Reactions: 

The Concept of the Divine Energies


by David Bradshaw, University of Kentucky

Anyone familiar with the history of western philosophy is aware of how large a role has been played within it by theology. This is true not only of the Middle Ages, when philosophy was the handmaiden of theology, but as recently as Hegel and Kierkegaard, or arguably even Heidegger and Wittgenstein. For almost two millennia philosophers have drawn on theology to help them grapple with issues including, obviously, the existence of God and the relationship of faith and reason, but also such fundamental questions as the objectivity of morality, the meaning of our existence, and the nature of being itself. Naturally borrowings have gone in the other direction as well, and often what philosophers have found in theology is something that theology herself had drawn from philosophy centuries before. Despite this long and intimate association, in recent centuries the trajectory of philosophy has unquestionably been in the direction of secularization. It would be fair to say that most contemporary philosophers, if not embarrassed by philosophy’s theological past, are at least glad that it is behind us, and prefer to think of their discipline as now relatively autonomous. Accompanying this attitude is a tacit assumption that, whatever philosophy may have drawn from theology in the past, today the theological well has more or less run dry. To think that philosophy might find in theology today a revolutionary inspiration is, on this view, mere nostalgia.

When one turns from the history of philosophy to that of theology, however, one finds grounds to question these prevailing views. I do not have in mind any deep insights about the nature of theology or the superiority of its methods over those of philosophy. Rather, I have in mind a simple historical fact: the bifurcation of the Christian theological tradition into two streams during the early Middle Ages, and the limitation of western philosophy to only one of those two streams. How this came about is, I trust, a relatively familiar story. Sometime around the late fourth century the elites of the Roman Empire largely ceased to be bilingual, with those of the West increasingly reading and speaking only Latin, and those of the East reading and speaking only Greek. The change is illustrated by the career of Augustine, who tells us in the Confessions how much he detested Greek as a boy and how glad he was to put it behind him. His entire theological formation seems to have taken place without reference to the enormous body of Greek theological writing which was at that time the main repository of Christian thought. Although this absence no doubt aided the flowering of Augustine’s originality, it meant that the legacy he bestowed on the western church was remarkably disconnected from the earlier tradition. Meanwhile the Greek tradition continued along its own path, almost wholly oblivious to the enormous importance that Augustine had attained in the West. No works of Augustine were translated into Greek until the thirteenth century, while only a few of the later Greek works—most famously, the Dionysian Corpus and the De Fide Orthodoxa of St. John of Damascus—were translated into Latin. Since these were read outside of their original context, however, they were often misunderstood, particularly at points where they are at odds with Augustine.

Thus the theology which influenced western philosophy was primarily that of Augustine and his Latin successors. One might think that with the recovery of Greek learning in the Renaissance this imbalance would have been corrected. By that time, however, a long succession of councils and popes had made it clear that western Christianity was and must remain fundamentally Augustinian. The Protestant reformers, far from challenging this result, drew on Augustine for their own understandings of predestination and salvation by faith alone. From the point of view of both camps, the Byzantine Christians were schismatics and heretics. So far as philosophy was concerned, the effect of these hard doctrinal lines was that the way of thinking about God typical of Latin scholasticism—as First Cause, actus purus, eternal, unchanging, perfectly simple, and so on, with all of these attributes knowable through “natural reason” alone—remained the starting point of philosophical reflection. Philosophers quarreled over it, tinkered with its details, and in growing numbers wholly rejected it. However, that something like this God is, as it were, the philosophical shape of Biblical religion remained unquestioned, save for a few isolated and eccentric figures such as Kierkegaard.

My goal in this paper is two-fold. First I wish to show that a sharply different way of thinking about God was present within the Christian tradition from an early point, that is, prior to Augustine. Second, I wish to show that this alternative conception is of live philosophical interest. Although I shall be discussing primarily Christian sources, I by no means believe that what I have to say should be of interest only to Christians. The question of what God is like, if there is a God, is of universal human importance. What ought to interest us in any answer is not what religious label it comes under, but whether it is true.

The concept I will focus on is that of the divine energies. In a sense, the notion that God is energy is thoroughly traditional. The term ‘energy’ comes from the Greek energeia, a term coined by Aristotle. Aristotle’s earliest works use it to mean the active exercise of a capacity, such as that for sight or thought, as distinct from the mere possession of the capacity. It is easy to see how from this beginning it came to be used in two otherwise unrelated ways, for activity and for actuality. (Its correlative term dunamis likewise has two meanings, capacity and potentiality.) These two senses, which seem to us quite distinct, sometimes reconverge. In Metaphysics ix.6 Aristotle distinguishes energeia from motion or change (kinēsis) on the grounds that a motion or change is ordered toward some extrinsic end—as housebuilding aims at a house—whereas an energeia is its own end. The examples he gives are seeing, thinking, understanding, living well, and flourishing. Plainly these are activities, but they are activities that are fully actual in the sense that they contain their own end and thus are fully complete at each moment of their existence, rather than requiring a stretch of time. Aristotle illustrates this difference with the so-called “tense test,” namely that at each moment that one sees (or thinks, or so on) one also has seen, whereas at each moment that one builds a house one has not also built a house.

The most interesting application of energeia in this sense is in Aristotle’s theory of the Prime Mover. The Prime Mover is a being whose substance (ousia) is energeia (Met. xii.6 1071b20), in three distinct but related senses. First, since the Prime Mover is posited to explain motion it cannot itself be subject to motion, and thus it has no potentiality to change or be acted upon. Second, because it must be eternally and unchangingly active it can have no unrealized capacities to act; everything it can do it already does, all at once and as a whole. The first point raises the question of how the Prime Mover can move without being moved. Aristotle answers this question with his famous theory that the Prime Mover is self-thinking thought, a being whose “thought is a thinking of thinking” (xii.9 1075b34). This means that there is yet a third sense in which its substance is energeia, this time in the sense of activity rather than actuality: namely, its substance is nothing other than the self-subsistent activity of thought.

In saying this I do not wish to imply that the Prime Mover thinks of nothing but itself and thus has a rather impoverished mind. Aristotle is quite clear that the Prime Mover’s thinking embraces all possible intelligible content; after all, if it did not, there would be a kind of thinking in which it could engage but does not, and it would in that respect fail to be fully actual. In saying that the Prime Mover “thinks itself,” what he means is that, precisely because its act of thinking is fully actual, this act is identical to its object, for there is nothing other than the object—no unrealized potency—constituting the act as what it is. (One might compare Hume’s view that the self is a bundle of impressions and ideas. Aristotle would in general say that our selves are distinct from our actual thought because they include a vast range of unrealized potencies; in the case of the Prime Mover, however, that distinction disappears.) Given the identity of the Prime Mover’s thought with its object, a remarkable result follows: the Prime Mover not only thinks all possible intelligible content, it is all possible intelligible content, existing all at once as a single eternal and fully actual substance. Aristotle does not draw this conclusion explicitly, but later commentators, beginning with Alexander of Aphrodisias, did so, and it became a fundamental ingredient in the synthesis of Plato and Aristotle executed by the Neoplatonists.1

My interest here is not in the Prime Mover as such, but in what all this implies about the meaning of energeia. In the Prime Mover we have a being which both thinks and is all possible intelligible content, existing as a single eternal and unchanging whole. The intelligible structure of things, however, is what makes them what they are. (This is the familiar doctrine that form is substance, articulated particularly in Metaphysics vii.17.) Thus one could equally say that the Prime Mover is present in all things, imparting—or rather, constituting—their intelligible structure, and thus their being. In light of all this, when we say that the Prime Mover is pure energeia, how ought we to translate that term? Activity? Actuality? Plainly the answer is both—and therefore neither. It seems to me that the closest we can come in English is to say that it is pure energy. Specifically, I have in mind the sense given in the American Heritage Dictionary as “power exercised with vigor and determination,” and illustrated with the phrase, “devote one’s energies to a worthy cause.” But of course no illustration drawn from ordinary objects will be adequate to the notion of a being that is pure energy, an energy that constitutes the being of other things.

At the same time, let us note that Aristotle assumes that one can sensibly speak of what it is like to be the Prime Mover. For example, he states that its way of life is “such as the best which we enjoy . . . , since its energy (energeia) is also pleasure,” and he goes on to add that it “is always in that good state in which we sometimes are” (xii.7 1072b14-25). Lest we think of the identification of the Prime Mover with energy as a sort of physicalistic reduction, we must remember that it is a being with mental states in some sense analogous to our own. That there is such an analogy is presupposed in the identification of its activity as thought (noēsis), for thinking is something in which we too engage, although in an incomparably more partial and limited way.

Now I wish to fast-forward about four centuries to the Apostle Paul. During the intervening period the metaphysical associations that Aristotle gave to energeia were largely ignored. In popular usage energeia simply meant activity. However, even in this sense it is natural to speak of the energeia of God or the gods, and one finds such references among Hellenistic historians and within Alexandrian Judaism. This raises the question of how the divine energeia relates to our own. What happens when a god wishes to perform something through a human being? Does the divine energeia simply overpower the human? Or is there instead some sort cooperation or synthesis, and if so how are we to conceive it?

An answer to these questions is implied in the writings of St. Paul. I do not wish to suggest that Paul explicitly addressed the divine energeia as a theological topic, but only that he uses the term often enough, and in a sufficient variety of contexts, that we can determine what his answer to these questions would have been. For example, Paul refers to himself as “striving according to Christ's working (or energy, energeia), which is being made effective (or actualized, energoumenēn) in me” (Col. 1:29).2 Here it would seem that the divine energy serves two distinct functions. It is at work within Paul, transforming him, so that from this standpoint he is the object of God's activity; at the same time it finds expression in Paul's own activity, so that he may also be seen as the agent or conduit through whom God is working. Yet nothing in such external direction prevents his actions from remaining his own. It would be possible to fill out in detail the events in Paul's life that this passage alludes to, for he has left us some vivid descriptions of his various trials and exertions. Not only do they exhibit full engagement and self-control, they do so more than did his actions prior to his conversion. As the story is told in Acts, Saul was trapped in self-deception until God set him free on the road to Damascus. Now the divine energy that works in him is also his own, more truly than anything he did was his own before he ceased to “kick against the pricks” (Acts 9:5).

The belief that God is active in human beings is, of course, deeply rooted in the Old Testament. There it is usually God's Word or Spirit that is the vehicle of divine indwelling, ways of speaking that tend to suggest control from without. Paul's use of energeia and related terms, such as sunergein (to cooperate) and sunergos (co-worker), shifts the emphasis from one of external control to one of cooperation.3 However, the term ‘cooperation’ can be misleading if it suggests that there are here two equal agents who simply choose to work together. In the present case, since one is the Creator and the other a creature, the action of the latter depends for its reality upon the active support of the former. I take it that Paul interprets this notion in light of the common experience of feeling that one’s actions were not truly one’s own while one was mired in sin and self-deception. On his view, synergy, the cooperation of God and man, is neither a symmetrical relation nor one in which the divine overpowers and replaces the human. It is rather one in which the human becomes fully human by embracing the divine. This is not a radically new idea; something like it can be found in the Old Testament, as well as in other religious traditions.4 What is new is the use of the vocabulary of energeia to express it.

The last stage preparatory to the thought of the Greek Fathers was pagan Neoplatonism. Let us return to the philosophical tradition to ask precisely how the Neoplatonists attempted to synthesize the thought of Plato and Aristotle. One criticism which might be raised against Aristotle’s theology is that it has no room for a proper sense of the mystery of the divine. After all, if the Prime Mover is the summation of all intelligible content, what he is can in principle be grasped by the act of thinking (noēsis), however far our own thinking falls short of that ideal. In Plato there are hints of a sharply different picture. The famous depiction of the Good in the Republic as “beyond being” could be taken—and was taken by the Neoplatonists—as meaning that the Good is beyond noēsis as well, notwithstanding that Plato himself seems to regard it as an intelligible object. This development was spurred by the association of the Good with the One of the First Hypothesis of the Parmenides. In this section of the dialogue, Parmenides gives the strictest possible interpretation to the notion of unity. He concludes that the One has no limits or shape, is neither at rest nor in motion, is neither like nor unlike anything else, and finally that it does not partake of being, has no name, and is not an object of knowledge, perception, or opinion (Parm. 137c-142a). To think that the Good of the Republic should be identified with this wholly unnamable and unknowable no-thing is certainly a remarkable idea. However, it is worth remembering that in his unwritten doctrines Plato posited a One which (in conjunction with the Indefinite Dyad) is the source of the Forms. Aristotle tells us that some in the Academy, perhaps including Plato himself, identified this One with the Good (Met. xiv.4). Later interpreters, putting these various fragments together, concluded that the One of the unwritten doctrines, the One of the Parmenides, and the Good of the Republic, are all one and the same.

Here we have, then, a first principle sharply different from that of Aristotle: unknowable, unnamable, the source of being for other things, while itself “beyond being.” Yet because it is also the Good, all things in some inchoate way seek it. The philosopher who saw a way to harmonize this Platonic conception of the first principle with that of Aristotle was Plotinus. Plotinus identified the One (or Good) as the ultimate first principle, and Aristotle’s Prime Mover he rechristened as Intellect (nous), the first hypostasis after the One. The One is no-thing, not any particular being because it is the source of all particular being. In the overflow of its goodness it gives rise to Intellect, which is all things inasmuch as it is present in all as their being, intelligibility, life, and other perfections. The object of Intellect’s thought is in a sense the One, but since Intellect cannot apprehend the One in its unity it instead refracts it into a vast array of separate intelligibles (noēta), which are the Forms. By relating the One and Intellect in this way, Plotinus established a careful balance between the apophatic—that is, the denial to God of all predicates—and the kataphatic—that is, the ascription to God of all predicates.

The most striking point for our purposes is the use that Plotinus made of the concept of energeia. I argued earlier that the Prime Mover is pure energy, an energy that constitutes the being of other things. It is natural to ask whether this conception is truly coherent; that is, whether an energy that is not the energy of something, some active agent that is not itself simply identical with the energy, actually makes sense. Plotinus answers this question with what is known as the “theory of two acts.” Intellect comes forth from the One precisely as its external act or energy, what Plotinus refers to as its energeia ek tēs ousias, the energy that comes forth from the substance. So far, then, the answer is that Intellect as an energy is dependent upon the One. However, Plotinus is too deeply steeped in Aristotle to think that substance is not itself a kind of energeia (a point emphasized in Metaphysics viii.2). Hence he also posits an energeia tēs ousias, an internal act or energy constituting the substance, of which the external act is a kind of image. His favorite illustration of this is fire, which has an internal heat that constitutes its substance and an external heat that it gives forth into the world, but the distinction is meant to be perfectly general. Ultimately it turns out that the internal act of all things is some form of contemplation, for all things are what they are by contemplating their prior in the chain of emanation.

We now have enough background in hand to see what use the Greek Fathers made of these ideas. The provocation that caused them to develop a more or less philosophical doctrine of God was the Arianism of Eunomius around the mid-fourth century. Eunomius had a simple argument that the Son is not God. It was that God is ingenerate or unbegotten, and furthermore this is not merely a privative attribute or human conception, but the divine substance or essence (ousia) itself. Plainly such an ousia cannot be shared with another by begetting. Hence the Son, who is begotten of the Father, cannot be of one essence (homoousion) with the Father. As for terms such as ‘life,’ ‘light,’ and ‘power,’ which in the New Testament are used of both the Father and the Son, Eunomius argued that they must be taken differently in the two cases. Since the divine essence is utterly simple, “every word used to signify the essence of the Father is equivalent in force of meaning to ‘the unbegotten’ (to agennēton).”5

The task of replying to Eunomius fell to St. Basil of Caesarea. Basil objected both to the assumption that the divine ousia can be known and to assumption that, because of divine simplicity, all non-privative terms said of God are identical in meaning. He writes:

"We say that we know the greatness of God, His power, His wisdom, His goodness, His providence over us, and the justness of His judgment, but not His very essence (ousia) . . . But God, he [Eunomius] says, is simple, and whatever attribute of Him you have reckoned as knowable is of His essence. The absurdities involved in this sophism are innumerable. When all these high attributes have been enumerated, are they all names of one essence? And is there the same mutual force in His awfulness and His loving-kindness, His justice and His creative power, His foreknowledge and His requital, His majesty and His providence? In mentioning any of these, do we declare His essence?"

The question, then, is how to characterize the distinction between that in God which cannot be known (the divine ousia) and that which can be known, such as the divine power, wisdom, and goodness. Basil’s answer emerges in the continuation of the passage:

"The energies are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His energies, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His energies come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach."6

As I understand him, Basil is here applying to the Christian God the distinction between ousia and energeia found in the philosophical tradition, and particularly in Plotinus.

His doing so raises at least two distinct questions. One is that of the ontological relationship between the essence and the energies. In Plotinus the external act of the One comes forth as the distinct hypostasis of Intellect. Is something similar true here in Basil? The other question is that of divine freedom, or, more precisely, the capacity to do otherwise. In Plotinus the One could not do otherwise than produce Intellect. Of course Plotinus sees this fact as not an impairment but rather an expression of the One’s freedom, since nothing other than the One’s own nature determines it to act as it does. By contrast, in the Christian tradition God is thought of as sufficiently like a person that in at least some cases, such as the creation of the world, he could do otherwise. Should we say, then, that his energies could be different than they are?

Let us begin with the first question. Plainly for Basil the energies are not a separate hypostasis, or series of hypostases. Rather, they are acts which God performs. Many scholars would in fact prefer to translate energeia in the passage that I have quoted as ‘operation,’ and to take Basil as saying only that God’s operations come down to us. I believe that the history of the distinction between the divine ousia and energeia, as I have sketched it here, argues against such a view. I find support at this point in an interesting semantic argument presented by Basil’s brother, St. Gregory of Nyssa, who defended Basil against a reply by Eunomius. Gregory adopts the view, which was widespread in antiquity, that a name is in some way indicative of the form or intrinsic characteristics of the thing named. Since God has no form, he has no name in the proper sense. Instead terms such as ‘god’ (theos) name the divine energeia of oversight or governance. (Gregory derives theos from theaomai, behold.) Now it is plain that by energeia here Gregory has in mind an operation. However, it cannot be only an operation, for then in speaking of God we would be speaking of an operation of God—that is, an operation of an operation, and so on in an infinite regress. Somehow by energeia Gregory and Basil would appear to understand both that which God is, and that which God performs.

I believe that this is perfectly intelligible in light of the history that we have traced. From the time of its introduction by Aristotle, energeia always indicated the energy which God both is and does. Plotinus refined this picture by distinguishing between internal and external act, but he did not overthrow it. Basil and Gregory in their turn revise Plotinus by rejecting the distinction of hypostasis between Intellect and the One. For them the relevant distinction is rather that between God as he exists within himself and is known only to himself, and God as he manifests himself to others. The former is the divine ousia, the latter the divine energies. It is important to note that both are God, but differently conceived: God as unknowable and as knowable, as wholly beyond us and as within our reach.

To put the distinction this way, however, could be misleading if it suggests something like a fixed and permanent boundary. The Cappadocians—Basil, Gregory, and their colleague, St. Gregory Nazianzen—think instead of that which is unknowable in God as a kind of receding horizon. Precisely the fact that we cannot know God as he knows himself draws us forward to seek to know him ever more deeply. Gregory Nazianzen expresses vividly this sense of a longing that is always both being satisfied and seeking satisfaction:

In Himself [God] sums up and contains all being, having neither beginning in the past nor end in the future; like some great sea of being, limitless and unbounded, transcending all conception of time and nature, only adumbrated by the mind, and that very dimly and scantily—not from the things directly concerning Him, but from the things around Him; one image being got from one source and another from another, and combined into some sort of presentation of the truth, which escapes us when we have caught it, and takes to flight when we have conceived it, blazing forth upon our master-part, even when that is cleansed, as the lightning flash which will not stay its course does upon our sight—in order as I conceive by that part of it which we can comprehend to draw us to itself . . . and by that part of it which we cannot comprehend to move our wonder, and as an object of wonder to become more an object of desire, and being desired to purify, and by purifying to make us like God.7

The “things around God” are, I take it, another name for the divine energies. Two points are here especially worth noting. One is the necessity for the play of images, “one image being got from one source and another from another,” in order to form anything like an adequate conception of God. Here we find the underlying philosophical rationale for the immense variety of liturgical poetry and iconographic expression within the eastern Christian tradition. The other point is the sequence leading from wonder, to desire, to purification, and finally to homoiōsis theōi, likeness to God. A philosophical reader cannot help but notice here the echoes of Plato and Aristotle, as for instance of the famous statement of Aristotle that philosophy begins with a sense of wonder, and of the Platonic emphasis on the need for purification of the soul, and of the theme found in both authors that the human telos is achieving a likeness to God.

Nonetheless, the fundamental distinction between God as He is known to Himself and as He is known to us was derived by the Cappadocians not from philosophical sources, but from Biblical revelation. Most obviously, it was inspired by the encounter of Moses with God on Mount Sinai in Exodus 33. There God warns Moses that “thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.” Nonetheless he continues: “it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen” (33:22-23). Gregory Nazianzen takes this passage as a model for understanding his own experience. In doing so he draws a distinction much like that we have seen in Basil between God as he is known to himself and as he “reaches to us”:

"What is this that has happened to me, O friends and initiates and fellow lovers of the truth? I was running up to lay hold on God, and thus I went up into the mount, and drew aside the curtain of the cloud, and entered away from matter and material things, and as far as I could I withdrew within myself. And then when I looked up I scarce saw the back parts of God, although I was sheltered by the rock, the Word that was made flesh for us. And when I looked a little closer I saw, not the first and unmingled nature, known to itself—to the Trinity, I mean; not that which abides within the first veil and is hidden by the Cherubim, but only that nature which at last even reaches to us. And that is, so far as I can tell, the majesty, or as holy David calls it, the glory which is manifested among the creatures, which it has produced and governs. For these [i.e., the majesty and glory] are the back parts of God, which He leaves behind Him as tokens of Himself like the shadows and reflections of the sun in the water, which show the sun to our weak eyes because we cannot look at the sun itself."

More broadly, the Cappadocians took all the Biblical theophanies—including, most famously, the burning bush of Exodus 3—as pointing to a similar distinction. In such events God is known precisely as unknowable; it is the very extremity of his condescension in appearing and making himself known which underscores the deep chasm between his mode of being and our own.9

In light of this Biblical background, the notion of theōsis or deification may seem like a foreign importation. It is at this point that the Pauline usage of the concept of energeia becomes crucially important. An especially important passage was I Corinthians 12. There Paul speaks of the “gifts of the Spirit” as including both miraculous powers such as prophecy, speaking in tongues, and the discernment of spirits, and enduring states of soul such as faith and wisdom. Significantly, he describes these gifts as energēmata (works performed) of the Spirit, and the Spirit as “working” (energōn) them. Basil in his work On the Holy Spirit develops this notion to understand such gifts as a form of divine energy. He writes:
"As is the power of seeing in the healthy eye, so is the energy (energeia) of the Spirit in the purified soul . . . And as the skill in him who has acquired it, so is the grace of the Spirit ever present in the recipient, though not continuously active (energousa). For as the skill is potentially in the artisan, but only in operation when he is working in accordance with it, so also the Spirit is present with those who are worthy, but works (energei) as need requires, in prophecies, or in healings, or in some other carrying into effect (energēmasin) of His powers."10

This passage is almost Aristotelian in its distinction between an enduring state of the soul (in Aristotelian terms, first actuality) and its active expression (second actuality). However, for Basil these are two different forms of energy, the one latent and the other active. Thus Basil understands participation in the divine energy as an ongoing state of the soul that finds expression, as need be, in particular acts. This is what is meant by deification in the Greek patristic tradition: an ongoing and progressively growing participation in the divine energies.

It is worth noting how this understanding of participation in the divine avoids a certain cul-de-sac present in pagan Neoplatonism. For Plotinus we do not so much participate in Intellect—much less the One—as rediscover our true identity as Intellect. We are each in our truest core an unfallen intellect (nous) which shares in the unity-in-multiplicity of Intellect, much as the light of each lamp in a room shares in the room’s light, or each theorem of a science shares in the integral meaning of the whole. In rediscovering our true identity as nous, we leave behind the accidents of memory and personality that individuate us here below in order to merge into the pristine clarity of perfect noetic activity. Later Neoplatonists such as Iamblichus and Proclus were dissatisfied by this starkly impersonal conception of our relationship to the divine, and attempted in various ways to change it. For the Cappadocians, however, such a problem does not even arise. The distinction of essence and energy enables them to understand human-divine communion as taking place within the sphere of joint personal activity. In coming to be deified we share progressively in God’s activity, but without losing our distinct identity. Indeed, much like St. Paul, they believe that we only fully achieve our own identity when we make our own activity that of God. Such synergy is, in their view, a way of knowing God that is neither inferential, nor noetic in the Aristotelian sense, nor a matter simply of feeling or intuition. It is the knowledge that comes through sharing actively in the work of another, and thereby coming to know him as the author of that work.

From all of this it is clear how the second of our two questions, that of whether the divine energies could be different than they are, is to be answered. If they are the sphere of personal action in the way that I have described, then at least some of them could be different; otherwise they would be a kind of emanation rather than the free acts of a free Creator. However, the same constraint means that there are limits to the ways that they could be different. The range of acts that would constitute a legitimate expression of my character is quite large, yet I trust that at least some acts, such as murder, adultery, or treason, fall beyond it. In the same way, if the divine energies are to manifest the divine ousia, then although they can vary enormously they must fall within the range that is properly related to the divine ousia (whatever the ousia might be!) as expression to source. For example, God need not have created, and given that he did create he might have created the world differently than he did; furthermore, even given that he created this world he might act within it differently, for example, by distributing different spiritual gifts. Thus many of the divine energies, including those of creation, providence, and foreknowledge, as well as the gifts of the Spirit, could be different or could not exist at all. On the other hand, if he acts at all his action cannot fail to be good. Hence if there are any energies at all, goodness is among them. The same would seem to be true of wisdom, being, power, life, love, holiness, beauty, virtue, immortality, eternity, infinity, and simplicity, all of which the Cappadocians (or other Fathers after them) list among the divine energies.

To know whether these energies are necessary, then, we must ask whether it is possible that God not act at all—that is, whether he could be wholly without energy (anenergēton). So far as I know this question was not raised in such terms. However, a question very close to it—that of whether there would be divine energies even apart from creation—was at the center of a celebrated controversy in the fourteenth century. Certain monks known as hesychasts claimed to have been granted a vision of what they called the uncreated light. Whether it is possible that there be such a light, and if so what is its nature, became the focus of an intense debate. Ultimately it was decided that there is an uncreated light and that it is simply the visible form of the divine energy. This means that the divine energy is present in some form with the godhead from all eternity, quite independently of the act of creation. That in turn implies that the divine energy is not (as one might otherwise be tempted to suppose) simply the way in which God manifests himself to creatures. It is that, to be sure, but even without creatures there would still be an eternal self-manifestation within the godhead. Within a Christian context it is natural to understand this as the mutual love and self-revelation of the persons of the Trinity. There are hints of such a view among the earlier Greek Fathers, beginning with Gregory of Nyssa, but unfortunately the debate over the divine energies in the fourteenth century failed to make these connections explicit. The end of Byzantine civilization not long thereafter prevented any final clarification.

Where does all of this leave us? It seems to me that the Greek patristic conception of God has a number of advantages over that found in Augustine and his successors. In the first place, it succeeds in incorporating the apophatic approach to God in a way that western theology does not. The divine ousia is beyond any act of naming or conceptual thought, known only by actively sharing in its energetic expression. Such a view is in keeping with both the Biblical theophanies and the New Testament concept of synergy. It is also philosophically well grounded, for as Plotinus saw, if God is the source of form he must himself possess no form. Yet if he is the source of form he must also be present in things as their form, the intelligible structure which makes them what they are. Whereas Plotinus separates these two functions into distinct hypostases, the Greek Fathers consider them two ways of understanding the one God.

One might expect that Augustine, with his knowledge of Plotinus, would have followed a similar path. In fact he did not. Augustine characteristically thinks of God as Truth itself, the Truth that is present to our minds enabling us to know. In line with the classical identification of thinking and being, he also describes God as ipsum esse, being itself. In essence this is the Plotinian understanding of Intellect. Augustine has no use for the other side of Plotinus, the understanding of God as beyond being and beyond intellect. Granted, he acknowledges that in this life we cannot know the divine essence, but that is a limitation of our present bodily existence. Moses and St. Paul are for Augustine paradigms of persons who for a brief time were taken out of their bodies into a state of rapture, enjoying a direct vision of the divine essence. The blessed in heaven, being finally removed from this life, will enjoy such a vision for all eternity. Aquinas adopts this idea and integrates it within his own Aristotelian framework. He argues that as pure act God must be intrinsically intelligible, however much our present limitations prevent us from understanding him. Drawing on Book X of the Nicomachean Ethics, as well as Augustine, he identifies the telos of human existence as the intellectual apprehension of the divine essence.

These differences regarding apophaticism point to a second major area of difference, the roles that the two traditions assign to personal activity. I have pointed out how the Greek Fathers drew on the Pauline concept of synergy to see the human telos as an ever deepening participation in the divine energies. Such participation begins in this present life and engages the body as much as the soul. On this view, our present acts of obedience to God, seeking him in prayer, and sharing in his life through worship and the sacraments are the sort of thing that is ultimately constitutive of our final beatitude. Our final state will be purer and richer, of course, but it will be recognizably in continuity with these present ways of knowing God. On the Augustinian-Thomistic view, by contrast, prayer, obedience, and the sacraments are related to the human end instrumentally rather than constitutively. According to Aquinas, in the afterlife God will infuse the blessed with the lumen gloriae, the “light of glory” that will enable them to apprehend the divine essence. All of our present acts are designed to bring us to that point. The body has no real role in the beatific vision, and indeed Aquinas states explicitly that the resurrection of the body is not necessary for beatitude and does nothing to increase its intensity. So far as I can see, the same is true of our memory and other personal characteristics. Since the beatific vision is strictly an act of intellect, it is no more a personal act than is the Aristotelian theōria upon which it is modeled.

Finally I will touch briefly on a third area of difference, one that is large and deserves more careful exploration than I can give it here. Much of traditional natural theology is built around the concept of divine simplicity. Augustine and Aquinas have different ways of reaching this point, but they agree that all non-relational and non-privative predicates said of God are different ways of signifying the divine essence. Part of what this implies is that God’s will is identical to his essence. Of the many difficulties to which such a view gives rise, I will mention two. The first pertains to divine freedom. If God is free in the way traditionally assumed in Christianity, he could will differently than he does. Does this mean that in such a case his essence would be different? And if so, how different could it be? Assuming that there is at least some aspect of the essence that could never be different—say, divine goodness—then there must be a distinction within the essence between that which could be different and that which could not. Surely, however, if anything is contrary to divine simplicity, it is the presence of such a distinction within the divine essence!

The second difficulty pertains to reciprocity between God and creatures. If the divine will is identical to the divine essence, it would seem that the divine will cannot in any way be a response to creatures’ own initiative, for in that case creatures would contribute to determining the divine essence. Aquinas recognizes this problem, if it is one, and bites the bullet: his position is that God’s will is not in any way a response to creatures but is determined solely by God. It is hard to see how most traditional religious practice, including petitionary prayer, sacrifice, and even simply the desire to please God, can make sense on such a view. Indeed, as Aquinas recognizes, on this view the Augustinian interpretation of predestination is not only true but is necessarily true, since God could not create creatures who are capable in any way of affecting his judgments regarding salvation and damnation.11 Yet the Augustinian position began precisely as the attempt to exalt the divine will over all necessity. Such are the tangles one is led to by divine simplicity.

It is problems such as these that led Pascal to exclaim that the God of the philosophers is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Augustinian-Thomistic God, who is perfectly simple and fully actual, seems to be locked within a box from which he cannot escape in order to interact in any meaningful way with his creatures. Plainly there needs to be some other way of understanding divine simplicity, one that does not involve these unacceptable limitations. Such a way is provided by the distinction of the divine essence and energies. The Greek Fathers think of simplicity as itself a divine energy, one of the ways in which God manifests himself in his activity. As with any energy, God is both simplicity itself and beyond simplicity as its source. Just as the sun is simple and yet possesses an indefinite multitude of rays, so nothing about divine simplicity prevents God from possessing an indefinite multitude of energies. Likewise nothing prevents these energies from being affected by creatures. The energies are precisely the realm of reciprocity, that in which God shares himself with creatures and summons them to offer themselves to him.

Undoubtedly many questions remain to be answered. I hope I have said enough, however, to make good on my original claims that we have here a way of thinking about God that is both deeply traditional and worthy of serious philosophical attention. In closing I will only say that it seems to me that the long movement of philosophy away from God has been, for the most part, a movement away from the God of Augustine and western theology. Will we find that all the while that we have been fleeing from the God of the West we have in fact been approaching the God of the East? That is a question that I invite you to ponder.

Colloquium on David Bradshaw’s book, Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom, Cambridge: CUP 2004.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 6:48 PM 1 comment: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: God, Medieval History and Theology, Philosophy, Theology
Reactions: 
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
View mobile version
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Related Posts with Thumbnails